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 [149] [155] [156]. 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.
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!
The Saker
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!
Dear Saker,
I wanted to say that I liked your analysis and even sometime made me mourn reading how you make some justice to Stalin. It means a lot to me.
I appreciate your honesty in telling the past of your grandfather, you did not really need to do it, but since you are not guilty at all for what he did, gives more credit to the trip you had to do from a childhood steeped, apparently, on indoctrination in extreme right ideas to your current positions, and although, as you well say, still you need more knowledge ( who not?) to assess accurately and precisely the historical facts which took part in the country of origin of your ancestors, your openess allow you to make a more honest review than probably many others sharing your origins and upbringing could do.
Congratulations.
I think that on the issue of reconciliation you are wrong, because you will be surprised about what human beings are able to do. Did you know that here in the Basque Country some relatives of victims of ETA have met and have interviewed with the members of this groups who killed their relatives? Can you imagine the effort needed to do such a thing? But the desire to understand and relive the pain and banish hatred and rancor, that does nothing but corrode the one who feels it, is what lead people to gather strenght to dare doing such approach.
So I hope that one day you will be able to wish and have more hope on achieving this task also for Russia and then you will do all from your part to give a hand on this.
Hugs,
Elsi
Dear Saker, regarding Tukhachevsky: If you get around to reading Grover Furr eventually, you might want to work your way up to his most recent book, Trotsky’s Amalgam’s, Vol. 1. (“Amalgam” here refers to Trotsky predicting Stalin would eventually accuse Trotsky of all kind of things that we now know from outside sources Trotsky was really involved in clandestinely. Trotsky called it “Exposing the scheme in advance,” so that if it really were revealed, Trotsky could claim it was merely propaganda against himself that he’d predicted. )
.
Back to Tukhachevsky, Furr presents convincing had evidence form outside the USSR that there really was a military plot: (1) The Mastny-Benes note of Feb. 1937, discovered in the Czech archives in 1987. (2) NKVD General Liushkov’s revelations to his Japanese handlers, discovered in the Japanese archives after WW2, showing that General Gamarik was plotting with the Japanese (Gamarik was accused along with Tukhachevsky, but committed suicide). (3) The Arao document of April 1937, from the Japanese military attache in Poland, intercepted and translated by the NKVD, which reports that the Japanese had successfully contacted Tukhachevsky. [It was discovered under Khrushchev, and explained away as a “provocation”, without any evidence whatsoever.] (3) The interrogation of Nikolai Ustialov in mid 1937, a month or more after Tukhachevsky had been executed, describing his conversation with T. in late 1936, where T. outlined his plans to come to power, in guarded language. (4) Marshal Budyonny’s private letter to Marshal Voroshilov, found in the archives, describing the military trial of T. and associates, describing their confessions in great detail. Furr makes a plausible case for the authenticity of each of these documents.
.
In addition, of course, there is the copious testimony implicating T. and associates at the 1938 Moscow trials. Suspect because Khrushchev claimed it was coerced, but that never substantiated.
.
You can see for yourself if you read Furr that far, and weigh the evidence yourself. It’s hard going, in that his format is to refute assertions that conflict documentary evidence. He writes well, however, and repays close reading.
It’s amusing how the Anglo Americans and Europeans instinctively direct their Two Minutes of Hate against this or that non-Western ruler or country, while minimizing, denying, or even celebrating the crimes of their own country, regimes, and rulers.
This requires an astounding feat of deception that surpasses Goebbels or Orwell.
For instance, the United States fawns over its Founding Slaveowners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc as paragons of freedom–minimizing the embarrassing fact that all these founding oligarchs owned other human beings as slaves and personally enriched themselves as a result.
George Washington, father of the United States, was one of the richest men of his time–if not the richest.
Washington was the Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros of his era–with his wealth derived from chattel slavery instead of Wall Street financial chicanery or crappy Windoze operating software. LOL.
Yet Americans worship this slaveowner with statues, a monument in Washington DC, and even a carved likeness on Mount Rushmore!
Hell, European Americans in general even have national holidays that effectively celebrate their genocide of the Native Indian peoples of the Americas.
It’s called Thanksgiving and Columbus Day.
Your assessment that Stalin was a patriot is absolutely correct. It is said that one of his sons , a corporal in Soviet army, was captured by Nazis. An offer was conveyed by Germans to exchange him for one of their own generals who was in captivity with the Soviet army.
Stalin asked the messanger, a general in Soviet army, ‘what is the rank of our soldier with the Germans’. The general replied, ‘a corporal’ to which Stalin asked ‘and that of German prisoner’. He replied ‘a general’. Stalin’s asked, ‘do we exchange corporal for a general’. The general answered, No!
‘Then why do you ask? Do what is right’, said Stalin.
Since the exchange was denied, Nazis killed Stalin’s son. Stalin’s love for his country, it’s people was such that he put it far above his own personal relations.
Shri
Huh, I had a reeeally long comment which I wrote before one I see here now, but it disappeared into the ether. Was it particularly objectionable somehow?
Never mind, I just stupidly didn’t look at the second page of comments.
@ Saker and Jimmie Moglia
Is it possible to have a sketch or a review about Tsarist’s Russia decades preceding 1917’s revolution? I think that prologue into a revolution would help us all to better understand what, how and why happened.
Dragan, Knowledge of pre-1917 Tsarist Russia…
The first part of Solzhenitzens book “Two Hundred Years Together” is what you’re looking for….
I read this book, by a man who is Russian Orthodox.
He goes into the role of the serfs in Russia, Nicholas II and many other matters in depth. It was an excellent book for helping me to understand Russia.
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Rome-Russia-Tsarism-Orthodoxy/dp/0974230308/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460539886&sr=1-1&keywords=the+third+rome
I recommend this book highly.
The best that I know of is “The Fall of the Russian Monarchy” by Sir Bernard Pares, written in 1939. Sir Bernard was a British liaison with the Russian Army in 1914, then a year later seconded to the British Embassy in St. Petersburg. He saw most of the final denouement personally (thus fulfilling the practice of ancient historians, who regarded an eyewitness account like that of Thucydides as the best and only reliable history, literally an autopsy). Sir Bernard’s “History of Russia” is the best general history of Russia that I know of in English.
History repeating itself.
In England the “Anglo-zionists” are 70% Celt, 30% Roman army offspring. The native Irish/English can trace their DNA and Gaelic back to over 9000 BC. This is all new information.
