Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives:
 |
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. |
Did Briginski refer to people killed by Stalin during WWII or in total (including the purges and famines)? If so, the statement should be moved to the correct paragraph. (Perhaps nitpicking, but there should be some words on the uncertaincy of the numbers. I've heard 10 million Russians in total during WWII, including those killed by the Germans. In a speach in the 80s, Gorbachev only admitted that Stalin killed "thousands".) -Guppie
- After [Vladimir Lenin]?'s death in 1924?, a triumverate of Stalin, Kamenev?, and Zinoviev? governed against Trotsky? (on the left wing of the party) and Bukharin? (on the right wing of the party).
We shouldn't wikify just the last names here. I would simply remove the double brackets, but we will want to link to articles about these people; besides, we need the full names of these people. --LMS
Done!
Several times, Russian people have told me (with various level of bitterness and anger) of what Stalin did to the Ukraine. They blame him for killing millions of people -- civilial, non-wartime deaths -- by systematic, deliberate starvation. Okay, I'm getting emotional here (in /Talk), but is there a way to mention Ukraine and genocide in the Stalin article.
- Stalin is often credited with successfully industrializing the Soviet Union. What can be said without controversy is that by the time of World War II , the Soviet economy had been industrialized to the point that the Soviets could resist the German invasion. That Stalin or his policies are to be credited for this is contended.
- Much of this industrial achievement resulted from foreign firms being brought in to develop Soviet industry. This was simply a continuation of the industrialization process that began under the czars, and is ultimately a continuation of the policy of modernization begun by [Peter the Great]? in the 17th century, which also relied on the importation of human capital. That this policy continued to create beneficial results under Stalin, as it had under the czars, does not speak to Stalin's effectiveness as a leader or to the practicality of a socialist economy.
I think this last paragraph goes too far. The first establishes that there is disagreement, the second more or less instructs the reader which opinion is best. If nobody objects, I'd like to alter it slightly. -- Zork
The measures taken by Stalin to discipline those who opposed his will involved the death by execution or famine of at least 10 million peasants (1932-33). [1]
From article:
- (Recently, claims have been made that the USSR was in fact preparing to attack Germany as part of a large scale invasion of Europe, and that this contributed to the Red Army's state of upreparedness.)
Please provide a source for these claims -- better yet, a summary of them, too! -- and then put this paragraph back in. This is very interesting. --Ed Poor
-
- I've seen these claims before, and usually the sources are rather dubious.
From what i read Tsarist Russia was starting to industrialise and was growing economically at a faster rate than the Soviets ever achieved and that that was one of the reasons the Germans went to war in 1914 - they feared that if they waited much longer Russia would be too strong. -- Paul Melville Austin
Russia started the war, not germany. They were hoping to break through into southeastern Europe. Vera Cruz
- The Russians started the first offensive on the eastern front when they invaded East Prussia on August 17, 1914, but the Germans started their western offensive on August 4, 1914, when they invaded Luxembourg and Belgium. Mintguy
- Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. -- Zoe
Read much zoe? Vera Cruz
Vera Cruz is right, Zoe.
Does anybody know how to spell his original name in the Georgian alphabet? Looking at [2], this would be cool for wikipedia... --217.215.99.203
Question: Who argues that the Stalinist famines are a hoax, and how wipespread is this belief among historians?
This paragraph makes no sense.....
- These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation
It's not clear whether it has been argued that the death toll wasn't as great, or that there were famines but that Stalin wasn't responsible for them.
Moved here until someone can rewrite
- Some argue that collectivization even produced major "man-made famines" in 1932-33, particularly in Ukraine responsible for up to 5 million deaths. Collectivization led to a drop in the already low productivity of Russian farming, which did not regain the NEP level until 1940, or allowing for the further disasters of World War II, 1950. These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation.
Regarding that change--A lot of references to the murders and other atrocities of Stalin in this and other articles were removed and replaced with a more sympathetic portrayal in recent days, not only of Stalin. I think we need to look at the POV issues associated with these recent changes (also take a look at how Deng has been given a much more sympathetic portrayal in some recent article changes with respect to China, with the Tianamen massacre apparently being justified; I forget which article I saw those changes being made in, but I am concerned about the direction that some of those changes have been going in). soulpatch
-
- Part of the problem is that the two people who have been
working on the Deng Xiaoping article (myself and 172) are generally sympathetic to him. What the article really needs is a going through by someone who doesn't like Deng at all. (Hint: Deng's actions during the Anti-rightist movement don't look good, and one can really write a lot more about his actions during TAM which also don't look good).
- There is a deeper issue here. My own point of view is that the article about Mao is far too sympathetic. The trouble is that my edits have been systematically reverted. At some point one has to ask whether decision making by exhaustion is the best way to resolve conflicting edits.
soulpatch, let the history speak for itself. Those articles read like Britannica, which does not cite Robert Conquest either.
