When introducing Jimmie Moglia’s video series about Stalin I promised to share with you my own take on this most controversial personality. Let me immediately say that what I will write below is most definitely not some seminal analysis of the life and personality of Stalin, but rather few more or less disjointed thoughts on a topic which I still feel that I do not understand.
The figure of Stalin has always been a controversial one. Some thought of him as the “leader of all times and all nations” (“вождь всех времен и народов”) while other saw him like the epitome of evil, a genocidal maniac who killed more people than any other individual in history. In reality, that kind of polarization is probably a strong indication of the fact that this issue is a very complex one and that a simple black and white answer is unlikely to correctly evaluate the person of Stalin and his legacy. The fact that there really was a “personality cult” during Stalin’s life and that it was followed by a emotional denunciation by Khrushchev only made things worse. Stalin is most definitely a polarizing figure and I myself have been submitted to that polarization from my early childhood.
I write an anonymous blog and I always say that what matters is not who people are, or have been, but what they have to say, their ideas. But in this case, my own views have been so strongly polarized that at the very least I have to honestly admit and explain it before proceeding any further.
I was born in a family of Russian refugees who left Russia at the end of the civil war. In Soviet parlance we were what was called ‘недобитые белобандиты” a term I would roughly translated as “escaped White-bandits” or “not executed White-bandits”. Whatever the preferred translation, this was hardy a term of endearment, to say the least. And the feeling was very mutual. Not only was my family full of “White Guards”, my own grandfather joined the Russian Schutzkorps in Serbia. After the war, my family emigrated to Argentina where, I would argue, probably the most virulently anti-Communist part of the Russian emigration typically re-settled. While I myself was born in Switzerland where my parents had moved (Swissair was hiring pilots in the early 1960s), I was raised a a rabid anti-Communist and I was involved in so many anti-Soviet activities that one day a KGB officer in Spain even made a death threat against me (he did not have the authority to do so and was, in fact, severely punished by his own people for that – but that I only learned later). To make a long story short, for most of my life my feelings about Stalin were very much similar to what many Jews today feel about Hitler: absolute total hatred, disgust and rejection.
Followers of this blog know that, to put it mildly, I have had to reconsider most of what I have been believing for years and, to some degree, this also affects my current views (however tentative and unformed) about Stalin. I am basically torn between two mutually exclusive “thought currents”:
The first one is one which is best represented by Alexander Solzhenitsyn whom I still consider to be the most important Russian author and philosopher of the XXth century and who has had a huge impact upon not only my own worldview but even upon my entire life. While nowadays pro-Stalin authors like Starikov like to smear and discredit him, I simply know too much about this man and his immense corpus of writings (which I have read fully at least twice) to accept such characterizations. For me Solzhenitsyn very much remains the living embodiment of the Russian soul and a real “giant” whose powerful voice was the last expression of the pre-Soviet Russia which formally disappeared in 1917 but which continued to survive clandestinely in the Soviet Union right up to 1991. This being said, Solzhenitsyn was not infallible and while I still accept most of what he said, some of his conclusions are, in my opinion, most definitely wrong (such as his views of Socialism and the Left in general). Here is what he actually wrote in this famous Gulag Archipelago about Soviet terror:
According to estimates by exiled professor of statistics IA Kurganov, from 1917 to 1959, and excluding war losses, only from terrorist destruction, suppression, hunger, the high mortality in the camps, and including the subsequent low birth rate, cost us 66.7 million people” (” The Gulag Archipelago “, part 3, Chapter 1).
And in an interview in 1976 Solzhenitsyn said: “Professor Kurganov indirectly calculated that from 1917 to 1959 only from the internal war of the Soviet regime against its own people, that is, the destruction of its famine, collectivization, peasants deportation to prisons, camps and simple executions – just from these causes we lost, together with our civil war, 66 million people”
These figures INCLUDE the bloody Civil War, the so-called “War Communism“, the numerous anti-Bolshevik insurrections (such as the one in Tambov), the deaths resulting from the so-called “Collectivization” and “Dekulakization“, the “pure” political repression under the infamous Article 58 of the RSFSR Criminal Code and even the subsequent low birth rate. So we are talking about a “grand max” estimate. But there are some problems with such figures, I will name just one truly glaring one:
There is a general consensus amongst pro and anti Soviet historians that some of the most vicious and horrible political repressions in the Soviet Union took place between 1934 and 1937 when the secret (political) police was headed by two truly demonic figures, Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Ezhov. And yet, the so-called “Great Purges” (1936-1938) also cover the time when the famous Lavrentii Beria became the head of secret (political) police. But ask yourself, if these are “purges” then was exactly was “purged”? The peasants? The clergy? The petty bourgeois or maybe the nobility? Not at all, it was the Party and, first and foremost, the secret (political) police, i.e. exactly the people who were guilty of the atrocities committed between 1934 and 1937. In fact – a lot of them were specifically executed for treason, abuse of power, illegal executions, etc. So how can the figures of those who were executed by the Soviet state be during the 1934-1937 years be lumped together with the figures of those who were, in turn, executed precisely for having committed these atrocities?! This would be as illogical as counting the hangings of the Nuremberg trials as “Nazi atrocities”!
Furthermore, we need to at least mention one crucial factor here: Trotskyists. I have already written about this in the past (see here) and I shall not repeat it all here again, but let’s just summarize it all by saying that there were at least two main factions struggling against each other inside the Bolshevik regime: the Trotskyists, which were mostly Jewish, which had a rabid and even racist hatred for the Russian people and Orthodox Christianity, who had the full support of the West, especially western financial circles (Jewish bankers) and who basically ran Soviet Russian from 1917 to 1938 when Stalin and Beria directed a terror campaign aimed at finally ridding the Party from the many Trotskyists it still contained (even if Trotsky himself had lost power in 1927 and left the USSR in 1929). In order to purge the Party, Stalin brought his own, trusted, Georgians (like Beria himself) and together they unleashed a brutal campaign to crack down on those who had themselves been in charge of terror just a few months before.
By the way, this was not the first bloody purge conducted by Stalin. Before crushing the “old” secret (political) police Stalin first used it to conduct an extremely violent and bloody purge of the Soviet Armed Forces including its most famous figure, Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevskii and his family. I won’t go into the details of these purges, but I will say that I fully agree with “Viktor Suvorov” (aka Vladimir Rezun) who in his amazing book “The Cleansing” makes the case that Stalin was absolutely correct in purging the Soviet military from these generals and officers before WWII (for those who can read Russian, you can find this book online here: http://tululu.org/b54600/).
So what Stalin did is this: he unleashed the Bolshevik “old guard” (i.e. Trotskyists) against the military and once the military was purged, he then unleashed his own “new guard” (“Stalinists”) against the Trotskyists and purged the Party from most of them. Very very ruthless indeed but, in all honesty, also very smart. Think of it this way: Stalin had inherited a Party which was full of rabid, treasonous and simply crazy elements and a party which was still full of Trotskyists (which makes sense, as more than anybody else Leon Trotsky should be “credited” with creating the Soviet military, winning the Civil War and crushing all internal opposition in a huge campaign of russophobic terror). Stalin turned this Party into a Party run by one man, himself, one which had purged itself from Trotskyists foreign agents and one which had the ideological flexibility to actually appeal to the Russian people to fight off and, eventually, defeat the Nazi invaders during WWII. I think that you don’t have to “like” Stalin to see that while his methods were, no doubt, ruthless, his results were rather impressive: not only did he win WWII, but in spite of the terrible cost in human lives and destruction he turned a bloodied and severely battered Soviet Union into a world power with a powerful economy, absolutely world-class scientific community and a remarkable high standard of living during the years of recovery.
The big issue here is one of costs, especially in human lives. Frankly, and whatever the real figures are, there is no doubt in my mind that the costs were huge. The Stalinists can now say whatever they want and seek to rationalize these horrors in many ways, but there is no doubt in my mind that Stalin did not mind sacrificing millions of people in the progress of what he saw as the greater good. The way in which he, and Marshal Zhukov, send millions of people to die in desperate and, often, futile attempts at crushing the German Wehrmacht is something which can be rationalized, but not denied. Still, the Stalinists have a powerful counter-argument: could a kind and gentle person like the Czar Martyr Nicholas II have prevailed against Adolf Hitler? I don’t have a reply to this, but I admit that the argument is compelling.
Another powerful argument the Stalinists bring up today are the internal Soviet figures about the number of people actually executed by Stalin. Here it gets interesting.
The Russian Wikipedia has a long article entitled “Stalin’s Repressions” (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сталинские_репрессии) which has not been translated by the English Wikipedia which offers only a very superficial and, frankly, biased article on people executed during the Great Purges). Here is what the Russian Wikipedia says (Google machine translation, slightly corrected by me):
In February 1954 a reference document was prepared by a certificate signed by the USSR Prosecutor General R.Rudenko, Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Justice S.Kruglovym K.Gorsheninym USSR, for NS Khrushchev. It states that the number convicted of counterrevolutionary crimes for the period from 1921 to February 1, 1954 according to the report, only for this period has been condemned by the Board of the OGPU, NKVD “troika”, a special meeting, the military Collegium, courts and military tribunals 3,777,380 people, including sentenced to death 642 980, sentenced to incarceration in the camps and prisons with a sentence of 25 years and below – 2,369,220 people, to exile and expulsion – 765 180 persons. According to the “Reference document #1 of special department of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs about the number of detainees and prisoners in the period 1921 -1953 gg.” December 11, 1953, signed by the head of the archive department of the Interior Ministry Pavlov, on the basis of data which, apparently, was compiled information aimed Khrushchev, for the period from 1921 to 1938 in cases of the Cheka-GPU-NKVD, and from 1939 to mid-1953 for counterrevolutionary crimes had only denounced the judicial and extrajudicial authorities 4,060,306 people were sentenced to death 799 455 person to incarceration in the camps and prisons – 2,631,397 people, to exile and expulsion – 413 512 people, to the “other measures” – 215 942 people. According to this document, all were arrested for the 1921-1938 biennium. 4,835,937 people (a / p – 3341989, other crimes – 1,493,948) have been convicted 2,944,879, of them to capital punishment 745 220. In 1939-1953 has been convicted of a / p – 1,115,247, of which HMB to 54,235 (23,278 of them in 1942 g.). According to various researchers, only for the period from 1930 to 1953 on political charges was arrested from 3.6 to 3.8 million people, of which shot up from 748 786 000   . The main peak of the shooting came in the years of the “Great Terror”, where 682-684 thousand people were executed. In total in 1918-1953 gg., According to the statistics analysis of regional departments of the KGB of the USSR, conducted in 1988, the bodies of the Cheka-GPU-NKVD-NKGB-MGB 4,308,487 people were arrested, of whom 835,194 were shot.
Now let me immediately say that what matters here are not the exact figures, but the order of magnitude: under 5 million people executed, i.e. less than 1/10th of the 66 million figure of Prof. Kurganov quoted by Solzhenitsyn. Of course, this is a typical case of apples and oranges as, on one hand, Kurganov speaks of deaths (and even unborn) from 1917-1959 while the figures above are only about people officially and legally executed and incarcerated 1921-1938/51/54. And, again, neither figures make any difference between those who were innocent of their crimes and those who very much deserved to be executed for the atrocities they had themselves committed.
At this point in time I don’t think it makes sense for us to dwell on these figures too much. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t want to fall into the same trap as so many Jews have with their ridiculous insistence that “6 million Jews” were killed by the Nazis or that gas chambers were used to kill them. There is a real risk for those Russians like myself who were raised in families who hated Stalin with all their heart and souls to sacralize the “66 million” figure and that is a trap I want to avoid. However, there is another danger here, the one of minimizing the number of people murdered by Stalin (or Hitler, for that matter). It would be wrong or, at least, premature, to conclude that because there is very strong evidence that 66 million figure (or the 6 million one) are incorrect that Stalin (or Hitler) did not murder an immense number of people. Since I have personally known people who have endured the atrocities of Stalin’s (and Hitler’s) camps there is no doubt in my mind at all that a huge number of people have suffered terribly under the rule of these two dictators.
So we are left if unpalatable questions like “how much is too much?”, “was the result worth the costs?”, “should the man be blamed or the system he inherited?” and, most importantly – “what about all the others?“. And I don’t mean Hitler here, but genocidal war criminals like Winston Churchill or Harry Truman or, more accurately, the United States and Great Britain whose genocidal record of atrocities makes the Bolsheviks look almost reasonable. Just as Ivan IV “The Terrible” ought to be compared with such “gentle” folks as Henry VIII of England (not called “The Terrible” for some reason) or Catherine de’ Medici (who instigated the Saint Bartholomew Massacre). The horrible truth is that at the Nuremberg Trials the accused had much less blood on their hands than the accusers (in all fairness, they also had much less time to commit their own genocidal atrocities). None of that is meant as a way to excuse or exculpate Stalin, of course, but only to remind us all of the abominable context in which Stalin’s life and rule took place.
One thing is absolutely clear to me. There never was any such thing as “Stalinism” – at least not in the sense of some special, uniquely evil or massive period of atrocities. At most, Stalin’s ideas could be referred to “Stalinism”, especially when contrasted to the ideas of Trotsky, and I would say that having read them both, Stalin comes out as the far less brilliant but much more pragmatic and reasonable one. Whichever may be the case, nowadays “Stalinism” is used, at least in the West, as a metaphor for the “ultimate evil” and that is simply and plainly counter-factual and wrong.
In Russia, something very different is taking place. In some circles, Stalin is becoming rather popular. In fact, I would argue that Stalin has always remained popular in the Soviet Union, even after the so-called “revelations” of the XXth Party Congress and Krushchev’s (not-so) “secret speech“.
[Sidebar: I don’t have the time and space to go into this sordid story now, but let me just summarize it by saying that Stalin was murdered by his entourage and that in order to take control over a shocked Soviet Union Khrushchev embarked on a massive anti-Stalin smear campaign while concealing that he himself was one of the worst executioners of the Stalin era; Khruschev was a fantastically immoral and despicable figure and one of the most incompetent Soviet leaders ever. He, no less than Gorbachev, ought to be blamed for the inevitable collapse of a system he did so much to weaken].
For all the anti-Stalinist propaganda during the Krushchev years and all the anti-Stalinist propaganda in the 1990s, most Russians remain acutely aware of the undeniable achievements of the Soviet era in general and of the prosperity Stalin eventually did bring to the Soviet Union in spite of the huge damage inflicted upon the USSR by WWII. But there is also a trap here.
The human mind has a tendency to dismiss everything a known liar and a crook says, just as we don’t pay much attention to what person we otherwise dislike might claim. The problem with that is that while Krushchev and Eltsin did both betray their own Party and were dishonorable people, not all of their arguments were false either. Likewise, those who see through the current propaganda about “6 millions” and “gas chambers” have a risk to therefore conclude that everything about Hitler’s genocidal atrocities is just a myth, that millions of innocent people where not murdered by the Nazi regime. Sometimes, I find myself stuck with an intense dislike for both sides of a debate (say on issues such as abortion) and considering that Stalin is most vociferously discussed by western Capitalists, Trotskyists, Neocons, Russian 5th columnists, rabid Russian nationalists and many more categories which I intensely dislike, it it, at times, hard to try to separate the argument from the person making it.
Some groups in Russia are outright “mental”. The worst in the lot are the rabid Russian nationalists who think of themselves as Orthodox Christians and who actually believe that Stalin was, I kid you not, a Christian saint!!! I will spare you the full fairy tale these folks have come up with, but their bottom line is that at one point in Stalin’s life he remembered his early early education as a student in an Orthodox seminary and that he began to “resurrect Russia” at which point, you guessed it, “the Jews” killed him. They refer to him as “святой мученик Иосиф жидами убиенный” or “holy martyr Joseph killed by the Jews”.
But then, there is also a psychopathic fringe who considers Ivan the Terrible as a saint too. And Rasputin, why not? Frankly, their entire “theology” is pathetically simple: Russians are the best, all the Russian leaders are great, and any figure in Russian history perceived as negative is, of course, the object of a smear campaign, preferably by “Jews” and almost ipso facto a “saint”. This kind of rabid nationalism is just a crude form of self-worship and idolatry which is absolutely antithetical to real Christianity.
I would not pay too much attention to these rather marginal if exotic groups of, frankly, deranged people. They really are a tiny minority, even smaller than the pro-western “non-system” opposition.
What is far more prevalent is what I think of as the “Reconciliation” movement. These are folks who think roughly like this:
We need to heal the divisions resulting from the Soviet era because both the Whites and the Reds were patriots. We need to stop this tendency of rejecting large chunks of our history and set aside the bad and keep and preserve that which was good. Anti-Russian forces have, for centuries, used lies, deception and propaganda to smear our history and we need to reclaim it. If you look carefully you will always realize that the anti-Soviet activist (антисоветчик) is always a russophobe.
Let me begin by clearly stating that the last sentence is patently false and it also completely contradicts the first one. Not only have I personally known hundred of virulently anti-Soviet Russians, the vast majority of them were 100% patriotic. And if you read what the White Generals, participants of the Russian Civil War and Russian émigres wrote, you will see that they all loved their country, their people, their history and culture. Likewise, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the epitome of anti-Sovietism, was always a Russian patriot, to such a degree in fact that he was considered as a “Grand-Russian nationalist” and “anti-Semite” by the Russian liberals.
Furthermore, the notion of “reconciliation” between the Whites, who represented the traditional, monarchist, Orthodox Russia and the Reds, who were rabid atheists, mostly ethnic Jews and who hated everything Russia is absolutely nonsensical. The reality is that the Red and White “principle” in Russian history are mutually exclusive and their ontological relationship is similar to the one one of healthy tissue and malignant tumor: they share a lot of their genetic code, but one will always end up killing the other.
And yet there is some wisdom in these words nonetheless or, maybe not in these words, but at least in the intention they convey. While for some this “reconciliation” is really a pious way to cover-up the atrocities committed by their Party, their country or even their own family, for others it is a legitimate expression for a refusal to completely demonize complex personalities who lived in complex times and whose legacy still has to be examined by generation of historians rather than remain in the hands of professional propagandists. And for that, a simple but crucial principle needs to be proclaimed and accepted:
The quest for the historical truth is never a lack of respect for the horrors suffered by the victims
That, I sincerely believe, is what should be the guide to the future historians who will always have to re-visit and re-evaluate the events of the past. The sad reality is that it is extremely difficult to investigate the past, even the recent past (just think of events like 9/11, the “Timisoara massacre” or the “Srebrenica genocide”!). To make things even worse, it is also a sad reality that history is mostly written by victors and, as Michael Parenti so brilliantly explains it, by the rich and powerful. It is precisely for these reasons that historiography has to always remain revisionist as a non-revisionist history book simply is not interesting to read.
I think that following WWII the victors all engaged in a shameless campaign of demonization of their enemies. That is not to say that these enemies were not real demons of their own right – maybe they indeed were – but only that while for the newspapers and so-called “educational” system the cases of Stalin and Hitler are considered “slam dunk, file closed”, for serious historians the jury is very much still out. There is simply too much at stake and the political climate is simply not conducive at all to any even generally fair and honest investigation.
Personally, I am left with a sense of not knowing enough. So all I can share with you is my gut feeling, my best guesstimate if you want, of what Stalin and the Soviet era represented for Russia. So here are my highly subjective and personal conclusions which I share with you as a basis for discussion and not as The Total And Final Truth on this issue.
1) The historical Russia has been murdered and completely destroyed by the Bolshevik/Soviet regime. There is no continuity of any type between the rule of Czar Nicholas II and the Lenin-Trotsky duo. Therefore, there is no continuity between what came before and after these two Bolshevik leaders. The post-Soviet “Russia” after 1991 had nothing in common with the real Russia of before 1917. As for Putin’s Russia, the Russia after 2000, it is a new Russia Russia which is neither the pre-1917 one, nor the “democratic” pseudo “Russia” of Eltsin, but a new Russia whose real nature I still have to comprehend and which absolutely amazes me. In my wildest dreams during the horrible 1990s, especially 1993, I would never ever imagined to see what I see in Russia today and this gives me a great deal of hope. This new Russia has much stronger roots in the Soviet period than in the distant pre-1917 Russia, but what it has finally truly ditched is the rabid russophobia of the early Bolshevik years and of the equally rabidly russophobic 1990s. And that is really interesting because nowdays you will find monarchists, like Alexander Rutskoi, and Stalinists, like Nikolai Starikov, generally very much agreeing on the present even if they don’t agree about the past. Speaking for myself, as a “People’s Monarchist” (a kind of uniquely Russian Left-leaning monarchism embraced by Fedor Doestoevskii, Lev Tikhomirov or, especially, Ivan Solonevich) I also find myself in agreement with much of what Starikov writes. Except for his book on Stalin which I find absolutely non-convincing, to put it mildly. So this is something new, I think. I do not believe that the “Reds” or the original Bolsheviks were Russian patriots at all, I believe that this is a total myth, however, I do believe that those who today believe in this myth are themselves sincere and real patriots. So while I don’t believe that it possible to find any common ground or “reconciliation” between the White and the Red principles, I do very much believe that there is a real opportunity for a joint stance of Russian patriots today against the real enemy of Russia: the AngloZionist Empire.
Take a look at this amazing picture: the ex-prisoner of the Gulag shakes hands with the ex-KGB officer. True, Putin was only a foreign intelligence officer member of the First Chief Directorate (PGU) of the KGB which had nothing to do with any purges, dissidents or Gulags, but he still wore the same uniform as those KGB officers who kept a watchful (and mostly incompetent) eye on the Russian people (the Fifth Chief Directorate). So this handshake is immensely symbolic: not only did Solzhenitsyn receive Putin in his own home, but his entire face was beaming with real joy (as was Putin’s). These men were both educated and intelligent enough to realize not only the immense power of this symbolic moment, but they also realized what this meant for Russia: that real Russians (in the civilizational sense, of course, ethnically the category “Russian” is meaningless) were finally back in control of their own country. Solzhenitsyn lived long enough to see his country liberated (at least mostly) from the occupation of russophobic leaders representing foreign interests and he also saw that a fellow officer (Solzhenitsyn was decorated First Lieutenant of the Red Army before his arrest in 1945) was now in command of the country.
I think that Putin strikes the exact and correct balance. He has never rejected the Soviet period in toto, nor has he ever idealized it either. He has referred on numerous occasions to the horrible and senseless massacres of a multitude of innocent Russian people by a Soviet regime run amok with russophobia and class-hatred. And yet he has also shown his sincere respect and admiration for the people who lived during the Soviet era and their immense achievements.
2) There is a misguided attempt at completely white-washing Stalin and the entire Soviet period. This is not surprising by itself. The vast majority of the modern Russian elites have direct family ties to the Soviet elites and the infamous Soviet nomenklatura. It is only natural for these people to want to justify the actions of their family members. While there are millions of Russians whose families did suffer terrible during the Soviet era, a much smaller proportion of these families then made it into the Soviet elites and, therefore, into the new, post-Soviet elites which run Russia today. There are some exceptions, of course, mostly families of rehabilitated Party members who, following this rehabilitation, have kept their loyalty or, at least, respect, for the CPSU. Finally, the millions who where murdered rarely left many children behind and, when they did, those children where themselves the object of repression as “class enemies” and “anti-Soviet families” so their voice has almost been totally drowned in the current loud chorus of “Soviet-rehabilitators”. Again, this kind of back-swing of the pendulum of historiography is normal, but it will inevitably followed by another swing which will produce much more critical results. God willing, and with time, the correct evaluation will finally be made. But maybe it never will – it is too early to tell.
3) I feel confident saying that Stalin was most definitely no worse than his predecessors and that in many ways, the nature and policies of the Soviet regime did change for the better under his rule. Still, I remain convinced that he was a ruthless leader, who lead the country by a careful mix of terror and inspiration and who did not hesitate to sacrifice millions of people when needed to achieve a goal he had set. I am also pretty certain that it was during Stalin’s rule that the first Russian patriots made it back into the structure of power and that this slow and gradual re-penetration continued under Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the rest of the Soviet leaders until 1991. And if the 1990s were an absolute horror, it is to those Soviet-grown patriots (after God, of course!) that modern Russia owe her amazing rebirth. Sure, as we all know, good things can grow in bad places, but I have to believe that at least something in the Soviet society was right to have produced such remarkable leaders as the ones in the Kremlin today.
Modern Russia has nothing in common with the Russia between 1917 and 1953. So to speak of a possible return to “Stalinism” is not only wrong, it is absurd. This also means that Stalin’s policies, whether seen as good or bad, are simply not transferable to modern Russia. And that, in turns, means that the discussion about the historical past, the nature and legacy of Stalin’s rule, will not have a major impact upon the decision-making of Russian leaders. And this is very good thing, because it makes the entire discussion rather abstract and, therefore, safe. Starikov and Zhirinovskii (a radical anti-Communist who despises Stalin) can argue to their heart’s content about Stalin or monarchy (which the self-described Stalinist Starikov respects and cherishes), but when faced with the conflict in the Ukraine or Syria these debates will have very little impact upon the Kremlin’s decisions.
So while I remain extremely critical of Stalin and of the whole Soviet period, I think that the current de-demonization of Stalin is a very good thing and I very much hope that it will give historians the intellectual and ideological freedom they need to do their work. For the time being, I rather step aside and wait to read more of their books.
Your turn now – please tell me what you think about Stalin and his role in history!
PS: this has been a long and complex one to write. And I am desperately struggling against the clock: right now I have 36 emails to answer and another 3 (important ones) two write. So please forgive me for presenting this text in its current rough “first draft” version. I did not want to wait any longer before posting a text I had promised to post last week. I figured that the closer this is to Jimmie’s videos the better for our discussion. I will try to find the time to correct and re-read it in the next couple of days (maybe on Wednesday as tomorrow I will be gone all day). Gotta run now as I have still a ton of work to do today!
@EVERYBODY: I have a request to everybody. Can we please avoid:
1) one line post such as “Solzenitsyn was a CIA agent!!” or “Saker – you are even dumber than I thought” or “dude, this is a great article!!!!”
2) discussion of the the so-called “Holocaust”. I used that example to make a point, but it is not central to my argument. So please let’s stay focused on Stalin and the Soviet ear
3) the (alas) traditional name-calling and ad homimens. Let’s even skip the possible compliments this time.
If you have something SUBSTANTIVE to say – then please, do so. But let’s try to avoid the (alas) usual verbal fistfights, okay?
Thanks a lot,
Why wouldn’t Solzhenisyn working for American intel be relevant? It may sound repetitious but hey, that’s the real story here. “The man from the gulag arriving in America to become free”, that is the story. It has to be. Someone in the West always finds time to not mention the death rate during “the great depression” (known solely as a tough time for a few bankers, and depicted that way in film) because he has so much to say about a gulag somewhere in Russia: There’s your plot.
Solzhenisyn is a commodity with recognized value. Why not use it, for all sorts of purposes — says the publicist, anyway. Yet he, in a since, never really existed. And that’s the story here, concerning Stalin. You cannot detach the antagonist from the narrative which made him antagonist. Stalin is villain as long as Solzhenisyn is hero. Only that long.
Why wouldn’t Solzhenisyn working for American intel be relevant?
If there was any evidence for it it might, but as somebody who knows a lot about the behind the scenes Solzhenitsyn family and, more generally, what US services did or did not do in the emigre community, I can tell you that this is nonsense.
Furthermore, while IN THE WEST, his testimony seems to be unique, it really was not. Ivan Solonevich wrote “Russia in a concentration camp” (Россия в Концлагере) in 1935 already, and many others wrote detailed accounts about the Gulag system. These attempts at discrediting the person of Solzhenitsyn are just a way to not deal with this work. Solzhenitsyn was accused by the Soviet propaganda of being a US agent, and some Soviet media went as far as accusing him of being “Solzhenitser” – i.e. a Jew. They hoped that this would discredit him. They also used his first wife. Basically, they tried every dirty trick in the book. As for the West, Solzhenitsyn was their darling boy while he was in the Soviet Union criticizing the Soviet state, but as soon as he got kicked out and began criticizing the West (with formidable accuracy, would I add), he became hated by the Empire who accused him of being a nationalist, a monarchist, an anti-Semite (“Solzhenitser” was forgotten), etc. etc. etc.
The fact is that neither the Soviets nor the AngloZionists wanted to deal with a person they hated and which they could neither co-opt nor discredit nor silence.
A very good and fair argument.
Khrushchev was a Ukrainian nationalist. He was in no way different from the members of modern day Kiev junta. We all know what they do, say, and how they operate. It’s important to review everything that Khrushchev had ever said and did.
“If you look carefully you will always realize that the anti-Soviet activist (антисоветчик) is always a russophobe.”
A vicious anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet campaign that we witness now has one aim only: to denounce the Soviet Union to be a “criminal state” and by association, to name Russia same. After that to start a “Nuremberg process” against Russia with demands of “reparations. ” These “reparations” are supposed to be paid by the people of Russia to the Western countries and to Israel.
By 2008, Germany had paid Israel reparations totaling more than €60 billion as compensation for victims of the Holocaust.
“There is reason to believe that on the threshold of the 70th anniversary of victory over German fascism, the West is attempting to rewrite the history of the Second World War, deny the decisive contribution made by the USSR in the victory over Nazi Germany, and include the Soviet Union as one of the main initiators of the war, all of which will be crowned with the presentation of Russia as the successor to USSR reparation claims: something like – the Red Army did not liberate Europe, but seized, enslaved and destroyed it. ”
Amazing documents and facts about Stalin’s personal actions (not the Communist party decisions) are coming to light. For example, the originals of his orders to deliver “bread” trains, wagons of grains and other food, like meat and butter and vegetable oils, to starving Western and Southwestern parts of Soviet Russia. Also, there are documents that proved that 1000s of tones of food were rerouted to the Asian republics, that didn’t experience hunger and didn’t need additional food. Thus, thousand tons of food were destroyed, but not given to starving people. Eventually, apparatchiks who were involved in artificially creating hunger were executed, also by the Stalin’s’ orders. Now, they all are considered to be “repressed.”
Or, another fact: When Stalin was in power, the Soviet authorities had opened 22,000 churches. During the Khrushchev’s war on the Russian orthodox Church more churches were destroyed than during the “red terror.” This is according to the last Minister of Defense of the USSR, Dmitry Yazov.
