Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

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


 
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.


Contents

Perfect pitch?

I know there is a source on this, but I doubt the source. Stalin was perfect in a lot of things, according to propaganda.

Comrade Miyamoto

The subsection "Stalin and changes in Soviet society" -> "Culture and religion" currently includes this statement:

"It is widely believed that the video game icon Mario was made to look like Stalin, to promote communism".

Someone with editing rights might want to do something about this. (PROTIP: Try deleting it.)

I've put the {{Fact}} tag on there. I'll give someone a chance to come up with a reference. If no one does in the next few days I'll delete it. --C33 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps widely is an overstatement, but there are similarities. Whether they are intentional or not is not clear, but much like the mushroom and hallucenogens assertion they exist. I'm not an expert in citations so i dont know of a method of citing general opinion, but I've seen mentions of this idea for several years in the mass media and the internet. A google search will show plenty of "references".

Racists on Wikipedia

Recently two Wikipedians censored an external link (Joseph Stalin: An emerging view) containing comments and views of Black scholars and intellectuals on the issues discussed here. One would expect such behavior from the Grand Wizards of the Ku Klax Klan and not from members of the Wikipedia community. LCF 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks (WP:NPA). The link wasn't removed because of race issues, it was removed because it was non-notable.
  • It is an irrelevant link. It has very little to do with Stalin and the logical rigor of it is as flimsy as the photoshopping job in the "enhanced reality" portrait. It adds nothing to this article and reflects a very poor understanding of the literature on both Stalin and U.S. race relations in the 1930s. I don't feel the need to address the accusation of being a "racist" because I find the link useless. I think you've noticed that I've tried to take out every link to your goofy web page which didn't enhance an article on here, and it has nothing to do with anything related to race. --Fastfission 22:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to peruse my Slavery article and others to see the extent of Fastfission's duplicity. Then look at his on-web publications to see an article devoted to Henry Goddard and only mildly critical of his eugenics program or an article mentioning Harry Truman, member of the Ku Klax Klan, not critical of him at all, as Fastfission is enamored by power in general and by nuclear power in particular. However, this warped individual is an administrator on Wikipedia and I have been around long enough to know that to fight against a member of this group of nabobs is an uphill struggle.
  • Fastfission, filled with hate and lusting for revenge spent the last two days erasing my links and contributions to Wikipedia. He is welcome to erase the rest. At this point our ways have to part, as the turpitude of this “administrator” makes me nauseated. In parting, I recovered the yesterday's entry which his fellow administrator deleted, as it is equally true about Fastfission as it was about his sidekick. Here it is:
  • The link in question opens with the quote by the Indian Ambassador Shri Menon, in Fastfission's perverted opinion a non-white thus not a notable person. The next quote is by Black Harvard scholar W.E.B. DuBois, in racist Fastfission's judgment again a non-white, not notable person. The following passage is about Paul Robeson, a Black singer who is quoted that he left the bar because a stenographer refused to take down a memo, saying “I never take dictation from a nigger.” What follows are Paul Robeson's comments on minority issues in Stalin's Soviet Union, in Fastfission's profoundly biased, racist opinion again not-significant, not notable. LCF 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Admiring Harry Truman, for instance, doesn't make a person "warped" or unqualified as an administrator; it makes him normal. As foreigners here may be unaware, Harry Truman had enough admirers to elect him as President. Art LaPella 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith and remind you that in order for something to be cited on Wikipedia, it needs to be verifaible and published by a reputable source. Self published websites do not meet that criteria. Also, on a personal note, you might find that people will listen to your arguments if you drop the vitriolic invective and don't cry racism at the first sign of disagreement. --C33 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that the only contribution Truman made to the KKK was to pay them (It hink it was) 10 dollars as an initial membership fee. WHen he found out the extent of the KKK's goals, he severed connections with them. He never went to a meeting. He also was a big supporter of civil rights. So please, actually do research instead of picking one thing out of dozens, exaggerating it, stating it as fact, and then calling it racism. Phoenix Song 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing Stalin to Joseph

Why is Stalin changed to Joseph? It is common to use the last name when talking about persons. In his youth, before he took the name Stalin, would it not be better to use his last name then? Personally I think this is confusing and would prefer Stalin to be used in the whole article. Ultramarine 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It need not be confusing; there were already some mentions of his pet name "Soso", and they still stand. The edit, as it said, was according to context. Someone in his early years is usually referred to by his first name, colloquially. When talking about young Mark from the Smith family attending school, one says "Mark (not "Smith") did very well in his class today". I don't think there's a problem with applying this use in a written form. Actually I picked up this idea from Peter Thielst, who wrote a biography of Søren Kierkegaard. He distinguishes between the child and student, which he consistently names "Søren" in the first part of his book, and the philosopher and publicist, always "Kierkegaard" in the second. Stalin can in my view be approached in the same way. He wasn't "Stalin" when he had not yet chosen that "revolutionary" name. Also there should be no problem with the retrospective use. You wouldn't say "Pavel was a banker in 1980 in Prague. In that time, being a banker in the Czech Republic was a hard thing". No, at the time it was Czechoslovakia, and that's what counts for the situation described. In fact, there have never been "Stalin's friends from childhood". That's today's perspective. Nethency 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any Wikipedia article that uses the persons first name? Or any Stalin biography that uses his first name? Ultramarine 12:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There are indeed more contextual (and even less contextual) first name uses in Wikipedia articles. Try Søren Kierkegaard, Vladimir Lenin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Adolf Hitler, Karol Wojtyla, Indira Gandhi, George Michael, John Lennon. Occasionally or a bit more frequently their first names (or the ones of people in their environment) are mentioned. I think no one takes notice of it. (No, I haven't read any Stalin biography yet.) Nethency 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While the Adolf Hitler article uses his first name in his youth, the Indira Gandhi article does not. Looking outside Wikipedia, Encarta uses Stalin also young: [1]. However, at least one of the biographies uses his first name as young (and later changes to "Koba" before "Stalin").[2]Ultramarine 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe you don't mind a compromise. :-)Nethency 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

His Height

Ive edited the sentence saying his height was only 5 foot 2 inches. It is clear from photographic evidence that he was at least 5'5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.56.81 (talk • contribs)

Do you have some links or references? (Because Stalin was known to wear boots with built-in heels, so a photo is not the best proof...) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Stalin was known to wear boots with built-in heels? Never heard of it. Stalin's height was 174 cm, which is around 5'8". While from my 187 cm he seems a midget, he was actually a man of medium height.Ko Soi IX 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, his police card, present in this very article, indicates 174cm. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bounty Expired!

The 6 month bounty placed on this article has failed to deliver the conditions for improvement. :( Bad showing guys --Steve Latinner 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The 20,000,000 death figure

I'm not a Stalin-apologetic, but this number is too large and should not be displayed at the beginning of the article (it gives the reader the false view that this was the correct number), at least a range should be specified Seektrue 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC profile of Stalin gives: "the death and suffering of tens of millions"[3]. The article itself [4] puts the lowest estimate at 10 million. I think a range of 10 million to 20 million would be more appropriate than the current 4 million to 20 million. Beck 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't think the BBC article consists of NPOV they have descriptions similar to one of the most blood-thirsty tryrants in history. Since the 4 million is the least known number, it will persuade the reader to know where the difficulties occur when estimating the number of victims. Seektrue 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


A range of 10 to 20 or 4 to 20 million sounds like a lot of guessing is going on.

Sounds like a lot of fairy tale horse shit to me.

-G


The figure 4 million is way too low to be accurate.

