[kidvanguard]

Numbers are so easy to cook up it's not even funny. You have people saying that Pinochet killed 2,945 people during his 17-year dictatorship, and these numbers are called "official" but are really just malarky. Noam Chomsky totalled all the Vietcong casualty reports released by the State Dept. during that war and they exceeded 3 times the total population of Vietnam.

You have the Washington Post reporting that a member of Al-Queda was studying at McMaster University in Canada. It wasn't true of course, the guy wasn't even on record at the university. But it still enters the "media cycle" and becomes accepted truth in the eyes of many. 20 years from now, who's going to know the difference?

[Truth-a-naut]

Stalin was an evil, evil man.

Of course he was!
He was a Communist!

And those 20-30 million Russians? Where did they go?

I don't know, people disapear all the time.
And remember taking an accurate census of an agrarian country during the early 1900's was really hard to do.

[Kov]

"Numbers are so easy to cook up it's not even funny. You have people saying that Pinochet killed 2,945 people during his 17-year dictatorship, and these numbers are called "official" but are really just malarky. Noam Chomsky totalled all the Vietcong casualty reports released by the State Dept. during that war and they exceeded 3 times the total population of Vietnam.

You have the Washington Post reporting that a member of Al-Queda was studying at McMaster University in Canada. It wasn't true of course, the guy wasn't even on record at the university. But it still enters the "media cycle" and becomes accepted truth in the eyes of many. 20 years from now, who's going to know the difference?"

And vice versa the numbers may be actual understatements of what actualy occured. Historians willalways argue, but sadly the majority is against the "fake" gulag deaths.

Furthermore it is needless to say that many a death resulted from him and many other leaders... thus this argument should not be baced around "if he killed" since almost all do, rather how many and for what reason.

[jaakko]

Nope, we can't agree on that.

Ugh, that's fine. Refuting an overwhelming amount of evidence on the basis that it is "bourgeois conspiracy" only gets you so far though.

I never talked of any conspiracy. Stop lying.

Once again most figures state that he did indeed kill more people than Hitler, agree or disagree is your perogative.

Which figures?

All freedoms that were flat out denied in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Not true. I know enough history to be aware that it's no different in your "free" societies when the class struggle becomes heatened. When the workers stop following their exploiters, the facade of "freedom" collapses. When communists start gaining too much audience in a capitalist or semi-feudal country, they will feel in their bones what "democracy" really is about.

Keep throwing around that bourgeois word as an attempt to discredit (or perhaps an attempt that I will credit) them.

You're so prejudicious. I only referred to the class stance.

I'm not even sure what exactly that second sentence is supposed to mean, as if it's supposed to justify the murders of millions of people for disagreeing with the government.

You don't get it. There was a struggle going on, both in the society as a whole aswell as in the state apparatus. There were more sides taking part in the conflict than just Stalin's. How have you concluded that "millions were murdered for disagreeing with the government"?

Tell the Ukrainians that the Great Purge wasn't that bad.

What the hell has "Ukraine" to do with the "Great Purge"?

Icepicked by who again? So you justify Trotsky's murder because it happened 10 years after his deportation? Your logic doesn't seem to make sense.

It's your logic that doesn't make sense. As a reminder, you said:
"Stalin conspired for Trotsky to take that little vacation to Mexico, only to be killed years later by (suprise) Stalin's secret police."
To which I answered:
"Oh how clever.

Trotsky could have been put down without "conspiring him to get to Mexico". Trotsky was deported from the USSR in 1929. Trotsky was icepicked as late as 1940. That was after he began publicly demining the defence of USSR by urging its citizens to rebell on the eve of Fascist attack."
I repeat:
"Trotsky was icepicked as late as 1940. That was after he began publicly demining the defence of USSR by urging its citizens to rebell on the eve of Fascist attack."

- - - as late as 1940 - - - after he began his campaign to destabilise USSR when capitalist powers were preparing to tear it apart - - -

Case closed.

What I respect about Lenin was that he at least was moderate enough to try SOME form of Capitalism, even if he was to stubborn to accept a Free Market system.

Lenin was no more moderate than Stalin. NEP existed not because of Lenin's personality, but because of necessity. It was never meant to be anything but temporary. It was abandoned and the socialist transformation of economy started when it had fullfilled its mission and when it infact was causing problems typical to orthodox capitalism. There's no such difference between Lenin and Stalin as you suggest in what comes to their views concerning economy. Both were communists and both were consistent supporters of socialist transition of economy from capitalist to communist mode of production.

[Sandino]

"Trotsky was icepicked as late as 1940. That was after he began publicly demining the defence of USSR by urging its citizens to rebell on the eve of Fascist attack."

That is a total lie, and you know it.

That would make you a liar.

[Todd D.]

I know enough history to be aware that it's no different in your "free" societies when the class struggle becomes heatened. When the workers stop following their exploiters, the facade of "freedom" collapses.

Ok, I just gotta get this off my chest, this whole concept of a Class Struggle, the very basis of Communism, is for lack of a better word, a farce. It is a defeatest mentality that concedes labor as a useless asset in the workforce and presupposes that there is no competition, both of which are false in a Free Market economy. What, because some are richer than others that means there is inherantly some heat between them? Bull.

[mod:irrelevant portion deleted]

Given that assessment, you can clearly see that freedoms that Stalin restricted are NOT inherant to the Capitalist system. I am not exactly a rich man, but I am afforded with liberties that nobody disputes the USSR was not. I can discuss things that I don't like about the government, I'm allowed to vote for the opposition to the current ruling party, etc etc. But of course, these sacrafices were just means to a glorius end right?

As far as your stance on Trotsky goes, I still don't understand your point. He was against Communism so it was ok to kill him, despite the fact that he was not under Communist jurisdiction? Yeah, good proof that Stalin was a teddy bear.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

And those 20-30 million Russians? Where did they go? Aruba?