Yes! That is another totally overlooked fact: Krushchev’s repression of the Orthodox Church was absolutely brutal and massive. Even if we accept the argument that Stalin opened the churches to counter-act the Germans who themselves were opening churches by the thousands in the part of the Soviet Union they occupied, and even if Stalin did open the churches in the hope of motivating the Russian people to fight for their country (rather than for some insipid ideology), this in no way excuses the the vicious anti-church repression of Khrushchev.
Khrushchev was always a scumbag of the worst kind. He hated Stalin (who saw him as an imbecile and a clown) and he was personally involved in a lot of terrorist actions in the Ukraine. A very persistent rumor has it that Stalin one day forced Khrushchev to dance the Gopak, a challenging Cossak dance which the rather fat and clumsy Khrushchev could not perform without looking absolutely ridiculous and that Khrushchev never forgave him that ridicule. So it is no wonder that Khrushchev participated in the murder of Stalin and then demonized him as much as he could.
Nikita Khrushchev had a deep personal reason to hate Stalin, and this is not a secret. His son, Leonid Khrushchev, while drunk, shot and killed an inocent person. He was sentenced to 8 years prison, which he was permitted to serve in one of the disciplinary squadrons for convicts on the front line, where he was killed in a battle in 1943. Khrushchev, who was a member of the government, did everything possible to exonerate his son and keep him away from the frontline. Stalin was informed and supported the court decision, and this episod tells a lot about Stalin, who never treated differently anyone, even his own family.
“Everything is personal, Mike”- The Gogfather.
Hello Saker, Scott and anonymous, too true: When dealing with Nikita Khrushchev (idiot in economics, traitor, liar and beginning of the end of the Soviet Union) one should – to better understand his “noble” motives – first try to find whatever answer to the following question:
_Who_ murdered Stalin??
I don’t have “the” definitive answer. But “cui bono” is interesting enough.
One must interpret hypocritical De-Stalinization and victorious history writing in that context.
It is of utmost interest why post war Germany had to pay to Israel for the Holocaust victims, since those victims were not Israelis and Israel even did not exist at the time of the Holocaust.
“the argument that Stalin opened the churches to counter-act the Germans”
There was a known letter to Vyacheslav Menzhinsky that Stalin wrote in 1933. A short excerpt: “For the Central Committee to considers it impossible to design and build new buildings in place of the existing temples and churches, that should be regarded as monuments of ancient Russian architecture”.
I guess it was the only way the argument for preservation of churches could be presented to people in power like Menzhinsky
“Menzhinsky worked under Felix Dzerzhinsky the head of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (Cheka). As Dzerzhinsky explained in July 1918: “We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal’s own confession.”
Another fact. Stalin pushed the Politburo for a decision in 1939, in which he stated: “to find it inexpedient (нецелесообразной практику) to continue the practice of the NKVD in term of arrests of priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, and persecution of the believers”.
That’s an interesting question. The “excuse” used, was that since so many of the survivors immigrated to Israel. And many of those killed had no heirs. That Israel as the “heir” of the Jewish “people” should get the money. There are a whole lot of holes in that argument. Those that immigrated could have been tracked down and paid individually. And many people “didn’t” go to Israel at that time. There were several millions in the East and in the West then, to be compensated ,if compensation was owed. The even bigger rebuttal is, why would a foreign (non-existing nation during WW2) be considered as the “heir” to a whole “people”.Since not even half that “people” live/lived there. And if Germany was “keen” on paying compensation for destroyed nations from that era. There were several in the East that had “living” people and their heirs that would have needed money for the suffering done to them from the nazi invasions.
But that was the purpose of that money,then nor now. It was a cheap easy way to aid Israel,on the one hand. And to convince the World that the “new” Germany repudiated the nazi era. As well as tying Germany to the West even tighter.
I think the issue of ‘reparations’ is little more than a scam by the banksters to pursue their reconstruction interests.
Recently, it has come to light that some Jewish survivors in Israel are living in poverty, despite all those billions from Germany.
You have raised a very important point – why does compensation not go to individuals, instead of states or, in the case of Israel, a colony which was, at the time, only a tiny fiefdom of the Rothschilds in then ‘British’ Palestine?
I think this subject deserves the Saker’s attention and a separate thread.
Even better to get a guest author who has researched the subject.
Capitalist propaganda ignores the research from Soviet archives because the capitalists need inflated figures to distract from the over 30 million people they starve to death every year. Also those lies of Western propaganda about the USSR are based on the propaganda of German and Ukrainian nazis:
The hundreds of millions of people that the capitalists have murdered over the centuries are never mentioned in the mainstream media.
The worst butcher in history is Queen Victoria:
“British Indian Genocide … 0.5 billion 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria
European Chinese genocide (10-100 million deaths in the European imperialism-driven Tai Ping rebellion period;”
“The British in India: Slavery and Famine
Th British deliberately caused famines in India, in order to force the indigenous population into relief works, such as road-building. The tenant-laborer, writes Carey, “is mercilessly turned from his land and his mud hut, and left to die on the highway.” Here, Indians on their way to the relief works, published in the London News, 1874.”
“Late Victorian Holocausts”
Its also important to remember that even little “European values” Belgium, was responsible for the deaths of 10 million people in the Congo. More than the false claims of Ukrainians that say Stalin killed in Ukraine. Its also an interesting fact that the person that exposed those crimes in the Congo was an Irishman (the Irish know a thing or two about crimes committed on colonial peoples themselves),Roger Caseman. Who was hung during WWI by the British as a spy.He was an Irish rebel against the Crown,working for Irish freedom.
Uncle Bob, to celebrate the centennial of Irish independence, journalist Patrick Cockburn recently did a very moving piece on Roger Casement, who, as it turns out, was a distant relative of Cockburn’s. I read it last week at Unz.com.
His name was Sir Roger Casement.
Even if Solzhenitsyn was working for intelligence agencies, that was after his brutal treatment by Stalin’s thugs. He is a great writer, and has helped expose the fascist nature of Stalin’s regime.
I can’t believe anyone would still deny that Stalin killed and imprisoned millions in his Gulags, some for stealing an ear of corn or for saying the wrong thing.
Imagine if today, the brave Russian fighters, returning from Syria, were locked up in concentration camps — that is exactly what happened to Solzhenitsyn. He was a distinguished officer who had fought gallantly in the Baltics against Hitler.
I noted at the time and am still convinced that the MSM put him aside, stopped interviewing him, silenced him, after he said the conditions in Nazi KLs were far worst than in Gulag camps and compared the brutal behaviour of SS guards with mostly gentle Gulag guards. A guy with his stature who says so becomes useless as a propaganda tool, even dangerous for the western picture, thus hided and silenced.
Bravo (I lazily spit over left shoulder a la Clint Eastwood).
It is not a good idea to mention Rezun aka Suvorov in a decent society though, even if he by some miracle is right in his assessment of the Great Purge. There are lots of worthwhile people who share this assessment.
Solzhenitsyn was a great patriot and thinker, despite his exaggerations. We should remember that he was an innocent inmate of Gulag, to begin with, so his exaggerations are forgiveable.
Reconciliation movement is a great idea. Patriots should respect each other. As long as people are pochvenniki, they are solemates to me.
Dear Saker! May I modify your version as to what is going on in the world now? Yes, Anglo-Zionist Empire is attacking Russian civilization AND Muslim civilization, with a purpose to destroy them, but this is not the gist.
If you look deeper, you will see that the Empire’s politicians, presstitutes are owned by 300-400 oligarchic families, and this NWO, supra-national power accountable to nobody, with a thirst for global domination at any cost, is not only Anglo-Saxon or Jewish. Bush are German family, I guess Koch brothers are Germans too. There could be others. NWO is IMHO Cosmopolitan, they share totalitarian worldview and insatiable thirst for power.
Question 1: Was Stalin a Jew or not?
Question 2: Was Hitler a Jew or not?
Question 3: Did Hitler and Stalin worked together or not?
Question 4: Who controlled Hitler and Stalin?
Question 5: Where does these people live today?
Question 6: Do you believe that you have the power to change reality?
As you say history has a never ending… it’s as if every century repeats it’s self isn’t it? Just a tip, go study what happened around this time in the previous one ;)
In my view, Stalin was a puppet. Just part of what the real people of power were planning 200 years ago. He understood them, he could stand up to them, I will give him that. However, in my view, he was just part of “their” project.
I hope Mr Saker that we can have some insight and analysis towards those parties, let’s call them the 7th column, the top of the pyramid.
Question 7: Why did they create WW1?
Question 8: Why did they create WW2?
Answer to both 7 and 8: To create Israel, only they didn’t achieve it in WW1. That’s only my opininion. Correct me if I am wrong..
The ones that stay in Switzerland (that’s not directed to you Mr Saker)
When Solzenitsyn’s two sons were at Harvard they had to work as bouncers at a rough bar near Adams House. You would think that if Dad had really been in the CIA they’d have managed to get them a nice cushy job in a local foundation office.
Stalin is a polarizing figure, but even more uniting figure. An ancient Russian icon of St. Nikolas( Св. Николай Чудотворец) came to me from my father. He received it from his Russian teacher, a white emigrant/ beloemigrant in 1941. This man when the Hitlerit Germany attacked Soviet Union went back to Russia, joined the Red Army and died like a hero in the war with the words: ” For Motherland, for Stalin”. Many Russian emigrants did the same.
Stalin cannot be discussed outside of the historical circumstaces at the particular time. I think that anything that happened in Soviet Union during his rule is a direct continuation of the disastrous last yers of Russian Empire, the two Revolutions, Intervention and Civil War. What would Stalin’s enemies would do to the country had they succeeded?
Yes,some Russian emigres did return (or outside still) work against the nazis for Russia. But also many of them (or their descendants) worked for the nazis as well. Like all large emigre groups in history,politically they were very split.
Yes, but I can not find any dignity nor patriotism in fighting in the side of the Nazis against your own people.
Since some White Russian Emigrées returned to join the Red Army or fought the Nazis from inside the West, these are the honorable people who had clear that Nazism is evil in itself and must be defeated if you want to build a health society.
The only reason I can find for those White Russian Emigrées who chose to fight in the ranks of the Nazis is that Nazism fit well them as ideology, since they did not mind contributing to the Nazi victory and the consequent implementation of a Nazi regime in Russia, where, this way, they dreamed of being the satraps in charge. So, possibly not only for ideology but also for greed that they did it.
Nothing different of what is the desire of all the Nazis in the world has been, are, and will be.
I also do not discard that some of their descendants, do not look for the same destiny for today´s Russia.
And these are also those who do not find any possibility of reconciliation amongst the descendants of White and Red Russians and so have been all these years and still are fuelling the hatred amongst Russians, and this way, opposing the plan of Comrade Putin who, recognizing and honoring the victims and at the same time the errors and achievements of the USSR, wants to sow for a joining effort of all Russians in constructing a strong and cohesive Russia that will be what will make the nation indestructible.
So, those pursuing this goal, they are the real patriots, in spite of their more right or wrong considerations of history or more or less acceptable their ideologies could be for the Russians or for the West.
The others, those sowing discord and hatred, despite filling their mouths with words like Motherland and trying to paint themselves as the most Russians of all the Russians in the world ( even having not lived ever in Russia ), these can be whatever else but not patriots. As I see it, there are many non Russians, who have no Russian ascendants nor have lived any time in Russia, but since sincerely want the best for Russia and fight for it, are more Russian patriots than these selfappointed “patriots”.
It´s a matter of construction instead of destruction.
I have only now discovered this comment and will respond.
I find your comments both extremely disturbing and highly insulting to people whose families suffered under Stalin’s rule.
I lost 3 grandparents and numerous great-uncles and aunties when collectivisation began in earnest in Russia in the 30’s. This loss has been a constant theme in our family and I know how it affected my parents – especially my father who fought with the Germans against Stalin.
Many other ex-patriate Russian families I knew well, and I have never come across any person who was fighting to be a “satrap in charge” or “for greed.” This is a disgusting suggestion. You need to think a bit before expressing such inflammatory rubbish. I will presume you to be naive rather than malicious.
There is an old saying in Russian “A dog never runs from a kind master.”
Get the point?
To the moderator, if you read this: with all respect, I deem it inappropriate that you allowed such a comment to pass from Elsi – it is so offensive – especially for those who have personally suffered under the said regime. I feel that such “hypotheses” or “conclusions” based on mere supposition should be disallowed on any blog where there is posted such an explosive topic.
Please understand, that overall, I must say that I enjoyed the article immensely – very balanced and sensitive – as is its esteemed author.
My dear departed father would disown me for saying such a thing – but I saw first-hand for most of my life the pain and suffering that he experienced from his terrible experiences since his earliest childhood. His whole world of courageous Cossacks and their way of life was annihilated – the traditional defenders of Russia’s borders. May God grant him and all of them peace.
Solzhenitsyn is only one person, with one view, (and you must be aware that his book is NOT a documentary but a literary work, where he was free to create characters and situations to suit his narrative – he openly says so), and there were many other people who actually lived in that period. My greatgrandfather who was accused wrongly in 1937 and came out of prison in 1939 did actually respect Stalin until the end of his life. And I am not taking from anybody that he was simple or whatever. No, he was just as intelligent as Solzhenitsyn was, and was higher up in terms of Soviet hierarchy, therefore had a better insight into what was going on at the top. And he had a very different opinion about Stalin to the opinion of Solzhenitsyn.
Sorry, Saker, I like your work, but you are simply too disconnected from Soviet reality of that time. You did not live there and nor did your family. Soviet dissidents are nice to listen to, but there were reasons why they were such darlings of the West. Just like now.
Okay, so first let me point out to you that you did 2 out of the 3 things I asked you to not do: you made an unsubstantial claim about Solzhenitsyn (in reality the Gulag Archipelago was based on testimonies of thousands of “zeks”) and, worse, you went down the ad hominem disqualifying me instead of focusing on my arguments.
Second, I did not live in the USSR of the 1930s and neither did you. So we are equally removed from the relevant reality. As for dissidents, I am quite sure that I have met many more than you have (I return the ad hominem here) and to say that “they were such darlings of the West” explains nothing and is a non-sequitur anyway since Solzhenitsyn never was a dissident anyway. To say that Solzhenitsyn was a dissident shows that you simply don’t understand that movement. He was sentenced under art 58 which is the 1980s Soviet equivalent of article 72 – something which only OPPONENTS of the regime got. Dissidents – which are not opponents – usually got Art. 190 and a much lighter sentence. There were no “dissidents” at the time of Stalin, that is something which appeared under Khrushchev. Solzhenitsyn is from a totally different generation, especially intellectually.
As for your point about your grandfather “he was just as intelligent as Solzhenitsyn was, and was higher up in terms of Soviet hierarchy, therefore had a better insight into what was going on at the top.” it actually provide a useful illustration of my point of the typical family with rehabilitated Party members and who now try to whitewash Stalin.
Thanks for making my point so well.
Saker, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was arrested first in 1943 for his humiliating and degrading treatment of his soldiers(he was a soviet officer), during his trial he reported other officers to have antisoviet letters, they in return pointed to him, all were sentenced to some time, but only Solzhenitsyn got few years in Moscow, not in Gulag.
I strongly recommend another writer, maybe the best on the topic – Varlam Shalamov, who unlike
Solzhenitsyn really spent more of his life in diferrent Gulag camps : “Kolyma tales”, “Artist of the spade”, “Essays on the criminal world” and more. Varlam Shalamov was approached first by the western reperentatives to publish him and eventually nominate for a Nobel prize. He outright refused, his response is very interesting, but I cannot find it right now to quote from it. Then Solzhenitsyn somehow was nominated and received the Nobel. He received in 1970, if you remmember, and “Archipelago Gulag”was first published in 1973. For what the Nobel was given to him always has been a puzzle to me, since except of the “Gulag” and the short story of “One day of Ivan Denisovitch” , there is not anything much.
However, here is a quote from Shalamov: “After meeting with Solzhenitsyn, I feel robbed. Robbed of aeverything real”. And from another time: “I forbide Solzhenitsyn to put his hands on my books. He is unworthy of this.”
“Solzhenitsyn is only one person, with one view”
Amazing doublethink! Stalin imprisoned and killed millions. What about their point of view? Do you assume they love Stalin for starving, working them to death?
Sakar is not disconnected from Soviet reality! The Gulags are not about ‘one person’, but millions of victims.
Are we also ‘disconnected’ from German ‘reality’, if we point out Hitler’s concentration camps? After all, Anne Frank “is only one person, one view.”
What is the connection of Anne Frank with the concentration camps?
@”What is the connection of Anne Frank with the concentration camps?”
Anne Frank was deported to a concentration camp (I believe Auschwithz) and presumably died in that concentration camp, since no more was heard from her.
The diary of Anne Frank was written with a ballpoint pen.
Laszlo Biro patented it in 1943 for a mass production in UK.
A large scale manufacture begun 1945.
Do you have an idea, how could Anne Frank, up upon the roof, hidden somewhere in Belgian House, get UK (mil) pen? How did she write it (diary) in 1943, when until the war end pens were for military use only? Thanks for your answer.
About Stalin – a man of his time and place who for whatever reasons did what was necessary, and probably also what was not necessary, to do a good, but not complete, job of obliterating fascism – he did the best he could. Were it not for old Joe the nazi’s would have already “won”…pity is, they’re still trying…Joe was not able to get them all – cockroaches, they scatter…
About Putin – ah! He may not be a communist, or even a socialist (time will tell us) but he most definitely is a Marxist – and if he manages to create Peace and transcend the Empire he will have vindicated Marx! This is the stuff of History! Anyway, whatever, he learns from past error…and these days that’s exceptional! It may be that Comrade President will finish the job the Red Army began…
I still hope so.
I would disagree with the marxist label. He believes in an effective market economy. He does not elevate any classes at the expense of others. Thus I cannot accept a Marxist label based on his actions.
A belief in market economies does not exclude Marxist principles.
As I see it – just an impression, I haven’t been able to study it firsthand – Putin is definitely committed to a welfare state, a healthy body politic, where resources and benefits are circulated throughout the federation.
Class defined in terms of control over resources (which generate unearned wealth ) will hopefully become meaningless, with possible wealth only obtained through producing something attractive to people, or through invention.
A system which allows the creation of a plutocracy through political connections/manipulation of finance is fundamentally parasitic, as per Michael Hudson. I think Putin is on the same page as far as analysis goes.
So I would say his orientation could be seen as Marxist, but that the solutions of an industrial age have limited application.
New approaches are being considered it seems to me, which are looking into the time factors – an intergenerational dimension is emerging, in which the psychology of patriotism plays a major role.
This requires a flexible system that can ‘bend’ with the times, while retaining its essential structures.
We can only guess – Putin is not going to give Russia’s enemies any information to aid their plans to destroy her.
I’ll stick to the label…here’s why:
The essence at the heart of Marx is that a scientific, not imaginary, view of objective reality – an alignment of the a-priori and the a-posteriori world – is necessary to achieve an accurate and true understanding of the universe. Marxism is the only political philosophy of which I am aware that avoids “belief”, ideology, and so on – which are essentially delusional in nature. It is a method of inquiry and understanding. As such it enables the most effective manipulation of the salient elements in the political arena, as delusions in this area would naturally result in catastrophic errors.
Comrade President cannot afford, if he is to prevent doom for the Slavs and probably everybody else, simply has to see and act in accord with the stark realities – and, having been schooled in Marxist Theory (of course) is obviously using it – it’s a primary tool.
He’s not alone in this, Comrade Dugin with the “4th Political Theory” attempts, in my view anyway, to build on a Marxist foundation. Comrade Dugin, nevertheless, might disagree, as he calls Marxism an “ideology”. With respect to the great thinker, it’s my view that he is labeling a derivative of Marxism, an institutional dogma, as Marxism, and that he is therefore in error when he terms Marxism an “ideology”.
Having said that, Marxism is by definition an evolving method, not a static dogma. This protean quality adds to the near celestial understanding of things – and the realization evident now in the actions taken since Comrade President came to his limited power shows that he’s building on reality, not any delusional notions…
The primary growth of this Marxist understanding, since the Soviet errors, may be that Comrade President and his cohort are avoiding any repeat of those errors – but this is conjectural, as Comrade President does not confide things to me!
I have read that people now say that everything the Soviets said about the West was true, and everything they said about themselves was a lie. Hyperbole, obviously, but you get the idea… This time the Russians are being brutally honest with themselves and avoiding delusions…
This gives a vast Geo-political advantage. It also seems to vindicate Marx!
How do you Reconcile your assertion with his profession of nay downright embrace of the Orthodox Christian faith?
To say there is no ideology in Marx is sheer fantasy. There is no human being who is completely free from ideology. To say that Marx had a pure perception of history as a solely materialist reality is just self-serving reduction-ism. Errors in Marx’s thinking and perception have been stated by Bakunin and others and later demonstrated by ‘history’. You have made an unimpeachable religion of Marxism. I do not say this in defense of capitalism or any other -ism. I say it in defense of the reality that no human being is free from ideology. And there is no proof that ideology is any more imperfect than sense-perception or that a separation of the two is really even possible.
Funny, I just finished reading a book which argues at length that for all Marxism’s pretensions to being scientific and materialist, it is in fact an offshoot of Hegelian Idealist philosophy which remains an example of Idealism (in the philosophical sense of considering ideas more primal than the material) despite being in denial about it. I found it pretty persuasive, although I don’t expect anyone to buy it because I’m not making the argument here–it would take a bunch of space. Basically it points to some of the basic things and categories that form the basis of Marxism and argues that they are not actually material at all, but conceptual–labour, for instance. Also that it assumes a whole lot of philosophical stuff while acting as if it did not, like dialectic being some kind of bedrock property of reality. And that it tends to shy away from anything that might involve falsifiability, or similar ways of verification that science uses.
The book does think Marxist explanations of capitalism, for example, have a lot of power–but that that doesn’t make them scientific.
Every kind of collectivist system (socialism, communism, Etc… Marxism included as the intellectual wellspring of the two former) require two things. An ideal thats unattainable and the usurpation and concentration of power in one central easily (nigh assuredly) corruptable cadre of people who invariably take no responsibility for their actions, only for their intentions… (Road to hell being paved in such.)
There’s a lession in this.
Define “collectivist”, old bean. Your comment is already false for “socialism” as a general case, so you’d need an awfully good definition to redeem it.
I do not understand how you could define socialism as anything but a collectivist ideology?
Its principles though inelegantly stated by me, boil down to community control of resources and production. It disincentivizes individual merit and responsibility.
And I’ve lived in both communist and socialist countries, there are no panaceas in these ideologies. Without the opportunity for individual success, the labor force gradually becomes listless and unproductive and the quality of their work decreases to minimum allowable tolerances.
But perhaps your beans are magical and a beanstalk will grow to a golden goose I haven’t born witness to.
I would welcome your definitions, perhaps there is some wisdom in the deep purple I am unaware of.
I didn’t expect that from you! Dialectical materialism is the basic tenet of Marxism, hence the application of metaphysical enquiry to the material needs of man.
Diaspora_M: The main problem with both “collectivist” systems and “individualist” ones to date is hierarchy. Now, it is largely impossible to eliminate hierarchy from an individualist system until you bring things down to the post-apocalypse Hobbesian “war of each against all”. After all, if individualists work together without being held together by some hierarchy, we would call this . . . co-operation, collective action, no? But it is perfectly possible for people to decide freely to co-operate as equals. Indeed, it happens all the time. Still, there has been to date an analogous difficulty, getting such arrangements to scale up to larger sizes, and specifically, large enough to defend themselves against aggression from hierarchical arrangements.
But the fact remains that collective action can and does take place on a “bottom-up” basis. Even as we speak, and despite the setbacks of the left at the electoral level, in Venezuela hundreds of thousands of people are building up “comunes” by grouping together “communal councils”, and these are increasingly beginning to organize not just public works but also production. All this is being done by people deciding, not by cadres giving orders. And it is being done under conditions where no one particular theoretical construct rules, very much a syncretic leftism in the process of being continually invented. But most of the people involved would agree that “el proceso” was in important ways “collectivist”. Ergo, “collectivism” does not require either of your two things.
What requires, or more precisely creates, the corruptible cadre is not collectivism or individualism as such, it is hierarchy. On average, the steeper and more rigid the hierarchy, the greater the corruption. Same goes for the stifling of initiative, really. Dunno if you’ve noticed, but in modern capitalist individualist USA or Canada, it is by and large not possible to rise through the ranks from the bottom via hard work or cleverness any more. To some extent it once was, but now rising from the ranks can only happen if you start in the upper half, which requires the right degree and some contacts; credentialism and cronyism rule the roost. Even back in the day, you didn’t get fruit pickers rising to become fruit company managers, and they didn’t work hard because of the prospect of promotion–rather, because of the threat of starvation.
Anonymous: I’m a leftist, and I appreciate Marx’s critique of capitalism and focus on the importance of class. But in many respects, Communism is 19th century bunkum. The Victorians were mesmerized by anything that seemed “scientific”, but it tended to be at the level of “There are magnets involved, or galvanic currents. Therefore, Science!” That’s what gave us homeopathy. Neoclassical economics and Communism are both captive to analogies with some of the simple, powerful, linear ideas that were coming out of the physical sciences at the time and impressing the heck out of the scholarly world, giving the social intelligentsia their first and biggest case of hard-science envy. Problem being that that kind of thinking doesn’t apply to really complex things with feedback and whatnot like ecosystems or societies. Meanwhile the dialectic comes out of airy-fairy German philosophy, and it’s very cute and poetic but it’s nonsense. Sure, maybe there’s a few ideas where the whole thesis-antithesis-synthesis notion leads to something fruitful, but as a general concept it’s useless. Many ideas don’t generate anything interesting that looks like an “antithesis”, just minor modifications. Many concepts don’t come in binary solutions–why should it be just one thesis and one counter-thesis, why can’t there be multiple ideas? In that sense, the dialectic reminds me of American politics: There is Republican and its antithesis, Democrat, and no other possibilities shall apply. It’s stupid. Most of all in the case of Communism, the dialectic leads to the notion that somehow a “Dictatorship of the proletariat” with massive centralization both of production and political leadership (“‘Democratic’ centralism”) will lead to its antithesis, a flowering of freedom as this extreme centralized state withers away. Well, hang on, why on earth would it do that?! Bcuz dialectic? How is that supposed to work? It’s insane. If you’re going to hang your politics on a slogan, I much prefer “The master’s tools will never destroy the master’s house”. That is, hierarchy and centralization will never destroy exploitation; they will merely substitute what the Parecon people call a “co-ordinator class” for the “capitalist class” as exploiters.
Purple: I can agree with the majority of your statement, especially as per heirarchy. I would also agree that voluntary communal behavior is welcome. The idea of compulsory communalism though is where I draw the line. Thats the bridge too far. Once its being forced on someone it is now a prison not a commune.
Purple Library Guy:
I like your post; it’s well presented, and you make several very good points. Just one quick remark. Like you, I’m a Marxist of sorts – a ‘neo’-Marxist. You mention dialectical ways of thinking. I agree that there is such a thing but I don’t believe dialectics is ‘out there’ in the external world (or, at least not necessarily so). In other words I don’t believe in ‘dialectical materialism’. You say, “Why should it be just one thesis and one counter-thesis; why can’t there be multiple ideas?” My answer is that you are right: when you THINK about it there are many alternatives, but each alternative forms, CONCEPTUALLY, a triangle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. There is no such things as “no other possibilities shall apply”, and if dialectics is presented as linear then it is being misrepresented, misapplied, misunderstood. Dialectics is about possibilities. Many possibilities. Maybe endless possibilities. Like mathematics, dialectical thinking helps one’s brain – and attitude – remain open and flexible to new possibilities. It is a big, and unnecessary, leap to say that this form of thinking reflects external reality.
Since you appear interested in this topic, I will just mention a somewhat related concept, formulated by Tominaga Nakamoto (1715-1746), namely ‘kajo’ [horizontal stroke above the ‘o’]. ‘Kajo’ literally means ‘to put something on another’, which Nakamoto used “to explain the way in which new theories were created in order to go beyond previous theories. This implies an internal logic for the history of ideas” (from: “A History of Japanese Literature”, by Shuichi Kato; volume 2: “The Years of Isolation”. Kato’s treatment of Nakamoto is on pp. 129-136. What I like about ‘kajo’ is that it implies a binary interaction of ideas that has a forward movement: the dynamics is not just ‘static’ in time, there is an impulse towards a ‘solution’ (a synthesis) which then becomes the new thesis and heralds a new historical era. I suppose ‘dialectical reasoning’ has this dynamics, too, by implication at least.
Hierarchies present us with a different problem. Robert Michels said that we will never escape the ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’. Maybe, but I think we may be able to reduce its grip, as it were, via good and safe group structures and the establishment of ‘checks and balances’ – which is what real democracy is about. I see two problems: one is the struggle for ‘leadership’ within groups; the other is the tendency of most people to ‘go along’ with their group – Asch demonstrated this in his ‘conformity experiments’, and Milgram demonstrated people’s tendency to obey unreasonable authority – the ‘obedience experiments’. The trick is to create a group ‘atmosphere’, a social context, that reassures people that if you stick your neck out, it’s not going to be chopped off.
And of course, another difficulty is that people genuinely differ in their opinions, based on different life experiences. Arne Naess, the Norwegian philosopher, maintained that, given a ‘safe’ social context and sufficient time, two opposing persons could, in principle, work their way towards agreement via debate. I’m not convinced. – Gunnar
To Purple L. G.
Your comment re homoeopathy is absolutely ridiculous. I am and have been a practising classical homoeopath for 30 years. Please stick to things that you may know something about otherwise your entire comment becomes seriously suspect.
What is ridiculous about the comment?
I recall a programme where a pharmacist/chemist did as a homeopath instructed, and added a potentially effective chemical compound to water and diluted it the requisite number of times. By the end of this process, the dilute solution was not different in composition from the original water. There is an obvious question about causal efficacy.
As a homeopath who has practised for thirty years, you are well placed to answer.