Historian Robert Conquest, who is, as you may know, one of the premier scholars on the subject of Stalin, (especially regarding the Great Purges), illustrates the point in his book, The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Therein, Conquest revisits the figures he estimated based on "thirty-odd sources" when he wrote the original The Great Terror some years before (I don't happen to have a copy of that, so I cant quote directly from there, though it really doesn't matter.) Conquest quotes thusly:

1. Arrests, 1937 - 1938 about 7 million 2. Executed about 1 million 3. Died in camps about 2 million 4. In prison, late 1938 about 1 million 5. In camps, late 1938 (assuming 5 million in camp at the end of 1936) about 8 million I also included, from much Soviet and other testimony, that not more than 10 percent of those then in camps survived.

Those were his figures given before Glastonost and his "Reassessment". In his updated book, with citations from the new sources released between 1987 and 1989, Conquest goes on to say that

1. Arrests. [Figures] provided for the Kursk province imply a total of about 8 million for the USSR as a whole.... 2. Executed: ...Figures from Irktusk imply over 1.5 million.... 3. Died in camps, 1937 and 1938: ...[The 2 million figure] would include those executed in camps, who do not figure in the execution estimate above... 4. In prison, late 1938: 1 million... These last are now confirmed by Soviet accounts. 5. In camps, late 1938: ...I should be inclined to reduce the 8 million at the end of 1938 to 7 million, or even a little less. The Great Terror was only peripherally concerned with the total casualties of the Stalin epoch. But it reckoned the dead as no fewer than 20 million. This figure is now given in the USSR.

The evidence, in short, provides that even an estimate of 10 million is quite short. Therefore, the 20 million dead number isn't an exaggeration; it's a highly viable figure based on dozens of sources, both official and unnofficial, including sources released under Glastnost. The figure was even used by the Soviets themselves before the USSR collapsed. Therefore, to say 20 million isn't to overestimate... and anything less than 10 (and perhaps anything less than 15) is certainly an understatement.

To better understand the death count, please go to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties and refer to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.88 (talk • contribs)

Ha-ha!!! The real death toll for 20th century dictators is as follows: Stalin-about 2 million, Mao-about 2 million, Hitler-40 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.202.239 (talk • contribs)

The comment above has been written by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatGod (talk • contribs)

Doctors plot

From what I remember reading a while ago, the doctors plot was quite a prominent event of the final years of his life (some Jewish doctors were accused of collaborating for the "enemy" in trying to kill Stalin, which made him mad and lash out against Jews, or otherwise it was his excuse to do so). However the article itself has no mention of it in the article at all!--Konstable 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this event as well. If you can find a reference for it, go ahead and put it in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, during his campaign against Trotsky (i.e., most of his life since 1924), Stalin made a wide use of antisemitism. Regards,

Max.


--Well, great! Monarchists writing articles about Stalin. Bias? Anyway, it wouldn't be too unlikely if people plotted against Stalin. There are theories that he was murdered. I don't think one should just dimiss the "Doctors Plot" as paranoia. Every year new information is "uncovered". Authors who want to make quick careers make some quick rumour-based research on some dictator, easy work as nobody defends supposed tyrants. It's hard to tell facts from disinformation nowadays. The whole Stalin thing should be re-investigated. IlyaZ 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To Max. That's right, Stalin hated jews. That's why he never purged Kaganovich nor Litvinov (real name:Meir Henoch Mojszewicz Wallach-Finkelstein) and had no problem with many soviet polititians having jewish wives, notably, V.Molotov. C'mon, stop it with the vintage cold war era bullcrap, it's obsolete now. Ko Soi IX 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


From the Wikapedia entry on Molotov's wife, Polina Zhemchuzhina:

'In January, 1948, Zhemchuzhina was arrested for treason, sharing the fate of the Jewish wives of a number of other Soviet politicians: Mikhail Kalinin, A. Poskryobyshev, Semyon Budyonny, Grigoriy Kulik. On December 29, 1949, she was sentenced to 5 years of exile in Kustanai Oblast, Kazakhstan.'

Perhaps Stalin did not have a problem with them, but the Jewish wives of Soviet politicians definitely had problems with Stalin.

Well, they were arrested for treason, not for being Jewish, so there is no anti-semitism present. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, who knows whether the motive behind their arrests was anti-semitic? Many were falsely accused of treason to Stalin's own ends. 3dom 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well duh Jewish wives had problems with Stalin. Stalin campaigned against Trotsky, who was Jewish. Put two and two together people. I bet Stalin had problems with the Jewish people too.

Son captured in WWII

I have seen sources that suggest there's a little more to Stalin's refusal to exchange his son Yakov than this article is suggesting. The Germans offered to swap him for Friedrich Paulus, the Field-Marshal who surrendered at Stalingrad. Stalin considered the request and refused, stating that a lieutenant wasn't worth a general. Later on, he was asked why he refused, and he said that as leader of the Soviet Union, he couldn't make an unequal exchange because if he did, everyone would come to him asking that their sons be exchanged. Having done it for his own son, he would not be in a position to refuse.

This paints Stalin's decision in a much different light, and given that he also denied his other son Vasily special treatment on numerous occasions, is consistent with what we know of Stalin.Jsc1973 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vasily became a general at the age of 27, so he was infavor with his father. Stalin outsmarted himself with capture of his other son, since he signed into law that any soldier captured by the Germans is a traitor and should be shot. In this case, the only way for his son was to commit suicide or face a death squad, which he did a few years later in the german camp. This set a good example for the Russian people. Stalin sacrficed his son for the general good of the Party. Genius to the end he was.

Delirium. No such law existed.--Nixer 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

-- It's clear you're biased when you're talking about "sacraficing his son for the general good of the Party". You've got a twisted view of reality. In what way is it the general good of the Party? It was no multi-party system. I thought most people said that Stalin was a one-man dictator. What does he care about the party then? Stalin did what was right for a man in his position. I wouldn't exchange field-marshal Paulus for anyone. That's just. IlyaZ 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---Thou a dictator, he still had to follow certain rules. He ruled the country by fear and he was good at delivering pain, yet there were various camps within the government which opposed him ex. Bukharin and later Beria. Once decree was passed that all captured or deserters are to be shot and their families persecuted, he was in a position to either show weakness to save his son or set an example for the entire country, that even he, Stalin, will not trade his own son, who in his eyes was a traitor since he got himself captured. Clever marketing move. I suggest that you read this book: "Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives" by Edvard Radzinsky. A long read but truly fascinating depiction of Stalin.

You're saying delirium. There was no such decree. From those who escaped from German prison, about 1% were shot, 5-10% sent to a camp and all others were sent to the front.--Nixer 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read "Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives" by Edvard Radzinsky and it will be clear that Stalin had no mercy for soldiers who deserted, were taken prisoners, or those who refused to fight and retreated. Stalin wanted an all out offensive war and he skillfully used fear to motivate soldiers.
You said that there was an order to shot anyone who surrendered to Germans. Please give the number of this mysterious order and give a citation. Otherwise please stop sreading lies.--Nixer 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Read the book and find out for yourself.
Well, my great grandfather was captured by the Germans in 1941, but luckily managed to escape across the front line. The authorities knew about him being captured, but after mandatory interogation he was reinstated in the RKKA and fought until of the end of the war and died of natural causes in the late 1980s. And this is no exception. Before you tell me about original research, I'll add that out of 1 836 562 Soviet prisoners that returned home about a million were reinstated in the RKKA, over 600 thousand were demobilized from army and sent to the factories, while 339 thousand men (out of them 233 400 former military) were sent to NKVD labor camps (source:Krivosheev, http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_08.html). I would like to mention that over a million of former soviet citizens fought in the german army, many of which had been captured early in the war and than had a choice of either serving the fritz or starving to death/dying from cholera/typhoid/getting executed. Their betrayal could not go unpunished, however, most of them got off pretty easily, as they were given small senteces and many were pardoned for good behavior - USSR desperately needed workers, while forced labor camps were quite limited to what they could produce. Basically, as Nixer said, please stop embaracing yourself. I recomend that you read Yuri Zhukov's "Other Stalin" (Inoi Stalin) and Vadim Kozhinov's "Great War of Russia" (Velikaya Voina Rossii). Ko Soi IX 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

--"By Stalin's paranoid law, any soldier captured by the Germans as a POW -- not simply collaborators, but any POW -- was a potential traitor. And the penalty for treason was death." http://www.capitalcentury.com/1945.html Hero27 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the word "paranoid", and replace "was a potential" with "could sometimes be a", and you get Ko Soi's version exactly. --85.166.203.198 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth?