The English murdered 600,000 Irish between 1840-1851. 50,000 were shipped to the West Indies as slaves and the women as sex slaves and servants. If they had not converted to Catholicism, It never would have happened. Land was stolen and sold to Protestants.
They killed their own kind, there are no inherently “evil” races.
You may want to see remote viewing Stalin’s death in 1953; http://beforeitsnews.com/spirit/2016/04/the-mysterious-death-of-stalin-2501048.html
Sakerites (those who proudly employ the term “Anglo-Zionist”) are very confident in saying that “Anglo-Zionists” have killed millions.
They are more circumspect about Stalin or Mao, and willing to raise the question whether it was a price worth paying.
They are clear beyond peradventure that there was no Holocaust. Sure the Germans shot lots of people on the Eastern Front and a number of them were Jews. But the story and the figures touted by “Anglo-Zionists” are fiction.
This variability in the treatment of massacres is not caused by variability in the accounting. “Anglo-Zionists” famously “Don’t do body counts”. The Soviets and the Chinese Communists were quite given to collecting statistics, to show that the five-year plan was being fulfilled (ahead of schedule).
But no-one can beat the Nazis. Throughout their chaotic rule, as they stumbled from one expedient to the next in their campaign for lebensraum, they collected statistics as if statistics could take the place of clear thinking and sound management. Even their concerted effort to shred the evidence as the War turned against them could not.hide what they had done. Of all the massacres, the massacre of the Jews is the most minutely documented (and for completeness, the Nazis included categories for Gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, and Communists).
Yet this is the one Sakerites feel most confident in denying.
There is a distorting mirror here.
“Anglo-Zionists” are confident in accusing Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Hutus of killing tens of millions. They are vague and forgetful of their allies’ crimes. And their own are ancient and glorious history or policy mistakes. The one thing they can judge to a certainty is that the Nazis killed six million and that it was all part of a pre-arranged plan.
What accounts for this odd shared response to massacres? – Now you see them, now you don’t. Whether it’s Sakerites or “Anglo-Zionists”, it appears to be ideology that determines the response.
Does anyone have more info than wikipedia on the Jewish Oblast Stalin started in Siberia called Birobidzhan?
What made Stalin join the Bolsheviks? Was he working undercover for tsarist secret police? I am curious what made Stalin.
@Modern Russia has nothing in common with the Russia between 1917 and 1953
I have no doubt that only a de-ideologized reading of Russian history can do justice to such a “controversial” figure as Stalin. Russia between 1917-1953 is
@Modern Russia has nothing in common with the Russia between 1917 and 1953
I have no doubt that only a de-ideologized reading of Russian history can do justice to such a “controversial” figure as Stalin. Russia between 1917-1953 is still a moment of a historical continuum, the evolution of the Russian State.
I found extremely interesting some considerations about Russia and Stalin expressed in 1931-32 by a Romanian professor of philosophy and journalist, Nae Ionescu. They become more interesting when you know that Nae Ionescu was, during the Communist era in Romania, painted as the “ideologue of Romanian fascism”, ortodoxist, rabid anti-communist, anti-soviet. Had he not died before the war, he would have ended in the Stalinist Gulag.
In an article discussing the talks with the Soviets for a non-aggression pact he criticized the positions of the press which was categorically against any discussion with the bolsheviks, the ordinary criminals, etc.
“This attitude is, to say the least, ridiculous… The Union of the Soviet Republics is a state of 150 million people and just in our borders. Is it not ridiculous to imagine that we could indefinitely keep in quarantine a neighbor which administer more than half of Europe, and the richest one at that?
And supposing, by the impossible, at we would be able to do it. But to what end? And with what perspective? Our attitude could be justified somehow, if we knew that the present regime is doomed to fail and be replaced with a regime convenient to us, or with a… European regime, which would take Russia in colonial exploitation (sic!)…
Our ideas about the state of affairs in Russia are completely unclear.
The Russians made a revolution. They made it not only for them, but for us all… And for 15 years they try to find a convenient formula. Bolshevism? No. The bolsheviks are not in power anymore and the Soviet Republic is no more bolshevik either. Inertia makes that some bolshevik forms and formulations are still circulating… But the romantic-revolutionary period, with its ideologues, with its “doctrine” exctracted from books, is closed for a long time already. Russia is today honestly, pathetically honestly, and sometimes with impressive means, in search of new life formula. Which one would that be? Only God knows. But we can say that it won’t be the communist one – or at least not the one of the Communist Manifesto or of the third International. To that extent that the poor communists outside Russia look today – in respect to the present stage of the Russian revolution – like pityful naives who fight for a cause lost for a long time already…”
No less interesting are the views of Nae Ionescu about Stalin. Discussing a book about Stalin by Boris Bajanow (Avec Staline dans le Kremlin) he made the observation that Bajanow knew only to see, but not to understand…His explanations fall short of any realities and are not able to clarify anything about the forces at play in the great russian turn.
“What do you think that Stalin, master and dictator over the destinies of 150 million souls, is? Says Bajanow: an illiterate and limited man, repugnant and lacking any talent, not understanding anything, ambitious and cruel, consumed by a devouring passion for power. And like Stalin all the others..
I suppose that B. is right. But I ask why does he tell us all these things? To feel disgust for the russian revolution? Or to convince us of its lack of seriousness and fragility? That the russian revolution will not succed, or more precisely will not succeed in its communist intentions, we know. We knew it even before its outbreak. And it was known by any man not stultified by the pozitivist-“scientific” thought and who cannot believe in communism because he believes in the living and viable realities.
But this has nothing to do with Stalin’s intelligence… He might be stupid, but I say that does not matter. For the last eight years this man dispose of the deastinies of Russia. Eight years of continuous turns and transformations. In these years things started to gain consistency. Maybe this consistency would not lead to communism, but to something else. But what is important for Russians? To realize communism? – or to find a economic and political formula of balance (whatever that be) instead of the the tsarist one which, categorically, was not working anymore?
I do not doubt, Trotsky is more intelligent; intelligent and talented! But would have been preferable that the russian republic be dominated by Trotsky? I don’t believe. Because Trotsky being an intelligent and full of ideas, and applying to the events the old heroic conception of history – that a man with a strong will can do anything – would have violated the realities, trying to keep them in the strict (theoretical) frame of communism. Would that have been any good? Decidedly, no!
So, Stalin being, as Bajanow said, stupid and not knowing what communism was, let himself be carried by the circumstances, reacting from case to case, after the indications of the realities themselves. Or probably, not reacting at all. Which was even better. Leaving things to settle by themselves.