- History never speaks for itself. It requires people to speak for it and we are going to insert our own biases into it. As far as Britannica, one thing that I do not like about Britannica and most encyclopedias is that they do not cite the sources of their views, which makes it difficult or impossible for an interested party to do further research to make up their own mind.
Wikipedia is not here to condemn Deng or exonerate him. That article indicates that living standards improved during his era, which is indisputable. If someone could get a favorable impression of Deng from reading the article, so what? I'm sure one would get a unfavorable impression of Pol Pot from the article about him.
- The problem comes in when edits that aren't favorable to Deng get removed by one person who has more energy than the person who put in the unfavorable edits. The article then becomes the view of one person rather than a community effort.
172, can we please stay on topic and only write about the subject of this article (sic Joseph Stalin)? There is no reason why this article should be yet another place to restate general Soviet Union history. Much of the text I removed is word for word the same as the text already in Soviet Union or History of the Soviet Union. Most notable is that the text doesn't even mention Stalin. --mav
Some of the things written here aren't even remotely NPOV. Example: "In spite of early breakdowns and failures, the first Five-Year Plan achieved amazing results, mainly because of the heroic sacrifices of the common people." Puh-leeze. Or, "During this period, kulak sabotage aggravated a massive famine in the Ukraine." A lot of this article is nothing short of pro-Stalin propaganda, singing his praises and minimizing the massive human rights violations that he commited. soulpatch
Read a fucking history book. You’ll find the same sentences in any survey history textbook. The article's not a commentary on human rights. That's for the readers to decide. I feel that they are intelligent enough to realize that he was a paranoid murderer without having the article say so.
- Please spare us sentences like "read a fucking history book". That shows a disinterest in discussing this issue seriously. Phrases like "heroic sacrifices of the common people" just don't cut it, in my opinion--it is all about singing praises and glory and really isn't an NPOV phrasing. And now you are saying that articles should leave pertinent information out of the subject matter because people should know that stuff anyway? Wow. Interesting idea of what should go into an encyclopedia article, I must say. soulpatch
- If this isn't supposed to be a commentary on human rights then why is this article a commentary on all the warm and fuzzy things that he did? --mav
It’s not at all. If diseases were eradicated, then diseases were eradicated. No evaluations needed.
--- Word heroic is gone.
---
I called Stalin a paranoid murderer in the talk section, so don't call me a Stalinist. But this article doesn't need to read like Conquest or the Black Book. It's NPOV as it is.
- I don't think you are a "Stalinist". I do think that you are something of an apologist for Stalin, but that doesn't make you a Stalinist. That is neither here nor there. The article should not call him a "paranoid murderer" either, for that matter. But the article should also not ignore the reign of terror that he unleashed while at the same time singing his praises for all the wonderful things he is supposed to have done. The article is presently just too biased towards his glorious accomplishments in contrast to the horrors that he unleashed, in my view. soulpatch
"reign of terror" is a loaded phrase. besides, details on the purges are covered.
it does not sing his praises either. For instance, if diseases were eradicated, then they were eradicated. Let’s paint the big picture and let readers draw their own conclusions.
- Of course it is a loaded phrase, and I am not suggesting that it should be used in the article--I would strongly oppose the use of such language. soulpatch
Details on the purges are covered as well. It's already NPOV.
Let's work on new content, not commentarty. 172
I think the estimates of how many died at the hands of Stalin should be included in the article, but as I'm not in the mood for an edit war with 172, I'll put the paragraph here for your discussion:
It is believed by some that with the purges, famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millons that died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Western historians such as Robert Conquest have estimated it to 10, 20 or 40 millions. Former National Security Advisor to US President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, suggested 20 millions. No official figure have been released by the Soviet or Russian government.
I'd call this content, not commentary. --Guppie
Cite a source like Britannica. Go look up their Stalin article. Brzezinski and Conquest are not to be cited as fact in an encyclopedia. User:172
Britannica: In 1928 he inaugurated the Five-Year Plans that radically altered Soviet economic and social structures and resulted in the deaths of many millions.
Not very informative, but we can cite it. --Guppie
Yes, the article needs stats. I'm suggesting Britannica. Citing Conquest does not really have its place unless countered.
- I will admit that Brzezinski is one of my least favorite people in the world, but I can see no reason why he can't be used as one source among many in an article that presents various points of view concerning historical events. On the other hand, citing Britannica as a source seems a little bizarre. Encyclopedias should not be citing other encyclopedias as sources. An encyclopedia is a derivative source, and we should be using the sources that other Encyclopedias use, or better or competing ones if we can find them, but definitely not other encyclopedias. If people want to use other encyclopedias for a source, they should be reading that encylopedia, not ours. soulpatch
This is Wikipedia, not Britannica. Citing conquest is like citing Zyuganov, the head of the Russian Communist Party. Agendas! User:172
Yes, we can cite Zyuganov also, as long as we don't present it as the absolute truth. --Guppie
Actually, I'd really be interested in what Zyuganov and Russian Communists have to say about this. One more thing, just because someone has an agenda, doesn't mean that they are wrong. *Everyone* has an agenda.