I don't know where to begin but this article is flawed to say the least, from absurd death tolls proved to be lies by official Russian archives to the ignoring of glaring facts that would erase the western view that Stalin was a mass murdering dictator.

Anyone interested in looking over a few examples of what I'm talking about can check these links here, I am not so good with wikipedia and editing so I'm not going to attempt any major editing on this site yet. :(

(Sissok Nagazi 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC))


"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." A million deaths-or any lesser number-is, as anyone with any moral sense understands, a million tragedies. Stalin-like Ivan Grozny-may be admired by some in contemporary Russia as a 'strong leader.' The truth is he was a murdering gangster, the sponsor of such reptilian human beings as Yezhov and Beria, whose negligence allowed the Nazi onslaught on Russia. My dearest wish is that the Russian people-all Russian people-will one day understand that Bolshevism was a conspiracy that came close to destroying a great nation. Do not look for greatness where there is only depravity and decay. White Guard 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is good to remember that many of the Soviet archives are still secret. Also it's commonly known that the Soviet government was a master in propaganda, especially altering facts and hiding evidence. That's why one shoudn't take official Soviet archives as the only and real truth. Soviet union was on the winning side in the Second world war and had almost fifty years of time to cover up all Stalin's horrifying acts. The fact is that Josif Stalin murdered more people than Adolf Hilter. Please, make that fact clear on this page.

USSR leadership after Stalin's death was not interested in hiding facts about repressions. Just the opposite: some facts were fabricated with political purposes during Khrushchov's era.--Nixer 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"The fact is that Josif Stalin murdered more people than Adolf Hilter" - there is no real evidence that supports your claim. With respect, Kosoi.

It's pretty funny that Sissok thinks that a website claiming a reduction in the number of deaths in the gulag somehow vindicates Stalin. Me, I'll stick with my grandmother's stories of escaping Lithuania after her husband was shot by GPU agents, those of my friend's grandparents, who were both imprisoned in Siberia, and of course A. Solzhenitsyn's masterful work (no doubt so easily dismissed as 'fabrication' by revisionists like him, because "Soviet archives" don't account for every worker left to die on the logging roads). 66.237.172.226

Solzhenitsyn, who had no access to any Soviet archives dealing with that matter is somehow a better source than those same archives? Interesting logic. Especially considering how Solzenitsyn, for example, killed off 44 million Soviet soldiers in his writing (out of 34 million mobilized), and than later on, when REAL evidence started to emerge, lowered that number to 31 million. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So, an actual eye witness who lived during those times, who served in the Soviet military during WWII, and who survived GULag, exile, and the accompanying years in the Soviet Union (and who gathered upwards of more than 200 eye witness accounts and recollections from within that same internal state apparatus) is now faulted for not synching with the multi-layered deceptions of Soviet (and specifically NKVD/Stalinist influenced) archives? And how many of those archives, sir, would you ever hope to recover with your own hands? How many of those "facts" went through the chimneys of the NKVD and censors when it came time to sweep away the "REAL evidence" of wartime losses? (And how many of those losses could be counted to the Fatherland's own dilligence for sweeping away KR's, "58's", "traitors", "Vlasovites", and supposed spies?) Considering the amount of secrecy from those same state archives for...how many years was it?, I'm not at all surprised that Solzhenitsyn's reports are divergent from official Soviet statements on how many heads were buried beneath the ashes (very literally) of that particular Soviet Century. "Real" evidence would hope that you, sir, could have had the opportunity to visit and experience that WWII frontline that Stalin helped engineer; or that beloved Archipelago, Stalin's own pet-project, which Solzhenitsyn extensively writes of, Soviet archives or no. Kh123

Suggestion: "Stalin in the arts" leaf article

Content of this section looks as a good candidate for leaf article Stalin in the arts or Stalin in popular culture. This would keep the main article smaller and more focused. There's even category for such articles: Category:In popular culture. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The main article is far too long. --C33 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Stalin meet Hitler?

I read that Stalin could have met Hitler in October of 1939 or 1940. has any detail emerged over the years showing this to be true?

Of course, no.--Nixer 20:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
But they're probably having quiet conversations in hell ... just kidding (I don't believe in no such thing). —Barbatus 20:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Some say vienna 1909 but I don't believe that either, they didn't exactly go in the same circles, maybe they bumped into each other in a coffee shop or something. Seektrue 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This Book: Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives by Edvard Radzinsky; implies that they met. Hence my question: are there any additional documents to prove this claim.

I'd say something like this, If they met, then Molotov surely would have known. Something as big as that won't go past him, and he didn't mention it anywhere in memoirs. What exactly does the book say? Seektrue 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Molotov has a tendency of not telling the entire truth. I read his memoirs and he lied on a number of occassions. When asked if there was a secret clause to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact he denied. There was a secret clause. Meeting between the two men was too important and top secret, so Molotov would never admit to knowing about it. The Book which I mentioned before states that Stalin was absent from Kremlin in October for a few days while at the same time there was a top secret, heavily guarded, delegation train at the train station in Lvov. Author speculates that Hitler and Stalin met on that train. Yet if any documents ever existed of that meeting they are either destroyed by Stalin or in top secret archives.
Hmmm ... Wouldn't Germans mentioned such an event somewhere? Surely not all archives were captured by the Soviets, something would have leaked in the West long ago. No?—Barbatus 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
These are wild fantasies and conspiracy theories. In short it is delirium. Anyway Stalin did not need meet Hitler for any purpose.--Nixer 21:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, one can speculate, however, your rebuttal lacks clear proof. What I am asking here is proof. We can neither accept nor rule out that the two met; hence, without proper documentation we can not jump to premature conclusions.
Do you give a proof that there is no small green dwarfs that rule the governments? It is nonsence and was not in Stalin's interest to meet Hitler.--Nixer 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is virtually impossible to prove that they never met, but for the purposes of the article, the burden of proof would be on the contention that they did meet. --C33 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Radzinsky book reprints an FBI memo purportedly signed by J. Edgar Hoover, which states "Information has just been received from a confidential source that...Hitler and Stalin met secretly in Lvov, Poland, on October 17, 1939." The document was supposedly declassified in 1979 and the author states that he was convinced of its authenticity if not its accuracy. In an attempt to verify it he discovered that Stalin was in his office on the 17th but was missing on the 18th and didn't return until late the evening of the 19th ("...either he was severely ill or he was absent from Moscow"). At that time he closeted himself with Molotov for one and a half hours in what was apparently a discussion of high importance also involving Zhukov and Kaganovich.
However, I agree with the previous poster regarding the burden of proof. Gr8white 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WWII Section

Can we please look at removing this horrible paragraph from the WWII section:

"Until the last moment, Stalin had sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces, even after the attack commenced. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [14] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [15] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion. Stalin ignored much intelligence warning of a German attack.[17]"

This paragraph contains three main elements:

  • A blurb about how Stalin avoided defensive preparations and why. I moved this info into another paragraph that deals more directly with the war itself two paragraphs later. It is stated far more clearly and makes more sense within the flow and context of the article there.
  • A description of an Uncited and most likely unfounded myth, that is disproved by the following cited sentences. The Stalin article is already far too long, why does it need to bring up and refute ridiculous myths. There are myths about Stalin's jewish origins and his homosexuality too, do we need to add those to the article? The whole "myth" section only serves to detract from the factual accuracy of the article.
  • Terrible English grammar.

