Foreword by the Saker: Today I am presenting you with what I consider a very important publication. My friend Jimmie Moglia, whom you might remember from his excellent series on the history of the Ukraine and the history of American imperialism, has just released a 5-part video series on the life of Stalin. I am posting it here before having had the opportunity to view it because I want to stress that I am taking no position about Jimmie’s interpretation of the life and personality of this historical figure. To be honest, my own views about Stalin have slowly but steadily been shifting and I have been observing with some interest the relative growth of popularity of Stalin amongst Russians today. What I really need to do now is to sit down and share with you the conclusions to which I have come. I will do that, hopefully later this week, but I think that to have a healthy debate before I speak my own mind about this topic is a good thing, as it will “prepare the ground” for a 2nd round of exchanges once I post my own interpretation of the life and personality of Stalin. I want that discussion to be as free as possible (as long as it does not degenerated into personal attacks). Stalin is most definitely a most controversial figure and good and honest people can have radically divergent view of his life and legacy. So, please, let’s keep this one civil, okay?
Normally like this one would be filed under “Watch List” but in this case, this 5-part series is really a very detailed analysis of a complex topic and I think that it therefore ought to be posted under “Analyses”.
A huge “THANK YOU!!!” to Jimmie for his work and for sharing it with us.
Cheers and hugs,
The Saker
——-
Anti-coms always bring up the 20millions that Stalin supposedly murdered. but they never explain how he got rid of 20million corpses. That’s the population of Beijing, whoosh! gone!
Here’s another example of the Evil that Josef Stalin was.
You know the Roswell, New Mexico case where a flying saucer from outer space supposedly crashed in the late 1940s?
It was all the Evil-Doing of Josef Stalin, according to writer Annie Jacobsen.
I kid you not. LOL.
American psyops/propaganda is increasingly out of the world–in this case, almost literally.
I am surprised that the Anglo Americans didn’t try to pin the Roswell crash on Putin somehow.
Roswell ‘was Soviet plot to create US panic’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8512408/Roswell-was-Soviet-plot-to-create-US-panic.html
Roswell ‘was plane full of alienlike children sent by Stalin’
http://www.cnet.com/news/roswell-was-plane-full-of-alienlike-children-sent-by-stalin/
Area 51 and Roswell: The Craziest Theory Yet
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011/05/area-51-roswell-UFO-stalin-nazi
I can’t believe people still champion Stalin. As a Marxist, I have no problem accepting that Stalin created a huge Gulag system, primarily used to exploit labor and eliminate resistance. Stalin simply wasn’t Marxist, he was the head of a massive effort extract labor value and destroy portions of his own working class.
The Gulags existed from the 20’s to the 50’s, so disappearing 20 million was easy for him. It is not hard to sink barges full of prisoners or simply shoot and starve them in the northern wastes.
“so disappearing 20 million was easy for him. It is not hard to sink barges full of prisoners or simply shoot and starve them in the northern wastes.”
Bullshit. It’s never been “easy” to disappear 20million people. “Barges full of prisoners”? where are those “barges”? What were they made of, marzipan? “Northern wastes”? There are cariboo bones all over the “northern wastes” It shouldn’t be hard to find human ones, if there were so many. Why haven’t we heard outcries from you punk “marxists” to scour the “northern wastes”?
Perspective counts, too!
The Spanish, British and French killed a few hundred million indigenous people in the “New World”, and enslaved a few dozen million more, to satiate their own genocidal blood-lust and greed.
I suggest that you remove French from your list to possibly include Holland instead. New France has been exemplary with its relationship with the native, il the frame of that inevitable encounter. Ever heard of the Grand Peace of Montreal in 1701 ? The system of segregation was introduced by the British after the fall of Quebec City in 1959, and the New France in 1760.
So that excuses Stalin?
Thanks, I’m a punk Marxist because I think Stalin killed so many in the Gulags. Why in God’s name would any Marxist, at this point, scour the northern wastes? That would be the province of Russian historians and archeologists.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Stalin’s mass murders and his exploitation of starving workers; he was simply acting like any good Capitalist: Value extraction and mass misery. The fact that the Spanish and British empires killed more, only makes them more efficient Stalins.