Of course, Roadrunner. The problem was that both extremes were not represented, only Conquest's.
- The problem is that it's not clear that there are extremes here. For example, the Chinese Communist Party doesn't contest Western death figures for the GLF or the CR. It's quite possible that the Russian Communist Party doesn't contest Conguest's numbers. The RCP might even strongly dislike Stalin. Do you know what the attitude of the RCP is, and if *anyone* contests Conquest's numbers?
---Roadrunner
Need attributions here.
I've never read anyone (even pro-Stalinist literature) argue this, and would be greatly appreciative if someone attributed these views to someone other than (some).
- These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation.
- It is believed by some that with the purges, famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millons that died under Stalin is greatly disputed. No fficial figure have been released by the Soviet or Russian government.
It is believed by some implies it is not believed by others. Who?
It's not clear who espouses these views. Most of the pro-Stalinist literature that I've read does not deny the existence of harsh measures or the large numbers of deaths but rather attempts to justify them. Most of the pro-Marxist literature I've read tends to be anti-Stalinist. User:Roadrunner
These views are held by historical revisionists like "The Red Comrades Documentation Project" (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/) and Eco. Eco originally wrote the sentence about the dust bowl, which I strongly doubt, but I haven't had the time to research it properly. --Guppie
the question is to what extent was the famine man-made.
I'll give Zoe time to respond before I restore Paektu's caption.
The photo is a photo of Stalin. It doesn't need a caption, since it's being used with an article about him. And the caption used was not NPOV. -- Zoe
Zoe:
This explanation was unacceptable: “And the caption used was not NPOV.”. The question is why. I’ll give you one more chance to respond intelligently before I revert Paektu’s caption.
What part of NPOV do you not understad? Oh, that's right, you write only POV. -- Zoe
Zoe:
Once again with the personal attacks. Read my question once again:
Zoe:
I don’t understand your latest change.
The Communist Party in Russia has the largest membership base in Russia, the largest single voting bloc in parliament, and a majority of the country’s regional governorships.
Read this article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/31/164950.shtml
It’s absolutely indisputable that many elderly voters are nolstalgic for the days of Communism. What else would explain the party’s strength?
Besides, the photo makes little sense without Paektu’s caption.
Notice the word “many” in the sentence as well.
- I disagree with Zoe here -- the photograph is not a photo of Stalin, it is a photo of a group of people, one of whom is holding a photo of Stalin. A caption that provides some context is reasonable. Also, the deleted caption seemed to be NPOV to me because it asserted an empirically verifiable fact, and not an opinion. To claim that Stalin was good or bad is POV. To claim that some people remember him nostalgicly is an assertion of fact. true, this assertion may be wrong. My own reading of Time Magazine articles suggests that this claim, however, is accurate. Would Zoe feel better with an attribution (i.e., "According to...)? That may be a good idea -- certainly better than deleting information that provides context for the photo as well as provides some information about Stalin's continuing important -- at least, to some -- in Russia today. Slrubenstein
-
- This approach works for me. -- Zoe
I expect an apology from Zoe now.
- LOL! -- Zoe
That wasn't an apology!
Your reversion didn't comply with what we had agreed to here. -- Zoe
Former President Nixon, in his book, "1999: Victory Without War", called Stalin:
- "...a man who killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens."
--- Hm. Replacing one POV with the opposite POV does not improve the article. For example, this article used to mention the dust bowl as one possible contributing factor to the deaths in the Soviet Union during the 30s. It would be dishonest to leave out this bit of info - it objectively stated what some people consider to be a cause. --mav 23:57 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
Who exactly claims that the famines were the result of a "Dust bowl" certainly not the vast majority of respected historians. we shouldent give any credence to people who make excuses for Stalin's actions which were undoubtedly the major cause of the famines and have been widely accepted as so. There seems to be a sort of "Hollocaust denial" type of tendency towards the actions of Stalin's regime which people would find unnaceptable about the Nazis, but seem to tollerate with Stalin.User:G-Man
Its that whole "dont speak ill of the dead" thing. -豎眩
More on Stalin, the Soviet Union and mass murder:
- In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million. (source: [3], but should be easy to double-check the AS book) --Uncle Ed
Yeah well those historians got millions up their asses and shit in their mouths. 66.7 million? Fucking hilarious
During the time when Stalin was around 3 million died. Stalin only excuted 1 million. 7 million were arrested- but they did not die. 8 million were put into camps- but did not die. only 3 million died in camps. therfor i say those historians can shove their history books up their asses. Heres proof. http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html.