Have you read his book? I recommend it.
by Furr, Grover
Published by Erythros Press and Media, 2011
ISBN 10: 061544105X / ISBN 13: 9780615441054
(Subtitle: The Evidence that Every “Revelation” of Stalin’s (and Beria’s) “Crimes” in Nikita Khrushchev’s Infamous “Secret Speech” to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, Is Provably False.)
Nope, I did not, but now I will :-)
Thanks a lot.
You can find Grover Furr’s book online at golibgen.io. I did that just a few days ago, and am about to read it. It seems rather pointless to discuss Stalin without first getting the facts as right as you can.
There is just one question I want to comment: “Could a kind and gentle person like the Czar Martyr Nicholas II have prevailed against Adolf Hitler?”
My answer: Hitler came on power on a wave of anti-communism which was a reaction to Stalin and his comrades. It is Stalin that, arguably, created Hitler, partly because Hitler in some ways used Stalin as a model. In that context, to say Stalin was great for defeating Hitler, is like a patriarch causing a fire and getting only congratulations for having extinguished it – after quite a few people died in that fire.
And there is a few more points to be made: Germany’s invasion on the USSR can be seen as an offshoot of the centuries-old Western animosity toward Russia. That’s a quite good way to look at it.
What would I say to that?
I’d say that the USSR could have been industrialized more rapidly without the mass murders, and also without the October revolution. The rates of industrialization of Tsarist Russia were higher than those of Soviet Russia up til around 1929.
When Hitler was putting out his ideas,Stalin wasn’t in charge of the USSR. By the time Stalin came to power, Hitler’s general ideas were already set. I don’t doubt he, like most political leaders, was open to getting further knowledge on something. But his racism was his alone,he couldn’t get that from Stalin. Stalin cared about your politics ,not your race.
The fact that the rates of economic growth in the USSR up to 1929 (the key here is the date, 1929.Before Stalin’s massive industrialization program really got started.) were behind Tsarist Russia’s is no surprise. In the last pre-war years of the Tsar’s time,massive amounts of Western investment capital poured into Russia. There were no sanctions against Russia. No trying to “strangle her at birth”. And then after the revolution the USSR suffered under crippling Western trade sanctions. And had just gone through a World War,two Revolutions,a horrible civil war,then a war with newly created Poland .Where combined, the USSR lost many of the prime industrial regions out of the few the old Russian Empire possessed.And not counting the separated lands ,lost around 18 million dead citizens caused from the fighting.
So could the USSR have industrialized without Stalin’s methods??? That is a question we can’t really answer. Maybe? But no country of that time ever experienced a time and conditions like the Soviets did in that period. Totally alone and friendless,having to do everything on their own. Surrounded by vultures,hoping and working from the outside “and” from the inside to make them fail. So there is no way to gauge what “could” have been. We can only see what “was”. With immense (too immense) human losses. The USSR built an economy and military able to defeat the number one military of the day.And propel their nation into the highest ranks by economy,education,science achievements,etc. Its somehow fitting that Russia is celebrating Yuri Gagarin so much this year. The first man in history,and on a Soviet rocket,into space.
Yes, you’re right, Stalin wasn’t in charge of the USSR, he was just one of the team in charge.
Arguably, per Grover Furr, he was just one politician with limited power even during Stalinism.
Communism was not invented in Russia but in the West, and Hitlers main concern was communism in Germany. Hitler came to power due to bad economic situation in Germany, which was introduced through war reparation to the West, not Russia.
Hitler was also massively supported by the Anglos. Read William Engdahl “A century of war”.
Stalin was also massively supported by the Anglos. Read Antony Sutton (1973).
Who can “read” Sutton and remain healthy? It’s a brackish reading. Better swallow Conquest.
Hitler said that the British empire appeared to be run by the British but was when you looked closely it was actually run by (Zionist) Jews.
And that the US was ‘Judaized’ also. What this means is tribally seizing the power structures.
This is not a defence of Hitler btw.
Hitlers main concern was communism in Germany, which became significant largely due to the success of Russian communists.
Communism was invented in the West and by that logic Stalin was a western agent.
“My answer: Hitler came on power on a wave of anti-communism which was a reaction to Stalin and his comrades.”
Pre-WWI Vienna gave Adolf his education in the political uses of Antisemitism and his hatred of Socialism. The Treaty of Versailles gave him everything else he needed to take power in Germany. Don’t be blaming the USSR for Hitler, its just not factual.
Stalin was such a polarizing figure that even today, as I discuss him with my mom (who was born in The Netherlands in 1941), she will spring back to instinctive Cold War arguments about the Red Danger.
I’m happy to learn more about the historical figure of Stalin, but also about the contemporary historiography on both sides. Internal proponents and enemies, external supporters and opponents – how did they portray him? What were their arguments, what did they hide, what did they expose?
Thanks for stirring up the dust, Saker. You have a distinct talent for triggering my thinking. You just did it again.
Let me quote a fellow truth seeker that I exchanged emails with regarding Stalin. He said it best;
“When someone is demonized in the media I get a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction, which is why there is no way I will jump on that bandwagon, whether it’s demonizing Stalin or Putin or anyone else. If Stalin would have been 100% bad, he’d be greatly beloved in the media like other such monsters, eg. Churchill, Blair or Bush.”
you are right, very easy method to distinguish truth from lies, but the more so effective.
Once again as a reminder – maybe you didn’t watch it so far:
fursow stalin here and now
Having said that I won’t white-wash anybody, not even the Red Army.
My ancestors were normal Germans and among them were 2 young “soldiers” who were not even 19 (I don’t know anything about them because my family had to flee from what now belongs to Poland and they couldn’t take any belongings with themselves, had to leave in 15 minutes or would have been shot). This was in 1945 _after_ the end of the war. The males were deported by the Red Army and never returned. They were very young and simply had bad luck to get born on the wrong side. Rapes were committed as a matter of fact, but also by the western allies. But this is why I hate war. Because such things __do__ happen in every war. One has to put into consideration what other Germans have done to the Soviet Union __at first__ (no matter which official enemis or royal families all in all controlled by hidden banking dynasties like Rothschild, Kuhn, Warburg etc. wanted, prepared and started the war).
I know, had a young German tried to resist – he would have been shot.
That’s why it is a complex topic.
It is a mistake to assume or to “believe” that any army was ever 100.0000% heroic, just, fair and holy.
It’s not true, due to limitations in human beings.
Whatever – Stalin brought us 40 years of stability and peace (only in the East).
And that’s just one of the reasons why I’m on his side.
@ Martin from Soviet East Berlin.
Thanks for that link. I will check it out for sure.
If I may jump in, to save people searching, here’s a direct link to Martin’s source. Andrei Fursov has his own YouTube channel and here are all the playlists of his talks:
Andrey Fursiv – All Playlists
And in the list of playlists you can find this one that Martin refers to: Andrey Fursov & Joseph Stalin
And Martin, thanks for this link. I had forgotten about Fursov, it’s been too long since I turned to his massive grasp of history and current reality.
“””””I know, had a young German tried to resist – he would have been shot.
That’s why it is a complex topic.”””””
What I meant was: In the first place against the Nazis if they had refused to fight (while after 1945 of course also by the Poles, Soviets or Ukrainian elements).
So one can blame individuls only to some extent.
War is Satan, if I shall say it biblically.
That’s btw the difference to US-soldiers who do have much more choice, and nevertheless keep committing such barbaric crimes in Iraq and around the globe _by full choice_.
You remember the soldiers who raped young Iraqi girls and either did this in front of their parents while still alive or shot them before. Afterwards they made sure that everybody is in fact dead and burned their house.
As far as I know nobody of them has ever been punished by the US regime.
That’s probably why they won the Nobel Peace Prize, like the EU (which is still trying hard to match the US’s “western values” …..)
Resistance…a complex set of actions and in-actions…
Here’s a true example of American resistance in Vietnam – M-48 tank all buttoned up, crew inside, hot night. VC heard bashing out the lights and breaking into the tool boxes and so forth on the outside of the tank. Crew does nothing…why?
Because if you, say, fire up and do a neutral turn to throw the little fellas off and maybe crush one or two, or maybe call MG fire, if you can, to sweep the tank – if you do that the fight will get personal. Then the little fellas will work all night to bury a 500 pound “dud” bomb under the tank – and then, naturally, bang! This is a true account.
Here’s one from the Po Valley in WW2 – little Italian kid is a runner carrying messages between partisan groups…the Germans shoot “at” him – but the bullets fly overhead… Why? Those Germans were drafted and missed home and their families – they didn’t come to Italy to shoot a child… Of course there are men that would murder the kid, but he was lucky… And, of course, the Germans boys knew better than to make it “personal”!
I knew both the M-48 Commander and also the Italian boy…
There was plenty of “resistance”, and still is, in combat and in support, but it’s not Hollywood…
Resistance is proportional…
With that logic Hitler is also a great guy.
if you are not avare of А. А. Зиновьев, i recommend to watch these.
I think in my opinion Zinovjev really have some idea about system…
Starikov et. al. are fans–Stalinist Deadheads–shallow hagiographers. Deutscher was a historian.
You had it closer to right in your earlier view. The purges, hideous farces that they were, were trivial beside the deep, vast longterm horrors Stalin visited upon his own people, in and prior to war. And to tar early Bolshevism with not being Russophilic is absurd. Communism was never intended to be nationalistically based. “Socialism in one country” was a betrayal by Stalin of Trotsky as well as the ideal, and a total abandonment of the philosophy enroute to a gross, stupid, panic-driven absolutism that only Mao’s madness has so far matched.
Odd is only that Mao is still loved my many (or most) Chinese out there on the street or in trains.
In many Taxi’s/cabs he is on the front window at the mirror, like a holy icon.
Mao did what he promised: He gave peasants, workers and many other dispossessed (not only) hope of a new life but actual new dignified life free of everyday horrors and atrocities.
As a reminder, he freed China from opium addiction, all children are getting free education and health care, old people do get retirement and free health care. According to my mother, bacteriologist, he eradicated syphilis, which was not as disastrous as “four pests campaign” (mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows).
I wrote it last week, found it somewhere on wikipedia and did already provide the link a few days ago: After Mao took over the average life expectency rose from 36 to circa 70 years etc.
What you say is correct.
But those who read some western propaganda every now and then and probably never set a foot on chinese soil “know” it of course alllll that much betttttter.
“he freed China from opium addiction”
Well lets not forget WHO got them INTO that habit !!!
Hint – Opium Wars
In 1919 much of the world was in a revolutionary ferment, with regular people throughout Europe and much of North America furious at their governments and ruling classes over the debacle of World War I. Conscripted colonials were returning to their lands bringing with them a burning anger wedded to the ideas of nationalism, socialism and revolution. It was not illogical in that setting to imagine the Bolshevik Revolution, itself very much a multinational affair, being repeated in other countries across the world. Similarly the model that nationalism would die away to be replaced by proletarian internationalism, an idea with roots in Marx, was easy to believe amid the comradeship of a shared revolution and civil war. Yet these were un-tested models, born in historical circumstances which were – like our own – both extraordinary and unprecedented.
Stalin’s commitment to socialism in one country, which young Trotskyists to this day still hotly denounce as an unforgivable betrayal, was nothing more or less than a recognition of the inescapable verdict of history. Any person with an open mind, reviewing the past 95 years, would have to conclude, as Stalin did, that revolutions cannot be exported or imposed. Having accepted this, socialism in one country became the only sane choice for anyone committed to the people of the Soviet Union and unwilling to surrender to the imperial West. Hard as it was, for better or for worse, the peoples of the old Russian Empire would have to try to build a sustainable and viable economy and society on their own, in isolation from and under constant mortal threat from the global capitalist system from which they had been expelled.
If this was treason then, it seems to me that it was not treason to the peoples of Russia or Georgia, it was not treason to the ideals of socialism or internationalism. It was rather treason to a failed theory.
Very true, C.
Indeed, it can’t be easy for Trots — or Western Leftists generally — to pick even two (real world) revolutions and/or revolutionaries they approve of. At first sight, it might seem tempting to just dismiss their grudge as all-out impotent rage/jealousy against people gifted with intelligence and courage, but I have come to a slightly different conclusion.
Today’s Western Left is actually proof positive of Marxism being mostly a quaint form of 19th century Western supremacism, minus the racist depravities. Marx and Engels did make some belated, angry noises about British imperialism and its heinous crimes in, most notably, India all right. However, this was really not about anti-imperialism; it was because the spoils of Empire trashed their entire prospect with the “advanced” Western workers coming to the rescue of mankind. Consequently, as the Trots keep displaying their open Western imperial arrogance and contempt of the Third World, they really are Marxists, albeit in a sense which Stalin and Mao never could have been, for very obvious reasons.
Nusiminnen, what the Trotskyists and most leftists don’t understand is that a revolution is not – is never – something that is created and caused by revolutionaries. Revolutions are caused by the millions when they are sufficiently fed up and desperate and possessed of the idea of removing those in power and taking over. This is why so many leftists – and none more so than Trotskyists – can’t even recognize that a revolution is underway in the United States right now. When they do recognize it they will denounce it with a hearty “that isn’t what I meant, that isn’t how it’s supposed to be~” Dedicated, loving, disciplined revolutionaries can help lead and guide a revolution, can even make a huge difference in the outcome, but it’s the people, with all their warts and wrinkles, who make it. The Russian Revolution was an expression of who and what the Russian People were, what was inside them to do, far more than it was an expression of the ideas of Lenin.
Glad I heard this C/N dialogue. Great points by both.
” Revolutions are caused by the millions when they are sufficiently fed up and desperate and possessed of the idea of removing those in power and taking over.”
In many case are “financed”. No money no so called “revolution”. The Russian Revolution is the best example of how a “revolution” is financed.
The next best example is the Nudelman-Kiev-Bandera Revolution in Western Ukraine. No money no crazy guys throwing bricks !!!!
So if you disregard Finance from so called revolutions you will miss the moving force behind them.
Please provide us with some recent Trot success stories, will you. Stalin is over 60 years dead, so your liturgy isn’t very convincing.
Staging gay parades and colour revolutions wasn’t the Soviets’ notion of progress. The Western Left seems to have some unresolved “philosophical problems” here.
@And to tar early Bolshevism with not being Russophilic is absurd
It was downright Russophobic!
thanks for your long open-minded explanation.
No time and sorry – for today only a one-liner, indeed:
Doesn’t that reminds us of the eternal “6 millions” (which were in circulation from circa 1890 on btw…)?
How can it be?
Add to this the war and this would have emptied all of Russia/other republics. Can such numbers be trusted?
Here is another calculation (based on real casualties, add the number of victims yourself).
And remember that those who threw the Nukes on innocent women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki still celebrate this day as heroic veterans.
I won’t even mention Churchill’s war against German civilians nor his planned backstabbing of Soviet-Russia in 1945.
I won’t count the number of deaths in Russia after 1991, nor the number of unborn childs which never saw the light due to chaos and poverty after they finally got the Soviet Union destroyed.
List of wars involving the United States
America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776
“”””” And here is the year-by-year timeline of America’s major wars:
Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011)
1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War
1777 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War
1778 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1779 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1780 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1781 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1782 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1783 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1784 – Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War, Oconee War
1785 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1786 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1787 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1788 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1789 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1790 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1791 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1792 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1793 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1794 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1795 – Northwest Indian War
1796 – No major war
1797 – No major war
1798 – Quasi-War
1799 – Quasi-War
1800 – Quasi-War
1801 – First Barbary War
1802 – First Barbary War
1803 – First Barbary War
1804 – First Barbary War
1805 – First Barbary War
1806 – Sabine Expedition
1807 – No major war
1808 – No major war
1809 – No major war
1810 – U.S. occupies Spanish-held West Florida
1811 – Tecumseh’s War
1812 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Seminole Wars, U.S. occupies Spanish-held Amelia Island and other parts of East Florida
1813 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Peoria War, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in West Florida
1814 – War of 1812, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in Florida, Anti-piracy war
1815 – War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Anti-piracy war
1816 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
1817 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
1818 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
1819 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
1820 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
1821 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)
1822 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)
1823 – Anti-piracy war, Arikara War
1824 – Anti-piracy war
1825 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
1826 – No major war
1827 – Winnebago War
1828 – No major war
1829 – No major war
1830 – No major war
1831 – Sac and Fox Indian War
1832 – Black Hawk War
1833 – Cherokee Indian War
1834 – Cherokee Indian War, Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign
1835 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War
1836 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Missouri-Iowa Border War
1837 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Osage Indian War, Buckshot War
1838 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Buckshot War, Heatherly Indian War
1839 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars
1840 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade Fiji Islands
1841 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade McKean Island, Gilbert Islands, and Samoa
1842 – Seminole Wars
1843 – U.S. forces clash with Chinese, U.S. troops invade African coast
1844 – Texas-Indian Wars
1845 – Texas-Indian Wars
1846 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars
1847 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars
1848 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War
1849 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians
1850 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, California Indian Wars, Pitt River Expedition
1851 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars
1852 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars
1853 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, Walker War, California Indian Wars
1854 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians
1855 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Yakima War, Winnas Expedition, Klickitat War, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay
1856 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Tintic War
1857 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Utah War, Conflict in Nicaragua
1858 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Mohave War, California Indian Wars, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene-Paloos War, Utah War, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay
1859 Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Pecos Expedition, Antelope Hills Expedition, Bear River Expedition, John Brown’s raid, U.S. forces launch attack against Paraguay, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1860 – Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Paiute War, Kiowa-Comanche War
1861 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign
1862 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Dakota War of 1862,
1863 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Goshute War
1864 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Snake War
1865 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Colorado War, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War
1866 – Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Franklin County War, U.S. invades Mexico, Conflict with China
1867 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, U.S. troops occupy Nicaragua and attack Taiwan
1868 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Battle of Washita River, Franklin County War
1869 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War
1870 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War
1871 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, Kingsley Cave Massacre, U.S. forces invade Korea
1872 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Franklin County War
1873 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Apache Wars, Cypress Hills Massacre, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1874 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Red River War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1875 – Conflict in Mexico, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Eastern Nevada, Mason County War, Colfax County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1876 – Texas-Indian Wars, Black Hills War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1877 – Texas-Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Black Hills War, Nez Perce War, Mason County War, Lincoln County War, San Elizario Salt War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1878 – Paiute Indian conflict, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Lincoln County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1879 – Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, White River War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1880 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1881 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1882 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1883 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1884 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1885 – Apache Wars, Eastern Nevada Expedition, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1886 – Apache Wars, Pleasant Valley War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1887 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1888 – U.S. show of force against Haiti, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1889 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1890 – Sioux Indian War, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Ghost Dance War, Wounded Knee, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1891 – Sioux Indian War, Ghost Dance War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1892 – Johnson County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1893 – U.S. forces invade Mexico and Hawaii
1894 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1895 – U.S. forces invade Mexico, Bannock Indian Disturbances
1896 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1897 – No major war
1898 – Spanish-American War, Battle of Leech Lake, Chippewa Indian Disturbances
1899 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1900 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1901 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1902 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1903 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1904 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1905 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1906 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1907 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1908 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1909 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1910 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1911 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1912 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1913 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, New Mexico Navajo War
1914 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
1915 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico, Colorado Paiute War
1916 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
1917 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S. invades Mexico
1918 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S invades Mexico
1919 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
1920 – Banana Wars
1921 – Banana Wars
1922 – Banana Wars
1923 – Banana Wars, Posey War
1924 – Banana Wars
1925 – Banana Wars
1926 – Banana Wars
1927 – Banana Wars
1928 – Banana Wars
1930 – Banana Wars
1931 – Banana Wars
1932 – Banana Wars
1933 – Banana Wars
1934 – Banana Wars
1935 – No major war
1936 – No major war
1937 – No major war
1938 – No major war
1939 – No major war
1940 – No major war
1941 – World War II
1942 – World War II
1943 – Wold War II
1944 – World War II
1945 – World War II
1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)
1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)
1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)
1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)
1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising
1951 – Korean War
1952 – Korean War
1953 – Korean War
1954 – Covert War in Guatemala
1955 – Vietnam War
1956 – Vietnam War
1957 – Vietnam War
1958 – Vietnam War
1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti
1960 – Vietam War
1961 – Vietnam War
1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)
1963 – Vietnam War
1964 – Vietnam War
1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic
1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic
1967 – Vietnam War
1968 – Vietnam War
1969 – Vietnam War
1970 – Vietnam War
1971 – Vietnam War
1972 – Vietnam War
1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War
1974 – Vietnam War
1975 – Vietnam War
1976 – No major war
1977 – No major war
1978 – No major war
1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)
1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)
1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident
1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon
1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon
1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf
1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)
1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)
1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf
1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama
1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines
1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama
1991 – First Gulf War
1992 – Conflict in Iraq
1993 – Conflict in Iraq
1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti
1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina
1996 – Conflict in Iraq
1997 – No major war
1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan
1999 – Kosovo War
2000 – No major war
2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan
2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen
2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq
2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)
In most of these wars, the U.S. was on the offense. Danios admits that some of the wars were defensive. However, Danios also leaves out covert CIA operations and other acts which could be considered war.
Let’s update what’s happened since 2011:
2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine
2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine
So we can add 4 more years of war. That means that for 222 out of 239 years – or 93% of the time – America has been at war. (We can quibble with the exact numbers, but the high percentage of time that America has been at war is clear and unmistakable.)
Indeed, most of the military operations launched since World War II have been launched by the U.S.”””””
All in all Stalin saved more lives than most other world-leaders in world history ever did.
And this does include the ones he may indeed have killed (for good reasons) as well as those who should not have been killed.
To fully understand this statement one must see the whole picture. To explain it I don’t have time at the moment. I’m talking about the benefits which real-exisiting Stalinization gave the Eastern block. Watch the birth rates and children’s death rate plus overall life expectency over the decades.
The West Through the Eyes of North Korea [LEAKED PROPAGANDA]
10 Days in North Korea
Ok, it turned into more than 1 line now.
But compared to the involved complexity it is in comparison actually less than a single line.
You cannot “feel” it, because you never grew up in such a country.
Many of those who did feel a deep sad loss until this minute and probably until we die out:
Ужасы советского детства.flv
Оргия Праведников. Наша Родина – СССР
Вся мощь СССР в одной песни
Прекрасное далеко (нарезка видео фрагментов)
Thank you so much for this post.
The figures for dead by Stalin’s regime are going up and up. The Western propaganda is without shame there. 20 million cannot be right. They are adding a few million every year. Just like to alleged wealth of Putin.
Despite its laughable claims that it is a “peace-loving nation,” America loves war like a vampire loves blood–as this 200+ year history of American war irrevocably demonstrates.
In order to justify America’s bloodlust for war, this country must convince itself that the USA is being threatened somehow–when in reality, the opposite is the truth.
America IS the threat.
This is the America mentality in its essence: psychological projection to the pathological extreme.
Can I jump the gun? The final paragraph is surely good common sense. Conclusions worth having will require us to “step aside and wait to read more…”. There are already good books and there are more on the way, written by scholars who know more than us (certainly me). I suppose the point of my comment is: – any and all references to scholarly work welcome! The main problem for English speakers like me is translation bias – what Russian work UK and US publishers are willing to pay for – and the residual Cold War bias in Western academia (although such work still contains useful information from the archives). It is good too to be reminded that this it is a question for historical study, not current politics (on a par with assessing Churchill or Hitler or Mao or Hirohito or Roosevelt).
You make a good point and that is the central problem any one in the world has. When you are able to cross language barriers you are then able to access sources that your side does not want to illuminate.
HOWEVER, with the Internet you have a better chance to find information that normally would not be available in your local library or MSM.
Fair point about the “interweb”. This old fart has found quality control a problem. There is so much apparent nonsense. How am I to know what is nonsense and what sensational revelation of the shocking truth? Academia tends to be self-reinforcing. But at least it has mechanisms for quality control. There is at least the possibility of sifting the facts and plausible interpretations from the bias and prejudice, and of challenging your own prejudice (which I find a continuing and difficult process). The internet can be an invaluable source, but also a major problem.
I recall an article by a fellow libertarian (can’t recall who) that claimed the progressives see Stalin as a monster because he killed his fellow Communist elitists. The early Bolsheviks killed millions of people but they were common rabble, so Marxists are allowed to still idolize Lenin. You turn that argument on its head by saying that many of Stalin’s high-level victims were not so innocent themselves. Good point! Of course, the Holodomor, and all the innocents banished to die in Siberia, were crimes of a much greater magnitude.
Research the so called Holodomor first before making claims.
It is a CIA PsyOp.
Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place
I don’t find the url which I wanted to share, but there are big quantities of material in the web and on yt.
The famine existed in many regions of Soviet Union – Povolghie, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine, Ural,west of Siberia. Due to multiple factor: several years of very poor harvest, incompetent and unprofessional collectivization, sabotage, and not last- the pressure from the West, mainly Germany to pay the debts, in gold.
@Anonymous: I never doubted this. As I just responded to The Saker: Yes, there was a famine. But
#0.) Not only in Soviet-Unkraine, but Union-wide
#1.) It is a _huge_ difference if there occurs a famine due to restructuring and temporary mismanagement and partially sabotage versus what the holodomor story claims: That “Stalin did this to wipe Ukrainians off the map”.
Read carefully what I wrote: “Holodomur” is a PsyOp. I never said there was no famine. The silly string “Holo” was placed there intentionally. Maybe by the same gang who adopted a similar string for another event.
While of course the russian word “голод” simply means “hunger” and turned into “Ukrainian” dialect of west-Russian the ‘г’ is spoken like a latin ‘h’ (and the real Russian ‘г’ also still exists in the artificial “ukrainian” alphabet, but has received an extra hook), there can be little doubt that this “holo” wasn’t placed there because it sounds like that certain other word.
That’s why the “holodomur” was a PsyOp.
Before I send a wrong or incomplete url again, _please_ google yourself:
holodomur cia woman
It was all discussed here before.
Is nobody around here who saw our earlier discussions in 2014 who can quickly write a summary better than mine?
Martin from S.E.B, I will be anonymous even if I invent some name here. I agree with you, the famine ( we talk about the one in 1932-33 ,right?) was in many regions of SSSR and it was not deliberate. “Holodomor” is a political instrument. Sorry, I was not aware of the earlier discussion.
It cannot harm to ask if something was really meant like it should have been.
I respectfully disagree. There was a famine in the Ukraine (and Russia) during these years. I have friends who lived through it. However, I agree that the political exploitation of this famine is a total hoax, that I agree with.
no reason to disagree (pls. check what exactly I stated, admittedly in a short manner because I thought it is well known after we have discussed it before)
that’s exactly my position (as discussed here in 2014).
A famine existed.
But it existed across the CCCP and even inside Soviet-Ukraine’s borders the majority of victims were ethnic Russians.
The idea to exploit this a a hoax stems directly from the CIA.
I forgot the name of a specific CIA lady from the 1970ties.
Really, today I write only a bit here and there, when I have a coffee once per hour.
Nevertheless, thanks for confirming what I said.
But it existed across the CCCP and even inside Soviet-Ukraine’s borders the majority of victims were ethnic Russians.
it was also said in the url I had provided:
“””””American historian Professor Mark B. Tauger, West Virginia University, carried out thorough research on the famine of 1932-33 in the USSR, and came to the conclusion that the disaster was due to environmental circumstances and was evidently not related to the Soviet policy in the region.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150809/1025560345.html#ixzz45aXsxdII “””””
Martin, what’s especially funny about the Ukro-trash and their psychobabble on the (non-)subject of “Holodomor” is that while they take issue with an invented “famine” allegedly orchestrated by Stalin, they are completely fine with a very real one! The latter ravaged the Ukraine right in the wake of WW1 as the army of the defeated Kaiserreich was entrusted by the victorious Anglo-Zionists to burn, slay, and starve Ukraine’s poor. This outlook speaks volumes of Ukro cretinism and servile bootlicking, further underlined by recent developments so to speak.
sigh. Had the German labor unions and the German Communist party managed to work together to form a united front against Hitler there never would have been World War II; however, thanks to the effect of Stalinist accomodationist Russian foreign policy not only was the Spanish revolution betrayed actively ( Homage to Catalonia — yes,Orwell who barely lived through it) but so was the German working class. If that be “Jewish” Trotskyism well so be it. Jeez, Saker, get a grip on your gripe about Jews being anti Russian and Trotskyist “Jews” being doubly so. This is a prejudice which blinds you.
What you call “prejudice” is simply the historical memory of my family and people who remember and know exactly who played the central role in the anti-Russian genocide of the 1920s and 1930s. You calling that a ‘gripe’ says everything about how you feel about these murders. It is also a way of explaining away by ad homenim the facts and argument I, and many others, make. The Saker
If you don’t like my comments, well, don’t post them then. I look forward to reading a new generation of Russian historians who now thanks to Putin have reams and reams of opened archives to search and historical statistical methods to do so. May their fresh perspectives bring us truth.
The reply to teranam 13 is the same heartfelt cry I have heard from many Jewish friends and relatives on the Nazi massacre (one might go so far as to say “genocide”) of their families.
Before the revolution, Jews accounted for 4 per cent of the population of the Tsarist Empire. Before the War, Jews accounted for less than 1 per cent of the population of the Reich. One genocide seems a more likely proposition than the other. One has been exhaustively studied. The other – I would really like references because the standard histories tell a more complicated story, and, as I’ve said before, I’m confined to English (where there is, shall we say, selection bias).
I agree with Saker.
This is the list of the members of the first bolshevick ruling People’s Commissariat:
Lenin – Russian
Chicherin – Russian
Lunacharsky – Jew
Stalin – Georgian
Protian – Armenian
Lurie(Larin) – Jew
Schlichter – Jew
Lander – Jew
Trotsky(Bronstein) – Jew
Kauffmann – Jew
V. Schmidt – Jew
Knigissen (Lilina) – Jew
Shpizberg – Jew
Zinoviev (Apfelbaum) – Jew
Anvelt – Jew
Volodarski – Jew
Urytski – Jew
Steinberg – Jew
Fengstein – Jew
Can you count? TwoRussians, one Georgian, one Armenian and seventeen Jews.
Jewish people were estimated to be between 3 and 4% of the population of the Russian Empire. Here we see the disproportional overrepresentation of Jews in the most powerful ruling structure and disproportional under representation of every one else.