Well, to be exact: Yes, you are indeed a punk precisely because you are a Western Marxist. The fact is that in the Russian context, Marxism and Liberalism stand out as two foreign imports to boot, both of them harbouring a very strong anti-Russian, Western supremacist orientation. Today, this affinity manifests itself in the utter collapse of the nonsensical political concepts of “Left” and “Right” with Trotskyists and Neocons joining hands for the Greater Good of parasitic Western societies at the expense of Russia, China, and the Third World.
Stalin spoiled the wet dreams of Western supremacists; that’s something the latter will never forgive him, “Left”, “Right” or “Center” affinities regardless.
The “wet dreams” of the western supremacists were realized when Stalin got played for 15 years genuflecting before them, before turning the USSR into cannon fodder against the very party whose rise his Comintern midwifed throughout the 1920s.
Oh, and before I forget: There are nomadic herders, relatives of NorthAm Inuit, who inhabit the “northern wastes”. It would be the greatest forensic coup of the century if someone bent on slandering Comrade Joe were to get one of these natives to show him where all the gulag bones are.
And how, exactly, would this scandalous Inuit news get back to the movers and shakers of Moscow society?
Obviously Stalin did not do this alone. Like our own Saint Ronnie, he was a delegator. He employed assistants to bundle people off to the gulags. Unlike Ronnie, he then sent the assistants to the gulags. A normal politician would reward them with ambassadorships and other appointments etc.
Stalin was not a normal politician.
And what about the deaths product of the deportations to Siberia by the Tsars?
It seems that this was not a custom invented by Stalin
Has someone done the account?
Obviously not, because the Tsarist system was intertwined with the money makers of those times who were the same of today, the Rothschilds and the like, who are also the Big Money/ Bankers of today ( i.e, the shadow government ) and they continue intertwined with the actual monarchies in charge in Europe.
Therefore, obviously not, nobody is going to make the tally of their deads throughout history to nowadays.
Huh? Radio, telegraph, homing pigeon, smoke signals… what is your point? You’ve already decided the anti-Communists are right about the Evilest Man Evah and now are stuck having to backfill your fantasy with more implausibilities. Where are the bones? Were they burned? That’s a lot of ashes. Were they dumped at sea? Mass graves? What were their names? Even the meanest derelict beaten to death by rowdy teens has a name.
You probably have some facts from the first hand, right? Marxism is much worse than Stalinism, btw.
@”so disappearing 20 million”
Researchers with access to Soviet archives have already debunked this lie of the capitalists. This lie is based on the propaganda of German and Ukrainian nazis:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm
The capitalists need those inflated figures to distract from the over 30 million people they starve to death every year. You should ask yourself why the hundreds of millions of people that the capitalists have murdered over the centuries are never mentioned in the mainstream media.
The worst butcher in history is Queen Victoria:
“British Indian Genocide … 0.5 billion 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria
…
European Chinese genocide (10-100 million deaths in the European imperialism-driven Tai Ping rebellion period;”
http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/2078-armenian-genocide-day.html
“The British in India: Slavery and Famine
…
Th British deliberately caused famines in India, in order to force the indigenous population into relief works, such as road-building. The tenant-laborer, writes Carey, “is mercilessly turned from his land and his mud hut, and left to die on the highway.” Here, Indians on their way to the relief works, published in the London News, 1874.”
http://cecaust.com.au/foodcrisis/H%20Carey%20British%20free%20trade.pdf
“Late Victorian Holocausts”
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/davis-victorian.html
Yes, anonymous, and you are talking about the deaths, but, about robbery, The British Empire record pales in front of that of Stalin´s robbery, and not precisely to favour English masses who were dying of missery and disseases like those in the Tsarist Russia, as its empire was built, amongst many other crimes like those you are pointing out, by supporting piracy, as that practiced by Sir Francis Drake, who devoted themselves to plunder the Spanish galleons reurning from Amercia and that provoked amongst other confrontations the Battle of Lepanto.
Stalin cannot hold a candle to the evil wrought by Britain by any measure.
Britain was the world’s greatest slave trafficking nation, the biggest drug trafficking nation, the producers of man-made famines in Ireland, China, and India to say nothing of the terror they inflicted upon the whole of the Western Hemisphere.
All true but that doesn’t make Stalin a saint does it? You can’t dismiss the crimes of Stalin by saying “other people were worse” surely?
To add to this discussion, it is said that he was instrumental to the “disappearing” of 100,000 Greeks who for thousands of years lived around the Black Sea. Particularly the ones from Georgia, which still has large indigenous Greek population.