The first element is dealt with more properly later in the article, and the second two elements do nothing but lower the quality of the article. The whole paragraph adds nothing to the article and only makes it longer and harder to read. I've removed it twice only to have it added back. What does everyone else think? Can those of you that want this paragraph back in at least explain what it adds to the article? --C33 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The version you quoted includes my own grammar corrections. Is there anything else wrong with grammar? Art LaPella 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Art, thanks for the reply. Here's what I see: The first sentence is a run-on, and it also doesn't make any sense. Why would he avoid a defensive posture to avoid provoking an attack "even after the attack commenced?" It seems like two disparate thoughts cobbled together into an self-contradictory whole. The second sentence contains no obvious grammatical errors, but contains weasel words and an uncited, controversial claim. As for the third sentence, I know its ok to start a sentence with a conjunction ("And...") in modern English usage, but in this case it makes that sentence choppy and awkward. It also doesn't fit the context of attempting to undo the previous sentence. For proper effect, it should start with "However," or "But." --C33 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I watch this page because it attracts foreigners and my native language is English, so I'll restrict myself to that. I don't see how the first sentence is a run-on sentence. I parse it as "Stalin had sought" with several clauses attached. If it's cobbled together, I'm the cobbler - before my edit it ended with a sentence fragment, like this: "forces. Even after the attack commenced." How would you say it? I don't think it's self-contradictory; I think it claims that even after Hitler had invaded, there were a few days when Stalin was afraid to provoke him any further, hoping the attack was some kind of misunderstanding or something. Skipping to the third sentence as I explained, I don't think it can be described as undoing the previous sentence, because that sentence already said it was a myth. But I agree it's better without the word "And...", so I'm removing it. Art LaPella 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I would state it exactly as it is already stated later in the article:
Even though Stalin received intelligence warnings of a German attack[17], he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. --C33 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a grammatical sentence, and it's easier to follow. But it achieves that flow by omitting "Until the last moment" and "even after the attack commenced". I leave it to others to decide if that factual change is OK. Art LaPella 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There were a few days after the attack when Stalin was afraid of provoking Hitler any further. Really? This seems a little bit like saying that the hunter did not struggle in case he provoked the lion into eating him any further. Could you please tell me what form Stalin's inaction took? I would also be grateful for a reference. Thanks White Guard 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


All of you should Read John Erickson he spells it out, Stalin did not want a german attack to come under cover of an alleged Soviet attack and that the Germans were only protecting them selves. He did not want the Germans to have the ability to say we just responded to a Soviet attack, much like they had done with Poland. AND the Red Army would have been a very skilled force by 1942 the Molotov line would have been completed lots of upgrades would have hapened and more imporantly more many more officers would have been trained. The Red army was still developing during 1941 but it was not ready and Stalin knew this. BUT this was only untill it was confirmed that war had started then Stalin demanded counter attacks. Here is a big problem which all of you dont understand first it took Stalin about 6-9 houers to understand that this was real and not just one German General that had gone crazy. Secondly Yes Stalin didnt allow any defences to be built except ofcurse the molotov line so the soldiers had no dug outs no anti tank ditches and so on. And what is more important he did not allow anyone to fight back so the soldiers just stod where they were and died without fireing a shot. And airplans were blown up on the ground because they were not allowed to take off. And During a large part of 1941 german air planes had been flying over the Soviet Union takeing pictures of where everything was located and Stalin did not allow them to be shot down because he feard that this might give the germans an excuse to attack. All of this changes when he ordered the counter attack some 6-9 houers later but then it was already to late there was no longer a front line to defend. Bluechipser 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhu ... unfortunately, Mr. Erickson got it all wrong, as the rest of his colleagues in the West (or most of 'em, anyway). The latest sorry example: June 1941: Hitler and Stalin by J. Lukacs. I am not sure what it is exactly, an agnorant ignorance, or an ignorant arrogance? —Barbatus 05:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Erickson's Barbarossa June 1941: Who was Attacking Whom? is a piece of arrant naivety or ignorance of newly available materials. Stalin's Folly by Constantine Pleshakov takes advantage of newer Russian historiography.Constanz - Talk 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It is truly amazing how even an honest and decent person like Rodric Braithwaite, whose Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War has just been published, could fall victim of such credulity. How in the world, for example, removing of the barrier of buffer states could have made the USSR more secure? How western historians, especially those who call themselves "serious," could believe mendacious "memoirs" by Zhukov? And how a historian of the Second World War can claim to be serious without being able to read Russian? —Barbatus 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to look into this a little further, and Stalin's mental paralysis-if that is what it was-lasted no more than a couple of hours. It's complete nonsense to say that Russian soldiers were not allowed to fight back; Stalin simply wanted them to avoid entering German territory. White Guard 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


There was no mental "paralysis" During june it came much later read Simon Sebag Montefiore; Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, he just wanted to make sure it was a real attack so that he wouldnt be tricked into war as he saw it or just one german general that had gone crazy. And no john did not get it all wrong. The only one ignorant here is you Stalin did not want the world to think that he had attacked Germany and Germany was just defending itself against Soviet aggression and that is why he did not allow any defensive measurements to be taken by the soldiers Bluechipser 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you addressing these remarks to me? I have read The Court of the Red Tsar, and a lot more besides. My observations about 'mental paraylsis' were drawn from that particular book, and was simply a shorthand way of describing Stalin's initial inability to digest the intelligence he was receiving from the west. I urge you to be very careful about accusations of ignorance: your own spelling and grammer is atrocious, as is your second-hand understanding of Russian history and simple logic. White Guard 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no comment on history, but the next time you say "your own spelling and grammer is atrocious", I suggest you doublecheck both the spelling and the grammar of that very phrase. Art LaPella 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Touché-too much of a hurry; too much bad temper. White Guard 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So is there any chance we can come to a consensus on what should be done about the orginal paragraph? --C33 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your own amended wording seems fine to me. You might add a word or two about Stalin's initial reluctance to believe that the attack in the west had been sanctioned by Hitler. White Guard 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll re-word including a note that Stalin initially hesitated to make sure the German attack wasn't the work a rogue general, citing Montefiore as a reference. Any objections? --C33 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. White Guard 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence "The Soviet Red Army put up fierce resistance during the war's early stages, but they were plagued by an ineffective defense doctrine against the better-equipped, well-trained and experienced German forces." I think is not fully undisputed. There are several reasons why the "fierce resistance" can be questioned. Firstly, as I've read previously the fighting moral among non-russian soldiers, like Ukrainians, was not so high, since they sometimes saw the Germans as a sort of liberators. Only when the Soviet soldiers understood how badly the German side was treating their PoWs and the general population did the non-Russian Soviet soldiers' fighting moral improve. Secondly, other sources claim that Stalin's previous purges of their soldiers had weakened the whole army. In short this part should be rewritten, but I wanted to discuss it before making any changes. Smallchanges 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you spell L'viv like a kliati moskali, it is not Lvov, Kyiv is not spelled Kiev and Kharkiv is not Kharkov. And of course why would the Ukrainians fight hard for a country that tried to wipe them from the face of the earth. You moskali make me sick. The death of the soviet union was the will of the Ukrainian people! Слава Україна! Slava Ukrayina! Mykola Roscha 4:32 (CST) November 15, 2006

The Ukrainians fought hard alongside their Russian, Belarussian, Tatar and other brothers. Every sixth Soviet soldier killed was a Ukrainian. Claiming that Ukrainians didn't show valor and patriotism in the face of nazi onslaught is offensive. Sure, there were some traitors. But there were far more brave Ukrainian soldiers than scum, brave enough only to slaughter Polish and Jewish civilians, and shoot Soviet soldiers in the back. Ех ти, справжній українець, нічого не знаю, моя хата с краю... Ko Soi IX 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Kosoi, please remember WP:DFTT#Not feeding the trolls. --Irpen 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The text has been rewritten and everything is cited. This is the new version

Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack.[5]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [1] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [2] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion.