In 1920-21, Jews Rosalia Zalkind (Rosalia Zemliachka), Bela Kun, Lide, Davidov-Vulfson and the Russian aristocrat Piatakov organized in Crimea the bigest mass murder, known in history as the Red terror. 120 000 people, all Russian, were murdered.
…As I said, some references would be helpful in explaining how 4 per cent of the population carried out a “genocide” against the forty something per cent who were Russian, and in clarifying the timeline of this “anti-Russian genocide” through the “1920s and 1930s”. This is a big subject. There must be a lot of work done on it. So far, in years of study, I’ve found nothing on a Jewish genocide against Russians. I’ve found a lot on Bolsheviks, many of whom were Jewish. As I have said, I am at a disadvantage in having to rely on sources translated into English
OK. I will continue with some excerpts from the “Documentary. CheKa – GPU – NKVD 1918-1991.
NKVD 1934: 96 staff commanders
30 Russians, Ukrainians, Belarus
1936: 110 staff commanders
33 Russians, Ukrainians, Belarus
1938: 150 staff commanders
85 Russians, Ukrainians, Belarus
1939: 153 staff commanders
102 Russians, Ukrainians, Belarus
See the dinamics? Russians taking their country gradually back.
In what is now Ukraine, Jewish population was about 6 %. Now see the organs of NKVD:
1926- 38% Jewish
1932 – 66.6 %Jewish
Kiev CheKa: Bluvstein, Yakov Livshitz, Faerman Michailov, Yakov Shvartsman, Rubinstein, Eda Shvartz
Those names were used for years to scare children.
Who were their victims? Here is the testimony of Denikin commission:
1 215 orthodox priests
6 775 university proffessors and teachers
8 800 physicians
54 650 officers
260 000 soldiers
12 950 landowners
355 250 members inteligentsia
193 350 workers
815 350 peasants
Common denominator? All of them Russians
To your question how that happened? The same way it always happens when the minority takes power, the same is now.
The logic here is questionable, I think, in two respects.
There are good historical reasons why many Russian Jews were revolutionaries, and some of them Bolsheviks. The same reasons that prompted many more Russian Jews to emigrate from the Empire. More of the Jews who stayed were not revolutionaries than were. In other words, that the Bolsheviks you refer to were Jewish is not to the point. Jewishness is not the explanatory factor. That they were Marxist-Leninist Bolsheviks is.
The story told here is that Jewish Trotskyites committed genocide against Orthodox Russians, but that true Russian nationalists (such as Stalin) purged these Jewish Trotskyites from the Party. Yet most of the deaths under discussion were under Stalin’s rule: the famine was caused by collectivisation, the purges did not just eliminate Jews, the camps were not filled with only Jewish political prisoners. If you want to blame the Civil War on Trotskyites, go ahead, it isn’t history, but feel free. Of the millions killed in the first months of Barbarossa, many if not most can be put down to Stalin (he was initially a slow learner who over-ruled his generals time and again to fatal effect).
How it happened? The majority of the “foot soldiers” were Russians and other nationalities. They committed genocide against their own people because “Jews” told them to?
I asked for references. You give me Denikin?
It was Lenin, over-ruling his colleagues, who ordered the attack on the Orthodox Church, as the last institution independent of Bolshevik rule. At the very same time that churches were being destroyed and parishioners killed, there were pogroms against Jews and destruction of synagogues. The numbers were comparable. History does not lend itself to simple narratives.
@And to tar early Bolshevism with not being Russophilic is absurd
It was downright Russophobic!
I don’t recognise the quote. But your rejoinder encapsulates the trouble with your version – Russian-hating Russians. The Bolsheviks were mostly Russians, along with the other nationalities within the Empire. – I can see why the nationalities were pissed at the Russians, but the Russians? – Perhaps it was… class war, not religious or racial?
I gave you only samples from the real documents from this time, one from red side, one from white side. Facts, not opinions, except for few lines by myself. You can accept or discard documents as per the bias you already mentioned.
Sorry, I did not understand what exactly you mean by “references”. I cannot help you, I am afraid.
References… you know…scholars who devoted years to the dusty archives… who took every precaution to avoid cherry-picking to confirm them in their prejudices… who tried to steer clear of agitprop in the naive belief that they could contribute to a balanced account of what happened and why… who wanted to be part of the ongoing debate inevitable in the effort to understand any historical event or process… Okay, you may well be right that you can’t help me with that.
This is a very short list, mind you.
In 1920 the ‘Association “Unite de la Russie”‘ (functioning on 121 East 7th Street, New York City) published a brochure “Qui gouverne la Russie. Personnel de la bureaucratie sovietique”. You couldn’t find it easily till relatively recently. Thanks to the Internet it is nowadays widely available:
“Le péril judéo-maçonnique en 3 tomes, by JOUIN (Mgr Ernest) – 57 Euro. (Knowledge of French would help).
Je vais regarder pour cette brochure. Merci.
I ask for references and one gives me Denikin and the other the Association Unitie de la Russie and Le Peril etc. en 3(!) tomes by Msg Jouin.
Give me strength! Or should that be, I rest my case!
Stalin’s “Communism in one Country” was an acknowledgement that the Soviets could not afford at the time the luxury of “exporting the revolution”. Besides, politically he couldn’t possibly give in to Trotsky demands because that would undermine his authority in the Central Committee.
A short request: if you’ve read “200 Years Together” at least twice, how about translating the “missing chapters” still not available in English? We non-Russian readers DEARLY want to read HIS perspective! Thanks.
LOL, you have no idea who busy I already am.
I am already getting angry emails about not writing enough for the blog, and now you want me to translate Solzhenitsyn?
I wish I could, but I can’t.
Thanks for at least responding!
I, for now, only am going to leave here this rap, in Spanish, a pity that you all can not understand what is said and read the quotes are printed in the video. I have not the time to translate right now.
“Pablo Hasél,,, “Añorando a Iósif”:
Here the quotes from the video translated:
“In the so-called errors of Stalin is the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You should see Stalin in the historical context in which he developed himself, should not be seen as a kind of rough man, but you must appreciate him in that particular historical context. I have come to communism by Papa Stalin and nobody can tell me not to read his work. I’ve read even when it was considered very bad to do it. “
Ernesto “Che” Guevara
“Mankind is divided into rich and poor, owners and exploited; and abstracting from this fundamental division and the antagonism between rich and poor means abstracting from fundamental facts”
“You can not end capitalism without destroying the social democratic ideology in the labor movement”
“You can not make a revolution with silk gloves”
“The classless socialist society can not arrive spontaneously so to speak, must be conquered and built with the efforts of all workers, strengthening the organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, developing the class struggle, liquidating the remnants of the capitalist classes, fighting against enemies from both inside and outside. “
Iosif Stalin at the Seventeenth Party Congress in 1934
“I must honestly say, comrades, I do not deserve even half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, apparently, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Soviet Communist Party, the leader of International Communism , a legendary knight-warrior and everything else. This is absurd, comrades, and exaggeration completely unnecessary. This is the kind of thing usually say at the funeral of a deceased revolutionary . But I have no intention of die yet. I really was, and continue to be, one of the trainees of specialized workers of the railway workshops in Tiflis “
(J. V. Stalin, Works, Volume 8; Moscow; 1954; Page 182.)
Only one sentence from the rap:
“They say that changing the world is impossible,
the same changing it to worse.
Show them that you serve!”
Far it be from me to sit in on judgment on Stalin, whether to uphold him or to denounce him, but a few things need to be kept in mind. First of all, Stalin led the USSR through times that are unequalled in the aggression that the entire West unleashed or wanted to unleash upon the USSR. In the words of Churchill, “this Bolveshik state should have been strangled at birth”. The war was not yet over before the US-UK were plotting to attack the USSR. Had the Soviets not quickly caught up with the US in access to atomic bombs, plenty of “fat boys” would certainly have fallen on the Soviet people. The USSR, throughout most of its history, faced the constant threat of lethal aggression by the West. Hitler put into practice what Churchill and others had hankered for.
Secondly, and this flows out of the first point, how else could a state struggling to get out of revolutionary trauma and instability, and facing Nazi aggression on top, have been governed except by an iron fist? The west is proceeding to discard the rule of law and civil liberties under much lighter pressures, pressures which are insignificant compared to what the USSR faced. Thirdly, would there have been less death and loss of human life if a weak or liberal Soviet leader had failed to hold the USSR together and faced-off the Nazis? Surgeons cannot afford to be kindly or fearful of blood. How could any leader committed to upholding the survival of the Soviet state have been sentimental? If we weigh the costs and benefits, did Stalin’s iron fist not have the effect of reducing long-term human misery by holding off Nazi and western aggression and upholding the integrity of the country? Stalin may well have been a terrible man, but was he cruel on purpose or did the circumstances leave him no choice. Had there been no Stalin, there would be no Russia today, just as had there been no Mao, there would be no modern China today. Sometimes pain and suffering today is necessary to ward off even greater pain and suffering tomorrow.
@ Anonymous on April 12, 2016 • at 12:48 am UTC
– Stalin may well have been a terrible man, but was he cruel on purpose or did the circumstances leave him no choice. Had there been no Stalin, there would be no Russia today, just as had there been no Mao, there would be no modern China today. Sometimes pain and suffering today is necessary to ward off even greater pain and suffering tomorrow…
Quite right you are.
More than 100 years ago, one of Russians, Lev Mechnikov, has written a great book on the so called “river civilizations”:
— Great historic rivers [Nile, Tiger, Euphrates, Indus, Ganges, Yangtze, and Huang He] possess one amazing trait: all of them can turn the regions, irrigated by them, either into the fruitful granaries, feeding millions of people for the labor of a few days, or into contagious marshes, covered by the corpses of innumerable victims.
Under the fear of imminent death, the bread-giving river made the population combine their efforts in joint work, taught solidarity, even if in reality the separate groups would hate each other.
The river burdened each individual member of the society with a part of communal work, the usefulness of which was realized only later on, while in the beginning its purpose was unclear to a majority of the people…
It means that in such societies a very important role is to be played by a wise Leader/ Chief/ Ruler, capable of not only discovering the need for this work much earlier than the majority of the compatriots, but also of organizing the work in a timely fashion and of leading the people.
Some of the “river civilization” countries , like China, – and, to some extent, Syria with Iraq – had to unite and rally their people under the threat of river waves, regularly overcoming them during the flood seasons. Since otherwise those waves brought contagious marshes and innumerable victims.
While other countries, – like Russia and Iran – had to behave in the same way in order to counter the waves of invading hordes of Pickpocket Hitmen, regularly trying to grab their riches, or to push them away from the “important crossroads”. Since otherwise those waves brought destroyed cities, town and villages, and innumerable victims
Like in the case of Russia under Stalin.
Perhaps off-topic, but worth adding…Stalin told Elanor Roosevelt that the President’s corpse ought to be examined for evidence of poison… This is on my library shelf but since this is an informal meeting I won’t go to the trouble of finding the precise source. It may be in Gore Vidal’s memoirs. Anyway, Elanor didn’t buy the idea… Since those days, however, the patterns of US dark politics have become somewhat illuminated, and the switcheroo that dumped the quasi-socialist VP, Wallace, and substituted the pliable Truman seems a bit “pat” – it smells. And that must be seen as following on to the three (yes, three) attempted coups against FDR. Again, this is informal – I’ll pass on citations. Easy enough to dope the guy and raise his blood-pressure – if the docs are in on it or not looking for it, especially in those days of fairly primitive chemical analysis… Blood-pressure? My memory is that this was claimed to be 235 over 155 – in such realms, but having looked for the exact claim and not found it yet I’ll pass on the detail – the point being that a little strychnine on top of heart disease would be a “prescription” right out of the CIA’s manual for murder…
I myself suspect that the same forces that assault Peace today did FDR to death, in some cases the same families…
It seems clear to me that Stalin and FDR had a secret and not so secret plan for the postwar world, and that the death was both anticipated and very helpful to those who had an entirely different plan…being pursued even as I type these poor words.
People say that Stalin once said “No man, no problem.” Maybe he said that, I don’t know, but in some cases the dictum would be: “No man, big problem!” – which may be what he said when he heard the FDR was gone, especially after Truman insulted Molotov…
(Just my “2 cents worth of thoughts)
And, Saker – many thanks for putting us onto Jimmie Moglia! Wonderful lectures!
Very interesting thoughts there. While I have no idea if they are true or not. It is a great question. I wish it would be able to be answered. I doubt today anyone would give permission for the remains to be checked for poison. So we’ll probably never know for certain.
Rybakov “The Arbat Children” attributed this quote to Stalin. Stalin’s education may explain his position re church. Zinoviev is a brilliant source as his works are both factual and anslytical (Solzhenitsin says himself that his Aphipelag Gulag is a work of literature). Thank you Ngoyo and Uncle Bob 1!
Truman was a British agentand thus coukd be relied upon to murder others for sake of obeying British order.
Anonymous: I found this…
“I don’t think [Eleanor] was ever fully aware, as a widow, how powerful she was, always ready to engage in dialogue except when Stalin, suspecting the president had been murdered, insisted she have an autopsy performed. ‘Marshall Stalin doesn’t know we are _not_ like that,” an ironic response in the light of later events. When Khrushchev came to the UN, she invited him to Hyde Park to view FDR’s grave and talk politics. Khrushchev rushed from New York City to Hyde Park, saw the grave, an rushed back. She was disappointed; also stoic. ‘Mr. Khrushchev,’ she told me, ‘is interested only in power and I have none.’ But of course she did, which _he_ did not grasp.”
G. Vidal, Point to Point Navigation (2006) p. 126
“I was sometimes shocked to hear generals talk about how easy it would be to get rid of Roosevelt through a military coup. Apparently we were fighting the wrong enemy. Stalin not Hitler was the threat. These bull sessions were pretty much just that, fueled by bourbon.”
It’s never wise to forget the alcoholic tirades which fueled American foreign policy then, and doubtlessly do so now.
IE, you can also post these things (answering others’ comments 6 days later…..) in the cafes so more people see them.
BTW, Eleanor was more of an influence on JFK in office than Joe Kennedy ever was. Jack matured in WW II and knew what his dad was: Not very good at all.
I share your absolutely original view Saker, that modern Russia has not emerged out of the bowels of the Soviet Union, nor does it represent a rebirth of pre-1917 Russia. Rather, modern Russia is something else that is yet to be defined.
My Islamic eschatology has led me to the view that Orthodox Christian Russia has an End-time tryst with destiny. Modern Russia appears to me to represent the first marvelous manifestation of that Russia that is already emerging that is destined to check-mate (I can find no better term to use) the Judeo-Christian Zionist alliance that you describe as the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
I have benefited from your essays on Islam and Russia, published on your website as well as in your recent book which I am still reading.
Please keep on writing!
My Islamic eschatology has led me to the view that Orthodox Christian Russia has an End-time tryst with destiny.
Yes, I also have the exact same feeling. Though Orthodox eschatology teaches us that while the End Times are inevitable, they can be delayed by the piety and resistance against Evil of men. Ever since the AngloZionist have basically decided to go to war against Russia (an 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military war), the risk of the End Times for mankind are really with us. But I still want to hope and believe that God will grand us some more time before the inevitable End.
Thank you for your kind words and support,
Let’s be a bit more cautious in regards to the “End-times” (actually the end of the “Age”, aeon, vek, era). For the Christian Orthodox eschatology (which let’s say from the beginning, in order to avoid any confusions, is not the same as the Islamic one) this “completion of times” is the Great Judgment, the Day when the Son of Man will come on the clouds to judge the living and the dead and whose Kingdom would have no end.
“But of THAT day and hour knoweth no man, not the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but my Father only”…
Any “hope” that THAT day can be “delayed by the piety and resistance against Evil of men” is a human delusion. It is not in our power. All we have to do is to: “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.” Be prepared like the wise virgins.
I would use the term “Judeo-Roman” because Christianity came from Judaism (plus it insinuates the Catholic Church into the Anglo-Zionist cabal)
Christianity does NOT come from “Judaism”. It comes, believe it or not, from… Christ.
‘Judaism’ is a deceptive term. It does not really design a system of beliefs. But rather the particular manner in which the inhabitants of ancient Judaea interpreted and twisted the Law of Moses (the Torah) to suit their pretensions that they are the only keepers of the Law, to whom submission and worship were due (along with the taxes for their upkeep and “services to the community”). Ioudaismos in Greek is a participle of Judaizo= to follow the ways of the Judaeans, to imitate the Judaeans, etc.
” Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
Ioudaismos would most naturally be understood, therefore, as a going over to or alignment with Judaean law and culture that the Christ supersede (and condemns).
“Ioudaismos” insinuated the Church in Rome, which lost its Catholicity (universality) by embracing a particular point of view. Nowadays it is no more a Church but a “parasynagogue” = “gatherings set up by insubordinate priests or bishops and by uninstructed people” by the definition of St. Basil the Great. They can hardly be called Christian anymore since they do not keep the commandments of Christ.
Actually, Christianity came from God the Father, who so loved the world that He gave his only Son. Interestingly, this God the Father figure was introduced, to Jews, as the God of the Jews! And, believe it or not, this Christ, who was a Jew, tried to save the Jews first! There are non-Chalcedonian Christian churches that retain many Jewish practices, and – gasp – still speak the language of Christ, that is, not of Christ only, but of the Jews at the time. There is even a Christian Church that claims to possess the Ark of the Covenant!
So your rhetoric is noted.
In terms of far-reaching cultural impacts, Christianity rose out of the milieu of Jewish monotheism placed within a Hellenized Roman Empire (yes, even then!). If you want to know where the combination of Messianic impulse and ruthless, unscrupulous expansionism derives, I would prefer to use the term Judeo-Roman rather than Judeo Christian.
@Christ, who was a Jew, tried to save the Jews first!
He tried to save the Jews from Judaism! They were not too grateful. They never considered Him a Jew, anyway. “The Jews answered and said to Him, ‘Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon’?”
The Church that claims to possess the Ark of the Covenant is the Ethiopian one. They do not speak the language of the Jews.
Is it not the case that Jesus was a “charismatic” rabbi who said that he fulfilled the Law. His immediate followers considered themselves part of Judaism and continued observant. It was a major shift away from the original Christianity when non-Jews were allowed to join without converting to Judaism.
Saker and Imran N. Hosein,
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your statement “modern Russia has not emerged out of the bowels of the Soviet Union”. Not sure about “bowels”, but what did modern Russia emerge from if not the Soviet Union? My generation and two before us grew up in the Soviet Union. Our world views formed during that time and in that country. And it is us who are creating the new Russia today, through pain and soul searching of the 1990s, learning through our mistakes, but definitely seeing the Soviet period as the intrinsic part of our history, of who we are. Most in Russia will tell you the same.
In defense of Jews, they were an international and instinctivey internationalist people with roots in many lands, who are brought up with a broadly humanist outlook and trained to think and argue critically. The great Jewish bankers, with the Rothschilds at their head, had tremendous influence over ruling classes, presidents and kings. But the anti-imperialism, egalitarianism, anti-capitalism and communalism which were baked into the Jewish people I grew up among was genuine and heartfelt.
It is increasingly common for bloggers to assert that many leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were agents of the Rothschilds, their evidence being mainly that many were Jewish plus Lenin’s closed-carriage ride across Germany. I can’t square that with the near-total isolation and blockade of Russia from 1918 to the late ’30’s and again after 1945, or the historical record that many leaders of the US and Britain, deeply entwined with those bankers, were eager and ready to use their new thermonuclear weapons in a genocidal war to destroy the Soviet Union.
I have had many debates and discussions over the years with Communists and Trotskyists – many of them Jewish – and never did I detect the slightest hint of any being soft on bankers – or in recent yeas soft on Zionism for that matter. In the world of my youth as far as I knew (and I was looking) it was the Communists and other Marxists, many of them Jewish, who were talking and writing about the growing concentration and financialization of capital and its relationship to imperialism, neo-colonialism and the warfare state. I first learned of the process by which the great banking houses had gained control of empires of corporations and had come to dominate the state from a pamphlet by a Marxist Jew. It was 40 years before I saw that same analysis coming from anywhere else.
In defense of Jews, they were an international and instinctivey internationalist people with roots in many lands, who are brought up with a broadly humanist outlook and trained to think and argue critically
That is not so. Most Jews were raised in extremely self-enclosed societies controlled by the iron rule of rabbis of which the shtetl is the perfect example. Only the Jews who broke out of that self-enclosed society, and who were denounced by the others as “traitors”, managed to have access to the humanist ideals (ain’t no humanism in the Talmud). Bolsheviks were typically Jews who broke with the Judaic traditions and life, but who never adopted the ideals of humanism. The only thing they took with them from their roots was a virulent hatred from Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity especially. Thus they became ideal cadre for the ChK-GPU.
Perhaps the hard-working Jewish immigrants I grew up among, went to school with, dated, worked with and shared struggles with were different, but that was not my experience of them.
I see that you and I were speaking of different generations.
You were referring to Jews that you met in your life
I was referring to the generation which participated in the Bolshevik revolution.
But if we refer to modern Jews, I would agree with you.
Only a minority, at least outside Israel, is still locked in the Talmudic world.
But that does not mean that they are not locked into a Jewish outlook which is not, by definition, a human outlook. And therein lies the rub!!!!
Unfortunately, however, most of these secular, “humanistic” Jews (pals of my youth as they constituted a large portion of the enlightened, leftist summer colony as opposed to the “yummy” yacht clubbers in a nearby community) who rareely if ever saw the insides of a synagogue have latterly become Zionists and rabid and unquestioning Israel supporters iwth an irrational hatred of Palestinians and similarly irrational (or is it self- or Israel-serving) hysterical fear that “It could happen again here.”
“Most Jews were raised in extremely self-enclosed societies controlled by the iron rule of rabbis of which the shtetl is the perfect example.”
This might be the situation in countries with a strong feudal history, for the very simple reason that the jews were excluded from many things, like owning land. This exclusion forced them into handcraft labour and trade. In Venice they became the money lenders, since the catholic church forbid lending with interest. The jews had the same rule omang themselves, but were allowed to ask interest to non-jews. They sat on their benches outside their shops (hence our word for bank) in their quarter were they were forced to live. The Italians called it the ghetto.
The Netherlands, more particularly the Western part, Holland) has little or no fuedal tradition. The northern part wasn’t even pacified till 1400. It was the land of free traders – the ‘Friezen’ – with strong connection with Scotland, Scandinavia and trade even up to Novgogod. Due to this historical condition Holland was one of the early trade nations and early capitalist development. It became a magnet for many oppressed people of Europe, jews from Portugal and French protestants in the 17th century and later people from the eastern countries. All running away from pogroms and oppression by fuedal absolutist rulers.
It is the reason why Amsterdam had a very vibrant jews community of around 100.000 people, untill 1940. The overall majority belonged to the working class. They were fully intergrated, and untill the nazi’s came there was not a jewish problem. Yes there were rich jews, and a lot within the so called middle class. But for the working class jews their was less affection with them than their fellow co-workers in the factories. And vice versa. It were the rich jews who formed the ‘Jewish Council’, whe made the lists for deportation for the nazi’s.
Concerning segregation, yes the jews had their synagoges, their special days for celebrations, but so had the catholics and protestants. They were even worse. They had their own schools, papers, radio stations, sportsclub etc. Catholic priests and protestant ministers threathened against inter religeous marriages, to vote on socialist or communist parties, forbid to listenen to other radio stations other than theirs, and on and on.
The bottom line is, before accusing the jews for their segregation, one has to take the history into account. And the more an country has a fuedal background, the more ferocious was anti-semitism (Russia, Poland, Germany, but also France).
No mention in comments so far about Soviet era records/archives being made available on the internet in the near future?
Possibly it will then be easier to sort fact from fiction.
Looking at the of Russian leadership now, I often wonder if the top end psychopaths in Russia over the last century fought a war of mutually assured destruction, clearing the rubbish out of the top end.
The “west” can certainly do with some heavy duty culling at the top end.
1930 to 1989…well, maybe there will be something on the FDR/Truman switcheroo…
I am minded of General Ripper, who famously said in Dr Strangelove “Two can play that game, soldier!” Indeed, Comrade President plays expertly!
I’ve always wondered why Henry Ford threw in his lot with Stalin and suspected I’d missed something. This was no American bumpkin, after all. As with Hitler, whose crime was that he failed to deliver Palestine to the Irgun and interned many Jews in work camps after their unilateral declaration of war on Germany in 1933, much of the vitriol against Stalin stemmed from his purge and trials of Trotskyite Jews. It was only Russians that died by the millions, we likely would never have heard a peep about it. And neither would we in the West have heard of Solzhenitsyn–he would have gotten his “9 grams” in the back of the head, and that would have been it. (I still have Solzhenitsyn’s infamous Harvard commencement address that got him thrown on the West’s “ash heap of history.:)
Even though anti-Nazis cannot be objective about Hitler, I’m always open to sound revisionist ideas. By abandoning the Trots’ principle of subversion and export of revolution, Stalin did open the way to peace with the West–although it was rejected. (I think this was what Henry Ford saw in Stalin.) I believe, Stalin was poisoned by the same cosmopolitan elements he purged in the 1930s.
With Hitler, despite official statistics showing Jewish world population was several hundred thousand higher in 1948 than it was in the in the mid 1930s and Red Cross figures showing Jewish deaths in camps of 78,000 or so, it is virtually impossible for revisionist historians to get a hearing of their ideas. While Stalin has not been deemed worthy to have historians who wish to refurbish his image thrown in prison, I suspect cosmopolitan gatekeepers will strongly resist any Stalinist revisionism of the type you suggest.
I know that the Saker in mentioning the holocaust requested that no-one mention the holocaust. But can I ask for some corroboration.
You seem to say that the German Jews “declared unilateral war” on Hitler in 1933. What precisely do you mean? And what is the evidence?
You say Hitler failed to deliver Palestine to the Jews. Is there any evidence he was expected to?
I remember in the 1980s, and I believe before, there was much work done by Western historians on mass killing of Russians by the Soviet government. I don’t know how they thought they could quote statistics, but they certainly made sure we “heard about it”.
Who carried out the population survey of Jews pre and post War?
Where is the Red Cross estimate of 78 000 deaths in the camps?
I take it that your 78 000 does not include the hundreds of thousands killed by the Einsatzgruppen in Poland, the Baltics, Byelorussia, and Ukraine? They reported their kill rate to Berlin regularly and their reports were picked up by the British.
Who precisely managed to poison Stalin and how? Was it his doctors?
It is a puzzle.
There were three hundred and fifty thousand Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in July 1942. By September, two hundred and fifty thousand had been transferred to Treblinka. These are the Nazis’ own numbers. How many emerged from Treblinka? The Soviets would have a good idea, as with Auschwitz and the other camps in Poland. Not many. At the very least, the figure of seventy eight thousand deaths in all camps just seems very, very odd.
From this article on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Americans
the following excerpt:
Jewish Immigration and Antisemitism in the Russian Empire
“Antisemitism was not foreign to Russia before 1881. Restrictions to Jewish movement began with Catherine the Great’s creation of the Jewish Settlement of the Pale in 1791. Russian Jews were required to live in this settlement on the Western border of Russia. The Pale was created to rid Moscow of Jewish influence. Through the early nineteenth century, Russian Jews experienced periods of forced assimilation and relative acceptance from the Russian government and Russian society. Nicholas I, the Russian Tsar from 1825 to 1855, hoped to eradicate Jewish life entirely from Russia through forcing Russian Jews to convert. In 1827 the Tsar decreed that all Jews serve 25 years in the Russian army. While in service, Jewish recruits were pressured to convert to Russian orthodox Christianity. Furthermore, Nicholas I created state sponsored schools that focused on converting Jewish students to Christianity. After ascending the throne in 1855, Russian Tsar Alexander II’s liberal reforms reached out to Jews and other minorities, encouraging Jews to integrate into greater Russian society instead of converting to Christianity. Universities and schools opened to Jewish attendance and Jewish graduates were newly eligible for government service. Russian Jews hoped Alexander II’s regime would be a permanent turning point in the national attitude towards Judaism. Jewish enrollment in university drastically increased; in 1853 only 1.25 percent of the student body in Russia was Jewish, while by 1873 this figure had jumped to 13.2 percent.
These hopes were not fulfilled. A bomb thrown at his carriage assassinated Alexander II on March 1, 1881. A Revolutionary terrorist organization called the People’s Will carried out the attack, but rumors spread that a Jewish conspiracy was responsible. The national attitude towards Jews rapidly changed. The Russian press implied a large share of Jewish responsibility for the assassination of Alexander the II. Anti-Semitic riots broke out throughout Russia. Jews were attacked and their property destroyed as police watched indifferently. In May 1882, Alexander II’s heir, Alexander III, ushered in pogroms known as the May Day Laws that suppressed Jews and other underrepresented minorities, reversing his father’s more liberal policies. While the boundaries of the Pale were never absolute, the May Day Laws strictly enforced these boundaries in order to “cleanse” the Russian country side. Jewish families were forced into the pale’s already overcrowded cities and ghettos. Alexander III reversed the opening of school and universities, and implemented a quota system. The system reduced Jewish attendance to 10 percent in the Pale, 5 percent outside of the Pale and 3 percent in St. Petersburg and Moscow schools. Jews were forbade from working on Sundays and other Christian holidays, putting them at a disadvantage to Christian competitors who could work on Saturdays, the day of the Jewish Sabbath. On the first day of Passover in 1891 the Government expelled all Jews from Moscow, excluding a small number of aristocrats. The government’s given reason for these laws were easing the “conflict between Jews and the native population”.
The country’s attitude to Judaism caused some to convert to Christianity and baptize their children. This method was far from foolproof and most Jews still experienced discrimination despite converting. Many more Jews chose to immigrate to the US, Israel and other countries friendlier to Judaism. Entire families immigrated, a sign their new home would be permanent. Jewish families were not sending money back like immigrants of different nationalities, but creating a new homeland in their adopted country.