To answer another question regarding tsars sending “unwelcome” people to Syberia. Syberia was a very good place to naturally disappear people in the attempt of forcefully populating it’s vast bogs. The death came there very easy as result of very harsh environment as well as lack of food and medical attention. Communists used it very efficiently as well.
I have long relished all of Jimmy’s Historical Sketches, and this one is no exception. He’s a breath of oxygen in this lie-polluted anglo-zionist (your overly polite term Saker)world. I prefer to use ziononazi. It’s no accident that ukronazis and ziononazis are allies. I’m glad Jimmy pointed out that WW II started out as a war against the Soviet Union, mainly because if Socialism succeeded the rich white trash in the west might loose their ill-gotten fortunes. Stalin was a complex man, but not quite the monster portrayed by western propaganda, especially compared to the real monsters in the west. Anyone not familiar with Jimmy’s lectures and writings would do well to reward their brains with his knowledge and wisdom.
Regarding “Jimmy’s Historical Sketches” – You gave those a proper name.
Historical – and Comical – Sketches they are, indeed :-)
That a non-Russian guy like Moglia could make this kind of sketch is after all not so surprising. Some people make also similar sketches about Hitler and other luminaries.
What is really baffling is that it’s possible to find Russians – Russians! – who fall for it. I mean, I don’t know many Jews, or Poles, who vouch for Hitler.
Even accounting for propaganda and the idea that Stalin would have contributed to WWII victory – actually, Soviet peoples did the heavy lifting in defeating Nazi Germany not thanks to, but IN SPITE of Stalin, who did a lot to facilitate Hitler’s job – the fact that sizable numbers of Russians today have a favorable view of Stalin is just Stockholm’s syndrome writ large, nay writ incredibly huge.
It “could” be that maybe the Russian people of today,over 50 years after his death. Have realized that those days,as bad as some of them were. Were more positive for Russia’s survival,than negative. And that they are more intelligent than you think.
Alexis, it’s very good that you acknowledge the fact that Stalin is held in high regard by the Russian people. This is a fact which quite a few Westerners simply cannot deal with. However, the explanation you propose (Stockholm syndrome) is utterly laughable. Would have made perfect sense were it Yeltsin or Gorbachov who were revered by the people, enslaved and looted by the IMF and the gangster Oligarchs. Stalin is the embodiment of the exact opposite. Same with Putin.
I’ll second Nussiminen,
I have met people who happened to live in his (Stalin’s) days, who constantly said that the life of “working stiffs” was much better under him then in the following years of “revisionism”
I would recommend these lectures (unfortunately only in Russian
Kasatonov
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bx8Wr-R_aE
Fursov
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooCLEasqGHc
and TV series Stalin s nami
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuIQ9WXctw
@ Anonymous on March 28, 2016 · at 5:54 pm UTC
> I would recommend these lectures (unfortunately only in Russian
+100!
Especially Andreij Fursov
Nothing against Jimmie Moglia, but he simply isn’t a serious historian like Andreij Fursov (a million miles away). He smiles too much and has too few hard facts.
Nevertheless, thank for your post about Stalin, Saker.
BTW, a few (only very few) of Fursov’s videos do have English subtitles, look here (as posted by me about once per month) : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fursov+stalin+here+and+now
Hi,Martin
Try to find out and read the book of Nikolaj Berdjaev “Slavery and Freedom”,I think you will enjoy it
Since I have not seen the other series of Jimmy Moglia on Ukraine and American Imperialism ( perhaps they were published here and I did not see them for lack of time, due to the huge amount of things that are published here and the little time they remain to sight, I am really unable to read / view it all and I am aware that this way I miss important things ) I know very little about this author ( I would like a brief introduction about him ), and I must confess that seeing his latest article supporting, more or less, the candidacy of Donald Trumpo, I was pretty skeptical about this series.
Well, I have seen only the first video and I have to say I’ve been pleasantly surprised, but I keep wondering , after more than two years of trying to defend virtually alone ( except for 3 or 4 readers more and never with the strenght I would have liked to see them doing it ) against almost all the overwhelming readership of this blog, the figure of Stalin, with its lights and shadows but within its context, why is that is only now that this is published and not only, but also we will have an special analysis by The Saker.