History was not made by intelligent people. The intelligent and voluntary rather falsified it and turned it back.”
,
Very educational comment. Thanks
R
Great Article. I would also like to read an article about the Holocaust. That would really be interesting.
@ Sergei Gunt
“I would also like to read an article about the Holocaust”
Which Holocaust?
The Holocaust of Armenians by the Turks at the time of WW1?
Or the Holocaust of Serbs by the Nazi Croats in WW2?
Or the Holocaust of Japanese civilians by the Americans in WW2?
Or the Holocaust of Chinese by the Japanese in WW2?
Or the Holocaust of more than 30 million Russian civilians by the Nazi Germans?
Or the present Holocaust of the Palestinian Arabs by the Zionist Jews?
And so on and on and on…
Please tell us Sergei Gunt: which one?
He might have been thinking of the Holocaust of the American Indians !!!
I take it from your tone that you both know precisely which one he is referring to. Communication appears to have taken place. The English language has done its work. Instead of the heavy irony, it would be better simply to remind him of the other genocides and massacres and suggest that the term “the Holocaust” is now too freighted with ideology to be used neutrally. He probably already knows and did not intend his resort to current English usage to be political or ideological.
Anglos vs. Zionists
What I am suggesting is that Anglos and Zionists don’t always do it together. The book,
“Secret War Against Jews” , with subtitle,
“How Western Espionage Betrayed Jewish People”
by
John Loftus and Mark Aarons
published in 1994, with 658 pages.
There are over 120 pages of notes and references, some of them real eye openers. I am convinced that it is a genuine piece of historical research, as I was able to check it on 4 or 5 events whose background I knew reasonably well, but not in such detail. The book is unlike anything on the market before, or after (except for authors’ other books). That, in itself, is the sign of its genuine character.
In particular, I wanted to point out the critical role of “Prince” Anton Vasilevich Turkul, perhaps the greatest, unheard of, intelligence officer of 20-th century, in defeating Wehrmacht on the eastern front, and then defeating Western intelligence on the Ukrainian/Belorussian cold war front in the period 1946-1956.
Next, the story of how Ben Gurion was able to blackmail (offer a deal to) both Rockefeller and Stalin, to secure sufficient number of votes in UN for the establishment of State of Israel, is quite remarkable in many ways, foremost being that no one knows or talks about it. To me, it is a Holmesian proof.
Finally, it shows quite a number of remarkable Anglos and Zionists, some good and some not so good. Reads like a best spy story and history.
Regards, Spiral
Please excuse any eventual mistakes in my English.
Personally I don’t like explanations of social events of such importance and magnitude as the soviet revolution, with references to the characters or the personalities of those involved. I believe that it is the society and its needs that “designate” the leaders and consequently the course of the events and not that the leaders make history that is imposed to the society.
This is true even when the consequences of the choices of the society, choices that are expressed in a very complicated and indirect manner, bring about a great deal of suffering for the society itself. In that case we can only say that in the course of trying to find out, by trial and error, the right solution, the society has made, once more, another mistake.
If we were allowed to speak about the “mistakes” that were made after the 1917 revolution, I would point out that in my opinion the biggest one was that of trying to implement the concept of the proletarian dictatorship to the reality of the Russian society of that time. By the way, the proletarian dictatorship had not been a cardinal point in the Marxian theory or, at least, it was a point not sufficiently analyzed by Marx himself. It would appear that its understanding relied upon the “common sense” and the “good will” of the “right” revolutionary. Too many quotation marks.
That I recall is that the proletarian dictatorship is a dictatorship against the 1% (the elites) and a democracy for the 99% of the rest of the society. Therefore, even if it is absolutely correct to call the soviet regime a dictatorship it is absolutely wrong to call it a proletarian dictatorship.
The 1917 Russian society was a very heterogeneous one, especially economically speaking. In vast territories of the land the feudal system was still in existence. Its industry fell far behind with that of its potential enemies in the west. The awaited German revolution failed. Industrialization was a matter of life and death.
This imperative in combination with the implementation of the arbitrary interpretation of the proletarian dictatorship led to the Stalin years. But, I believe, it was not Stalin that made Russia. It was Russia that made Stalin.
As it was Russia that made the turn that changed that all: the turn of the Great Patriotic War which is the birthplace of today’s Russia, the birthplace of what is symbolized in the photograph of Putin with Solzhenitsyn.
I believe that Russian history of the last 100 years has showed the world three essential things:
That the revolution is possible even in the most adverse conditions
That the socialist system, even in the most adverse conditions, can guarantee work, housing, health, education and big achievements that make its citizens feel proud and dignified
That the essential condition for the above is love and respect for one’s motherland.
And this is a point that makes me completely share the hopes expressed in this good article non only as far as Russia is concerned but also for my country and for the rest of the world. For peace in the world only Russia can defend and guarantee today.
George from Greece, definitely great what you are saying here. Agree in eveything.
Thanks a lot.
Amén!
First, I’ll note that Nazi Germany undertook Operation Barbarossa with the intent to exterminate the Slavic population of their intended Lebensraum, Poles & Ukrainians very much included.
Then I will note that Germany got out of WWI with their economy pretty much intact, and then benefitted from a great many foreign loans and investments between 1921-1936 or so.
On the other hand, Russia suffered an economically ruinous civil war, and it took until about 1928 to recover to Russia’s production and income level of 1913.
I’ll also note that Imperial Russia’s economy failed under the stress of war against Germany’s secondary effort.
Now consider the USSR’s situation in the early 1930s, facing the prospect of a genocidal war waged by a Germany whose economy had grown substantially from 1914 against a Soviet economy that had only just gotten back to its 1914 levels of income and output. That situation was dire.
However, by 1941, the Soviet economy had the industrial capacity to produce almost 30,000 tanks a year, 40,000 combat aircraft a year, 150,000 artillery pieces a year, and 150,000 trucks a year.
This prevented the success of Generalplan Ost.
If Adolf had gotten his way, there now would be no Poles in Poland, or Ukrainians in Ukraine.
The fact that these peoples still live in their lands is due precisely to Stalin’s determination to endow the USSR with the industrial sinews of war such as no Tsar had ever dreamed, and do it in a decade.