The most common explanation of this Jewish migration is persecution, but economic deprivation was also influential. Advocates for an economic cause of Jewish migration point out that large scale Jewish migration began in Russia a decade before the May Day Laws were enacted. Often, persecution and economic disadvantages went hand and hand in Russia. Economic deprivation radically worsened after Alexander II’s assassination. Jews could no longer perform certain jobs such as inn keeper or tavern owner. Shop signs were required to bear the shop owner’s full Hebrew name, alerting possible customers that they were buying from Jewish sellers. The overcrowded Pale could not support enough business to provide for the entire Jewish community and, along with fighting intense competition, access to capital, equipment and credit was limited in the Pale. To add to the problem, the Jewish population in Russia almost quadrupled between 1860 and 1910. Quality of life in the Pale quickly deteriorated. At the turn of the century it is estimated 30 to 35 percent of the Jewish population depended on relief provided by Jewish welfare institutions (50 Gitelman). Mortality rates in the Jewish community were twice as high as those in non-Jewish Russian communities. The migration was also likely a reinforcing cycle. Extended families followed each other over seas to keep families intact.”
I have no data on actual numbers of victims of the Nazi holocaust, but have grown up with the belief that there were many hundreds of thousands.
But there are many in this blog, including The Saker, who always speak that these figures are highly inflated and that were far fewer, but no one gives sources / documents to confirm this.
To me, taking into account the racist Nazi ideology and constancy of all rough experiments known undertaken to preserve the purity of the Aryan race, I do not know why, but I can imagine with pretty little effort, many, many victims, by the pure logic of the common sense. One has only to remember things that have happened in the Ukraine to imagine what might happen if those varmints were responsible for a country like Germany with its economic and military power.
What I’ve seen so far is that the Jews were discriminated in Tsarist Russia and confined in ghettoes, so they were not the ones who wanted to live isolated from others, but they were obliged to do so. If anything, seems a good reason for those who had not left Russia for not having means to do so, joining Bolshevik Revolution in mass, only for survival instinct, along with the masses of empoverished peasants, and without thinking in any conspiracy theories.
I, frankly, do not have time to investigate everything, and on my last visit to Paris, I had no time to visit the Memorial of the Shoah, which I had planned to do, but someday I will.
Based on the Bad Arolsen documents, the Nazi documents captured by the Russians, and their own records, in 1984 the Red Cross has estimated the TOTAL Red Cross estimate number of deaths for all prisoners, including but not limited to Jews, in Nazi concentration camps to be 262,077. The authenticity of the estimates was verified in the trial of Ernst Zundel by the director of the International Tracing Service, see http://www.zundelsite.org/english/101/english1013.html and http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=120 and http://www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd10biedermann.html
Deeply depressing that this canard continues to quack.
This was a wonderful article. I had come to similar conclusions and formed the same opinions.
– This isn’t why I liked it.
Thanks for sharing.
Richard, Melbourne, Australia
I fully expect more than 600 comments here! Not because Saker invited participation, but the way he wrote about this topic wets one’s appetite to contribute.
The Stalin-Topic is of such multi-importance that I don’t know of anything else coming even close in the last 250 years. Clearly, Stalin was a key participant in most of the geopolitical turning points of the 20th century,
Soviet industrialization, electrification,
Founding of UN,
Elimination of British Empire
Creation of the State of Israel,
Korean war, …
No other statesman (and he definitely was that) comes close to his involvements, accomplishments, experience, and vision. Not all of them healthy, successful or
moral. Some would think of W. Churchill, but I think his historical role is vastly inflated.
Perhaps L. Trotsky is comparable, indeed looked even more promising up to 1924
(Lenin’s death), but Stalin did outmaneuvered him , yet another of his mysteries.
My deepest heartfelt thanks for such a well thought out overview, clearing distortions concerning unpleasant history. Being erudite is never enough and your courage and morality, arranging facts from a different perspective somehow bring peace to my soul.
How do you get away challenging that shibboleth of million and gas chambers? That has got many good people jailed for years! God bless and more power to you.
How do you get away challenging that shibboleth of million and gas chambers?
By living in the USA which still has a First Amendment, something which most (all?) European countries do not have.
In the US, making the challenge is not the challenge. The Constitution still just about upholds freedom of speech in such instances, unlike here in Europe. As anywhere else, the real challenge is producing credible evidence (such as outweighs the evidence to the contrary) for saying that it is a shibboleth.
Of course, this being a blog, the first amendment don’t apply here.
By which I mean that the Saker has the protection of the First, but need not extend it to anyone commenting here. His blog, his rules. But I do think that he would want to avoid the appearance of applying different evidentiary standards to different genocides. That is something the West is good at (see Bosnia or Rwanda or…). But perhaps I’m getting presumptuous. Not the intention – trying to engage in genuine debate or disputation, not needle or jeer.
After reading The Saker’s article, (and the comments), one first and obvious thought came to my mind. Namely, how much our personal experience shapes our thought, including our historical opinions.
For our own life is a history – and besides, in every written history, bubbles up the history of the historian himself.
Therefore… I first propose the idea that there are (5) stages involved in forming our historical opinion(s), including on Stalin. Then I will try to briefly say how mine came about.
Stage 1. We may not call it yet an opinion, but it is what we learn at home, at school, at church (if applicable), from television and movies. This stage lasts approximately till junior high.
Stage 2. (I speculate that the great majority stops at stage 1). We start reading for personal interest, we get involved with people who, by the force of their own thought, inspire us to meditate on ours. Perhaps we travel. Maybe we meet people from other countries, who seem original in how they behave and tell their stories and opinions. We realize that what we learned in stage 1, not only can be questioned but is not true in the sense we thought it was.
Stage 3. Reading being addictive, we read more history. Now we engage in a silent dialog with the writer (whether of history or literature). We begin to see that a good writer (that’s why we call him/them classics), is interesting in thought and delightful in expression . Clarity of thought and pleasure of expression are inseparable. Now our opinions can be compared to a limitless expanding mosaic, in which each new acquisition is an added tile.
Stage 4. We realize that the more we read (and add our experiences and other opinions as more tiles in the mosaic), the more difficult it is to proclaim papal-style encyclicals, embodying (our) dogmatic truth.
Which is not to say that complexity prevents us from distinguishing good from evil. But the recognition of complexity prompts us to suspend our judgment, or at least to see more sides of an issue.
Stage 5. Our opinions are now similar to those magnificent Byzantine mosaics, where you see the whole as the sum of thousands little tiles of different shapes and color, blending into one comprehensive effect. And yet, unlike the static mosaic of the analogy, our opinions are never final.
Which brings me to how I formed mine about Stalin. And, if you have enough patience to read through, how I have reached, through entirely different paths, conclusions quite close to the Saker’s.
I grew up in Italy, in a Catholic family, my grandfather being the exception, an agnostic and a socialist, though he never belonged to any party. I was deeply involved in the life of the parish, which was run by Franciscan monks (thank God there were no pedophiles).
The provincial friars instructed the monks, the bishops the provincial friars, the archbishops the bishops and the pope the archbishops. Bottom line, communism was ‘evil’ because it was ‘Godless’ – communists were automatically excommunicated. There was a sarcastic sentence summing up the anti-communist (and by inference anti-Russian) propaganda of the time, “Communists eat children.”
In truth one Franciscan monk of the church struck a deep friendship with my agnostic grandfather. Thinking about it later, it reminded me of Balzac’s novel “The Atheist’s Mass”, but I digress.
As a very young man I travelled to Russia and I concluded immediately that the ideas acquired at stage 1, and already questioned in stage 2, were complete BS.
My trips were not extensive, but long enough to conclude that people ran their own life seemingly contentedly, or at least without great unhappiness or great expectations. And with a certain quiet pride – after all, their nation put the first satellite and the first man in space. Their schools seemed excellent based on the students I spoke with etc. etc.
During stage 3 and 4, disgusted at the war in Vietnam, I read more about US history – and the immensely distorted picture given by Hollywood (my first perception, as a youngster, of American history). I then began to ask if everything else propagandized about Russia (and Stalin), could be as true as the movies about the evil Indians or the evil North Vietnamese, that John Wayne bravely fought against in ‘Green Berets’.
It then occurred, or seemed, to me that,
a) There is a continuum between the cultural developments in the Russia of the XIX century and the events that led to the 1917 revolution.
b) As it can be (perhaps) expected only from Russia, where even the villains are original, the 1917 revolution was the first successful experiment at turning our way of life completely upside-down. And in line, at least in intent, with messages expressed in the Russian classics (I specifically think of Tolstoi, though there are others).
In other words, what Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, etc. were to the French revolution, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Pushkin etc. were to the Russian Revolution.
Let’s not forget that the beginning of the French revolution had remarkable similarities (at least conceptually), with the Russian revolution. But in the French instance – the funding coming from the newly rich bourgeoisie – Robespierre became quickly dispensable; he was the Saddam Hussein of his time, a total misrepresentation in both cases. Good-bye revolution.
So much so that Frenchmen found everything wrong with king and nobles, but nothing wrong with an emperor.
As for Stalin, the Western narrative portrayed him as a shrewd, cruel and ignorant peasant –clearly not true. That the revolution could survive a civil war and the intervention of the western armies is, historically, a miracle.
In assembling what I had read, or learned from holders or qualified opinions, I concluded,
1. That in Russia there was a deep-seated fear of foreign meddling, in the midst of a (revolutionary) process never tried before in history on this scale. Namely, to radically change certain entrenched modes of thought acquired in infancy, including the patriarchal scheme, eventually traceable to the equation of sex with sin, etc. etc.
2. That in this respect, even Lenin had been somewhat too optimistic (easy to say after the fact, of course). And that in the face of these difficulties, Stalin had to deal with problems so big that even a minor tilt of the scale may have brought a total collapse.
3. That the dangers increased even more during the 1930s when the West, due to the restlessness of the working class, had as an absolute priority the destruction of the Soviet Union for fear of a revolutionary contagion. Hence the repression of real (or perceived), so-called right-wing deviationism in Russia, was assumed as an indispensable necessity.
4. That even after the patriotic war, the danger did not end. After all, the USA had nonchalantly dropped the A-bombs on actual people – why could they not drop them next on Russia? The danger was real for at least 5 years.
For these reasons I see in Stalin a person and a symbol of the survival of the Soviet Union. For what is worth, I do not think (without any other evidence than me saying so), that Stalin was killed.
He lived a (materially) good life but he had subjected himself to great stress, dangers and hardships in his youth. He had even been run over by a horse chariot, which left him partially disabled. He smoke heavily and when he stopped smoking, not long before he died, he put on weight. All conditions that, from what we know, can cause a stroke, or brain hemorrhage or similar.
But there is a very personal, though indirect reason why I, and many millions of Europeans, should spare some good thoughts for Stalin. After WWII, there was actual fear of him and of a 1917-like revolution, even in countries like England. We owe in good part to the fear of Russia, the social reforms bringing health-care to all, plus labor protection, free instruction etc. etc.
The contributions by the USSR to the various Communist Parties in the West were notoriously meager, but, when we think of Russia’s sacrifices in the patriotic war, those contributions deserve as great, if not greater gratitude than if they had been 10 times as big.
As I mentioned at the end of the series (episode 5), the intent of the cycle on “The Life of Stalin” was to provide a connective thread among the many events of a remarkable life, and a starting point for those who wish to know more. I am personally pleased that the series and The Saker’s article have triggered such a variety of comments, many of which illuminating, both on the subject and on the person who made them.
For I see The Saker’s site as a XXIst century version of the XVIIIth century Parisian cafes, where the French philosophes d’antan were discussing how man should live and how society should evolve. Which implies, then and now, a measure of hope for the future.
Unless we resign ourselves to think like Hamlet, who was so pissed-off with mankind, as to say to his chums, “What is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me, nor woman either, though by your smiling, you may seem to say so.”
Thanks dear Jimmie. This is not an easy topic to tackle, not only because of the polarization, but because for many of us is involves very strong feelings which our families put into us.
I am honored by our friendship.
Thank you, Mr Moglia, for everything you’re doing and for your well-considered post above!
And yes, indeed, thanks also to Saker for hosting this open cafe!
Great comment. It should be promoted to post.
Has anyone read this book?
It supports many of Sakers’ views.
The nature of Zionism
By Vladimir Stepin
Published – in Russian – in Moscow, 1993
Translated into English – for Radio Islam – by Clive Lindhurst.
Quoting from the chapter:
This Zionists element was to be found in the other Eastern European countries !!! It is there today but most people in the West are oblivious of this.
EU is a Democratic Illusion with the Anglo-Zionist influence at its heart.
It certainly is an enormously difficult task to talk objectively and dispassionately about personalities who stood for a long time at the center of events which so profoundly and variously affected the lives of the contemporaries as well as of their descendants, and that all over the world. It brings to mind the historical representation of the Emperor Justinian, who reigned for a similar period of time and who continues to be remembered either as a saint or a monster in the popularization historical literature, based on perfectly contemporary sources. Of course, the proximity (both temporal and spatial) to the events strongly colors the interpretation. How many of those who contribute to this blog have lived under the ubiquitous watch of the real “Little Father” batyushka (not the literary invention of Big Brother) or can remember how as kids were dreaming to be tickled by this moustache.
What we really need is a historical perspective, a historical context as wide as possible. But to get the gist of what history tells you one has to get rid of ideology, prejudices, catch-words like Stalinism, Trotskyism, Fascism, Totalitarianism.
And of course, “Antisemitism”. I know, I know, touchy subject. But how would you reconcile Stalin’s declaration of 1931:
“National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism….Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty”,
with the views of the Jews themselves:
“Supported by newly declassified archival material, Russian journalist Vaksberg’s expose documents Stalin’s relentless, fanatical anti-Semitism. The Soviet dictator purged thousands of Jews from their political or professional posts and sent them to concentration camps or execution pits, liquidated nearly all Jewish army officers, persecuted prominent Jews in show trials with anti-Semitic overtones and herded several thousand Jewish families to a barren Far Eastern wasteland in what was supposed to become an exclusively Jewish territory. Meanwhile, as camouflage, he surrounded himself with Jewish aides, appointed Jews as the commanders of gulags and kept his loyal comrade Lazar Kaganovich as the only Jew in the Politburo. Moscow-based Vaksberg ( The Soviet Mafia ) also documents the revival of state-sanctioned anti-Semitism under Krushchev and Brezhnev and the hate-mongering of contemporary ultranationalist groups.” (Stalin Against the Jews, by Arkady Vaksberg)? What happened in the meantime? During the War, or before? How the evacuation of the Jews of the Western areas of USSR to the rear (evacuation for which the Jews could not find enough words of praise for the Soviet authorities which organized it) became after the War “deportation”? Well, that has something to do with the Holocaust. It is a problem that must be addressed.
There are many others, of course. The discussion is not close yet.
It can be reconciled if you consider that, as an ideologue Stalin was against anti-Semitism, but as the Party Leader he ruthlessly crushed the AngloZionist clique (primarily consisting of the Jewish leaders led by Trotsky) within the CPSU that would have otherwise derailed the entire initiative of ‘Soviet’.
The problem really is why the Jews saw the elimination of the Trotskyites, who have not been specifically eliminated for being Jews, as a proof of “relentless, fanatical anti-Semitism”?
What made them make such absurd statements: ” Had Stalin lived, it is very likely that he would have set into motion a second Holocaust less than a decade after the first one ended with the defeat of the Nazis”?
Elimination of the Trotskyites by Stalin was indeed a political act which didn’t have an iota of racial hatred (i.e. anti-Semitism).
However, Jew aristocrats/elites who are part of AngloZionist plutocratic clique always need an overarching shield that can be used as a defensive as well as offensive armour to be used against any/all actions which resists AngloZionist actions by any/all actors anywhere/allover the world.
This shield / armour is “anti-Semitism” – nowadays any statement in west Europe criticizing the government actions favouring AngloZionist clique but damaging common citizens interest, are labelled as “act of anti-Semitism” ! Could you imagine what sort of control these globalists AngloZionist cabal has over the local elites/aristocrats ?
Stalin stopped the handover of Crimea post-WW II to the Jew oligarchy as an understanding reached between Jew elites and AngloZionist clique of USA and UK. Had he survived the murderers’ attempt on his life, he would have really decimated the entire AngloZionist clique at least in Europe and Middle-East.
@Had he survived the murderers’ attempt on his life, he would have really decimated the entire AngloZionist clique at least in Europe and Middle-East.
He survived the first attempt and probably the retribution would have been dire. That’s why they rushed to get rid of him in time.
North Korea today is the last relic of a Stalinist regime,—where a kind of neo-feudalism still uses much of “communist” terminology to justify itself and where a modern “god-king” truly determines on personal whim who lives, who dies, who eats, who starves, who is allowed to walk around and who is kept confined in prison or some camp.
The concept of “meat grinder” where original mass-murderers and executioners were exterminated by successive cadres of mass-murderers and executioners, and so on, so on,—notably during the years of Yagoda and Yezhov. It is easy to explain. It is like the ferocious mob boss who sends a hitman to slaughter a family, and then hires another hitman to kill the original murderer simply to get rid of inconvenient witness, and then in turn hires another assassin to kill and finally himself kills the final assassin,—and thus there are no witnesses left, no inconvenience.
It would be pretty clear that if Stalin’s regime got its hands on any “richer elite Europeans” they and all their families would get the same fate as the tsar’s family. They would all be exterminated. Back then, Stalin and his regime were really much like Da’esh today,—seen as and likely truly were very bloodthirsty fanatics.
I think the Trotskyist matter is largely a red herring,—had Trotskyist world revolution succeeded the horrible famines and purges and mass murders of Stalin’s regime likely would have never happened, and if true as I read somewhere that Trotsky wrote that he expected “class solidarity” between German commoner soldiers and Eastern European workers and peasants would overwhelm and dissipate any murderous hostilities,—that if true sounds like a rather naiive “intellectual” and hardly some great exterminator.—Unless standing behind Trotsky were other forces who were bent on a global regime of endless warfare, endless terror, depopulation, reduce humans to a mere 600,000 elite persons and 60,000,000 attendant slaves, on a “paradise planet playground” or something like that.
As I recollect, it was Stalin’s NKVDists in civil war Spain with their efforts to micromanage and control even people’s thoughts that inspired George Orwell, otherwise a kind of “anarchist-Trotskyist” as I understand, to write the famous “1984” novel and its nightmarish totalitarian society.—I frankly strongly suspect that Stalin was very much a globalist in his own right, only he wanted the global government to be like his government, the constant “meat-grinder” and all.
The western globalists rejected this model, and so there developed a struggle between the two rival systems, each seeking victory and global domination.
The reason why Stalin and the USSR survived the invasion by the German led armies from Europe is due to the peculiar dogmatic racism adopted by the Germans, a belief that the advances in higher mathematics and technology from the 1800’s onward which occurred in Western Europe were somehow predominantly caused by genetic factors and racial factors. Had Hitler taken the approach to Eastern Europeans, Ukrainians, Russians, had emulated the approach of Alexander the Great toward Persia and the Persians, it is most likely that the invaders would have handily won the war, and most people would not fight for Stalin’s regime where no one was safe. Had Alexander behaved toward the Persians as Hitler behaved, there would be little doubt that the peoples of the Persian Empire would have risen and kicked him and his army all the way back to Macedon.
One might take a look at the example of Mao Zedong in China, a kind of emperor-figure in his own right and having many more people and a more complex society to manage. Yet he notably did not order the murders of the persons around him, even during the Cultural Revolution, when high officials were put under house arrest, demoted, disgraced, but at least not murdered, the way Stalin murdered others. Lin Biao, Mao’s designated heir, for a time, did apparently betray and supposedly died when his airplane crashed as he tried to escape to the USSR. Mao’s rulership stands as quite a serious contrast to Stalin’s rulership which stands as strangely crazily much more ferocious by comparison.
Ultimately, it looks like it is shadowy emotional organisms of endless rage and fear which govern human affairs and prompt the human gladiators to just keep on fighting in the arena and just keep producing the maximal amounts of rage energies and fear energies as the end in itself.
The world is a playground for “evil spirits.”
I don’t see a connection (other than some of the phrases they utter) between Stalin’s USSR and North Korea. The “personality cult” of Stalin’s Russia and the Kim Dynasty in North Korea is totally different. The Kim’s are more like an imperial dynasty (though called differently). Stalin didn’t pass rule on through his family. And the machinations of almost “god worship” shown in North Korea for their rulers would make even the most devoted Stalinist blanch. I don’t see the efforts made in the USSR to build a strong economy being done in North Korea either. The North Korean leadership seems to me more of an old styled dictatorship like the Trujillo in the Dominican Republic than a socialist one. Though they do try and use the terminology of socialism to justify their rule.
I’m not going to debate your opinions, a hard task. You are out of your depth here.
Where Stalin did well was the transformation of Russia’s economy. The results of his command economy was nothing short of miraculous. Politically he also did well by kicking out the despicable Trotsky (if he was alive today he’d be a neocon)
However, the answer to the question, does the end justify the means?…is always no. I wonder if there was something Stalin could have done differently to minimise the human cost. This is why his legacy is controversial. Many respect him but he does not have the all out admiration and affection of, say, a Charles de Gaulle. (The French have named every single town square in France after him.)
I also believe western propaganda has done a lot to malign Stalin. The west’s moral superiority is sickening. I will never understand how they can criticize Stalin and then worship a wicked man like Churchill.
end justifying means… This is a subject more subtle than Serbian girl thinks… I propose that the answer is not “never”, but “usually”. The end often, but not always, justifies the means – it depends…
Examples abound… In Jewish and Christian (and I rather imagine) Moslem teaching we can see example-stories. The argument between man and god over the destruction of Sodom, for example, seems to suggest that it’s ok or even “good” to do away with 10% good people in order to dispose of the 90% bad people…
But I’m not calling on “scripture”, I’m pointing out a reality we see every day…in Syria, or in Poughkeepsie…
Ethics is, as Einstein wrote, situational…
The classical example is the life-boat one. In an overloaded boat facing a terrible storm some people have to go overboard to prevent the loss of all hands… Obviously the murder of some is just… Yes, it’s not a nice matter, but it’s real. And it’s a good reason to have plenty of “life-boats”!
Isn’t that what Kissinger claims as his defence? He says he had to kill x no. of people in order to save y no. of people, (y being greater than x).
I understand Realpolitik and that there may be subtleties, various interpretations and even support for Machiavelli’s ideas. As far as I know, however, from a strictly religious (christian) perspective there is no such thing as “situational ethics”.
And the logical conclusion of merely instrumental ethics is the infamous quote from the Vietnam War of a US major, reported by Peter Arnett: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”.
@”. I will never understand how they can criticize Stalin and then worship a wicked man like Churchill.
Couldn’t agree more. Churchill ordered the bombing of Dresden (no strategic significance but many civilians refugees gathered there) in a particularly gruesome fashion (waves of fire bombs), also Hamburg, which did have strategic significance as a port, yet I have read that the civilian areas were targeted , to “break German morale and resistance,” and heart. REad Wolf Bohrmann’s account of the fire bombings. None of this harmed Churchill’s rep when it came to labeling the war criminals. After the war the Germans carreid such a burden of guilt that they thought they deserved the punishment Churchill meted out to civilians, and to the whole culture (destruction of perfect roccocco city).
Sorry that shuld have been Wolf Bierman.
Hope I got that right now.
I know only what I read and am not an expert. But it seems to me that the puzzlement surrounding Stalin is that he was capable of nuance – great nuance. This is not really a despotic trait. On the one hand, you have a man who apparently kept in his drawer the last pleading letter of his lifelong friend who he had shot, and the purges did not only touch party members, but also wives families. On the other hand, he was capable of rehabilitation, had read 5,000books, and you also have a man who saved Russia in several respects, not only WW2, but also the industrialization required to fight off any 20 century invasion. Who stayed in Moscow throughout, and who kept every one of his promises on Churchill’s “naughty piece of paper”, in Greece, Austria, etc.
When one sees puzzling, inexplicable nuance like this and the conventional wisdom is “complex character”, prubably closer to the truth is lost facts: Maybe ruthless things that were done by those that were bumped off, or a vital reason where ruthlessness was a vital necessity in some circumstances but not others, reasons which were never recorded or have been lost from the historical record.
It is wrong to assume that all executions that took place in the USSR were ordered by Stalin. There were many instances when Stalin intervened to put an end to the excesses committed by regional and national cadres. For instance, during the anti-kulak period (1928?), he excoriated the abuses by the local peasants and cadres because the party line was not, yet, the forcible expropriation of private lands.
He also intervened to rehabilitate many people who where victims of abuses and punish the perpetrators.
Crimes, including political, in the USSR where dealt with by courts in the normal way (e.g. Bukharin was tried one year after his arrest). The exception where the summary trials in exceptional/emergency/martial law cases.
Besides, Stalin was only the chairman of the Politburo – every decision taken by it was collective and there were many instances of heated arguments over policy, especially in relation to industrialization (the Trotsky faction opposed heavy industry, kolkhozes, reforms to the Red Army, etc.).
He did not rule alone and the enormity of the tasks at hand were such that he could not possibly do so. His directions to the cadres were guidelines according to the policies approved by the Congress. Besides, the running of the government was in the hands of the People’s Commisars.
Many accuse Stalin that he didn’t see the War coming or that he wasn’t prepared for the War. I think this is the silliest accusation.
Stalin predicted the Big War as early as in the 2nd half of 1920’s. His was the single voice in the Politburo who insisted that the War is imminent and that USSR must prepare for it at all cost. At that time, Trotsky was planning to spread revolution to other countries, and Bukharin called to enjoy the (relatively) comfy life of the New Economic Policy, which already brought some prosperity, abundance of food, and consumer products. Only Stalin knew that they are fools, that survival of the nation was at stake and that little time was left before the big Meat Grinder. History showed that he was right and that he had only 10-12 years to prepare for the War.
Thus Stalin’s ideas about “socialism in one country” and “besieged fortress”. All his actions in the 1930’s make perfect sense from this perspective. He needed tanks and airplanes as soon as possible and as many as possible. So, he needed canals, electric power plants, and steel production. Credit was not available? Not enough workers? So, he simply robbed the peasants (collectivization), turned them into cheap labor force. He needed gold and lumber to sell abroad for hard currency? So, he sent millions to Siberian Gulags. The discipline must be enforced by repressions and executions. Ruthless. But there was no other way.
Perhaps he could be less cruel and spilled less blood, I don’t know. But, to his credit, by 1941 he gathered a convincing force of disciplined men, tanks and airplanes to withstand Hitler’s blow. This force was still weak and almost collapsed in Stalingrad. But still prevailed and ended the War in Berlin.
Thank you. Thank you, Uncle Joe, for that. You saw the war coming and you made everything possible and impossible to win it. Thanks God that clueless Trotsky or Bukharin were not at the helm.
And special thanks for the A-bomb produced just in time to ward off yet another Big War.
Good reminder about the real, concrete danger for the USSR and the urgency of getting ready for war. The world should be grateful that his view prevailed and the Central Committee agreed with his urgings for the immediate industrialization of the country, starting with the heavy industry, railways, etc. The Trotsky and Bukharin opposition wanted to limit industrialization to light consumer goods, in other words, incapable of self-defence.
About “sending millions to the Siberian gulags”, there was never such policy. Stalin himself berated the local cadres for forced collectivization, which was against official policy. When the kulaks refused to sell grain to the state and engaged in open acts of sabotage, leading to shortages and hunger, then there was no alternative but to confiscate their lands and they were forced to either join the kolkhozes or move to Siberia. It was a matter of survival for the state and for the Soviet Union.
According to Surovov, Stalin was planning on invading German in 1941. His argument is intriguing, and is of course hotly disputed, but he points out many curiosities, such as the dismantling of the Stalin Line, along with Soviet expansion into all the nations that had served heretofore as buffers with Germany prior to 1941 (the most threatening to Germany being the Soviet military occupation of Bessarabia and Norther Bukovina, placing them strategically close to Romania, the source of nearly all the Weremacht’s oil.
Certainly this is not a reason to call him a butcher, necessarily, but it does complicate the picture.
It does not make sense, strategically, politically or otherwise for the USSR to attack Germany first. An invading army needs overwhelming power to overcome positioned defences and the Red Army was not even ready to defend their lines The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was to avoid open conflict with Germany, and that was a guiding principle of Soviet diplomacy, based on the fact that Britain and France were working on and hoping that Germany would attack the Soviet Union, with the end result that both would be the losers. The “phoney war” pause was intended to sort things out (to avoid crossing the Rubicon) until Churchill came on the scene and ordered the bombing of German cities. Hitler could not ignore that and the “Battle of Britain” commenced.
You speak as if you were there, and as if treaties agreed to were never unilaterally abrogated.
The key is, why would a paranoid state such as Soviet Russia dismantle its own defenses? Because of words on a page, made with a known, aggressive quantity? And why threaten Romania, perhaps Germany’s only critical ally because of oil?
You forget too that the Russians had superior armor in 1940 and 1941, and plenty of it, as the Germans were to discover in winter 1941.
The early success of Barborossa never fails to mention the dumbfounded Russian soldiers encircled and captured in large quantities, so near the border. Either no one in Soviet Russia knew how to prepare soldiers and terrain for defense, or else perhaps they were there for another reason entirely.
Chris Bellamy has a chapter on this in his “Absolute War”. You may find it interesting.
Also, Evan Mawdsley “Thunder in the East” (I’m restricted to sources in English!)
I’m surprised that no mention has been made of ‘Icebreaker’ which would put an entirely different spin on the beginnings of WW part 2 .
If some of the key points of the book are factual then history needs an update. Alas, I’m not in a position to validate docs used in Suvorov’s thesis.
However, after looking into the massive disinfo that is the official versoin of 911, I am open to enlightenment .
As I understand it (limited knowledge) Suvorov’s is an interesting possible interpretation of the evidence. Those like Gorodetsky and Glantz who criticise him point out how fragile the Red Army was. But it is very possible that Stalin was not aware of this fragility. Similarly, the fact that the Germans were unaware of any Soviet plan to attack is not decisive. Certainly, the Red Army would have plans for various possible offensives. On the other hand, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed to postpone as long as possible any attack on the Soviet Union. And Stalin saw it as an opportunity to sit back while the capitalist powers fought it out (much as many in the US hoped to see Germany and the Soviet Union). Also, the record shows that Stalin was adamant against the advice of his military and intelligence that the Red Army not mobilise in expectation of an attack by the Wehrmacht, because he did not want to give the Germans any hint of a pretext. The Germans had no intelligence of any Soviet attack (the Soviets were good at “maskirovka”, but that good?). The Soviets had plenty of intelligence of an imminent German attack. For what it’s worth, the standard account seems more plausible.