Beenhj 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That he had also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack is actually a pure speculation by some western historians, who have to (wish to) make up a collage of different, contradicitous fact. Well, to speak of stalin fearing to mobilise etc -- Stalin's Red army outnumbered German invasion army in almost every respect. The trouble is - and the historians have to cope with the contradicition - that he had been preparing for war. According to analysis by many Russian historians and some Germans like Werner Maser or Joachim Hoffmann, this was indeed not obvious defensive preparation[s]. Soviet superiority in the number of tanks was especially remarkable, and as long as tank quality is concerned, we can say that they were roughly equal to German models as well. Overy looked into archives, but unfortunately not deep enough. Or, perhaps, for some reason preferred not to do so.Constanz - Talk 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Beenhj, thank you for using the talk page. I understand you think that paragraph adds value to the article, but I don't believe you are reading the whole section. Please look two paragraphs below the paragraph you insist on re-adding. I'll quote them both here to make the comparison easier:
Here is what you have been adding:
"Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack.[6]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [3] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [4] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion."
Please compare that to what is already in the article two paragraphs later:
"Even though Stalin received intelligence warnings of a German attack[21], he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. In the initial hours after the German attack commenced, Stalin hesitated, wanting to ensure that the German attack was sanctioned by Hitler, rather than the unauthorized action of a rogue general.[25]"

The only content difference is that the latter paragraph doesn't contain the UNCITED myth and explains why Stalin hesitated. If you want to include your version, you need to remove the existing paragraph, as well as provide a citation for the original "myth". Stylistically, I believe the existing paragraph is more concise, provides more information as it explains why Stalin appeared to hesitate, and fits within the flow of the article better in its current location, but I realize that is opinion. If you insist on adding content, PLEASE make sure that it isn't repeating content that already exists in the article. It's a blight on the article to have both in there. This article concerns one of the most prominent figures of the 20th century and deserves better treatment than to have information repeated every other paragraph. --C33 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces is a miscomprehension or a deliberate falsification (by some historians, I mean, not user here). 1) Stalin's army outnumbered Hitler's, so he can't have 'refused to prepare for the war'. 2) Out of those preparations, hardly anything could be regarded as usual defensive methods. Constanz - Talk 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as that particular sentence is uncited, I don't see a problem removing it. But right now it serves as a sort of counter point to justify Stalin's apparent lack of response to a perceived German threat. I suspect simply removing it will cast Stalin in a very negative light, which will lead to edit wars with the pro-Stalin faction here. How do you suggest rephrasing that section? --C33 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thing is that -based on my reading- I'd claim Stalin had excluded the possibility of fighting a war on his own territory and had himself been preparing a strike against the enemy. He didn't believe the German attack, for at the time it seemed a step strategically doomed to fail (which it was, contrary to story-tellers' opinion, which suggests that Hitler almost won this war). But unfortunatly, the interpretation to which I subscribe myself, remains unknown (unaccepted) to the western public. So may-be writing simply that the Red Army troops at the border were not ready for defensive operations. Different opinions should be mentioned - there are really many of those, so an edit-war could naturally follow.Constanz - Talk 14:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the duplicate paragraphs described above, I've waited a few days before editing, and I haven't seen any responses here, so I'll assume no one has a problem with me removing one of them. I'll leave the re-wording of the "defensive preparation" to Constanz.... --C33 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

Why does the first paragraph say that he was effective dictator from 1922 on? He was a leading Soviet figure from 1922 on, with arguably great behind-the-scenes influence, but he didn't really consolidate what could be called a meaningful personal dictatorship until the mid-1920s, and he wasn't unchallenged sole ruler until at least 1928. AnonMoos 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to say mid-1920s, but someone changed it recently. I think it would be more correct to change it back to mid-1920s. --C33 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just changed it to 1928, probably the best date, coinciding with the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan. White Guard 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dictator" Tag in First Paragraph

So its clear that some think the dictator tag is POV and doesn't belong, while others think it does belong.

I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a dictator, but I think it would be more appropriate to do so later in the article. I think that the first, introductory paragraph should be constrained to a simple, concise biographical statement and refrain from opinions or value judgements. I'm not disputing the fact that he was, in fact, a dictator, but its a somewhat controversial term that requires a value judgement. I think it should be stated later in the article and not in the introduction. --C33 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; as you wish. But where does this end? Should the same principle be extended to Hitler and Mussolini? If Stalin is not described as a dictator by what logic can we use such a description in relation to Hitler. This seems to me to be a loophole for historical revisionism, whether of a Communist or Facist variety. The opening paragraph is careful to date Stalin's dictatorship from 1928, a point at which he had overcome all opposition within the party. It is a simple statement of a factual position, not, at least in my estimation, POV. White Guard 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at a few other articles on Wikipedia, and Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are all listed as dictators in their opening paragraph, while Pinochet (of all people) is not. It seems like leaving it in would be consistent with other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects. So I guess I'll grudgingly withdraw my opposition to the "dictator" tag. --C33 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Along with some other users I have been fighting a rearguard action against attempts at Nazi-style revisionism on the Adolf Hitler page. If Stalin is lost what price Hitler? White Guard 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he in fact was a dictator a if every article in wikipedia about leaders might state they are dictators. That doesn't mean that they are. Many people don't believe stalin to be a dictator, it is a POV statement that should be reverted. He wasn't the de facto leader, de facto means "in practice" and not by the law, Stalin was leader by law!Kiske 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was NOT leader by law; his only official position was General Secretary of the Communist Party. The official leader of the Soviet State was the President, latterly Kalinin. Stalin used his position in the Communist Party to build up unparalleled power, and by 1928 was dictator in every meaningful sense of the term. Your revisionist POV is in danger of rewriting history; for if this is allowed to prevail the same twisted logic would have to be applied to Hitler-who had far greater 'democratic' credentials than Stalin-and every other dictator. White Guard 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "dictator" should be labelled only those leaders who had extraordinary powers or positions such as "Extraordinary President", "Fuehrer", "Chairman of Provisional Military/Extraordinary Comittee" or so. Stalin did not have extraordinary powers. He had power only because of his authority/prestige.--Nixer 05:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No; he had extraordinary powers because of his position within the Communist Party. His appointment General Secretary enabled him to build up a power base far greater than any of his main contendors. Stalin's source of absolute power may have been the bureaucracy; but it was just as significant as any titular or state authority. White Guard 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Any president of modern president republic has much more formal power than Stalin had. In fact the late leaders of the Soviet Union also had the same powers (i.e. Brezhnev, Andropov). Gorbachev seeing that the position of General Secretary is not enough to protect him during the planned reform introduced the President of the USSR title, which made him invulnerable.--Nixer 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it hardly made him invulnerable, did it? White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact it made him invulnerabe in constitutional frame. That's why there a coup occured later. If he remained Gensec, the coup most likely would be avoided, because a General Secretary can be made retired by simple majority at any time.--Nixer 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is Stalin used a relatively humble position to accumulate an enormous resevoir of power, which he used to ruthless effect. In considering any political question we have to look beyond appearances. We might say that the Soviet Union of Stalin's time was unique, in that party and state were effectively interchangeable. In 'becoming' the party, so to speak, Stalin also became the state. Otherwise his rise over far more talented and charismatic figures becomes inexplicable. White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not unique situation when a state is ruled or controlled by another entity such as church, party, order or company. The fact is this situation does not automatically imply dictatorship. Even if the government is actually controlled by a person who does not hold governmential position (such as mafia leader, favorite of a monarch, church autority), we do not call this person "dictator".--Nixer 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to judge all of these issues in terms of concrete political practice. I am not talking in the abstract, but of the actual conduct of affairs in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Anyway, this deserves a whole separate section, which I now intend to write. White Guard 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The dictator tag isn't POV. 'Dictator' is not, strictly speaking, a term of abuse, but a recognised politico-historical term for an authoritarian or autocratic ruler who exerts personal power over the state. Some rulers may be called 'dictators' as a term of abuse when they are not, strictly speaking, dictators, but as applied to Stalin the term is accurate. If I remember my etymological history, the term dates back to ancient Rome, where a dictator (equivalent to the Greek 'tyrant', another word that has changed its meaning) was an extraordinary magistrate elected to take absolute control of the state during times of national crisis. It's a technical term. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And did Stalin ever had extraordinary powers (except WWII period)?--Nixer 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