I watched 5-10 minutes of a movie, years ago… “Hostel” was the name of that horrible movie… Some demented guys apparently were excited to cut other people alive and see their guts …
Many of those psychopaths were good citizens, who recycled their garbage, volunteered for good causes and always stopped at the traffic lights… Maybe we should not condemn them just for the little shortcoming of cutting people alive…
There is a fundamental aspect that shaped Russian history and moulded the Russian character and which is, almost instinctively, pushed aside in any attempt to make sense of the “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” that people are taught to believe that is Russia. But even Churchill, who invented the phrase, knew that there was a key. “That key is Russian national interest”. But we must add something infinitely more important and powerful: Orthodoxy, Pravoslavia. “He who is not Orthodox, cannot be Russian…. If a great nation does not believe that it alone is able and called to resurrect and save everyone with its truth, then it at once ceases to be a great nation and becomes just ethnographic material” – as one of Dostoevsky’s characters put it.
Bismarck who knew Russia more intimately was intensely aware of that. He tried to dissuade the partisans of a war with Russia from taking this foolish step. He forcefully argued that: ”
“… Such a result (“smashing” Russia) is beyond all probability, even after the most brilliant victories. Even the most favorable outcome of the war would never have as a result the decomposition of the main power of Russia, which is her millions of Russians of Greek Confession. They would, even if separated by contracts, always just as quickly come together again, like the parts of a severed body mercury. This indestructible Empire of the Russian nation, strongly influenced by its climate, its deserts, and its frugality… would remain our born and revanchist enemy after his defeat, just as France is today in the West.”
He added: “Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia’s weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russian has always come for their money. And when they come – do not rely on an agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play”.
Germany stupidly and foolishly did not listen (twice) to the wise advice of Bismarck. The fact that today may still caress the same dreams is proof of the winds of insanity that sweep the “West”. And this is certainly the result of the complete incomprehension of what Orthodoxy is by the said “West”.
Solzhenitsyn underlined a characteristic infused in the Russian psyche by the practice of a Christian life for thousand years: the readiness to repent, to ask forgiveness for wrongdoings, to change the mind (which is the true sense of repentance=metanoia) and the ways by renunciation, by self-limiting the “needs” that enslave us (that frugality that even Bismarck noticed). It is actually putting in practice a fundamental Christian virtue: humility, smerenje, the consciousness of human frailty, which needs God’s help. The “West” despises this attitude. It must find immediate satisfaction of its wants (which they call “needs”). When do you want it? NOW!! It hates the Church with the hatred of the child refused the lollies when he wanted it.
So, we may ask the question (and to inquire deeper) whether Stalin underwent such a conversion under the shock of War.
The are persistent stories of processions of the great protective icons of the Mother of God close to the battle-fields at the order of Stalin:
“In December 1941, as the Germans approached Moscow, Stalin ordered that the icon be placed in an airplane and flown around the besieged capital. Several days later, the German army started to retreat..
“In 1941, during World War II against Nazi Germany, the Virgin appeared to Metropolitan Ilya of the Antiochian Church, who prayed wholeheartedly for Russia. She instructed him to tell the Russians that they should carry the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan in a religious procession around the besieged city of Leningrad (now St Petersburg). Then, the Virgin said, they should serve a prayer service before the icon in Moscow. The Virgin said that the icon should stay with the Russian troops in Stalingrad, and later move with them to the Russian border. Leningrad did not surrender. Miraculously, Moscow was also saved.
“During the Battle of Stalingrad, the icon was with the Russian army on the right bank of the Volga, and the Nazi troops could not cross the river. The Battle of Stalingrad began with a prayer service before the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan. Only when it was finished did the troops receive the order to attack. The Icon of the Virgin of Kazan was at the most important sectors of the front, and in the places where the troops were preparing for an offensive. It was like in the old times, when in response to earnest prayers, the Virgin instilled fear in enemies and drove them away. Even atheists told stories of the Virgin’s help to the Russian troops…
During the assault on Königsberg in 1944, the Soviet troops were in a critical situation. Suddenly, the soldiers saw their commander arrive with priests and an icon. Many made jokes, “Just wait, they will help us”! The commander silenced the jokers. He ordered everybody to line up and to take off their uniform caps. When the priests finished the prayer service, they moved to the frontline carrying the icon. The amazed soldiers watched them going straight forward, under intense Nazi fire. Suddenly, the Nazis stopped shooting. Then, the Russian troops received orders to attack on the ground and from the sea. Nazis died in the thousands. Nazi prisoners told the Russians that they saw the Virgin in the sky before the Russians began to attack, the whole of the Nazi army saw Her, and their weapons would not fire.”
These stories might be the stuff of legends.
But that the fact that 20,000 churches were opened during the war years is not. In spring 1942 Soviet Government allowed Easter celebrations for the first time in many years. On September 4th 1943 Stalin invited the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Kremlin to discuss the need for reviving religious life in the USSR and the speedy election of a Patriarch”
It was a recognition of the utter failure of the pillar of Communism- Atheism. And despite the attempts of the diehard Bolsheviks returned to power after the assassination of Stalin, to bottle again the genie of Orthodoxy, the revived Church continued steadily to create the conditions for repentance. There is certainly more work to do. Communism in Russia is dead, it remains to bury the last decomposing corpses (Lenin in the first place).
Thank you, a good read. Just a question: Have you read Anthony Sutton’s three volumed “Western Technology And Soviet Economic Development”? The 2nd volumes covers the years 30-45, the 3rd, 45-65. If you have, your brief thoughts? Because i did not find their insight in your good article here.
A great study which “may change our views of those forces allegedly ‘released’ by socialism and traditionally held responsible for the Soviet economic growth”.
We can retain but a few lines.
“The mechanisms for this [technological] transfer were many and varied….First, there was a carryover of internal capital investment from prerevolutionary industrial Russia. This industrial structure was but slightly affected by the Revolutions and subsequent Civil War… the popular story of substantial physical destruction is, except in the Don Basin, a myth. More damage was done to Russian industry by the ineptitudes of the War Communism than by World War I, the Revolutions, the Civil War, and the Allied Intervention combined. Many of the largest plants worked at full capacity right through the Revolutions and civil war under their “capitalist” managers. Others, with equipment intact, were placed in a state of ‘technical preservation’ until managers with skills requisite to recommence operations could be found.”