Thank you very much for this commentary.
Before I elaborate I just want to say that your blog is one of my best discoveries of the alternative media. Thank you again.
I too have been wondering about Stalin precisely because of his demonisation. Just like Hitler. And it seems to me that the double purges you describe seem to make sense.
I would draw your attention to the beginning of the demonisation propoganda in a book written by J A Hobson called Jingoism in which he describes the English war propaganda against the Boers and indicates that this seems to be the first appearance of such type of propaganda.
This of course has continued until today with Islamophobia.
There is one issue I have not seen that you raise. And that is the question of the international banking cartel.
Stephen Goodson points out that Russia before the Revolution of 1917 had its own National central bank and issued its own sovereign credit.
The same with Japan before WWII
The point being that the Bolsheviks tied USSR into the international banking cartel as they were funded by them initially.
Hitler, after all, pulled out from the cartel, and finally threw out Schacht. As a result of his policies of sovereign credit and a national bank not tied to the cartel, the German economy flourished – AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE ARMS INDUSTRY.
I believe that is the reason why Hitler was demonised and why the Allies went to war against him.
What did Stalin do with the Soviet banking etc? Were his purges against this cartel as well?
Hitler, after all, pulled out from the cartel, and finally threw out Schacht. As a result of his policies of sovereign credit and a national bank not tied to the cartel, the German economy flourished – AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE ARMS INDUSTRY.
I believe that is the reason why Hitler was demonised and why the Allies went to war against him.
What did Stalin do with the Soviet banking etc? Were his purges against this cartel as well?
Excellent questions, with reverberatoins for the Iraq War (Saddam had plans imminently to open an oil exchange in euros only. This point was made by Immnuel Wallerstein BEFORE the actual Iraq invasion. I have read that one of the first actions aken by the Americans invaders was the dismantlingof this Euro Oil Exchange. So, finance has a lot to do with all wars, not only financing them per se but also protecting international and domestic advantages residing in the status quo that evolves during “peace time.” Of course that “peace time” probably involves the exploitation, robbing, and enslaving of peoples and co-opting of local elites. Plenty of “creative destruction and disruption.” Called progress by some.
I think Stalin’s image will only improve. The West has lied much about history, and not just Russia’s. What we are taught is victor’s history.
As for the numbers in the period 1917-53.
1. Stalin cannot be blamed for deaths resulting from the civil war. The Whites and their western backers are really to blame for those. The west invaded Russia and supported the monarchist whites in waging war against the people. The Bolsheviks are not responsible for the february revolution in 1917. Only the coup in october.
It was the february revolution that set off the chain of events leading to the civil war.
In fact one could blame Nicholas II for all this. It was his entry into the war and his incompetent conduct of it followed by abdication of his responsibility (absent a feasible direct heir) that led to the collapse of the monarchy, the revolution etc. So he bears much blame for subsequent deaths.
2. The low birth rate: Again how can one blame Stalin for this when Russia had suffered immense losses in the WW1. By the time Lenin pulled Russia out of the war, there was already widespread, famine and chaos. This alone is sufficient to explain a low birth rate. Add to that the civil war. After starting with famine then going through the trauma of WW1 and the civil war, a deeper famine and a low birth rate were only to be expected.
Same thing goes for WW2 and the period after.
I’m not convinced that the Bolsheviks were just Anglozionist Jews advancing the cause of empire. I think this is simply an extreme of White anti Bolshevik propaganda. In the civil war it was the Whites who were allied with the Empire against the majority of Russians. The Bolsheviks gave solidarity to other peoples around the world who were fighting the empire. This was especially true in China. Sure their assistance was not appropriate to a peasant revolution as was occuring in China and Mao rightly broke with the International, but the fact that they set up the Comintern and did render help in China speaks volumes.
I may be misreading, but was it really necessary to kill Tukhachevsky? And torture Rokossovsky? The conduct of those who survived the purge and initially of those who replaced them surely argues otherwise.
was it really necessary to kill Tukhachevsky? And torture Rokossovsky?
No, but that is how people of power were “retired” in those days.
And no, I do not approve of the methods used.
But I do believe that the generation of “revolutionary generals” purged by Stalin was vastly inferior to the “war generals” which replaced them. And yes, there were some who like Rokossovsky was unfairly repressed and then rehabilitated. I was not referring to the individual case, but the entire group.
Maybe, one day, I will have the time to tackle this highly complex issue.
Suvorov’s book “The Cleansing” will be translated into English.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. An idiot’s guide would be very useful!
Two or three further quick questions it might cover.
Were the “revolutionary generals” who were untouched not the least competent – e.g. Voroshilov and Budyenny? The generation of (pretty damned heroic) officers who fought in the second world war were those who rose on merit during the war (or is my impression wrong?)
Do you discount General Volkogonov? I know he had family reasons, but he was Soviet establishment and had access to a wide range of archival material.
What of the suggestion that the Tukhashevsky “plot” was first planted in Stalin’s mind by Canaris, or by other messages and forgeries from Germany (or France (White emigres) or Czechoslovakia (Benes)…)?
How do you rate David M. Glantz and his encyclopedic work to bring the history of the Red Army to Western readers, in particular, “Stumbling Colossus”, which covers the purge?
I suggest you read the book of Konstantin Rokossovsky “Soldier’s duty” – the title is my translaton, may be wrong, I read the original “Солдатский долг”. You may find the answers, diferrent to “torture”.
You do know that memoirs published in Soviet times were heavily edited?
Many of those books were re-published fron the original autors manuskripts when available. Among them Rokossovsky – no diferrence with the Soviet print. It happens the red ” devil” was not as black as we were let to believe.
It is true that knowing only English is a severe restriction to one’ knowledge, not only because of censoring and propaganda, but because English translation cannot really translate and often ruins the original meaning.
Quick question: was the MS of Zhukov’s memoirs the same as the Soviet print edition? It is known he did have to be economical with the truth.
I haven’t read Rokossovsky. Are you saying he wasn’t arrested and tortured and then rehabilitated in time to be one of the heroes in the War?
You’re absolutely right. Restricted to English means largely ignorant.
I read all memoirs of Zhukov, they difer in some ways, the diferences started from the times of so called “perestroika”, long after Zhukov was dead. Some members of his family, mostly one daughter claimed that she found new unknown manuscripts of her father. Since then she regularly “finds” more and more of those, even contradicring each other and, of course, there are money for the “discoveries”.
The memoirs of Rokossovsky are unchanged, yes, he writes about his arrest, but no torture, he helds reponsible for this simple human envy using the situation to do away with the rivals. He was released on order by Stalin himself.
Abot English, I meant that the language itself is very limited. I read “Crime and Pumishment” in diferrent languages to see how it looks, well, all of them capture the meaning in Russian original, but English version. The same with Nizsche.
Interesting about generals and their memoirs. I hadn’t realised the complications.
Even in English there are worthwhile books. Geoffrey Roberts “Stalin’s General” about Zhukov is good (His “Stalin’s Wars” is also good on Stalin as war leader and statesman.)
On English, don’t give up. It is one of the richest, if we measure it by its literature.
Cannot give up on English, it is my own.
Ah-ha! I thought you were suspiciously fluent. Dostoyevsky and Nietsche and… and… not captured in English – but Shakespeare and Wordsworth and… and… not captured in French or German or (apparently) Chinese, and no doubt not in Russian. Price we pay for the Tower of Babel.
My memory is so dodgy these days, I was trying to work out where I got the notion Rokossovsky was tortured.
The sources appear to be cell-mates, military colleagues, and surviving relatives.
As you say, there was no mention in his memoirs of teeth knocked out, ribs broken, or hammers and other implements taken to his feet.
I was startled to find that the source for stories about mock executions is none other than Solzhenitsyn. I don’t know how reliable he is (because he was not in a position to verify what witnesses told him – just as with statistics on the casualties of the purges and the camps).
I’m so slow on the uptake! Suvorov. Author of “Icebreaker” in the 1990s. Argues that Stalin planned to attack Hitler first. Former major in the GRU. Polemical opponent of Gorodetsky of “Grand Delusion” fame. Chris Bellamy (“Absolute War”) had Suvorov lecture several years on his thesis at the military college at Cranfield. Gave reasons why the thesis is worth taking seriously, while on balance downgrading it.
I hadn’t realised he was still active.
I look forward to the translation of “The Cleansing”.
Shakespeare is very well captured in Russian.
Solzhenitsyn in his Archipelago Gulag and One day of Ivan Denisovitch is a fiction writer with some historical facts but not a documentary.
Like V.Suvorov, but better.
Yes, Pasternak, so I’m told. Those who tell me preface their praise with “Of course, you can’t translate Shakespeare, but…”
I picked Wordsworth because he illustrates the problem. Foreigners relying on translation thought Byron the better poet. Brilliant as he is, I don’t think a native speaker would come to that conclusion quite so easily.
Sorry, Moderator, I’ve drifted way off topic. I’ll stop.
So, let’s create a fund to pay a translator to translate some of these importnat works. A subscription fund.
Thank you Saker.
What you have written is very thoughtful and heartfelt
Having read a fair amount of revisionist histories, I recognize many of the events and persons that you only refer to in the course of this “white paper” on Russia and Stalin.
I have just one major point of contention. It is no more than a conjecture on your part; but I reject any rationalization for the killings, the incarcerations, the purges, and the widespread suffering. I remain appalled at the contention put forward by apologists for the Soviet reign of terror that -without them- The Soviet Union would not have become the great nation that it did; nor that it would not have been able to defeat the Nazis in WW II.
Sorry, another request. What “books” support this account of the 1920s and 1930s, the power struggles within the Party, and the purges? And where is the evidence that the Western powers supported the Trotskyites? I have only read books about the reaction in the US and UK. The reaction was an almost hysterical – deliberately so! – campaign against the “Red Peril”. – Admittedly it had a domestic purpose, but the hatred of the Soviets was nonetheless visceral.
Not as a direct answer to your posed question about Tukhachevsky’s fate, but as recommended reading on the political conflicts in the Soviet Union and the Communist International between 1922 and 1940 (and consequently the topics of Stalin and the purges of the late 30’s): the work of Vadim Zacharovich Rogovin (1937-1998).
Rogovin was a Doctor of Philosophical Sciences and leading researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. He published widely on issues of contemporary USSR sociology of his time, and eventually buckled down to document the results of his life long quest to unravel taboos and shed light on hidden truths about the 1917 revolution and the consequent developments. 7 volumes were almost completed by the time the fatal cancer already diagnosed by the start of his monumental task caught up with him. All 7 volumes are published in Russian, 5 in German, and 2 in English: “1937 Stalin’s Year of Terror” and “Stalin’s Terror of 1937-1938 – Political Genocide in the USSR” (available at mehring.com)
In the historian Alexander Rabinowitch’s words (author of “The Bolsheviks in Power”): ” (.. Political Genocide ..) by the late, eminent, erudite, and courageous Russian Marxist scholar (V.R.) reflects a lifetime of study and thought about the mainsprings, development, and historical impact of The Great Terror. Based heavily on data from rarely used Soviet and post-Soviet Russian archival documents, memoirs, and periodicals, as well as a wide range of Russian emigré sources, Rogovin’s reconstruction and interpretation is a major contribution to new knowledge about one of the most devastating events of the twentieth century. It is essential reading for all those interested in the fate of the Russian revolutions, modern Russia, and the history of international socialism.”
On the topic of historical falsification there is of course the work of David North. As an introduction see his lecture “Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth” at the Leipzig Book Fair 2012 at the launch of his book “In Defense of Leon Trotsky” – http://bit.ly/1oXxE9P
Trotsky in his book “Stalin’s crimes” (1937) quotes the Norwegian author Helge Krogh’s published comments on the personal hatred brought to bear by the Social Democratic government that interned him and prevented any utterance on the running Moscow Trials, where he was the main accused in absentia – “it is not a seldom occurrence that people hate the one they feel guilt for.” Trotsky concluded his reflections on his hosts for that part of his exile by stating: “with hypocritical democratic jeers these gentlemen held me by the throat for four months, to prevent me from protesting against the most gigantic of all historical crimes.” As for the lines to our day and time the referred gentlemen are the direct political forebears of Mr. Stoltenberg – the “socialist” General Secretary of NATO.
Thanks for the references. I’ll follow them up.
Stalin, like other great historical figures, was a man of his epoch and, if there were a contest as to the greatest men in history, he would join the likes of Christ and Muhammad. But unlike the originators of mass religions, Stalin’s contribution was seen and worked in his own life time and today’s world would have been very different but for Stalin.
Perhaps the best accolade that could be paid to Stalin is that the capitalists everywhere hated him, even more than Hitler. His demonization in the ‘Western’ culture and mindset speaks for itself.
He devoted his entire life to the cause of liberating the working man from his exploiter, the owner of capital. In the path to achieve that end he became the leader of a party whose guiding principle was/is the highest form of moral development: “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need”. He was truthful to that ideal to the very end of his life, never seeking to obtain personal advantages from his position of power. He led a very austere life, dedicating all his energies to the edification of a fairer world.
A succession of events, from the beginning of the 1917 implausible Revolution, forced the Bolshevik party to harden its position according to the nature of the threats in its way to achieve power in order to break the existing political and social order in Russia. The Anglo-French Entente, Turkish, Japanese threats did not take long to join the “White Guards” in declaring war on the communists. Even the United States invaded Siberia, Poland occupied parts of Bielorussia and Ukraine.
The USSR was permanently under threat during its history, both from outside and internally. Yet, the Communist Party allowed an unusual degree of dissension in its ranks, and even in the positions of power in government. Trotsky, Bukharin and many other leaders who did not follow the orthodox party line, namely their support for the Kulaks landholders, were not purged until around 1936 when their betrayal and connections with Germany and Germany’s plans to attack the Soviet Union were exposed.
Russian history alone has the legitimacy to judge Stalin. If he did not act decisively and energetically to industrialize, modernize the Red Army and collectivize the agriculture, the USSR would have been defeated in WWII and the course of contemporary world history would have been very different.
Stalin rose to the occasion, a man for his time, and the world should be grateful that he was around then.
I think, when you try to get a feel for what society was like, you have to look at the art that the society produces (the expression of the soul), not just the politics. So your statement that “there is no continuity of any type between the rule of Czar Nicholas II and the Lenin-Trotsky duo” rings false to me, because water can be poured into another vessel, but it’s still water, and you’ll still see it behaving like water if given a chance, though it might look different. Similarly, the laws and society can be changed, but people, while adapting to them, will find ways to still be people, if given a chance.
I found this, to my surprise, on my recent visit to Russia. I had thought that the country I remembered was no more, that it was gone forever. In fact, I found that the people were still often the same. I still felt more at home there than I did in the West, despite being away for decades.
My impressions of Russian films and music of the past century:
Flowering of new art based on traditional Russian culture (in music, rediscovery & study of folk music and ancient znamenny church chants), alongside ever-greater penetration (and even proselytizing) of new West European culture. Glorious, but contradictory.
Very inventive experimentation (e.g. the film “Man with a Movie Camera”), alongside clever but needless wheel-reinventing (Yavorsky’s musical “modal rhythm” theory & compositional technique). Selective erasing of the past (religious music continues being composed but only in secret, including by mainstream figures like Bolshoi Opera conductor Nikolai Golovanov). Secular folk culture becomes more prominent, much ethnographic work continues being done. A lot of attention is devoted to developing fresh, indigenous Russian/Soviet art, like Shostakovich/Tsekhanovskiy’s brilliant unfinished “Balda” animated feature. https://vimeo.com/1524708 There’s a general tendency to exaggeration and lack of subtle humanity, though.
mid-1930s to early 1940s:
Attempts at making unique/fresh Russian/Soviet art based on folk traditions are stifled and replaced with slavish, often inferior, copying of Western techniques, both contemporary and 19th-century. Romantic-era music comes back into vogue. After 1935, Soviet cartoons drop the unique storybook style they’d been developing and begin to look like 2nd-rate Disney/Warner Brothers imitations, with constant “gags”. Live-action films stop being daring, and start being furiously optimistic musicals (admittedly, these are fun to watch even today). Ethnographic folk culture research is stopped from 1928-1934, and when resumed, the ethnographers now “correct” what they write down from peasants (fixing “incorrect” words and historical events), and insert newly-composed “folk” songs praising Stalin and the Soviet constitution into their books. The art of this era lacks a spiritual foundation, and is like modern Hollywood – showy, but unoriginal, often crude and spiritually empty. It is often (to use a Russian word) “poshlost'”.
Through the trauma of war, culture reconnects with its deep spiritual roots. Cartoons rapidly improve in technique and skill, and undergo a similar (but greater) transition as Disney did from “Mickey Mouse” to “Bambi”, going from cheap derivative throwaways to thoughtful works of art. Live action films eschew spectacle, and focus on humanity. Post-WW2 especially, there’s an artistic renaissance. A great dislike for caricature (i.e. for dehumanizing) is characteristic of the art of this period, I suppose because after that war, pretty much everyone was tired of “dehumanization”. The result is a lack of stylistic variation and an almost monolithic “realism” (e.g. in cartoons, all people are first filmed on film as actors, then traced frame-by-frame). Also, the TEMPO (speed) of films and music slows down considerably, to a pace that’s really slow by our modern standards. Works of this era can be quite majestic.
The art here gets more diverse, the “realist” monopoly is broken (particularly noticeable in cartoons), though art continues being very “human”. Some films & cartoons are quite spiritual (e.g. Tarkovsky, Norshtein), lots are funny comedies (e.g. Shurik, “Shaybu, Shaybu”), others are accomplished “blockbusters” (e.g. “How Peter the Great Married Off His Moor”). The overall trend is to be “genuine” and “wholesome” – artists try to both genuinely reflect society as it is, respond to it and direct it towards a better future (especially noticeable in paintings, the “Soviet impressionism” movement). And unlike in the 1920s, this “better future” isn’t just abstractly ideological, but feels grounded in reality. “Genuine Russian folk music” is rediscovered by Pokrovskiy & colleagues, and gets millions of fans. Even more popular is “guitar poetry” (mirroring, but separate from, the similar Western “hippie” phenomenon at the same time), in which hundreds of “Soviet bards” from all walks of life write songs about yearning for adventure, about friendship, love and nature, which are re-sung at uncounted hiking trips, student dorms and dinner tables. At the same time, the first beginnings of “ethnically-coloured” art from the USSR’s other republics (e.g. Parajanov). This is the art of a confident and accomplished culture with visibly deep roots, without any feeling of inferiority, with no second-rate foreign imitations (foreign styles were indeed taken in, but they were absorbed and often improved).
With “perestroika”, all the controls on culture were gradually removed. On the one hand, much art, music and films from this decade, especially its end, might be seen as the pinnacle of Soviet culture (though most of it is little-known, since the distribution mechanisms were already beginning to unravel). It combines the post-War humanism and spiritualism with 1920s adventurism and experimentation. Religion is no longer a taboo subject. It no longer even shies away from overt criticism of their society, and everything was still done artfully. On the other hand, many artists stopped worrying about the popular audience and made art for the artistic elite or intellectuals, though still with the resources of the state. And so, they were losing both the support of the state (since they were now often overtly criticizing it), and the support of the public (since they no longer cared much about making art that was popular with wider society, only about art that was “great”). This situation couldn’t last… it was like a last, beautiful death-dance of the great traditions of Soviet culture. Just like the USSR itself – the society had become so educated and enlightened, that it forgot about the cruder things in life and brought about its own complete collapse and takeover by unenlightened but ruthlessly practical psychopaths.
Swearing all the time. Gangsters and crime. That’s all that penetrated the TV screens, at least (I was there), not counting the Latin American soap operas. And it apparently went on behind the scenes, too, everywhere in the country (the Soyuzmultfilm animation studio, for example, got taken over by the mob, and everyone worked in a climate of fear. Also, one of its main studios was forcibly reclaimed by the Orthodox church and equipment destroyed). At the same time, some great former Soviet filmmakers continued making movies for non-commercial motives and the state continued funding them at much-reduced levels (e.g. Aleksandr Petrov), but almost nobody saw their movies because the distribution mechanisms no longer existed.
Putin era (I’m less familiar with this than with the others):
No more endless swearing and criminality in culture. More attention to popular taste. On the other hand, slavish second-rate imitation of the West is back with a vengeance (like in the 1930s). This includes most of the newly “patriotically-themed” films and popular music (Melnitsa’s “bogatyri” Shrek-ripoffs are some of the less embarrassing). Nobody seems to see the paradox in acting “patriotic” while imitating everything about American culture. State funding for the last remaining vestiges of indigenous non-commercial art with Soviet roots is gradually extinguished, and culture becomes more commercialized. At the same time, there’s a renaissance of religious art and music. In the “folk music movement”, the focus shifts from “humanity and genuineness” (as in the late Soviet era, and into the 1990s) more to militaristic, nationalistic and religious topics (though my, it still does sound beautiful, and there are true gems… https://vk.com/chronos_ensemble ). Non-commercial non-religious humanism, so prevalent in the late Soviet era, seems marginalized. The country I visited last year was more vibrant than I’d ever seen it, though. Yet something about its art still often seems off. I’m troubled by the seeming artistic parallel to the Stalinist period. Like you, I’m not entirely sure what to make of it. Perhaps it shows that Russia’s older generation is dying off, while much of the younger one (having been raised largely on American culture) still does not feel very self-confident.
The other thing that is very noticeable is how little influence China has on Russian culture throughout this entire span of time (other than a few examples from when relations were particularly friendly), and how much influence the West has. Since the 1990s, Japan also seems to have had much more of a cultural impact than China (due to video games and anime). Will this ever change? I saw no sign of it during my visit last year, though I did see an inordinately large number of Chinese tourists.
Thanks for your artistical review, but, as with everuthing and in spite of your direct observation, I fear that yours also can not avoid your bias, coming from your experiences/ ideology…
And I say this because as I have understood it is not true that during “perestroika” “all controls over culture ( freedom of thinking ) were gradually removed” as it confirms this testimony of a Soviet college professor in Leningrad ( and so, also as yours, product not only of direct observation but more of a direct living of the times and facts ). Also is treated in this letter the obvious bias of cerain authors/ artists in order to their service to certain tendencies/ideologies, what is the dmesotrations that art is not always so pure nor reflect reality in the purenest way.
“I can not abandon my principles”
“This article originally appeared in the Soviet newspaper “Sovietskaya Rossia” on March 13, 1988.
This is a letter written by a college professor named Nina Andreyeva Leningrad letter. A letter that sparked the controversy in the Soviet Union and received numerous supports. It was published when Mikhail Gorbachev was in Yugoslavia in official visit. On his return, the president of the USSR gave strict orders to attack the teacher publicly through the press and end the discussion. The letter from Nina Andreyeva, despite the deficiencies that have in some passages, is symbolizing the existence of strong opposition to perestroika in the USSR and the intention of certain sectors of Soviet society to rescue Marxism-Leninism which become dead letter from the XX Congress of the CPSU.(….)
(…) We discuss! Young minds are burning by a great desire to understand all the complexities and determine the way forward. I look at my young partners and think how important it is to help them discern the truth, to form an accurate conception of the problems of society in which they live and which thay have the task of restructuring, and how to make them properly understand our distant past history and no so distant(…).
(…) Abuse of the word “terrorism”, “political enslavement of the people”, “vegetative social life without wings”, “our spiritual slavery”, “General terror” and “influence of gross people in power” … often only with these epithets is described the history of our country in the period of transition to socialism. So no wonder, for example, to the fact that between the students grow the nihilistic mentality, confusion in political orientations and ideological omnivorousness. Sometimes we hear argue that it is time to prosecute the Communists who, they say, “have dehumanized” the life of the country after 1917..(…)
(…) What else could give, out of disorientation, the discovery that there were “counterrevolution in the USSR in the early 1930s” and the “fault” of Stalin by the coming to power of fascism and Hitler in Germany? Or, the public “account” of the number of “Stalinists” in the different generations and social groups?(…)
(…) A notable development in this baren background constituent pieces of M. Shatrov.(…)
In “Bretsk Peace” Lenin, according to the will of the playwright and director, he kneels to Trotsky, which is the symbolic interpretation of the concept of the author. She has further development in the piece “More … more … more! …”. Sure, a piece is not a treaty on history. However, it is not in the works of art the truth is secured by nothing more than the author’s position? Particularly so in the political theater.(…)
(…) The position of the playwright Shatrov has been analyzed in detail and with arguments in criticis by scientists and historians published in the newspaper “Pravda” and “Sovietskaya Rossiya”. I like to state my opinion. In particular, I can not but agree with assertions that Shatrov has departed substantially from the principles of socialist realism. Treating the most responsible period for our country´s history, he absolutizes the subjective factor of social development, and clearly ignores the objective laws of history, which is reflected in the activities of the classes and masses. The role of the proletarian masses and the party of the Bolsheviks is thrown into the “floor” where tha actions of irresponsible politics unfold.(…)
(…) I thought that the in logic and valuation logic arguments are very similar to those of B. Suvarin´s book, published in Paris in 1935. In his piece, Shatrov puts into the mouths of the protagonists of his work what the enemies have been holding about how the revolution unfolded, Lenin’s role in it, relations between the members of the Central Committee at various stages of the infighting of the Party … This is the essence of the “new way of reading” Lenin of Shatrov. I add that the author of “Children of Arbat”, A. Rybakov, also frankly acknowledged that some issues were taken by him from publications from the emigration.
Without having yet read the play “More … more … more! …” (Has not been edited), I read the praiser impact on it in different publications. And to what is due such a hurry? Then I learned that the staging of the piece is prepared quickly.
Soon after the February plenary session in “Pravda” appeared the letter “For a new circle?” signed by eight theater figures of our country. They warn against possible, in their opinion, delays in the staging of the last piece of Shatrov. This conclusion is based on the critical assessments made about the piece, which appeared in newspapers. I do not know why, but the authors of the letter put the authors of the critical assessments outside the parentheses of “who love the country.” Do you agree that this fit with the desire expressed by them of discussing acute and passionately the problems of our history from far and near past? Just only them are allowed to have their own opinion?
In the many discussions that today are performed virtually on all the problems of sociology, for me, as a college professor, I am interested above in all those directly influencing the ideological-political training of the youth, its moral health and social optimism. Talking with the students and reflecting with them on acute issues, unconsciously I came to the conclusion that we have accumulated quite a few twists and sidedness which obviously need to be rectified. On some of them I will speak.
I will take the issue of tha place Stalin takes in the history of our country. Precisely his name is linked with the obsession of all critical attacks, which, in my opinion, is linked more with the complexity of the transition period than with the same historical personality. A period associated with the immortal feat of an entire generation of Soviets, who now gradually are getting away from active social, political and work activities. In the formula of the “cult of personality” industrialization, collectivization, the cultural revolution, which placed our country in the rank of major world powers are necessarily mixed. All this is questioned. Things came to such an extent that the “Stalinists” (in which number can be included anyone) began to insistently demand “penance” … Eagerly they are extolling the novels and movies that attack harshly the storm season and momentum described as the “tragedy of peoples”. It is true that sometimes such attempts to praise the historical nihilism do not give good results. Therefore sometimes films praised by critics are received coldly by most of the population despite unprecedented ads in the press.
Here, I would like to make clear in advance that neither I nor members of my family have any relationship with Stalin, nor with those close to him or his praisers. My father was a worker in the port of Leningrad, my mom, editor at the Kirov factory. There also worked my older brother. He, my dad and sister were killed in the battle against the Nazis. One of my relatives was repressed and after the Twentieth Party Congress was rehabilitated. Together with all Soviets, I share the indignation and resentment about the mass repressions that took place in the 30s and 40s, by the fault of the leadership of the Party and State at that time. However, the healthy sense resolutely opposes painting with the same color all the contradictory events which is a phenomenon that begins to prevail today in some newspapers.(…)”
Well, can not translate all the letter because would be very long, but has no waste, try to translate it in whole with a translator.
This one letter of Professor Nina Andreyeva provides much more input compared to many articles written by famous analysts on the Gorbachev period. Thank you for taking time and translating in English. For peoples like us who can’t read Russian, you have done a great help.
Well, I could only translate a part from the letter, since it is quite long, having no more time and to not occupy so much space here.
Also, my translation contains a lot of spelling mistakes and typos, sorry, but, if only you and some others who have the interest could understand what she was saying, it is enough for me.
I found it a very valid testimony coming from a person who could not be characterized as Stalinist nor as a party person.
Elsi, do you have a link to the original Russian letter?
It does not matter if your translation contains typo, what really matter is the letter is a great piece of document which shows how an academician (not so-called Stalinist) felt about the Gorbachev programmes.
It will be great if you can post some links of good research/study on that period 1985 to 2000 in USSR. I strongly believe, the AngloZionists were fully in control of the party-government-military-economy of USSR during that period. Since you are actively researching those things (read many of your posts here), you can help me.
@E and Straigh-Bat,
I only found the letter translated into Spanish in this site culturaproletaria.wordpress.com, which I usually read to learn about Marxism-Leninism and where some comrades translate high value token documents.
The letter was excerpted and translated from “Principles not given away” (A Brief History of Perestroika (Articles and Speeches)) by Nina Andreyeva.
So if you, E, can find this book in Russian you will be able to read not only this letter but other testimonies by Nina Andreyeva.
Straight-Bat, comrade, I read one thing here and one thing there, not following an organized line of research at all, and in any case, is not so long ago that I am learning about Russian History. Perhaps, you, being a student ( as I have understood ), could know even more data than me…..
Being a student (at quite old age) of economic history, I read a lot from books/internet archives. However, there are very less books on authentic details of political-economic state of affairs of USSR during Gorbachev and Yeltsin era… So, Comrade, if anytime you get such info/write-up in English language, kindly attach links here.