December 21st

Stalin's "Official Birthday" was December 21st. I think that should be listed in his article. (it is also my birthday ;)). Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)John LoGiudice 9/30/06Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Stalin and Malignant Narcissitic Personality Disorder:

I am artificially creating a seperate section here entitled Psychopathology .

That's because I don't know how to create a seperate section (if anyone who knows how can help to create a new section for discussing Stalin's Psychopathology, including my post below, that would be hugley appreciated).

Nevertheless-- I would likt to kick off speculation on Stalin's psychopathology by saying that the circumstantial evidence that Joseph Stalin had NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is overwhelming. His comment that he had no feelings for other people is a classic symptom of NPD. People with this disorder can occasionally have limited feelings for others, but most of the time they feel no empathy or remorse whatsoever. They also tend to be grandiose, obsessed with power and control, and are often brilliant social manipulators.

NPD is a fairly common illness which is a rather disturbing fact-- it affects about 1 in 25 people. Most NPD's are law abiding, but tend to wreak havock, nevertheless in the lives of those around them. And they are very attracted to positions of power. The magnitude of damage that someone with NPD cause (Stalin and Hitler are two very likely candidates, for example) makes understanding and discussing this disorder of paramount importance for the well being of society, not to mention world security. NPDs tend to be expert deceivers (camelionlike in their pursuit of power and ruthless in very underhamded ways-- until enough power is ammassed that they need no longer hide their ruthlessness). Understanding them better and learning how to detect them and deal with them (legally of course) is of paramount importance to us all. They are, without exaggeration, the demons who live among us.

168.103.82.104 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalin as Dictator

I've had a debate with one or two people recently about the correctness-and desirability- of labeling Stalin as a 'Dictator'. Perhaps it would be best if I try to clarify the position, in the hope that some people at least might be convinced.

If we go back to the very early days of Bolshevism we can see that Lenin was eager to establish a political model based on action, not on debate and dissent. After the second congress of the RSDP in 1903, and the split in the party, Trotsky was one of the first to recognize the implications of the new concept of 'democratic centralism', always much more centralist than democratic. It would set in train, he maintained, a process whereby the party was substituted for the people, the central committee for the party, a small politburo for the central committee and eventually a single man for the politburo. After the Revolution all of these tendencies were confirmed, freedom reducing in ever diminishing circles. Actions against counter-revolutionaries became actions against fellow socialists and then actions against dissent within the Bolshevik party itself. By 1924 Trotsky-once again-was showing remarkable prescience, predicting what he called 'the gravedigger of the Party of the Revolution.';

The dialectics of history have already hooked him and will raise him up. He is needed by all of them, by the tired radicals, by the bureaucrats, by the nepmen, by the kulaks, by the upstarts, by all the sneaks that are crawling out of the upturned soil of the revolution...He speaks their language, and knows how to lead them. Stalin will become the dictator of the USSR.

Why Stalin? Why not, in a country where the party was the state and the state the party; for in 1922 Stalin, it might be said, 'became' the party. As a political tactician, moreover, his skills were superb. In taking the post of General Secretary in 1922 he acquired huge poweres of bureaucratic patronage, which he used with ruthless effect. Control of the Secretariat and the Orgburu-when combined with notions of democratic centralism-meant by the late 1920s to criticise Stalin was, at one and the same time, to criticise the party line, a cardinal sin. Throughout the 1920s he used his position to outwit and outmaneuver all of his main political rivals. With the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan in 1928 his position within the party-and the cult of personality that flowed from this position-gave him far greater authority than even Lenin had enjoyed in his lifetime. Elsewhere in Europe at the time only Mussolini might be said to rival his position; but there were distinct limits on Il Duce's powers-not least of which was the existence of rival centres of authority; there were very few on Stalin's. So, I can only echo Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, who in his A History of Russia says quite simply "...Stalin's rivals failed to heed Lenin's late forebodings, and, before too long, Stalin's Party machine rolled over all opponents. The complete personal dictatorship which began in 1928 was to last until the dictator's death in 1953." (New York, 1993, p. 493).