All that suggests that in fact the ‘forces released’ by socialism were already in place, built in the time of the ‘feudal, backward, tsarist Russia’ but whose normal development, not affected even by the War (most probably increased) has been hampered by the insensate destructions of the bolsheviks (of skilled manpower no less). Solzhenitsyn suggests that the plans for the future economic development of Russia were already on Stolypin drawing board (electrification e.g.) and taken over by Stalin’s planners. There must have been a delay for the replacement of the skilled workers and managers massacred by the bolsheviks.
My favorite topic: Market economies against communism. In short State central planning against decentralised, market economy priced-based decision making.
I ‘ve read Hayek’s book: Road to Serfdom. Which I find more impressive then Stalin, Hitler or Mao Tse Tung ‘s policies. :D
Being Dutch, and intoxicated with the Anne Frank story from childhood, I always believed Hitler was absolute evil, as 99% of other Dutch people.
With the Internet freeing my mind, I see Stalin now taking his place. He came before Hitler and Mao. They simply copied his ruthless methods.
Maybe the Jewish Bolsheviks/Trotskyists at the start of USSR were the most brutal murderers of all times in the USSR. And later Stalin corrected this, to favor real non-import Russians.
I pose: the massmurder comes with state-central plans. To implement the GRAND plans, the masses need to comply, if not suffer, to will of the planners.
Considering Western-colonialism, many beautifull cities sprung to a prosperous live in the EU 18-th 19 -th century (London, Paris, Amsterdam, …).
But, at what tremendous cost of live and hardship in their colonies?
“With the Internet freeing my mind, I see Stalin now taking his place. He came before Hitler and Mao. They simply copied his ruthless methods.”
Haha, you’ve really ditched the Western curriculum by singling out Stalin as the über-monster of the Universe, haven’t you. And better still, you came to this fabulous conclusion all by yourself with no help whatsoever from the immense Anglo-Zionist “expertise” on the subject.
Two things are for sure here though: You didn’t ask the Russians about Stalin, nor the Chinese about Mao. European values showing their universality again.
“Being Dutch” you have the liberty to act as an academician (best possible) or a general citizen who need not know how the civilization across the world were ravaged by the AngloZionists for past five centuries and how only few statesmen like Stalin, Tito, San Yat Sen, Mao, Ho Chi Minh resisted that.
You can continue to parrot the same old trash of “mass murderers” but that hardly make difference to the oppressed peoples and countries.
Straight-Bat,
A little more “emancipatory” exercises by this Dutchman, and he will be very ready to enlighten us about Putin’s horrors as well involving polonium, paedophilia, annexations, airliners, and what-have-you.
Nussiminen,
These are all paid trolls … Being illogical and repetitive, you can easily identify.
The biggest problem is the intelligent trolls who confuse the knowledgeable readers and coopt the resistance towards finally achieving the Hegemon’s objectives. Frankly speaking, this type of trolls are so many in the alternate media (including this website). Peoples like you and me, are much less in number who wish to establish the facts and figures.
Straight-Bat
This is curious.
Those who contradict you are either “paid trolls” or “intelligent trolls”.
You wish to “establish the facts and figures”. Yet if you dismiss anyone who contradicts you as a troll, the only facts and figures you are going to be willing to accept as established are those that agree with what you already believe. This is almost the definition of a closed mind.
@ Alex,
” if you dismiss anyone who contradicts you as a troll, the only facts and figures you are going to be willing to accept as established are those that agree with what you already believe ” >>
Not at all !
There are so many exchanges with many commenters where I came to know about info that was not known to me earlier, and similarly the other way.
What I meant is, I found the behavior of ‘troll’ is very repetitive and more often than not illogical – I segregated them in two groups: morons and intelligents … And, I stand by that.
Max Havelaar
Arguable the AngloZionist most responsible for two world wars and the success of Bolshevism was the son of a Presbyterian Minister and later President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson was financed in to the White House by Henry Morganthau. Soon after, President Wilson returned the favor by appointing Morganthau Ambassador to Turkey. This was a timely appointment, because it was from Turkey that World Zionists orchestrated the overthrow of Czarist Russia.
President Woodrow Wilson (Wolfsohn) was Jewish, a Sanhedrin product of the 1st order. Wilson’s
Anglo sympathies were totally nonexistent.
So much for Anglo in Zionism.
Being a hair splitter, I checked this photo of Solzhenitsyn, it was made in 1962 by a professional photographer (and another one called “шмон”) to illustrate Solzhenitsyn’s book “One day of Ivan Denisovitch”. It has nothing to do with Gulag, where So лженыцин have never been.
Wow! you covered a lot of territory, Saker! succinct and succulent. Thank you.
i have read enuff to know/feel that your synopsis mirrors well the reality of Red, White, Bolshevick, etc, slick opportunists/sociopaths both desperate and connected by their own disconnection. Being born in ’46; life in LA didn’t have a view on Stalin…i never thought him to be Good Socialist.
I’m deeply impressed with Putin and wish he were my president.
i saw Khrushchev when he came to the San Fernando Valley, (north Los Angeles) He was riding in a black limo with an entourage of motor cycle police…They took Khrushchev to where that monster Gas leak is in the Knollwood Country Club area, was precious virgin hills i hiked all over them, and then they paved it and built fancy houses; these wonderful rolling hills became High End Real Estate, i’m sure it was impressive. The authorities didn’t take him to the slums of LA ~ they wanted to make him jealous of Capitalism. And later the ‘Shoe’ incedent…
i have always been a Russophiliac /// had collected a huge Russian stamp collection in my growing up. I was born a Socialist, and an atheist.
i feel that illuminating the mass inhumanity of immoral despots has to be shared with Truman. Killing 250,000 people, instantly, in order to impress the Russians cannot be eclipsed in comparative analysis; And then he blessed Israhell, and sold us out and the Palestinians down the drain.
i appreciate the real history behind Khrushchev ~ i’ve not read a lot on him. i have Read Richard Pipes on Russia ~ geeeeeze It’s people/authors like him who have piped the PtB to Fearing and denigrating Russia as often as possible, wherever ~ The Ultimate Goal of the US State Dept is to subjugate Russia.
All of the conflict in the Syrian tragedy is the pipeline from Qatar to Turkey to undermine Russia’s Energy dollar/ruble/income… *Regime Change* solved a lot of US State Dep WANTS /both the Neol-Libs and Neo-con wishes, for power, whose mentality is that of Major Burns of MASH.
The US State Dept *inadvertently drew Russia into the front line.in Syria (ala Afghanistan) The US State Dept not expecting the Russkies to kick ass and wreck the Oil express…) ’cause they stoopid and hegemonic monsters destined to bring Russia down..senseless.