It’s interesting to compare with Germany, and as usual, the artistic merit of the periods of time cannot be separated from who pays for the films. In Germany, there are changes from a state-funded UFA with impressive innovations, to the Nazis, who were very impressed by the propaganda of Hollywood. The late 30’s-40’s films lack the UFA innovations and quality. After WWII, the “allies” are in control and the films are heavily censored and regulated; in the late sixties and 70’s a film subsidy system exists which can take more risks and get original “New German Cinema” films onto television. The 80’s see changes in the subsidy structure, and (generally and subjectively speaking) the films become more Hollywoodian. Your overview was fascinating and I’d love to hear more opinions on the transformation of film styles from USSR to Russian Republic — I’ve seen stuff like White Tiger which is a war movie but still with a very high level of artistic style (camera movement, angles, lighting, etc), and spiritual undercurrents which seem to be more common in Russia than the Hollywood, the latter of which has rarely if ever considered quality over money. Our films, whether art of propaganda, define us our societies in a very public way.
I think that your piece is well thought out & I agree in most respects,
I think it cant be underestimated how important it was to win the russian/soviet end in WWII & I think that this is the reason that stalin still gets his due share of respect in the russki mir,
I also agree in spades that the demonisation in the western sphere is so terribly wrong & can be so easily counteracted if one wants to play the numbers game which as you argue is also so terribly wrong in terms of human suffering,
having lived in russia for a good time in the mid 90s, it was clear to me that the human potential that lay within its borders was immense & thus the russia that I see/hear/read of today is of no suprise to me, the people that I met there & then, in what the saker has described as a ‘war zone’, were the most exciting, creative, vibrant, memorable people of the short life that we are allotted,
It has been said over & over, but you dont repeat it here but the russian ability to endure suffering & yet still to rise like a phoenix is immeasurable
Awesome piece, i enjoy my sakerblog reading moments at the office more & more. Txs for that!
I realise that history as tought in Paris schools in the early-mid 90’s was highly biased with a strong NATO/Neocon bias.
On the other hand history teachder was a russophobic Pole (or of Polish descent) as far as I remember:
-Trotkysts were good guys or had some cool vibe to them (or least a much lesser evil than Stalinists),
-stalinists pure evil comparabale to hitler, with even higher account of casualties (50 mln / 100 mln / 200mln, you name it!)
-The mantra “russia doesn’t produce anything” already existed, it more like russia sacrificed it’s civilian industry in favour of the military one ect.
-The whole WWII narrative was that it was a victory of the coalition of the willing and that Stalin was a ruthless dictator who didn’t hesitate to send 25Mln soldier to death.
Of course of no mention of the religious-ethnic factor, autocensorship already applied back then, courtesy of the CRIF & associates
This also reminds me heated politcal fights within my family, apparently dad was brended as Stalinist by my uncle while he was brending the later “gauche caviar” or simply “f***-face”(the latter auto brended himslef anarchist or Trotskyste). Anyway, what a waste!
My parents had this old soviet translated 4 tome encyclopedia on WWII entitled URSS (USSR in French).
I never red it! this was the forbidden fruit, Polish history teacher classes paid their toll on me back then :( It was like my parents were reading Mein kampf
The ugliest is that I never opened that encyclopedia and sold it to one of the many Paris bookstores for a few pennies. Enough to buy CDs or go to ciname once or twice….
So Saker, thanks a lot for sharing this with us!
Wow! What a well written article. Those commenters who have their own axes to grind, please remember “The Saker” is looking at Stalin. He did not attempt to write a dozen of books about Russian history. He only wrote an article focusing on Stalin.
I am by no means an expert on these matters. I come from the perspective of an american who has read enough of US and European mass genocide to know that the whole world is seen as fair game to them.
I am told that the Russian peasantry, which was forced to fight in the Czar’s war, followed Lenin, who offered peace land and bread. For Russia’s upper classes, the idea of peasants having any control of their lives was most likely highly unpalatable. And the West, led by Churchill had a double hatred. First because he coveted Russia’s expansive land, and second for the Bolsheviks, who represented a direct threat to the Capitalism which has been ravaging the world since 1492, and certainly since the British Empire, followed by the US empire. Knowing that the US elite supported Hitler’s determination to destroy Russia as such and Communism for the threat it posed to their power, what was Russia to do?
I have heard it said that Stalin said that Russia had ten years to build itself up, otherwise it would have been destroyed. Well, Hitler and his backers certainly did their best!
On the other hand like the West, and certainly the USA, there were deep ideological and cultural splits. How could those be negotiated? Under similar historical stresses, how would the USA act as a society?
For these reasons, I at least try to understand, what Stalin was up against and what he was trying to do. Absent the bolsheviks, would Russia have evolved into a Scandinavian type social democracy? With Western Capitalism determined to get its hands on Russian resources, how would Russia have defended itself? Better, one hopes than the Native Americans!
Conclusion: Stalin was the product of his times, an extremely stressful time in the life/history of Russia.
@the idea of peasants having any control of their lives was most likely highly unpalatable.
It was the Bolsheviks who waged a merciless war against the Kulaks, that class of entrepreneurial and successful peasants which emerged as a result of the progressive reforms of Alexander II and Stolypin. There were the revolutionaries who assassinated both Alexander and Stolypin. Same revolutionaries who perpetrated the “Holodomor”.
Had Stalin not interfered in Thuringen and Sachsen shipping in weapons for an uprising 1923- and had the KPD not started uprisings in Dortmund and other cities, there might not have been an Adolf Hitler who held his first party conference in Weimar in 1926. The weakness of his industrialisation having to bring in Ford to build Kamaz and beg, steal or borrow Western technology yet be paranoid lest Russians notice these facts was only secure once he could dismantle German factories after 1945 and bring technicians and machines to the USSR. Without Zeiss, without the Labour Government in Uk selling Rolls-Royce Nene engines to USSR in 1947-48 (which were copied) Stalin’s postwar world would have been disastrous.
First, Stalin was not in power in 1923 (and at that time it was very doubtful he ever would be.). Second, the USSR needing modern technology during the industrialization is no surprise. Nor is it anything to be ashamed of. Japan’s industrialization was built on imported technology,so was the US’s in the 19th Century.And most of the European states, then and now, brought/bring in outside technology when they didn’t have it at home. Russia, and then the USSR, was in the early 20th Century what today we would consider as a developing economy. It was in most things just beginning to develop as an industrial power. Had they been able to overcome the Western sanctions of that period. They would have imported much more technology from other countries. And they would have been right to do that. Its a sign of intelligence,not shame.
@ Paul Greenwood on April 12, 2016 · at 12:53 pm UTC
What you say about the Soviets “stealing” intellectual property by moving some broken machines, 2nd railway tracks and other scrap to the Soviet Union after 1945 is uttermost _Crap_.
The real theft happened on exactly the other side, use google:
usa german patents biggest theft of all times
As for the Soviet Union, I doubt you ever had a look there _before_ 1941:
Soviet Athletes Parade 1939 – Физкультурный парад, Цветущая юность.
p.s. The even biggest THEFT of all times is happening before your very eyes: By your evil western (globallay operating) banks through exponential interest on interest.
Lomo in St Petersburg uses Carl Zeiss technology. The entire Soviet rocket programme was based on German scientists. The jet engines were copies of Rolls-Royce Nenes sold in 1947. The Kamaz truckk plant was built by Ford.
Stalin was General Secretary of the CPSU from 1922 the same year Lenin suffered debilitating strokes. Stalin therefore ran the country
Stalin was considered a minor and umimportant figure by the first Bolshevik rulers – Trotsky, Zinoviev etc. He was given the unimportant job to deal with the unimportant low level party workers and sympathizers. He took on the task seriously and did such a marvelous job, that when it come to the elections after the dead of Lenin, those masses of “inimportant” people were all for Stalin. The rest they did not even consider.
Yes, Stalin became a Generel Secretary, but far from running the country, it was a long battle, before that actually happened, in 1936-38.
There is no doubt that Stalin was, and remains, a popular leader in the minds of most Russians. Not often acknowledged, but nevertheless true, the Soviet police system had begun to relax its practices during the early 1930s. Then came the Kirov assassination. Stalin believed the killing was part of a larger plot. Stalin mobilized the NKVD. He believed the reports from the NKVD about treason, and began to expand the purges. When he realized the Party was suffering, he ended the purge. Yezhov managed the “Terror” during its worst time. Stalin executed Yezhov after his crimes became apparent to him.
Unfortunately, there was never a time during Stalin’s Administration when the country was not facing a serious foreign threat, internal upheavel because of its rapid development, or both. What its critics refer to as Stalinism, was in fact a reasonable response to this threat.
This is my sincere belief. I admire the man.
And for the same reasons do I.
Just the other day seeing those unpublished photographs from the Artek camp posted by Scott, I could not but feel nostalgia for a time where children seemed so strong, healthy and happy (and this can only be because thay were also growing in healthy homes, with parents who had hope in the future). There is no more than to see how the leaders were received by the children, and how they themselves approached the children. In this mutual joy I see only the gratitude and affection of the children for feeling well cared and the happiness of the Soviet leaders seeing them growing healthy, strong, cultured and especially with hope for the future.
I found very touching a photograph in which children were receiving an old man, I think Ho Chi Min? ( I did not have time to translate the captions, for there were many, all beautiful, and it was late ), what humility and emotion had the expression of the poor old…..
And, It is that photographs always convey the mood of the people and, for better or worse, the harsh reality.
The same sensation I have had with these photographs from Artek I have always had with images, videos and pictures from the Soviet era, where people seemed always very healthy, well dressed ( although without superfluous luxuries ), and definitely happy, because they had hope in the future, something that today almost nobody has in the West and I fear that in the main part of the world.
Precisely, to give hope to the masses of workers who populated the world was, in my opinion, the greatest achievement of the Bolshevik Revolution and the USSR, and this is why they were so harshly fighted and demonized. Because without hope, you gradually lose your will to rise up for imprving your life, and so you are easier to resign and doblegate making you believe that being a slave is your inexorable destiny given the impossibility of another viable reality.
This is also the cause that many out there, and also in this blog, are all day filling their mouth with words against ideologies, ( neither left, nor right, nor center …well, let´s go to not have ideology…..for to bring back Fascism! ) because without ideology, man walks aimless with no direction and is easier to drive voluntarily to the slaughter.
Fortunately, despite the manipulation, disinformation and disideologization, the spirit of survival lives very inside in the alienated and brutalized masses and, as demonstrated by the events in France, people will rise up again, it will be ugly, it will be violent,you can have no doubt, because people is left without any other choice, because more violent is leave yourself be enslaved for 400 euros/month when others send you the attack dogs if you rebel against it, while they whitewash their looted billions in Panama or another of their “tax haven”.
There has been quite a bit said on the past here.
Now the future seems ready for socialism’s return. It’s “cool” and all the kids think Che’ and the Revolution should come back.
So,” Stalin wasn’t so bad” is part of the “new” conversation.
Talkshow hosts lately want to bring back socialism…then there’s Bernie…so far so good.
What did communism/socialism look like in other countries? Remember Cambodia?
In Poland, the book “The Captive Mind” by Czeslaw Milosz (1951) tries to make sure people see what it was like living under the weight of that evil system. It’s a timeless classic.
So lets not forget what it really is.
” a “People’s Monarchist” (a kind of uniquely Russian Left-leaning monarchism embraced by Fedor Doestoevskii, Lev Tikhomirov or, especially, Ivan Solonevich)..”
It is not that unique. In England in the C18th opposition to the Hanoverian dynasty and generations of corrupt Whig governments was focused on Tory/ Country Party/ Jacobites who saw the Patriot King (as one of their number Bolingbroke put it) as a potential cleansing agent who would ‘return’ government to the people. Both Swift and Pope were sympathetic to these ideas.
To view the monarch as above classes and open to the petitions of the poor is a central idea in Monarchism itself. The capture of the monarchy by wealthy barons etc is a recurent problem in history.
I think that you are wrong about trotskyists, incidentally, but it really doesn’t matter much any more. What matters is that, in the final analysis, as the old Tories always held, a government which does not put the interests of the common people- their health, shelter, diet and welfare generally- at the top of its list of priorities is committing suicide. The Chinese knew that and talked of the Emperor enjoying, or losing, Heaven’s Mandate.
You do great work and deserve our gratitude.
1) The Soviet economic system was not a failure as they want us to believe and the majority of countries in transition (from socialism to capitalism) are still worse today (in 2016 !) than they were in 1989.
2) As for the cause of the dissolution, it is very interesting to read the following article:
Stephen Cohen. Why Did the Soviet Union End?
” The combination and interaction of these three factors Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and the property-seeking elites — explain the end of the Soviet Union. None of these factors were, of course, inevitable. Nor was the result. ”
” Why did the top Soviet state (not party) nomenklatura permit Yeltsin to abolish its own state, which had given it so much power and privilege for so long?
The answer is that those elites, in Russia and in other republics, were already seizing the great wealth of the Soviet state. They were now motivated by a will to property ownership.
For this, of course, they no longer needed the old state or its salvation,
Thus ended the Soviet state. And thus began the corrupt history of its Russian successor. ”
” Another myth is that the Soviet Union ended because its economy collapsed. Here too there are three problems:
1. No respected professional economists hold this view.
2. No modern state has perished due to economic crisis. For example, both the American state in the 1930s and the post-Soviet Russian state in the 1990s survived much worse economic crises.
3. And the Soviet economic crisis of 1990-1991 has been greatly exaggerated, partly for political reasons. (It was, for example, not a crisis of production but of distribution.) ”
3) What followed the dissolution of the USSR was far worse to what existed during the Cold war years.
Not only the balance of power changed, but also “socialism” as an ideology was discredited and state intervention in the economy was abandoned. Post WW2, numerous Western capitalist countries (Germany, Austria, France, Scandinavian countries, Australia etc) followed social-democratic / socialist policies with economic planning, nationalisations, progressive taxation and capital controls, creation of a generous welfare state, full employment etc.
While the social-democratic policies gradually came to an end after the crises of the 1970s ( years before the end of USSR) , the dissolution of USSR allowed the system of neoliberal globalisation to become dominant with destructive effects. This change to a neoliberal globalised economy is a systemic change and not just an ideology.
Today, a handful of Multinational Corporations ( with their numerous affiliates and subsidiaries) control almost 80% of world trade. United States (with its tremendous military power) has the role of the world policeman for the preservation of globalisation. This is not for the advantage of the american national interests or for the benefit of the regular american (or european) people who also suffer from the effects of neoliberalism such as the massive unemployment, lowering of wages, de-industrialisation, importation of cheap foreign labour etc. The transnational elites just use american military as proxy to advance their interests by crushing every country that is not integrated into the NWO of neoliberal globalisation.
Nation States have been stripped of their sovereignty. Transnational organisations (IMF, WORLD BANK, WTO, EU etc) decide about the exact nature of the economic policies that the official “governments” of the various puppet states are obliged to implement.
Russia is an exception to this as it is still a sovereign country. But Russia has two choices. It will either end up as a subservient supplementary partner of the neoliberal NWO or it will disconnect from the globalised system and will become again an alternative to the NWO.
Not, perhaps, a “choice” in the sense of willful decision, but a course of action nevertheless, is to subsume the NWO…
xvg says: “But Russia has two choices. It will either end up as a subservient supplementary partner of the neoliberal NWO or it will disconnect from the globalised system and will become again an alternative to the NWO.”
xvg assumes that NWO cannot cease to exist. I propose that it probably will cease to exist due to its tendencies and internal contradictions. One tendency of NWO is a structural prerequisite to optimization. This creates increasingly fragile structures that cannot adapt, but there are many other such weaknesses. The NWO is inhuman – therein lies another weakness… Further, NWO is ideological and dogmatic, not Marxist and scientific. It is therefore delusional in character and prone to error.
The mooted “choice” xvg proposes as available to Russia, subservience, assumes that Russia would be permitted to continue. This is not consistent with clearly stated doctrine of NWO, which seeks to annihilate Russia… The other “choice”, disconnection, is equally unrealistic.
Comrade President has made the Policy quite clear – there can be no return to isolation – it is not possible. Obviously he also makes clear Policy – no surrender… Not possible. Slavic Peoples cannot surrender and neither can their leaders…maybe 1000 years ago they could, but not now.
Given the economic, human (social), cultural, and environmental realities the stated Policy of temporizing with Empire (NWO) is transitional, a typical Byzantine Strategy, naturally, and an orthodox one too. But the key word is transitional…
The natural outcome is that the Earth Island Peoples and structures will prevail. Of course accidents happen…
Comrade President, a lawyer and a Marxist, has set policies that strongly imply that there will be, in the fullness of time, trials of the principal NWO criminals…
Russian prosecutorial agents are taking down testimonials, recording crimes and names – why is that? What does this imply?
It seems inescapable to conclude that Comrade President expects to have the power to bring justice to the arena. I ask, can this Policy Goal be achieved while the NWO exists?
It’s obvious that it cannot.
Therefore the obvious real long-term goal that Comrade President has in mind is to see, if not to cause, the NWO to go “poof!”.
NWO principal persons, so far as we can observe their nature, seem to appreciate that juxtaposition…and realize that they face an abyss if they lose power. In this they’re like all nazis, for them it is win or die, so to speak. Seeing what happens to people who oppose or even to those who cooperate with NWO, Russians too realize the realpolitik. This is WW3, and well underway, too.
His methods are quite in line with the strategic methods discussed by B. H. Liddell Hart…ie they are, whenever possible, indirect and asymmetrical and economic in nature – witness the New Silk Road, the return to the moon with a permanent polar station there…examples abound.
Please note that I do not advocate for anything…except being kind to one-another. Of course I have ideas about what “ought to happen”, but these I keep secret – they don’t matter anyway… What I observe, though, is that Comrade President intends to see the NWO gone, and Russia extant… And he may… Timshel…
First off, thank you for sharing your insights, opinions and historical perspective on this topic. I’ve learned more about Russia from your blog than many years of reading suspect sources.
More to the point of where my thinking lies though is how do you view the rise of the neo conservative movement given its widely reported Trotskyite roots? From my decidedly uninformed perspective the current choke hold the crazies seem to have on US policy seems unabated. Do you see a linear progression from Stalin’s purges of them to their ascent in US policy circles?
I appreciate that this is complex question, but if what you are positing above is mostly accurate (and it sure rings true to me) it would seem that a Trotsky “plan B” was hatched at some point,
I look forward to your reply (or full post).
Some Western myths about the purge figures etc are dispelled in “Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years”, by Zemskov et al, first published (surprisingly) in American Historical Review Oct 1993. The study is well worth reading.
PDF here: http://www.mariosousa.se/The%20American%20Historical%20Review%20October%201993%20Soviet%20Union%20penal%20system.pdf
Your link is an eye-opener about the depth of the propaganda/secret services of capitalism. How the Hearts mass media empire has operated non-stop from being Nazi Germany’s mouth-piece in the 1930s and still going!
And the unmasking of Stanford University ‘professor of history’ Robert Conquest as a prostitute, is a must to understand the sordid world of msm a la Hearst and Murdoch.
Bottom line: Stalin turned the USSR from a 17th century country into a country capable of fighting, and eventually defeating, Nazi Germany using the resources he had – which happened to be people.
He accomplished it in just over 20 years, helped at the end by massive material assistance from the US. True, it cost millions of people and there were huge excesses along the way – but 100 years ago Russia was barely a third world country. Now it’s poised to pick up the mantle of freedom the US dropped – if it can free itself from the oligarchs.
After all is said and done, Russia has taken the High Road in the 21st century. It has not farmed out all of it’s industrial capacity to China, so it can – and is – becoming completely self-sufficient. It has the best, if not the most, military weapons, and the least national debt among world leaders. Propaganda aside, Russia has the best chance of any nation to lead the world and the Russian people know it and support their government overwhelmingly.
Stalin was instrumental in creating that reality; whether by being very bad or very good, he was in the right place at the right time.
Starikov puts forward the interesting hypothesis, backed by strong circumstantial evidence, that Winston Churchill, a bankers’ agent, was behind Stalin’s murder: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/29/history-and-economics-as-if-truth-mattered-nikolay-starikovs-rouble-nationalization/
Excellent synopsis and discussion of some of Starikov’s ideas and conclusions. I agree that no one can understand contemporary history without grasping the centrality of finance.
Leon Trotsky was barely involve in orchestrating the 1917 revolution at all. The propaganda that he lead to the initiation of it is nothing more than lies from him; and his modern-day followers.
The initial stages of the revolution started on March 12th of 1917; upon the establishment by left-wing parties of the Petrograd Soviet, led by a Georgian: Nikolai Chkheidze. It was meant to be an alternative to the Provisional Government at the time (this part of the revolution is barely mentioned in the West). Infighting would occur within it; leading to the Bolsheviks taking over it completely, with them establishing their own congress at June of the same year. That congress would pave the way for the revolution on October-November.
I point this out as if anybody with knowledge of history should knowstop being patronising – any futher comment will be deleted. Mod on Duty; Trotsky wasn’t in the initiation of the Petrograd Soviet at all, and was abroad at the time (he was involved in the June congress, but as a Menshevik). The Menshevik portion is important; as Leon Trotsky wasn’t even a Bolshevik at the time (would join it during the month of October upon the start of the revolution). After the success of the revolution upon the year of 1922; he would be involve in various political actions, and with the eventually death of Lenin would take part in campaigns opposing specific individuals which would lead toward his deportation from the USSR. His actions at the time was nothing new for him as he had a history of opportunist; of which he basically was nothing but one that seem to desire power and nothing else (1896- Nardonik, 1898- RSDLP, 1903- Menshevik, 1904- “non-factional social democrat”, 1915- Menshevik, 1917- Bolshevik, 1923- Left Opposition, 1926- United Opposition, 1936- 4th int.).
-Here are good links that contain information regarding Trotsky and the 1917 Revolution:
*http://www.knowbysight.info/2_KPSS/06536.asp (May, 1917 7th Conference of the RSDLP (Petrograd)- Lenin & Stalin on list but not Trotsky).
*http://www.knowbysight.info/2_KPSS/07178.asp (Conferences of the Bolshevik Party)
*Lenin’s opinion on Trotsky
The attempt of Lenin’s life in 1919 (don’t remember exactly) which severely damaged Lenin’s health was carried out by Trotsky using British support.
It wasn’t Trotsky, but Fanya “Fanny” Yefimova Kaplan (true name Feiga Haimovna Roytblat, Фейга Хаимовна Ройтблат), a member of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (Партия социалистов-революционеров, unrelated to Trotsky), that made that attempt, on 30 August 1918 (*not* 1919), impairing Lenin’s health for life.
Leon Trotsky was barely involve in orchestrating the 1917 revolution at all.
True, but he did create the Red Army and win the war (mostly by using his beloved terror tactics, by the way).
Good article Saker. I agree with most of your evaluation and likewise do not see Stalin ANYMORE as the Evil Incarnate. Stalin was in a wasp’s hive and needed to deal with a very dangerous mix of people. Only that type of character could deal with it. Hollywood and the rest did their job in painting him black because he was not the “chosen one” for the post. Typical American will not have an easy time to digest your article if they do not have a solid historical understanding of the players and the financial backers of this period.
Your assessment of how you think Putin approaches this period is spot on,
“I think that Putin strikes the exact and correct balance. He has never rejected the Soviet period in toto, nor has he ever idealized it either. He has referred on numerous occasions to the horrible and senseless massacres of a multitude of innocent Russian people by a Soviet regime run amok with russophobia and class-hatred. And yet he has also shown his sincere respect and admiration for the people who lived during the Soviet era and their immense achievements.”
I have made similar 180 degree turns with other personalities on the world stage. One of them is Joe McCarthy. I believe he had the right idea but was setup to fall as he touched a sensitive nerve in the body-politics of the Anglo-Zionist Establishment of the US.
I still remember Fr. Ilya Wen (ethnic Manchurian) the dean of Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco, CA telling me in 1987 that the Soviet regime would fall within the year and that from its fall, the Russian people would be re-united, white and red. I replied “Дaй Бoг” as many Russians had been saying for decades. He repeated that in the year of the millenium of the Baptism of Holy Russia, that enormous changes would happen. In the next several years , as I witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the effort to preserve “Soviet power”, I kept thinking of Fr. Ilya’s prediction. r. Ilya died at 102 years old. I attended his pannikhida and will never forget what he whispered to me in 1987. As for the heritage of Stalin, I am convinced that Khruschov posthumously blamed Stalin for his own crimes , but that does not absolve Stalin completely. As for the rest, I will leave that to others to evaluate.
So your Fr. Ilya Wen was well connected to the vaticano-zio-english world putsch planning, as others were, too, e.g. West Berlin politicians like a certain Landowsky who saw to it in 1987+ that west german intellectuals, e.g. author Wallraf, began to get immersed with shabby tricks of our renazification organs like BND, BKA etc (Wallraff was falsely accused as “terrorist” so that he sought and received asylum in Holland) – everything to make the eyes & ears & brains of the west german people preoccupied with nothing but artificial personal troubles, so that they were no more capable of doing their job, to observe and judge whether everthing was still moving in the right direction. When not one but two years later “the wonder of the fall of the wall” was produced on our 9.11., there was nobody left to think and speak and write soberly about which option to choose for the future. What THEY wanted and nobody thought through before endorsing and implementing was the reestablishing of (crypto)nazi Germany and its resumption of (crypto)wars against the Slavic and Orthodox nations: brutal annexation of a country with Helsinki “guaranteed” borders, East Germany, without never daring to ask its people about it, the attempt to crack China, the murder of the Soviet Union against the declared will of its inhabitants, splitting of Czechoslovakia, destruction of Yugoslavia, murdering of the Polish elite in Smolensk, suffocating Greece with finance tricks, and since 2014-7-17 a relentless bid to start a new world war against Russia. All of this was and is the wish of the (west) german renazification regime, but obviously in unison with the Vatican, the angloamericans and so on, and even with the complicity of your lovely dean of Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco, CA. While 1989 was simply due as a new world war in the series in 25 years intervals since 1814, this one was very special. The whole activity of the Vatican’s manipulation specialists, the jesuits, was aiming at this glorious result – as expressed in their seemingly nonsensical slogan “+IHS”. Since the jesuits’ weapon is lying, you have to turn around what they propagate, and +IHS turned around says SHI+ or “SHIt”!, and if this is deciphered as alphabetical encryption (a=1, b=2 etc.) then SHIt = 19-8-9, 20, meaning either the 20th day in 1989 (swearing in of Bush1) or the 20th week (countdown to the Tiananmen operation, that was to overthrow first the Chinese government, and then, from east to west, all the other hated commies). Your lovely Ilya Wen was probably completely innocent of all the misery that followed, he just wanted with all his heart what had been revealed to him in advance – and exactly that, a unified effort of all criminals plus all well-meaning individuals on earth finally does produce certain “wonders”. OMG.
Thank you for this. I especially appreciate the term, “AngloZionist,” which could just as easily be called “Wilsonian” in my view.
first of all thank you for your thoughts and openness.
I count myself as opposing you in this regard – I think myself a Stalinist, however I also pride myself in being as honest as I can and neither idolize nor demonize anyone.
(I actually fear falling into idolization as a reflex mechanism, being that here in Western Europe anti-Stalin, anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda has been hammered for decades in our minds)
I don’t speak or read Russian (yet: I’m in the very first stages of studying it) and any reliable historical information is very welcome, as an overwhelming majority of sources I’ve found here inevitably claim to be “objective and accurate” and then fall into repeating the same old childish propaganda memes. That’s why I react with suspicion at any Western source.
As I always say, let’s hear about results, what he found when he got into power and what he left when he died.
On that scale, Stalinism was a costly, bloody, but awesomely successful experiment.
No other country evolved with such speed and determination as Stalin’s USSR.
I think the man himself said “We are a century beyond other countries, we must cover that distance in ten years or we will be destroyed”.
This, I dare to say, looks really like a miracle (and so telling of the Russian saying I heard from you, Russians are slow to get in the saddle, but when they do they ride like the wind).
Being somewhat of a military history geek, I like to quote the unbelievable Red Army evolution during the Patriotic War: from badly equipped, trained, and supplied, relying on donkeys and WW1 leftovers, to the very first modern combined arms force, massively mechanized and motorized, fielding the first real modern tanks, revolutionizing strategy itself (the operational strategic level was a product of Russian thinking). Even the British military historian Basil Liddell-Hart was amazed.
On the home front, it was no less amazing: the Soviet Union became an industrial powerhouse in a fraction of the time any other country needed.
And in my opinion, no other man than Stalin could have pulled it off.
The lives lost are undeniable, regrettable, but inevitable.
You just can’t run ten times as fast than anyone else and not pay a heavy price.
And a heavy price is still better than the ultimate price.
I’m not calling Stalin a saint or anything of that nonsense (I think Stalin himself would have dismissed that as laughable hogwash), but I’m convinced he was a REAL statesman, the likes of which nowadays we find only in Putin and Xi Jinping: leaders with a view for their countries, thinking of the grandchildren of their grandchildren, and not exclusively of their overseas bank account like we have the misfortune of having in power in the West.
Again, thanks for the honesty, you really gave me food for thought.
Following on from some of the things that SumGuy says. – I am not a Stalinist, but I agree with Saker that Stalin was a pragmatist rather than simply a territory-grabbing nationalist. In May 1945, the Red Army held some territory in Norway’s far north, Finmark. Now, there are a couple of useful ice-free harbours up there (Tromso, Vardo, Vadso) which might have been useful to the USSR, given the few ice-free harbours that Russia had whose exits were not controlled by other counties: Denmark-Sweden and Turkey (Baltic Sea-Kattegat; Bosporus-Dardanelles, respectively). Despite this, surprisingly (to many Norwegians at the time), Stalin decided to withdraw the Red Army from northern Norway. It may well be that Stalin did not regard Norway as much of a potential enemy; its population was small and it never had a big army. But still, the harbours might have been useful to Russia in the future.
It shows that Stalin was not ‘territorial’ just for the sake of it. Central and Eastern Europe was a different matter. First, most of these countries had fought with Germany; and second, Stalin wanted a string of buffer states in order to protect USSR from future attacks from them. It was an act of military self-protection. Unfortunately he also felt that he needed to control these (Warsaw Pact) countries by propping up Communist regimes in each one of them), and this ‘need’ testifies to Stalin being a control freak. But I don’t think the establishment of his buffer states means that Stalin was ‘territorial’, and it could be argued that NATO was established on a false ‘analysis’ of Stalin’s intensions in Europe.