It seems a pity that I have to defend this position; but I cannot in all conscience exclude Stalin from the dictator category: for to do so would allow Hitler, Mussolini and all the others out of the bag as well. Stalin's power may have been bureaucratic rather than charismatic-party rather than state based; but it was no less real for all that. White Guard 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If Stalin declared dictator then why not Lenin? Why not Kerensky? Even Oliver Cromwell who had special paragraph in constitution protecting supreme power for him for all his life is not labelled dictator in Wikipedia.--Nixer 12:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, why not Lenin, Kerensky, or Cromwell? They may or may not merit the label themselves, but unfortunately whether they do or not has no bearing whatsoever onw whether or not Stalin is justifiably a dictator. If you're disturbed about Oliver Cromwell not being labelled a dictator, I suggest you take it to the relevant talk page. siafu 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If you take a look at this article, it appears that there is some kind of standard practive to avoid the use of dictator, to leaders of revolutionary socialist states which differenciates it from the types of political systems we find in fascist dictatorship. I think this is because with the latter, its an explicit part of its political ideology, while in the latter its a question of actual practice, distortion of the intentions of ideology (marxism, which is democratic), and thus a question of POV, howeveer factual tand accurate the actual state of affairs is. So there might be a point to the other side stated a need to use more NPOV language with employing such labels against dictatorial leaders such as those mentioned, who rule in socieites that prurport to be a democracy. This includes the US. http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001946 For an expliacation of this question, take a look at the following site, which is an excerpt from the book, "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization"--"Is Stalin A Dictator?" by Sidney and Beatrice Webb: http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm It concludes that unlike the others who would be called dictators correctly that... "At this point it is necessary to observe that, although Stalin is, by the constitution, not in the least a dictator, having no power of command, and although he appears to be free from any desire to act as a dictator, and does not do so, he may be thought to have become irremovable from his position of supreme leadership of the Party, and therefore of the government. Why is this? We find the answer in the deliberate exploitation by the governing junta of the emotion of hero-worship, of the traditional reverence of the Russian people for a personal autocrat." Giovanni33 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Giovanni; a number of interesting points. Actually both Lenin and Mussolini, to take the most obvious example, have a lot in common, both in their personal biographies, and in their approach to politics. Neither man set out to be a 'dictator' in the classical sense; but that is what they became, despite their obvious diferences in politics and style. Now you say that Marxism, if I have understood you correctly, is inherently 'democratic', unlike Fascism. But Marxism does not exist in an ideal or Platonic sense, but as a concrete political practice. In adapting it to Russian conditions Lenin devised the notion of 'democratic centralism', which, beyond a certain point silences all debate, just as effectively as any right-wing ideology. When this is combined with the kind of bureaucratic power accumulated by Stalin, the forms of dictatorship that emerge are almost Asiatic in their intensity, in contrast, say, with Mussolini's Italy. Just imagine trying to deduce Soviet society from the 'democratic' Stalin constitution of 1936, and then contrast that with the actual practice, the actual forms of the Russian state.
The Webbs? Their understanding of Soviet Russia-and Stalin-was always abysmal; and at this remove of time-and in view of what we now know about life in Stalin's Russia-their observations must be considered as ludicrously inexact. Read again what they have written. They are saying the cult of Stalin is the work of the 'governing junta'-whoever they might be-seemingly carried out without the protagonist's consent or approval. Why has Stalin, one has to ask, been signaled out for this treatment, and not, say, Kalinin, who, after all, was the official head of state? In the end its a question of raw power, no more than that. The Webbs represent a tendency amongst western intellectuals of the time to excuse any crime-including the Moscow trials and the Purges-, on the false assumption that the Stalin was the wave of the future, the best hope for 'progressive' forces in Europe. For an alternative view you might consult George Orwell, who wrote;
You are led into similar absurdities if you make Stalin respnsible for our present condition and the future that appears to lie before us, and at the same time insist that his policies must be supported. The motives of those English intellectuals who support the Russian dictatorship are, I think, different from what they publically admit, but it is logical to condone tyranny and massacre if one assumes that progress is inevitable. If each epoch is as a matter of course better than the last, then any crime any folly that pushes the historical process forward can be justified
In every meaningful sense Stalin has to be considered a dicatator, having all the power to command. That was the nature of the whole Soviet system. White Guard 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not relevant was Stalin factually dictator or not. It can be argued that Cromwell was even more typical dictator. But if you incert this in his article, you will be reverted as "POV". I also tried to incert this in article about Lenin and was reverted as "vandalism". In fact the only difference between Stalin and Cromwell and Lenin is that Stalin often was labelled "dictator" in westerm media, and other two - not.--Nixer 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do not fully understand the point you are trying to make in your first sentence. Everything I have written is, I believe, 'relevant' to the point under consideration. Anyway, I had a look at the Cromwell page and there is indeed a reference to him as a possible dictator in the introduction. Objectivly he can fit into this category, because his power was ultimately based on the army rather than on legitimate constitutional forms. The difference between Cromwell and modern dicators is that he looked to find some parliamentary underpinnings to the Revolution settlement; only when this failed did he turn to dictatorship, though neither he nor his contemporaries would have thought in these terms. Lenin was also a dictator, though with him the process was much more subtle and invidious, depending on his authority within the Bolshevik party. It might be best to see him as belonging to a 'dictatorial collective.' Might I suggest that if you intend to describe any historical figure as a 'dictator' that you lay out clear reasons for doing so on the talk page; then it's up to others to refute your argument by examples. White Guard 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I vote not to use the term at all because is has no clear definition and a person may be labelled dictator by author depending on his political views. Other option is to limit the usage only to those figures who had special paragraph in constitution/law which gave him personally extraordinary powers or his powers officially extended for his life (i.e. Turkmenbashi, Hitler, Cromwell will be dictators, Stalin, Lukashenko, Kerensky, Lenin - not).--Nixer 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia is not a vote. Stalin was by any reasonable standard a dictator. The "for life" bit is not a requirement remeber Julius Caesar declared himself dictator for life rather than just dictator. Aditionaly we often hear news reports of dictators being overthrown.Geni 11:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I only tried to establish common standard on labelling people dictator. And if you read better, I proposed name dictator people who had their powers for life or had special powers given them personallly by the law.--Nixer 11:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Historicaly neither have been required. Giving yourself sepecial powers by law is generaly regarded as too obvious these days. Starlin is harldy unique in holding something that might not be de jure the top position in order to avoid elections and the like.Geni 11:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any better proposal? I agree one can be something like dictator even without special law or special powers. But in that case the desision is entirely depends on the views of the author. Stalin did not avoid elections and the same position was held later by other people who generally not considered dictators. You say, givinng yourself special powers is regarded too obvious. But you can find a number of leaders presently ruling and from not so distant past that have/had such special powers.--Nixer 11:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
a proposal? Yes we state that he was a dictator and leave it at that.Geni 11:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant the general proposal for naming people dictator. Why Stalin should be labelled dictator and Cromwell - not?--Nixer 11:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be the false dilemma logical fallacy.Geni 13:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The popular opinion that Stalin was a dictator was based on the lack of knowledge about the nature of the Soviet system and now is outdated. The only timeline when he had almost all the power to command was the period of the WW2. --Nekto 12:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
largely irrelivant by that defintion there has never been a dictator.Geni 13:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me assure you that my assessment of Stalin is not based on 'popular opinion' but on considered intellectual and political analysis of the evolution of the Soviet state from the mid 1920s onwards. By the 1930s the cult of Stalin reached an almost Nero-like intensity, and his powers in both state and party were unparalleled. Nixer, you seem to have a 'thing' about Cromwell for some reason; might I suggest that you take your concerns to the relevant page? White Guard 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Newly declassified archives do not support the teory of "Stalin's dictature". Particulary I reffer to works of Russian historian Y.Zhukov who intensivelly works in archives. Probably this new information does not reached the West yet. The personality cult has nothing to do with dictatorship. For example there as well was the cult of Trotsky and it didn't save him. Stalin's powers has it's own limits --Nekto 05:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