Given my current skepticism with the real objectives of the so-called alternative media, the things I have already been conscious and the trend of the articles here during the last months and recalling some priceless things that always was telling me my old friend senior strategist ( old friend, because from my part I always considered him a friend ) I wonder, as he always advised me to question, “why this, why now and why in this form”.
I will see the rest of the videos with great interest, and the ame for the following analysis by The Saker, but perhaps my expected participation in the expected debate is not going to be as active or as passionate as perhaps some are waiting would be, maybe I’ll just only observe and draw my own conclusions.
Jimmy Moglia at this site..
http://yourdailyshakespeare.com/
WOW!
This man, Jimmie, has a brain and certainly knows how to use it.
Thanks a lot, guys, for the link to his shakesperian site. I’ve read some pieces there that have left me upside down, thinking. Important stuff. The last one (for now…) is a chilling article titled “A tale of two pictures” (Saker, in case you didn’t see it, please don’t miss it, specially after your rants on the EU)
http://yourdailyshakespeare.com/a-tale-of-two-pictures/equalities
That piece has put my hair like electric wires…
After I digest all that, I’ll continue to surf his site, there is a lot for me to ponder there.
Thanks Jimmie for your work, thanks Saker, and thanks to you all.
@ elsie
Here are Moglia’s 35 Historical Sketches: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6e-X0PEeMneVYeDxMc3IS2JgQ3ZJtiBG
All of his videos, some 72 of them, are at https://www.youtube.com/user/lucretius39/videos .
(BTW, I know absolutely nothing about Moglia, in fact have never heard his name before today, and haven’t seen yet any one of his videos.)
Yes, it seems that he has made many videos but after going to his site searching for something about who he really is, nothing, a confussing amount of words for only get in clear that he is an Italian Electronics Engineer who for whatever reasons ended settled in the US, invented an electronic device which provided him with some money and after that, disenchanted by the entrepeneurial environment, became unemployed and for whatever reason ended broadcasting in the net, and seems that also on TV, about History and politics.
I do not know if I got it right.
But still no clue about his politics filiations and background which is what I am most interested in.
I am very interested in why he finished in the US.
Hi elsi, this is the first piece I read of Jimmy Moglia. A way of thinking that is not controlled by any religion nor ideology. Although it does not answer all your question it gives a better understanding of the way he views other topics.
Forgot to add the link…. http://yourdailyshakespeare.com/early-elections-bush-or-clinton/equalities
Elsie,
Please understand that what you call the “alternative media” is a concept and not some monolithic entity to which you can ascribe some unified motive, etc. As opposed to the mainstream media, which in the US is accurately described as being comprised of 6 megacorporations that literally control 90% of all media in the US, and whose broadcast licenses are controlled by the US Federal government.
These 6 corporations have come to act as mouthpieces for the official narrative coming out of Washington, a narrative that has becoming increasingly disconnected from the reality that is observed on the streets. Perhaps most news has always been propaganda, but 30 years ago there were at least some media outlets that provided different views and reporting. These days Western MSM “news” has degenerated into an endless stream of propaganda, which thanks to the internet has led to the development of what is generally described as “alternative” media, that ranges from blogs of individuals to websites that go to some lengths to list international news stories, etc . . . obviously the quality of the alternative sites is a function of the individuals and groups that run them.
What is not obvious is that some of the alternative reporting actually comes from psyops being funded and run by the various intelligence agencies of the deep state. This is nothing new . . . if you are familiar with previous covert actions, such as Operation Gladio, you will know that the CIA does a lot more than create bogus news stories to discredit the groups it perceives as enemies. However, these days you can see stories that contain a grain of truth that then go on to include distorted or false information, which are often created in hopes that they will be picked up by alternative sites and run as news, which will then act to discredit the site and people who accepted the story as true. Of course, there is also just bad reporting, and it is often difficult to figure out what exactly going on . . . which of course obtains the desired result for the deep state, because it throws into question the “alternative” news in general to any listeners who feel burned by the bogus “news” story they initially believed in.
I find it best to just look at each story on its own merits. If it presents a new viewpoint or information, it is best to do some research to see if you can verify it. This is not necessarily an easy task, especially when it comes to analyzing history that often is written by the victors and presented as universal truths in educational systems, which are controlled by the state . . . whether the state is the USSR, Russia, or the US. All governments will tend to lie to protect their perceived interests . . . however, the lies of the US and the West have become so extreme that there is a blatant disconnect between the described and perceived realities.