A second example of a country that got off fairly lightly is Finland. Finish troops had fought with Germany all the way to Stalingrad. In 1945, Finland lost a sizeable strip of border territory to the USSR, and was compelled to remain non-aligned, but was permitted to pursue its own internal policies. We now refer to this set-up as ‘Finlandisation’ – and, incidentally, this is probably what Putin wants regarding Ukraine.
The cases of Norway and Finland support Saker’s thesis that Stalin was a pragmatist. And, as regards Finland, there may have been a touch of revenge, of course, but Stalin’s revenge was limited and self-controlled. We fellow Scandinavians tend to forgive Finland for its support of Germany, given its experience of the Winter War of 1939-40.
Stalin did what putin should have done to the 5 th columnists.
Survival of state is more important than lettong the anglosaxon agents rampagingvinside your courtyard.
Churchill was a waorse dictatir than Stalin.
That evil like all englisgh evil are worsipped in theur country them why not Stalin?
Thank you for your article and website. Your information is very good and very helpful. Keep up the good work.
It is very hard to understand what the Bolsheviks were really like and even the situation that they found themselves in during and after the revolution and the Civil war. Everything started with World War One. The vast majority of the active Generation of October, pro-soviet/anti-war and those opposed to the soviets and mostly pro-war did not survive the civil war or purges. The purges slammed the door of history shut. Dead men and women tell no tales. Stalin achieved the complete silence of a dead generation. To do so, he murdered his own faction within the Bolshevik party, after first jailing or killing Lenin’s “general staff”. The only reason the Bolsheviks prevailed in the civil war, was because they had no where to run and the whites that were willing to fight were fighting for monarchy with the help of their First World War, and after, alliance with the imperialist Allies. Both sides in the civil war did anything to win. Kill or be killed. Necessity knows no law, convention or theory. Both sides took the one option they had. It was ugly on both sides. Nonetheless, Lenin turned his tired, sick party around and established New Economic Policy, which satisfied 90% of the country, the peasants and the small merchants. The people in the cities and the workers faced hunger and cold. The purges of the Bolsheviks started in fight fight over the continuation/transition from N.E.P. and the desire to begin to bring back Party and soviet democracy. Lenin was sick for two years and then died in January 1924 and then all hell broke loose in the upper levels of his party. Stalin prevailed, and all others, but for a few, were dead or in prison by the time Stalin’s pre-war purges were over in 1937. Trotsky was a horrible politician. He was a good organizer and general but he was no Lenin or Stalin. Stalin’s forced collectivization kills 20 million. Stalin’s purges kill 5 million. Stalin’s alliance with Hitler helps the Soviet Union loose another 20 million. Trotsky is merely a foot note in the history of carnage. Stalin is the grave digger of the revolution and the people.
All the best,
On an American group tour of Russia in mid 2014, just before everything went sideways, in Moscow, Suzdal, and St. Petersburg, our different guides in each location, felt compelled to bring up Stalin, as if anticipating questions about him. (The guides, all young women, in Moscow and Suzdal were very religious, wearing kerchiefs when visiting churches, bowing low before icons. With an icon over the door of the tour bus. The guide in St. Petersburg was not, a daughter of a naval officer, somewhat imperial if anything, pooh-poohing Mr. Putin as a poor boy jumped up from the slums. [A point in his favor po-moemy.]) Our St. Petersburg bus had a small Russian flag over the door. But they all volunteered more or less the same verdict about Mr. Stalin: “He no doubt did many bad things, but he beat the Germans and freed the Church.” There are worse epitaphs. He’s still remembered.
“Stalin was murdered by his entourage.” Actually, Starikov provides suggestive evidence that it the man behind Stalin’s death was that infamous bankers’ agent, Winston Churchill: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/29/history-and-economics-as-if-truth-mattered-nikolay-starikovs-rouble-nationalization/
The answer may be here by remote viewers on 1953; http://beforeitsnews.com/spirit/2016/04/the-mysterious-death-of-stalin-2501048.html
Starikov may have a point. Both Churchill and Stalin are actually the personalities who sit at the beginning of the chain of events which dominated the 20th Century and outlived all others implicated in the same events. Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965), Stalin (18 December 1878- 5 March, 1953). Advantage Churchill!
Having lived though this period (at leAST SINCE 1929), I thoroughly enjoy your recap of events and figures, and rather enjoy your way of presenting them. I heartily agree that bringing them up today
will do no harm and possibly a number of us will gain a bit of wisdom in making judgments. As you
note historians may collate more information and sort things out in such manner that we who still
survive may be better served by that knowledge. Thank you for this thoughtful product of your labor.
I believe that this article is an excellent example of a disinterested search for truth.
A similar perspective is offered in the Starikov book review I mentioned earlier: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/29/history-and-economics-as-if-truth-mattered-nikolay-starikovs-rouble-nationalization/
My second point of disagreement involves Stalin. Starikov rightly blames Gorbachev and Yeltsin for their shortsighted policies, while acclaiming Stalin for saving and strengthening the USSR. In my view, however, Stalin’s unspeakable terror was wrong, unnecessary, and counterproductive.
The Moral Argument against Stalinism: For lovers of liberty, human dignity, and a free marketplace of ideas, Stalin’s reign was a tragedy of enormous proportions. Someplace in The Brothers Karamazov, someone asks:
“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last. Imagine that you are doing this but that it is essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature-that child beating its breast with its fist, for instance-in order to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?”
Dostoyevsky’s answer is NO. I’m with Dostoyevsky, not with Starikov. A state can and should defend itself—but not at the price of enslaving its own people. Once you destroy freedom and human dignity, what is left worth saving? To me and many others, the answer is simple: Nothing.
So much for the moral argument, which is perhaps a matter of psychology and personal proclivities. But there are as well two practical arguments against Stalinism (and against the war that Western governments are currently waging on their own peoples).
A Freer Country is a Stronger Country. Stalin’s reign of terror was unnecessary. The historian Herodotus, himself not an Athenian, clearly perceived the causal connection between freedom and military strength:
“Thus did the Athenians increase in strength. And it is plain enough, not from this instance only, but from many everywhere, that freedom is an excellent thing since even the Athenians, who, while they continued under the rule of tyrants, were not a whit more valiant than any of their neighbors, no sooner shook off the yoke than they became decidedly the first of all. These things show that, while undergoing oppression, they let themselves be beaten, since then they worked for a master; but so soon as they got their freedom, each man was eager to do the best he could for himself. So fared it now with the Athenians.” 
Stalinism was the Chief Cause of the Collapse of the USSR. It could also be argued that the self-inflicted collapse of the USSR in the 1990s was not chiefly traceable to the naiveté of Gorbachev (although he was naïve enough), nor to the drunkenness and treachery of Yeltsin (although he was a drunk and a traitor), nor to Russian economic problems or Russia’s efforts to save Afghanistan from backward theocrats and American incursions. Rather, it is Starikov’s hero, Stalin, who is largely responsible for the catastroika.
To see this, we need to ask: What drove patriotic Russians like Gorbachev, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, or Zinoviev to denounce their own system and help usher the horrors of the Yeltsin regime and Russia’s version of the notorious Chicago Boys? Why were the Nazis greeted at first as saviors by many Ukrainians? Why is fascism still popular in the Ukraine and a few other former republics of the USSR?
“We have been conditioned our entire lives to expect that anything that opposes a demonstrably evil entity must itself be good,” says James Corbett. By creating a “demonstrable evil entity,” Stalin led Gorbachev and others to the mistaken belief that the USA “must be good.” It took the 1990s for the majority of Russians to realize that both the USSR and the USA were “criminal networks that use brutality and violence to enforce their control over given areas and to terrorize others.”
The cure of course, as Starikov notes, was not to dismantle the USSR, destroy a multipolar world, and cause unimaginable sufferings, but to democratize the USSR. In hindsight, it’s easy enough to see how deluded Gorbachev was. The point however is that, besides Anglo-Saxon propaganda, it was the horrors of Stalinism that led patriotic Russians to embrace their country’s assailants.
Thus, Stalin’s cruelty and arbitrary rule were, most likely, the primary cause of the USSR’s tragic collapse in the 1990s. A nationalist like Starikov should revile Stalin on purely pragmatic grounds—instead of repeatedly singing his praises.
Dostoyevsky approved of the killing of ‘heathens’ in Christian warfare. If this included women and children that was merely an ‘unfortunate’ consequence.
In late life (1881), Dostoyevsky wrote to his friend, Aleksei Suvorin: ” It seems to you that in my last novel, The Brothers Karamazov, there was much that was prophetic. But wait for the continuation. In it Alyosha will leave the monastery and become an anarchist. And my pure Alyosha will kill the Tsar.”
Just as we only think we know who Stalin was, we only think we know who Dostoyevsky was.
A wonderful quote–thanks. The point however is not Dostoyevsky, but the view that nothing justifies the cold-blooded murder of innocents. I suspect that is what the author of that book review might say in her defense.
This is mostly undigested BS, as all Western take on Dostoevsky.
One of the ways I find it hard to really see eye to eye with The Saker is on the issue of patriotism. For The Saker, patriotism (specifically Russian, but to some extent patriotism of some “true” form for whatever nationality you are part of) is a crucial and fundamental lens through which to view the world. For me it isn’t, shouldn’t be, and I don’t really understand how any thoughtful person could defend the notion that it might be–it’s such an obviously contingent, constructed, non-fundamental kind of category. How can an ethics be based on patriotism?
Patriotism is, ultimately, tribalism, which is OK part of our nature as humans. It’s going to be there in some form or other and I can’t really see it as fundamentally either good or bad. The question is how it is used . . . unfortunately, near as I can make out most of the time it is used very badly. But I won’t go as far as many leftists do and throw the whole concept out entirely; nationalism can be and has been used positively. But it’s important more in how you cope with it than as something anyone should actually take as a central part of their soul, as it were.
So then if we’re talking about Stalin and Russian Communists, Trotskyists and so on. And he’s judging the Trotskyists as evil and insane on the basis of being anti-Russian and anti-patriotic (and atheist–I myself am an atheist; I think I’ll just leave that one aside). But had you made such objections to Trotskyists (I find myself wondering where Lenin was in all this), and many people probably did, they would have looked at you pityingly. For them, patriotism of no matter what country was a bourgeois (or royalist) construct whose sole purpose was to keep the proletariat, and grudgingly admitted, the peasantry, in chains. They had a point, it was certainly very often used for that purpose. They were under the impression that a Communist revolution was the way, and indeed the only way, for the people (who happened to be living in Russia) to be free of their chains and stop being oppressed. It so happens they were wrong about that. But imagine for a moment they were right: Would it be a serious criticism of the only way to make the vast majority of the population free of serfdom and (wage-)slavery, that it should not happen because the results would be less Russian? I just can’t see “freedom”, “oppression” and “Russian-ness” even existing at the same conceptual level, much less judging “Russian-ness” as more fundamental and important than the others.
The Communist revolution did terrible things because its ideology was absolutist and extremely centralizing, which implies tyranny and stratification rather than freedom and equality, not because it was anti-Russian. And I would suspect that at the time, some of the most Russian institutions were the parasitic aristocracy and monarch, which were no doubt bolstering the arts through patronage as aristocracies tend to do. It was still doing the country a favour to get rid of the aristocracy and monarchy. It is unfortunate that involved killing off the actual aristocrats and monarch + family, many of whom were no doubt decent people, but no more unfortunate than killing off an equal number of peasants and other ordinary people, which both sides did many times over. That’s politics in a civil war.
Communists never seem to have worked well with peasants. Marx never really grappled with peasants in his theory, he wasn’t interested in them and dismissed them. When you add in the beliefs in extreme centralization and the abolute importance of making everything big to get economies of scale, you end up with moronic crap like the mass forced collectivization of agriculture. Which would generate resistance because it’s screwing people over, which would be suppressed, which would be horrible. If you were going to have Communist absolute rule taking itself at all seriously, bad things were going to happen (along with some good things). IMO, Stalin probably did some of those bad things harder than almost anyone else in his situation would have, because he was such a ruthless paranoid bastard. Would the Trotskyists he whacked have done worse or less bad? Hard to be sure.
Were Stalin’s killings “necessary”? I myself am pretty sure lots of them weren’t on any level–when you are engaged in both a calculated campaign of terror and a search for (in this case non-)reds under the bed, it will get out of hand. It always does. Inevitably, masses of the wrongdoers you find were no such thing and you kill or otherwise victimize completely innocent people, even people who are important and useful and which you are worse off without. But then we get to questions like “Necessary for what?” Lots of the deaths were, perhaps, “necessary” in order for Stalin’s personal power to remain unchallenged. Yeah, so? He was one man. How many deaths are justified for that? Lots of the deaths were perhaps “necessary” to stop the Communist vision from being diluted, such as deaths that occurred in the process of collectivizing the agriculture. Again, I would say not good enough–if your ideology is causing the people misery then you need to stop and rethink, either find a way for the ideology to do what it does without immiserating the people, or revise the damn ideology. Many of the deaths were “necessary” for reasons of class war. That’s actually a grey area for me. If you have a class whose property comes from sucking everyone’s blood–like, for instance, our modern financial bankster overlords–then you have to take all their property away and whatever other basis they may have for continuing to suck blood. But they won’t want you to do that and they will fight back. If that is going to cause big trouble and widespread death, then too bad, you gotta whack ’em. The red-white wars (with the whites extensively backed by foreign powers, no matter how “Russian and patriotic” they might have been) made it clear that the dispossessed classes could indeed cause trouble and widespread death. So they got it in the neck. In a perfect world you wouldn’t have to, but in a perfect world they wouldn’t have been in charge in the first place. I do think Stalin, and many others, went rather overboard on that and caused quite a lot of unnecessary death and suffering–but the “necessity” of a good bit of that was pretty defensible. Just a pity they had to replace the bloodsucking aristocrats and factory owners and moneylenders with oppressive Communist Party apparatchiks. Many of the deaths were “necessary” to stop Hitler’s invasion. Well, OK, fair enough–even if it wasn’t Hitler, generally when you get invaded you do what you gotta do.
One final thought–people often, when they realize that some violence or ruthlessness is necessary and effective e.g. to keep a state intact, start to think that more must be more effective. And so when they see someone like Stalin who was very ruthless and killed many, many people and whose state remained intact, and they know that some ruthlessness was certainly necessary to do so, they assume that less ruthlessness would have been less effective. And so there is a tendency to justify arbitrarily large amounts of ruthlessness and violence on the basis of necessity. But none of this follows; as near as I can make out, too much violence and ruthlessness is as counterproductive as not enough (and of course whatever level you use, it can backfire if you target it badly). In my opinion, the amount of death Stalin meted out was way above what one might call the “sweet spot”, definitely to the point where national and regime cohesion was being negatively affected. So I don’t think the extreme levels of his violence were “justified” on a pragmatic level.
Pardon me if I muddle the quote, but it’s been said that when the method is the lie, sooner or later it will lead to violence. Extending this to the next level, violence may be necessary but beware, as the secondary effects of violence tend to exceed, over time, the primary effect – and worse (!) the effects, even sometimes the primary effect, are impossible to predict. Indeed the unpredictable nature of violence is the best argument against it! The US Marines are fond of saying that no plan survives first contact with the enemy… Same wisdom…avoid dogma, deal with reality…
Therefore a cautious and measured approach, generally indirect, which avoids violence, is, in general, best – if one wishes to get and keep power. But there are emergencies… These happen.
Through the hazy lights of history the Stalin we can see seems to me to have been in a long emergency, and also to have been fairly careful about using violence – as careful as the emergency permitted.
A surgeon may take the time to cut ever so carefully, but lose his patient – Contra-wise another doctor may slash more freely and save his patient. That’s not pretty, but it’s true as sunrise.
Similarly, to-day, Comrade President is very cautious about the lie, and about using violence. Consider, in juxtaposition, the methods of Empire… There the lie and the violence are primary…nearly the sole method, and, naturally, therefore, the outcomes are wildly unpredictable.
We see this to-day.
Therein lies the main advantage of one party over the other – and that dove-tails with and buttresses the advantage of a Marxist over an ideologue with his delusional dogma.
Additionally, Comrade President seems to be keeping the best of the Soviet period, and jettisoning the bad – just as Marxist Theory suggests.
A Jewish lady doctor I know is fond of saying “look, see, tell the truth (to yourself) and take effective action” – I’d criticize that dictum, as action is sometimes not a good thing…but it seems to me that her idea is Marxist in nature, and it’s what Stalin did, and it’s what we see going on to-day.
Another observation – there is a 5th column – as the heat of the conflict builds the people will naturally want those involved to come to alignment with Policy. The Russian 5th column will therefore, absent a bolt from the blue, face doom. Some individuals may indeed face hard fates. It is not only international crime that’s being noted down… gleichaltung takes time and runs, and in time as pressures mount, it will bring ruin to the 5th column. Comrade President has said it – “we know everything”, he said, and not just to Empire…
Excellent synopsis and discussion of some of Starikov’s ideas and conclusions. I agree that no one can understand contemporary history without grasping the centrality of finance.
@”gleichaltung takes time and runs”
Do you mean Gleichschaltung”?
Purple Library Guy,
I would agree with your assessment which seems to me realistic and pragmatic.
My interest in Russia was sparked when I was befriended on my travels by a frail old lady who had been a Red Army soldier. She was captured, spent time in a camp and was due to be shot when finally liberated. She became a displaced person, unable to return to USSR because as an ex-POW she was considered a traitor (allowing herself to be captured) and faced execution. Despite the terrible conditions of first being an ill-equipped foot soldier, then caged for extermination as an untermensch and subsequent exile, she remained fiercely patriotic and a staunch soviet believer. Oddly, she had only a grudging respect for Stalin. She revered Zhukov, however, despite it being his policy to execute ex-POWs.
I found this stance on her part incomprehensible and when Zhukov’s memoirs became available in translation I read them and found that he had a similar ambivalent view on Stalin; he is quite scathing regards Stalin’s conduct of the war saying that he refused to prepare despite advice from his generals and initially refused to believe that Russia had been invaded, even as the German troops were crossing the border. It took a further two years for the Red Army to modernise, mechanise and up-armour in order to present a credible defence. My friend the old soldier had marched from Moscow to the front as they had no trucks.
What is clear to me is that I didn’t live through those desperate times and thus am in no position either to rate Stalin as a leader or to whitewash his actions.
Against my better judgement however, (a nascent personality cult incurring Stalin’s ire formed around him also) I seem to have inherited my long-dead friend’s admiration for Zhukov, despite his brutal policies.
Russians must be immensely grateful that Putin, whatever his faults, listens to his generals, his expert specialists and his people. That’s progress. In the west we have no-one of that stature who is even comparable.
Between 1941 and 1945:
5 163 237 Red Army soldiers and officers were captured, vast majority in 1941.
3 226 237 were killed by the nazies and their colaborators
1 054 820 survived
875 579 returned and went through filtration system to clear them and they were released.
3% were arrested on serious suspicion of being traitors, participants in nazi crimes etc. Of those, only 10% were found guilty and punished.
66 694 did not return, they went to the West, some out of fear.
Germans and allies alike had a strong propaganda spreading fear about treatment of ex POW in Soviet Union.
Again: What passes for ‘political science’ and ‘history’ according to the West’s self-styled intelligentsia and its faithful parrots has got absolutely zero explanatory power. The fact of the matter is that Stalin and the USSR that he led has left an indelible mark on the fascist West, not only by defeating its invading, wildly insane mercenary forces twice over and then topping it off by responding most appropriately to Western nuclear blackmail. What’s even more outrageous is the indisputable fact that Stalin’s USSR accomplished — in three decades of ferocious struggle — what took the bloody West half a millennium of global rape, slavery, and genocide to achieve for its home constituencies. The West’s perpetual screamfest about Stalin as a mass murdering monster from Hell is no accident whatsoever.
Figures like 66 million bandied about by people like Robert Service were ridiculous even before the opening of Soviet archives.
>”3) I feel confident saying that Stalin was most definitely no worse than his predecessors”
Well, his immediate predecessor was the party leadership during the New Economic Policy. Clearly Stalin was more repressive than that.
I’ll give an example – the writer Boris Pilniak. In 1926 he wrote a story in a magazine called “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” in which he made a thinly veiled accusation that Stalin had murdered Mikhail Frunze. What happened? The magazine was withdrawn, the editor had to apologize. And that was it. No arrests, no executions.
What do think would have happened had some suicidal editor done such a thing in 1936?
Very interesting and good comments,that’s why I love this blog,every day I found out new things to learn from various people with appreciable knowledge.I accept many of the above posted arguments regarding Stalin’s deeds,except his cult of personality during his life and after.that was typical for the Soviet period and was widely reverberated in the entire Eastern-Block.That had a very bad taste.
When Stalin talked to Eisenstein regarding how he portrayed Ivan the Terrible, he stated that were Ivan the terrible to destroy all great Nobel families, the time of troubles in Russia would not happen. Such people like Yeltsin and Navalni should not be allowed to roam streets free or they must be exterminated for public good.
or still 5th columnist like traitor lavrov is allwoed to be in high position!
It took Stalin to eliminate all that Jewish trash.
January 1897 (Russian Empire): 125,640,000
1911 (Russian Empire): 167,003,000
January 1920 (Russian SFSR): 137,727,000*
January 1926 : 148,656,000
January 1937: 162,500,000
January 1939: 168,524,000
June 1941: 196,716,000
World War II losses were estimated between 27-30 million
January 1946: 170,548,000
January 1951: 182,321,000
I don t see where these 20 to 60 milions supposedly killed by Stalin can fit here :) Western media as usual contradicts itself ;)
In Zbigniew Brezinski’s book, “The Grand Failure”, (1989) he estimates 20-40 million deaths to Stalin. Likely toward the higher end, he said.
yes, but why would you trust someone who worked for the US empire not to lie about communists who he felt wronged him greatly by expropriating him?
There’s a story supposedly told by Churchill about Stalin who had such power that when he entered a room people automatically stood up. Churchill said he resolved not to do that at a meeting where Stalin came in (perhaps Yalta). But when the time came and Stalin entered Churchill stood up with the rest as if moved by an immovable force.
That is called presence or personality.
Anglosaxon propaganda by war criminal Churchill types like Ergo: Stalin = Hitler. Funny how Stalin, who allegedly devoured infants for breakfast during 30 long years, could see his country’s population, wealth, and technical achievements grow so incredibly fast.
To summarise: If Russia is to survive, her leaders and her people will have to do what USSR under Stalin did 70 years ago. To wit, smash the West’s mad dogs for all the world to see.
What is so great about democracy anyway? Most of the mass murderers of last 300 years have been so called democratic nations especially those English 5 eyes.
I do not necessarily equate “democracy” with “good”. I think “democracy” can be “evil”, as evil as “non-democracy”. That does not mean that it can never be good, but it can be and in most cases has been very evil. Practically all of the British colonialism and its barbarism occurred and is occurring while it was a so called “democracy”. We all know what USA can do- all in name of prostituted word democracy used by the anglosaxons.
Mass killing of red Indians in the usa, mass imposed starvation of rich and ordinary people inside India –all done by so called democratic nations. Even Hitler and Stalin did not kill so many as did the angloamericans in last one hundred years through their wars and destabilisation-which is still going on in the middle east and other places.
If they don’t like the result of free election in other countries they declare the winner a dictator though they are in love with Saudi and Bahrain democrats!
So just because a regime in Anglosphere wins with even 35 % of vote then that regime has right to impose its will on rest of the world because it is so called democratic?
Originally democratic in the Greek states meant something opposed to the king or ruler.so called many democratic states today are run by the king or queen and is still called democratic!
In fact the word democracy was flaunted not in 19th century but during world war one when england was badly losing to the Germans despite all the resources of the stolen wealth of empire and despite 3/4th of German army being on the Russian front. Then in name of democracy a loud appeal secretly was sent to the americans-who had been supplying england from the very first day of war-to come to rescue of england. The then president of USA the liar Wilson –who had been elected on no war platform-turned 180 % and cites “saving democracy for the world” to come to rescue of england otherwise their anglo country was going to lose. Considering that every england was terrorising a wide swath of people in the colonies did not come in the way of so called democractic values. In fact Germany under Bismarck Prussian system was more democratic than either england or France.
Anyway Wilson plotted to come to rescue of england and for that English plotted the incidence of “Lusitania” sinking done through war criminal Churchill connivance. The same false flag as pearl harbour in the second world war to come to the rescue of british in the far eater theatre.
So you see –the word democracy is only flagged around when angloamerican have some very vested interests in doing it –it is bait.
I read someplace this, following, about democracy:
“”Democracy” happens when everybody votes on everything and then they hand the votes to me so I can count them…. “Yup” I say, “just as we all expected, just like the papers and TV said it’d be…”
But there are “short-cuts” too! These make it better! Works like this: I pick two or three shills, maybe I have pictures of their pederasty, or maybe I pay them off, or maybe I toss their first-born out of a helicopter…anyway I own their souls… About 1/2 of the people are allowed to pick from this “short-list”… About 1/2 of them actually vote. And if they vote correctly my man wins! Otherwise we have to stop the count to protect their rights… All Very Democratic!
But sometimes the sons of my shills and crooks go bad, they stray from the true path, go off the reservation… (Hey! It happens!) Then we have a parade in Dallas…
This is Democracy.
Some say that it’s terrible. Others says it terrible, but better than the alternatives.
What do you think?”
As for Solzhenitsyn, he got his right share of criticism in the USA for his support to the Vietnam War.
As for Stalin – and if you want more fuel thrown into the fire – watch the movie “Mission to Moscow” directed by Michael Curtiz upon the book by Ambassador Davis – US (FDR’s) first to USSR.
stalin verses war criminal churchill
Propaganda says, he-Stalin-murdered civilians. He did(. They say, he smashed iron curtain-well Churchill did as most evil race are the anglos.. Well, Da. They say, he made wasted country into #2 or #1 industrial in 15 years. Those anglosp[ies just like those anglo spies to day in eastern Europe.). He left his son dying in Nazi captivity. And he won WWII. He surely did.
The House on the Embankment was home to Joseph Stalin’s children: His daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva lived in Apartment No. 37, while her brother Vasily Stalin’s home was accessed via the entrance next door. Another famous resident of the building was Alexei Stakhanov, the miner who mined record amounts of coal (14 times his shift quota), starting off the Stakhanovite movement. Nikita Khrushchev’s mother could often be found sitting on a bench outside the building, eating sunflower seeds.(can you imagine such elites mixing with minor in usa/uk )?
He was not an ordinary person.
Quot e: “Over half of Russians believe Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was the best head of state in the past century, followed by Bolshevik Revolution mastermind Vladimir Lenin and dictator JOSEPH STALIN, a poll by Levada Center has revealed….exactly ONE-HALF of Russians favor STALIN.”
rt. com/politics/brezhnev-stalin-gorbachev-s oviet-638/
Bengal Famine in 1943 saw off 5 to 6 million people.It is now clearly established that Churchill was responsible for actively b;locking relief to Bengal and thus was responsible for the genocide.Fist, the BRits seized all Indian-registered ships in 1939, at the start of WW2 for “strategic neccessities”. And then they used these ships to transport wheat to Britain from Argentina and build up by war’s end, a stockpile of 8 million tons of grain! While millions perished in Bengal . Churchill always said “there were no ships available”. Finally, the exasperated Americans under Roosevelt, offered to send grain to Bengal in their own ships. Churchill refused to permit it. He did not want the truth to come out at any cost.Then , in 1942 itself, the Brits adopted a policy of ric denial and boat denial in Bengal, because the Japs may come and should not use these resources. This was not genuine as the Brits had not supplied a single ant-aircraft gun in India. Gandhi and Congress on 10th July 1942, gave guidelines to the people of Bengal on how they should respond to rice denial and boat denial. “Demand compensatio before any seizure”. “If a village is fully surrounded by water, no boat will be surrendered”. It was very strong stand on a matter of real life and death. It recalls Martin Luther at Worms, “I take my stand . I can no other!” The Brits in internal cabinet notes in London called Gandhi an “enemy”. Entire Congress leadership was soon arrested. Brits went ahead and seized 40000 out of 60000 fishing boats in Bnegal. The hungry could not even fish.Brits also invaded homes of the poor and seized rice. When Congress leaders came out of jail in 1944, they shoiuld hve enquired into the Bengal famine. This was not done.The Brits had proved that our leaders could not protect us and they could kill millions with impunity
Libya: “The Right to Protect” has Triggered a Humanitarian Disaster
The Legacy of Winston Churchill
by William Bowles–June 16, 2011
“I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” — Winston Churchill 1920
Now let me get this straight: In order to save civilian lives (the infamous ‘Right to Protect’), the Empire, through its Rottweiller NATO, not only deindustrializes Libya but it also causes a mass exodus of refugees hundreds of whom drowned and many thousands more were left stranded, attacked and abused.
The Pirates attempted to assassinate Gaddafi but succeeded in killing women and children instead. The Pirates bomb educational infrastructure, communications, power, agriculture and terrorize the population from the air and sea with the combined military might of the most powerful countries on the planet. So this is what humanitarian intervention looks like?
The reality of it is that in the ‘good old days’ they made no bones about the issue of keeping the natives in their place, phrases like humanitarian intervention would have made Churchill laugh. Though perhaps, just as with our current leaders and its lapdog mass media, Churchill would have appreciated the propaganda value of ‘humanitarian intervention for domestic audiences.
“On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death…for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.”
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): “I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” Henry Wilson shared Churchill’s enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause “only discomfort or illness, but not death” to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and “kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.”
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a “scientific expedient,” should not be prevented “by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly”. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect “though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties” — ‘British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq’
So what’s the difference between the Pirates of today and those of yesteryear? None as far as I can see, all that’s changed is that these days, our rulers have to be more prudent and work a lot harder to sell us the idea of recolonization, disguising the entire sordid affair as ‘humanitarian intervention’. And, if it wasn’t for the direct collusion between the Pirates and the media, I’m certain it would be a lot more
so Churchill not Hitler is the bigger villain! so NATO is no surprise
Watch this video and share it widely! Who are the unidentified people shooting on the peaceful demonstrators waving green flags? Get the Truth out people!
AS YOU CAN SEE NATO IS BOMBING BABIES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HQ50zruGA4 IN ORDER TO PROTECT AL QAEDA TERRORIST REBELS