They didn't go anywhere...What makes you think 20-30 million Russians dissapeared?? Please give me their names...and I'll go find them for you.

BTW...where did those 50 million Americans go?? ...just as valid a question as that one...

[jaakko]

I know enough history to be aware that it's no different in your "free" societies when the class struggle becomes heatened. When the workers stop following their exploiters, the facade of "freedom" collapses.

Ok, I just gotta get this off my chest, this whole concept of a Class Struggle, the very basis of Communism, is for lack of a better word, a farce.

No one's asking your opinion on class struggle. Totally irrelevant part of you message was deleted, for the sake of not letting you go that far off-topic. I just pointed to the fact than whenever in any capitalist country the class struggle gets sharpened, whenever communists gain too much audience, the whole facade of "freedom" goes out of the window. Or do you know a case where the working class or its party had taken state power peacefully?

I can discuss things that I don't like about the government, I'm allowed to vote for the opposition to the current ruling party, etc etc.

Of course you're allowed to do this and that, because those things doesn't matter. As long as parliamentarism succeeds in fullfilling the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie, you can even vote for a communist party. But if it becomes a burden, the bourgeois state can throw it away from its shoulders or restrict it as need be.

As far as your stance on Trotsky goes, I still don't understand your point. He was against Communism so it was ok to kill him, despite the fact that he was not under Communist jurisdiction?

It's not about being 'ok'. It was about preparing for war. And again now you're shedding crocodile tears, this time for Trotsky. But I no longer wonder why he his so much mourned among bourgeois historians and the likes of you.

[Think]

Errr...are you sure you want that to be your final post? Even though I'm a Trotskyite, I think that a lot of stuff about Stalin, namely the deaths, are greatly exaggerated. I think a figure in the few miilions (maybe 2 to 4) is a lot more likely than the insane 15 or more during his rule.

Who cares, he still killed millions of people, whether it was 2, 4 or 15. Stalin didn't discrimminate with who he killed... He wiped out professors, generals, officers, intellects and anyone who could be seen as a rival to him. And some people think this is the work of a GREAT MAN?!?

[New Era]

Stalin is one of the few communists I respect, he had the leadership ability and he was ruthless. A excellent man and one of the reasons why communism caught my intrest in the past.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"evil this, evil that"

This term 'evil' is pointless. It is meaningless. It is crap.

Why is this word even in use anymore. Maybe Stalin was a bad, bad man, or a nasty, nasty man, but he was certainly not an evil, evil man.

To all those that use it readily, out of context, you are just making your ignorance apparent.

Evil, good, light, dark, FUCK!!

If you're going to have a reasonable, logical and factual debate, at least get that mystical hero who has never done anything (but caused conflict) and never will (God) out of your skulls. Religion has no place within this topic. Morality, yes, reasopn, yes, logic, yes, but religious claptrap? NO!!

Death to the word evil!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Under Capitalism Ukraine was having Famines every decade, what everyone has to be focused on is that THIS WAS THE LAST FAMINE IN UKRAINE.

[Reaganite1]

Yeah Stalin was an evil evil man. I remember Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech was given on the anniversary of Stalin's death. Stalin was planning to launch World War III just before he died.

[Classical Liberal]

Stalin was planning to launch World War III just before he died.

Can you back that up? It looks like tripe to me. (BTW, I am finally a Marxist-Leninist, or "Stalinist," now)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

he said the same thing in SE, i think its the most stupid thing ever!

[Reaganite1]

The Russian Historian Edvard Radzinsky (I am a big fan of his books) recieved highly priveleged access to the Soviet Archives after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also had access to Stalin's personal archives. He wrote a book called "Stalin." In this book he tells of how German invasion of the Soviet Union was a pre-emption of Stalin's planned attack on Adolf Hitler while he was fighting the West and the non-agression treaty he signed with Hitler was still in effect. Essientially, Hitler had to strike first at the Soviet Union before the Soviet Union struck him. As well, he writes about how the purges in the 1930s were designed to get the Soviet Union ready for his planned attack on Europe and Adolf Hitler. Before Stalin's death...he was planning new major purges to prepare the Soviet Union for an attack that would launch World War III. The BBC wrote an article on Radzinsky's findings after writing his book. I will include a link to the BBC Article and Razinsky's book:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2793501.stm

here is link to his book Stalin:

Stalin

[smashthestate]

Why bother posting this reaganite1? Look at your nickname!

Everyone communist will deny this (probably without even reading it) as propaganda.

Anyway, does this guy prove that he had access to the Soviet archives and that the information he says he found there was actually found there? That is the key point here.

[Reaganite1]

Heh good point. Yes, I own the book and I am very famaliar with Radzinsky's work. His book is based on the information found in the Soviet Archives. He lists his sources in the back of the book and several respected news agencies across the world have reported on his access to the Soviet archives. The book is an excellent read and I really enjoyed it.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

i doubt that in the Soviet Archives you could find an strategy to launch WWIII, that doesent make in sense.
Also why dont you quote " The Gulag Archipelago" as your source? i mean you already used a source full of BS and Lies why not another one like the gulag Archipelago?

Oh wait i just found under my bad a secret paper that says that the Egyptians in 3000 BC wanted to start WWI being allied withred people from Mars!

My post and his source are the same, FICTION!

[Reaganite1]

Instead of trying to discredit your ideological oppenent why don't you take the time to read the book? He gets his information from the Soviet Archives and from Stalin's Personal Archive. He lists his sources and he is well reported in the media. He is also a historian from Russia. Stalin was an evil man and he created the most dangerous empire in history. He killed far more people than Adolf Hitler ever did if you don't even factor in World War II.