The US and Russia were doing pretty well in joint ventures… sad to see it go to hell in a hand basket. i want to move there and if i didn’t have such wonderful Grand Kidz i’d find a way to move there. Moscow for starters.
I wonder how Snowden is doing ?
Viva Russia,
Hey Saker. Great article, very insightful and balanced. Just wondering if you have an opinion on Stephen Kotkin’s “Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power”?
Communist party was mostly Leninist, not Trotskisti as is pointed here. Obviously to ensure his one man rule Stalin had to rid himself of old guard. He played old guard vs Trotski and his allies, then brought new blood and purged old guard. Nothing new here. Lenin foresaw Stalin traits 10 years before all this happened. Lots of honest devoted communists were killed in the process and Soviet army leadership was destroyed to such an extent that it almost cost USSR WW2.
It was all good that people like Zhukov, Rokosovskii, Konev and other survived. i would like to remind that Korolev the father of Soviet astronautics was in Gulag as well. Must have been damned Trotskist.
The author puts too much onus about Trotskists among Bolsheviks. Those wer efew and far between, but Stalin had to rid himself of all those who remembered Lenin and make party loyal only to himself.
I , by the way, consider Stalin a great and very capable leader, but his devilish personality cannot be denied.
The unsolved problem is: why Stalin’s removal of the “Old Guard” is stubbornly described as “anti-semitic”?
I am fascinated by your thoughts on Stalin. I had recently watched/listened to the “Life of Stalin” that I found out about through your blog. Both you and the “Life” are thankfully not “definitive” and are free of the across the spectrum group think ad hominem characterization of Stalin as monster.
I do not speak nor read Russian.
Surely all leaders of nations of any significance are responsible for the deaths of many. The question is not the deaths, but whether these deaths were worth it. When Oliver Cromwell’s expedition to Ireland started Ireland had a population of 8 mil. When the expedition was over 4 mil remained. Was it worth it? When Secretary Albright was confronted with the figure of 500,000 children dying in Iraq as the result of US actions/policy she commented that it was worth it. I think otherwise, but that is only my opinion.
I am a very old man. I remember well the depression and WWII that followed. My parents were first generation secular Jews. My father, a Norman Thomas socialist, was an admirer of the Soviet Union. He considered any attacks on Stalin is red baiting pure and simple. Nevertheless he was tolerant of any differences one might have with the Soviets. As a Socialist and a professed humanitarian who late in life became a member of the Ethical Culture Society he certainly had his differences.
Early on I became a committed “fellow traveler”. This ended with Khruschev’s infamous speech. I was appalled, and rightly saw this speech and its terrible consequences as a world capitalist wet dream.
As you so rightly point out Stalin was very complex figure. Even Khruschev owned up to this. After his infamous speech he addressed a Polish conference where he characterized Stalin as a gentle man, and a better Leninist that any of us. Then in a following sentence characterized Stalin as cruel and brutal who perverted Communism. Once he remarked to his Soviet colleagues that none of us are worth one bowl of Stalin’s spit.
I take issue with a few of your thoughts. Trotsky may have been brilliant, though no more so than Stalin I, nevertheless he if not fool was at least wrongheaded. Stalin was a nationalist, first Georgian and then later Russian. I think you mistakenly lump him with the those like Trotsky who hated Russia and despised the Russian people.
With Stalin there was no break with the Russia of the past but a transformative continuation. He was well versed in Russian history and literature, as well as Georgian for that matter. Throughout his life he read incessantly well beyond the documents of State that those such as Molotov were limited to. Stalin understood and respected the people.
Early on before the Revolution Stalin’s first wife living in Georgia died. Trotsky denounced him at length in a meeting of the Central Committee for permitting her to have an Orthodox funeral. Stalin responded simply and briefly, that this was what she would have wanted, what her family wanted, and that he did not attend the funeral. Stalin was not reprimanded.
Stalin instructed the Georgian party to look after his mother. She was given the choice of rooms in the Tbilisi palace. She took one small room furnished by her choice with a simple iron bed and a few hard chairs. Regularly Stalin corresponded with her. She sent him some homemade jam, while he sent her some small change. In the mid 30’s as she was failing he paid her a long visit. To paraphrase: Sosa, she asked, I know you are important but what is it that you do. He responded that he was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. She did not understand. “Sosa what is it that you do.” she repeated He responded that she should think of him as the Tsar. She understood, then responded “I would rather you have become a priest.”
Early on when Hitler came to power Stalin understood there would be a war to be won. For this the Party was needed for its organization and dedication. Late on he knew the Church and lastly a Tsar was needed. Within the party Stalin remained, despite Khruschev’s ridiculous claims, mostly collegial. To the people though he became the Tsar. This was no cult of personality. Accordingly the German invasion was first announced to the Russian people by Molotov for the party. Shortly after the Patriarch of Moscow for Mother Russia did likewise. Then lastly Tsar Stalin addressed the people.
I would think that you as still a bit of a royalist would have found Tsar Stalin more appealing.
When Molotov was asked about Trotsky he nailed Trotsky thusly: Trotsky says there will be world revolution in 40 years [brilliance or evidence of a bird brain?]. When he and his followers find this is not so they will see Communism as a failure and do a turn to the right. Molotov added that the struggle for Communism would last 400 years.
The above explains how the Trotskyites morphed into the Neo-Cons. Molotov like Stalin does not waste words.
In 400 years time we should return to the question of Stalin in search of the definitive.
This is a very interesting discussion of Stalin, and rightly very open-minded. The distinction made with regard to the reasons for the killings is very important. It is useful to read Simon Seebag Montefiore’s book Young Stalin, for those who have not done so. One should also look at the censuses of 1928 and 1940. The numbers of people missing from the population are less than many imagine, if compared to a ‘normal’ demographic model, and more consistent with what is indicated by the Russian Wikipedia entry mentioned here. Most of the deaths in the 1930s were owing to the famine of 1932-33, and of these more Russians died than Ukrainians (to deal with the CIA-inspired myth of the Holodomor). There was also an article about the numbers who died in the Gulag in the journal Soviet Studies, and that seems fairly accurate. I think that was published in the early 1970s.
On the numbers killed by the Nazis, it should not be forgotten that they must include many who died as slave labourers in tunnels where the ‘wonder weapons’ were developed. The Western Allied forces did not discover many of these tunnels because they were located in what became the German Democratic Republic, but recent Russian YouTube postings give a lot of information about these. One such complex had three entrances and each was a tunnel of over 20km long, leading to a central facility. Those entrances remain hidden to this day, but the Soviets knew where they were. Of course those who died were not exclusively Jews.