unlimited powers would break some fairly fundimental laws of physics.Geni 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea there was a cult of Trotsky in the Soviet Union anytime after 1923. Some examples would be nice. Anyway, additional research on Stalin, especially that based upon recently discovered documents, will always be welcome; but I doubt if it will tell us much more than we already know. All the information we have about the rise of Stalin already provides ample insight into the way power was accumulated and used. I assume you are Russian? Have you read Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin-The Court of the Red Tsar? Can Zhukov really be about to tell us much more than we know from this and other work of the same kind? But I think I should also make clear, as another user has already indicated, that the term 'dictator' is not intended as an insult, but solely as a politically accurate description. Julius Ceaser was a dictator; so too was Josef StalinWhite Guard 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are right. There was not cult of Trotsky anymore after Lenin death although Gatchina was called Trotsk until 1929. It's just an example - cults were not that unique things in Russia, it's part of culture (even today some too loyal functionaries and slavish people tried to make cult of Putin). Cities in masse were renamed not only after Stalin. Not only his monuments were erected etc. I see no explicit connection between cult and dictature. I haven't read Montefiore. His book is translated into Russian and I took a brief look at it in a bookstore. I maybe wrong but I got the imression that the book is not that serious - more like a belletristic. --Nekto 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's very well-researched and written by a British specialist on Russian history. It's also different from 'normal' biographies, in that it looks in highly detailed way, almost in an interior sense, at the political evolution of Stalin. It is also, at least in my view, objective rather than hostile. Please read it. I would be very interested in a Russian perspective on the book. White Guard
I don't want to get into this debate much, but I am indeed surprised that anyone would dispute that Stalin was a dictator (where you state that in the article is another matter). That he never held the highest office in the state is of no consequence (Mussolini didn't either, except in Salo, where his dictating days were numbered). But a communist state along Stalin's model didn't work that way anyway - the General Secretary was the highest, practically unassailable authority, superseding anything else (and Stalin with his god-like status even more so). In contrast to what some have written, it wasn't that easy to depose the GS. In order to even get to a vote, you had to form a conspiracy as an open attempt would be "building of a faction". If such a move failed, those involved were traitors, if they succeeded the deposed Gs would have to vote for his own dismissal. It happened this way with Krushev, and in Eastern Germany with Ulbricht and with Honnecker. Finally, some may think that dictators cannot come from a left-wing movement, but such considerations would be substantially POV, wouldn't it? Certainly the claim that Marxism was inherently democratic is highly dubious, in as much as democracy is seen as opposed to dictatorship. Who actually coined the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Str1977 (smile back) 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the plunge! I, of course, agree with all you have written. The point about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which, in my estimation, has never been properly defined, is very well made. Now just imagine a country with a weak proletariat ruled by a party whose defining logic is 'democratic centralism'-once the decision is made, in other words, no more debate. For the proletrariat you have the party; for the party you have the bureaucracy; for the bureaucracy you have the bureaucrat. In other words the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the party is the dictatorship of the apparatus is the dictatorship of Stalin. White Guard 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, WG. But my main point was: we cannot soberly claim that dictatorship contradicts the essence of Marxism when Marx himself advocated the "Dicatorship of the Proletariat". Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know this issue was ongoing but now since we are talking about Marxism and the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," I must beg to differ with the points being made. The Marxian concept of democracy is that it is a form of dictatorship, hence dictatorship in the normal sense does not apply to Marx's concept of CLASS dictatorship. For Marx all States were indicative of a class dictatorship. This trancends any particular form of kind of government--dictatorship or democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariant only means that the workers, as a class, interests will be dictate fundamental decsions in this class's interests, as opposed to the capitalits interests, and that the latter's ability to seize state power and utilize it for its own purposes will be suppressed. For Marx, "winning the battle of democracy," was the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletarian (or Socialism). So when looking at the question of an individual and a leader within a State, this Marxian concept does not apply. Its completely different.Giovanni33 05:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the theory, Giovanni, but what's the practice? In Russia the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' became, virtually from the ouset, the dictatorship of the party and then the dictatorship of one man. I do not believe that Marx would ever have conceived of a situation where socialists were being shot and sent to concentration camps by their fellow socialists. But that's what happened in Russia. If you would like to continue this discussion it might be wise, for the sake of clarity, to begin a new heading. White Guard 05:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your all arguments are inrelated with my statements. I do not argue whether Stalin was dictator. I only argue that this is a matter of POV. In fact in Wikipedia "dictators" labelled only those who labelled so by Western media, while when you try to label so another person (who also is definitely dictator by any definition) would be quickly reverted. You say "go to the other talk pages", but users of those talk pages would also say "go to Stalin' talk and dont argue here, we think labelling somebody dictator is POV". I already expressed that I also think we should not use this word until it is self-definition of the person. Please dont make me breakong WP:Point rule trying to illustrate my point of view by reducing to absurdum.--Nixer 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, it is simple: Every case must be argued on its own merit. You want to label Cromwell a dictator (I think you are right in this) - then go to the Cromwell article and make your case. You want to argue something about Stalin - do it here and make your case, based on actual arguments. But please don't do a "I do not argue whether Stalin was dictator" argument, as either you are not arguing this (which means our discussion is moot) or you argue this (which means you have to stick to your point and make a case). And no, the matter is not a question of POV, at least not in Stalin's case. There maybe be some cases bordering on dictatorship but Stalin is definitely not one of them. Str1977 (smile back) 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
First I do not want label Cromwell as dictator and you well know that is impossible to label Cromwell "dictator" in English wikipedia. Fact is also that it is uncommon to name revolutionairs "dictators", even if they executed dictatorial powers after the revolution. And Stalin was a revolutionair. Anyway, Cromwell is much more "dictator" than Stalin any way. Saying any pertson "dictator" is definitely POV unless is is officially declared or the person counted themself as dictator. It is not an encyclopedic language.--Nixer 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
1. No, I do not not know full well that is impossible to label Cromwell "dictator" in English wikipedia. As far as I can remember I have not visited that page yet. There certainly is no Wiki-rule prohibiting that, nor a content reason. So if regular editors there do not allow it, that is a problem and should be tackled ... but not on the Stalin talk page. So any complaints about what Cromwell was, please post it over there.
2. Why should it be uncommon to call a dictator who came to power by a revolution a dictator? It might be widespread, but I don't share this craze about revolutions (a politics teacher of a friend once argued in class that Hitler's rise in 1933 was no revolution because it did not lead to something good but to something bad. Quite a ridiculous argument!). That liking for revolutions is certainly no basis for WP articles, as it would be POV.
3. Stalin however was no revolutionary leader anyway! He was hardly involved in 1917, later served as Lenin's enforcer and was elevated to the heights of party bureaucracy, from which he accumulated unlimited powers.
4. So what you are saying is that there should be no appearances of the word "dictator" in WP, except in the case of Roman dictators (which bore that title but are something completely different anyway)? Is that what you want? So out with Hitler, Mussolini etc.? That would at least be a consistent view. But I doubt that you will find much support for it.
5. That all doesn't mean that we should say dictator at every corner. There are a whole lot of words we can use for Stalin but we cannot simply hide the fact that he was a dictator. Str1977 (smile back) 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
1. In fact all the persons labelled the same way as they called by western media. You cannot change anything: if you do so, it will come a new user and will change what is not consistent with popular POV.
2. If you count labelling some event "revolution" POV, then you should also consider labelling (or not labelling) people "dictator" also POV. Popular opinion is that dictatorship is something bad. Even if you dont agree, it is very charged term.
3. Stalin indeed was a revolutionary leader. His revolutionary carrier startwed long before the october revolution, he was imprisoned for revolutionary activities and he became one of the leaders of the new power just after the revolution, even if he did not organize the upspring itself.
4. We can use the term in the three cases:
  • For Roman dictators.
  • For those people who were officially proclaimed or declared themselves "dictators" (see examples in dictator).
  • In other cases with citation, i.e. "historian XXX considers that this person to be dictator given his authority, cult of personality, amount of power concentrated etc".--
Nixer 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
1. The fact that (allegedly) "all the persons labelled the same way as they called by western media" doesn't concern me in the least bit. The media might be right or wrong, either to harsh with some or to lenient with others. We don't have ABWTWMSPOV ("anything but what the Western media says") but NPOV.
2. I did not say any such thing. Revolution is not a POV term in my book (the teacher, with whom I disagree, used it that way). Whether dictatorship has a bad reputation also is of secondary importance. If someone is a dicator we will use that term. NPOV only forbids us to say he was "an evil dictator".
3. Even if Stalin were a revolutionary leader (in a very limited sense he was), he also was a dictator later.
4. About your three cases:
  • No problem about the Romans.
  • Very few people used Dictator as a title. Or if you mean all the people mentioned over at that article, then Stalin is among them.
  • Stalin certainly fits your third case.
Str1977 (smile back) 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you start labelling "dictator" any person who even does not have this title, would you label "dictator" Augustus (who was not dictator officially) or Rasputin?
  • If you agree that the third case applicable to Stalin - that's no problem. We can use this word, but with a citation. Using this word without citation is clear POV.--Nixer 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The term is used in modern political discourse to describe leaders who exercise power without, it might be said, limit of law or of time. Neither Hitler, nor Mussolini, nor Franco, nor Stalin, nor Mao nor Pol Pot ever defined themselves as 'dictator', or were so defined by the constitutional law of their respective countries, where this existed. There are many references to Stalin as a dictator, just as there are to Hitler. It is a well-established and accurate descriptive term, whose usage is outlined in the page you highlighted above. And, incidentally, it does appear on the Cromwell page as a possible description, as I have already said. White Guard 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.