I could write a book full of examples of this, but here are a few cliff notes. The US currently has a 23% unemployment rate, if you use the same methods to compute it that were used in the 1980s, however, the official party line is that the deindustrialized US in in a “recovery” rather than a depression. Russia invaded Crimea the MSM tells us, ignoring the treaty that allowed Russia to have troops stationed in Crimea, the vote of literally 75% of all the Crimean people for the reunification of Crimea with Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine says the MSM, when in fact it was Kiev that launched its so-called “anti-terrorist operation”, using its military forces against its own citizens in Donbass (the operation began immediately after the head of the US CIA went in secret to Kiev). Putin is Hitler, the MSM tells us, but never broadcasts Putin’s many news conferences which provide very comprehensive answers that give the lie to “news” coming out of Washington.
When I see Pentagon spokesmen contesting the fact that NATO has expanded to Russian borders, because it is Russia that is threatening NATO, I only have to look at maps from the 1980s and today to see what the truth of the matter is. But this does take a bit of research and time on my part, something that is often required to sort out the truth in the kingdom of lies and corruption. I also am looking forward to the rest of this series. too.
One last comment. When I grew up in the US, we were never taught in our schools about the 27 million people who died in the Soviet Union defeating the Nazis. We didn’t learn that 80% of Nazi soldiers were killed by the USSR. We learned that it was the US and its allies that defeated Hitler. We weren’t taught that millions of German soldiers died in US camps after the war ended, either. It has taken me 40 years to learn the truth of this matter, and it has made me understand that much of my education consisted of “facts” that were never presented to me, which made the truth wear a wry face.
Steven Starr
thanks Steven. Most say the Crimea referendum result was more like 95%.
It took me awhile to see that you have to fill in above the comment box or be posted anon. If you can do that then there isn’t a whole group of people that can’t be distinguished , or recognized some are jerks too..
Thanks Jimmie! and Saker Spot on.
Encouraging if Russia is starting to burst the boil. The Western Left will remain cripples unltil they can face up to this reality.
When asked what he thought of Stalin, Ernest Bevin ( who stopped the Jolly George arms shipment against the Soviets), replied, ” He’s just a working class lad trying to make his way in the world”.
For an honest contemporary american account before the cold war, on collectivisation read Maurice Hindus – RussianFights On and Red Bread.
On the Moscow Trials – Mission to Moscow by the US ambassador Joseph E Davies.
“For an honest contemporary american account before the cold war”
Or, you could just use your own knowledge of cause and effect learned through a lifetime of observing the world through your own eyes.
It would be nice translate this article from spanish to english about a research in Stalin’s life made by russian historian called Zemskov,asked by Gorbatchov.
The ‘dozens of milions’ turned in +/- 800 000 dead …………
http://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20010603/53596492212/todos-los-muertos-de-stalin.html
The original it’s an article publish 3 rd June 2001 ,La Vanguardia
(This is the whole article in portuguese)
Para a História do Socialismo
http://www.hist-socialismo.net
Original castelhano em jornal
La Vanguardia,
1
edição de 3 de Junho de 2001
Tradução portuguesa de NA, 20 Março 2009
_____________________________
O verdadeiro terror de Stáline
Texto
Rafael Poch
This seems like a rather detailed article written by Zemskov et al (I haven’t read it yet)
Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence
J. ARCH GETTY, GABOR T. RITTERSPORN, and VIKTOR N. ZEMSKOV
http://web.archive.org/web/20080611064213/http:/www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html
Now that a great portion of those Russians who suffered under this brutal dictator are dead or incapable of a cogent rebuttal to the reserection of the Cult of Personality of Stalin (I waiting fot the attacks on the Gulag Archipelego) the apologists are coming forward. Those who think one is an anti-communist because they oppose brutal dictatorships are intellectually flawed. Siberia is a very big place and a lot of bodies are there. Also, the mass starvation brought about by this brutal materialist, the-means-justify-ends, tyrant through his forced collectivization programs also contributed to his kill numbers. And those bodies are located all over the Russian land mass. The reason the Ukrain is a problem today is because of Stalin’s collectivization: when they got the chance to choose which brutal dictator to live under, they choose the one not stealing their land and starving their families: Hittler.
” And those bodies are located all over the Russian land mass.”