For russian known there is the article where the Solzhenicyn’s “whistle” about million’s victims of regime was argued.
http://publikatsii.ru/stats/9567-lozh-ai-solzhenicyna-dlya-chego-pisalsya-arhipelag-gulag.html
Whistle means a lie on gulag’s dialect.
God bless you, Saker!
The photo of Solzhenitzyn shaking hands with Putin brought tears to my eyes.
I intend to be present at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, June 16-18.
I arrive by invitation, and if allowed to do so, will present my lecture, with the
title:
“Russia: Leadership Through Better Ideas” – I have great hopes for Russia as a beneficent power in a crazy world.
After the Forum, I shall try to remember to send you the text of my presentation.
With congratulations on your excellent site and for your humane point of view,
Sincerely yours
HUGO SALINAS PRICE
Mexico City.
“could a kind and gentle person like the Czar Martyr Nicholas II have prevailed against Adolf Hitler?”
Hitler was raving against the “jewish bolshevism”. If Stalin had purged the Trotzkytes, and not prepared and invasion of Western Europe, maybe there would have been no Operation Barbarossa.
Since he did purge them. And he didn’t plan to invade Western Europe. That seemed to have not any affect on the nazis. They had planned even before coming to power to destroy Russia. That was a dream even of the pre-WWI German regime. Hitler simply “modified” that age old dream. And picked up where the Kaiser had left off.
It was the Zarist Russia that teamed up with the AngloZionists in London to eliminate Germany as an economic rival for Britain in WW1. When Germany tried to rid itself from the AngloZionists debt servedom during the Nationalsocialist time it was Sovjet Russia that aided the Western AngloZionists to completely destroy Germany. Now Russia (the fool has done his duty) is being targeted itself by the Western AngloZionists. China will help them to eliminate Russia, only to be the next one on the slaugthering table.
What you just posted there could have,and probably did,come from a nazi training manual. Its pure fascist propaganda. Russia had no plots against Germany in the lead up to WWI. They had good relations,which Russia wanted to improve on. Russia’s alliance with Britain was only a connection through France. Certainly after the war started they and Britain worked together but that was a marriage of convenience only. Up until shortly before the war Russia and Britain were enemies during the “Great Game”. As anyone that even reads history is aware,it was nazi Germany that dragged the USSR into the war against Germany with the June 1941 German invasion of the USSR. Up until that time the USSR was a neutral state and probably Germany’s biggest trade pardner of that period.
For your supposed “nazi training manual” pls see here:
https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/about-the-authors/gerry-docherty/
For the peace mindedness of the Sovjetunion pls see here:
http://codoh.com/library/document/2947/
or
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_4/deathride.php
And there is countless more evidence for those with open minds.
In the last few years there has been a revisionist stream of history on WW2 (and some on WWI) by German and pro-German and even more pro-nazi and anti-Soviet “historians”. There is money in it for them. And since most of them are very anti-Soviet and nazi-apologists it fits into their ideologies too. I’m sorry but my mind just isn’t “open enough” to buy into pro-fascist material. So we will just have to agree to disagree on who were the heroes and villains of WW2. I lived in a time, and was raised by people that were quite aware of who the bad guys were back then. Your arguments would bear more fruit from a younger generation that didn’t live the history of those times. Or that come from ethnic groups trying to make their ancestors look better. But since I don’t fit into either of those categories. Your propaganda is wasted with me.
Russia and Germany suffered terribly during the last century. Mostly in wars against each other. Both countries were completely destroyed, Russia in WW1 and Germany in WW2. But it was the AngloZionists that instigated WW1, the Russian revolution, the communist terror, the rise of Hitler trough the Versailles treaty and by direct financial support, WW2, the cold war, the plundering of Russia under Yeltsin and the current threat of Russia. Only if we realize that we, the ordinary people, are played against each other, may all these sufferings and deaths gain a meaning, and we may be able to create a better future. Blaming and accusing each other, Germans vs Russians, Jews vs Germans, Russians vs Ukrainians, etc only enables the divide and rule strategy of the AngloZionists. We need to focus on the real enemy.
@ Anonymous
#0.) Why is it so gd hard to obtain an id (what about “Hitler_was_innocent_and_trustworthy_freakshow__I’mNotNaive_-orc”?)
#1.) Hear hear, the communists committed “terror” while Hitler just “rose”?
#2.) Maybe you don’t notice it, but your narrative sounds exactly like what I heard from Right Sector “activists” on youtube and a few years back personally in Ukraine. I tell you the same which I told them: The propaganda to mix and mangle it all up like you _also_ stems from the very AngloZionists you pretend to fight.
I’m myself a German and I’m well aware how Germany has been tricked and fooled since before WW1 began. But truth and reality are not black/white.
Hitler may not even have wanted to invade the Soviet Union (according to Андрей Фурсов, which surprised me, and I rather disagree with him here, but he is much more knowledgable, so I mention it and respect his position), had Great Britain not pushed for it. But this doesn’t make Hitler trustworthy or noble. Listen to his speeches and compare his words versus his actions.
He got financed by Zionist banks and the Top500 like the communists at first. But unlike the communists he never had the intention to break free of the Oligarchs, he stayed their man until his last minute. The question is maybe rather in which year he lived through his last minute. He had full support of some of the most influential circles running the West (Skill and Bones), so nothing is impossible.
Also Churchill said after WW2 he realized they fought the “wrong enemy”, he planned to revive the Wehrmacht and jointly destroy the Red Army in 1945! It was discarded only for the single reason: Models calculated that there was no chance of winning!
Then later Lemnitzer detailed plans to nuke East-Berlin, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Beijing, only JFK prevented it.
The 3.Reich never got dissolved until today, May9th 1945 was only the nd of the Wehrmacht.
Germany has no single peace treaty. It is still listed as enemy country in the UN charta.
The Zio-Hitlers won WW2. It is difficult to distinguish how much Zionism and those pretending to be AntiZionists are in fact orchestrated by the same game-masters. Who are saviours (like Syriza in 2015 or Obama in 2008 or Hitler in 1933) versus false saviours? Difficult to tell.
But a known fact is that Stalin managed to get rid of them.
While Hitler A) never only had such an intention and B) committed more than enough crimes (I talked very much, every 2nd day, to my beloved grand-ma until she died aged 94).
So maybe _you_ only know WW2 history from rigged text books, but enough others still had a chance to speak to survivors (my grand-ma has been a normal unpolitical german girl, family social democrats and communists).
Argh, forget it. I doubt you will start to think about those things.
I do so every day. And changing the own position here and there is no weakness but a sign of functioning brain cells.
Dear Martin from Soviet East-Berlin,
If you got the impression that I was defending Hitler then I may not have expressed myself clearly. Hitler was a brutal dictator and mass murder. So far the consensus. The disagreement generally starts when pointing out that Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were of the same league. I value very much Saker’s attempt to gain a better understanding of the complexity of Stalin’s personality. But this is not allowed for Hitler and Nationalsocialism. Hitler has to remain absolute evil incarnate, the central dogma of AngloZionists and Communists.
Similarly as Stalin, Hitler was driven by different forces and motivations. You are right in that he was supported and did support big money. Hitler was built up by the AngloZionists to keep the breaking away Stalin in check. But also, Hitler created money not based on the fraudulent central bank scheme but backed by German labour without interest payment to the AngloZionists. That was his cardinal sin that made himself a target of the AngloZionists. Unless one sees these things a differentiated fashion one cannot understand (WW2) history.
If my narrative sounds exactly like what you heard from Right Sector “activists” then that is because everyone who maintains anything other than the central dogma (Hitler is absolute evil incarnate) belongs by definition to the “Right Sector”. It is a circular argument.
I agree entirely with you that the most difficult task is not to fall for false saviours.
I am German too, and I too talked to my normal German girl grandmother.
PS: Pseudonyms are not really more informative than “Anonymous”.
A pack of lies about Trotsky in this article. Read Trotsky if you want the truth.
The Saker is STILL an anti-communist.
What accounts for his interest in Stalin?
He is still popular in Donetsk and Lugansk, correct? That bothers the Saker.
But even more concerning is the situation in Russia.
After some 25 years of the restoration of capitalism, it is despised by the majority.
Socialism is the future.
Trotsky wanted a (fake) World-revolution to hand over power and ownership to the banking cabal. Only Stalin prevented it and managed to delay it by 70 years.
That’s why the West and its fake “Marxists” praise Trotsky, the traitor.
This way the circle closes itself and the banking elite is in a 100% win/win situation.
Read Stalin.
Otherwise I agree with you.
p.s. Saker is not a communist, but at least he covers such ideas which are not his own favorites. I have the highest respect for this.
pp.s. Yes, Stalin is very popular in Russia (Donbass, also russian soil).
Maybe you should try to find out why.
Stalin is to the Western Left what Putin is to the Zionazis. Trotskyism is the proverbial missing link between Marxism and Western imperialism. Today’s Western Left is actually proof positive of Marxism being mostly a quaint form of 19th century Western supremacism minus the racist depravities. Hence, the despicable Western Left does have an — unintended — point as they rage and fume against anyone causing real problems to imperialism for not being “a true Marxist”.
The Saker, you might want to read Vladimir Bushin’s (Владимир Бушин) book about Solzhenytsin “Unknown Solzhenytsin” (Неизвестный Солженицын). Some striking insights are guaranteed.
Also, most Russians, who have some knowledge of history, negatively refer to those, who take Suvorov’s books seriously as ‘резуноиды’. His books are a perfect example of bending the history by adding some lies in what otherwise is mostly true. And most of his conclusions were througly debunked in a number of works by various autors.
A greater good? Stalin? really?
Wow, that’s an awesome article! I’ve been doing a lot of research on Germany and Russia during the early 20th century, trying to figure out the truth.
I’ll have to reread your article several times before I can understand everything, but it sounds like you and I think alike and have formed some very similar opinions, though we disagree on a few things.
Anyway, here are two questions. First, I’ve been beating my brains out trying to understand the role Jews played in the birth of communism, the Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin’s purges.
If I’m correct in saying that the Jews hated the Czar, then the Jews should have cheered at his downfall. But at the same time, shouldn’t they have been horrified by the birth of socialism (communism)?
Let me explain that I don’t hate socialism. On the contrary, I think it’s a much needed alternative to capitalism. I don’t think extreme socialism (i.e. communism) is necessarily the best way to go for most countries, but socialism has certainly been a boon in Latin America and in countries such as Libya.
But the “Western Jews” – in other words, the Jews who have so much power over the global economy – mush have hated socialism. So I’m confused when people say Jews CREATED socialism.
And yet, many of the people who helped launch socialism were indeed Jews (e.g. Trotsky). My hunch is that most of these were “good Jews.” Yet the movement also included some monsters. (I believe you cited Trotsky as a thug.)
So what was going on here?
Using simple logic, international Jewry (especially what I call the Jewish Mafia) obviously hated Adolf Hitler and they played a role in his defeat and subsequent demonization. So I would assume they also hated the communist Soviet Union and fought it as well. But how?
Was Stalin a Jewish agent whose function was to punish and weaken the Russian people for embracing communism?
We can certainly see Jewish influence in the Cold War and anti-Soviet/anti-communist propaganda. After all, Jews have long had enormous influence over the U.S. government, and they virtually own the media.
In summary, I see socialism, in broadest terms, as a good thing, even if some socialist experiments have’t worked out so well. I also think it’s logical to assume that the Jewish Mafia has always hated socialism and has always actively fought it. (You can certainly see this in Libya and Latin America.)
One other thing that intrigues me is Putin. Until recently, I was his biggest fan.
But I started noticing some strange things. In particular, he seems awfully cozy with Israel and Donald Trump (who is a virtual Jew). Also, the U.S. media appear to give Putin a free ride. In addition, Putin granted Edward Snowden refuge, and I don’t believe Snowden is a genuine activist.
My theory is that Russia is controlled by the Jewish Mafia, similar to the U.S. That raises the prospect of an alliance between Israel, the U.S. and Russia. It sounds crazy with NATO’s ongoing intimidation, but Russia is now a major player in the Middle East (apparently with no objections from Israel), and Donald Trump is certainly ready to ally with Russia.
Thanks again for your great article.
very informative article. the revival of Russia is of great interest to me, and the decline of the west is quite depressing, and something that I wish to steer clear of. I’m living in Asia now and the optimism is as palpable as the despair that I can sense in the west. your insights are much appreciated.
Stalin demolished Russian defence.
So millions were captured or killed.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/icebreaker.pdf