So, they shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Not sure about that. His plan was to clear out most of the Slavic Ukrainians from Ukraine (keeping a few for slaves) and resettle the land with German and other “Aryan” peoples. The other 80% or so of the Ukrainians were to die or be shoved behind the Urals with all the other Slavs not killed.So if those Ukrainians supporting Hitler had gotten their “wish” of the USSR being defeated.They most certainly would have regretted it. And least those left alive would have.Did you and others ever wonder “why” Hitler never would let his bandera friends in Ukraine set up a real puppet state there like he did with Croatia and Slovakia. It was because of what I just wrote. His intention was for a “German Ukraine” as the breadbasket of his thousand year Reich.
The available information about Stalin in the English language media seems to be completely onesided in its total demonisation. Maybe, most readers here would agree on that.
Therefore I was looking forward to this series with great anticipation. Yet, my expectations were not fulfilled.
Jimmy Moglia’s narrative is lavish on anecdotes and very frugal on significant information. In my view what he says hardly justifies “the relative growth of popularity of Stalin amongst Russians today”.
I didn’t expect I have to say this, but it almost seems Mr. Moglia is doing his best to depict Stalin in a humane way. I mean, sorry, but the words of his letters to his mother hardly seem relevant when talking about a person who is accused of being one of the most monstrous political leaders in history?
Plus, it’s extremely tiresome to listen to his stuttering speech for so long. I know this has nothing to do with the content, but couldn’t he at least read through his own manuscript once before pressing the Record-button?
Wow, is is going to be an extremely exciting debate. I am writing these my words before having read a single word of the 5 parts series to be published under the Saker’s supervision which I hope and trust will initiate a debate on this controversial figure largely without reference to the overcome images rooted in Cold War attributions.
For anyone interested in the latest work drawing on previously unavailable archives, there is the biography by Oleg V. Khlevniuk, a senior researcher at the Russian State Archives.
A good earlier work on Stalin as a war leader and statesman is “Stalin’s Wars” by Geoffrey Roberts.
For those of you interested in a documented view of Stalin in the 1930’s, I’d recommend Grover Furr’s series of books: Khrushchev Lied, Blood Lies, The Murder of Sergei Kirov, and Trotsky’s Amalgams (Vol. I). Farr is a professor of history at Montclair State University in New Jersey, fluent in Russian, who for years has been analysing such Soviet and Russian archives that have been made available about the 1930’s. (By law, everything is supposed to have been after 75 years, but where a descendent of one of the principals is still alive, the document remained closed. Also, evidently, controversial documents.) Enough has been released, however, for Dr. Furr to present a different, almost diametrically opposite viewpoint of Stalin. All his sources are available on line, so you can satisfy yourself if you like.
Farr said he started years ago analyzing Khrushchev’s famous secret speech, upon which most of current Soviet historiography is based. There are a handful of well-known falsehoods in it (like Stalin plotted military actions on a globe, which all of his generals denied). He expected to find maybe at most 1/3 of the claims were false, but found 61 of 64 were in complete disagreement with the archival documents, while the remaining three were too general to be analyzed precisely. He added that no one would ever believe these sweeping conclusions, which seems to be the case.
I highly recommend the books, which repay close study. They are difficult to read, very detailed, although he writes well. Their format is always one of analyzing the statements in existing publications (Blood Lies, for example, is an analysis and almost complete refutation of Snyder’s recent book Blood Lands). It would have been a much easier read if Furr set out to tell what really happened, rather than refuting what didn’t. I bought them for myself, but like everything else they’re likely available via interlibrary loan. I should add that Furr, and his books, have become very controversial in the area of Soviet studies. Although difficult, they are worth reading and thinking about.
.
(A good example of how archival data is overturning sweeping claims to the contrary, not from Mr. Furr but from J. Arch Getty, as cited above, is the total number of executions in the Stalin era. Not some 20 million, as banded about by Robert Conquest and also some the commentators above, but 799,000 +, as recorded in the archives. It’s not what we don’t know that hurts us, but what we do know that isn’t true.)
.
Oops. Forgot to sign it. — Seward.
Thanks, Seward, for the references of Furr. I have not read all his book but yes some excerpts published in some Spanish sites dedicated to the study of Marxism-Leninism. Thanks for the recommendation, I will try to read them all.
I have envisioned three of the five videos so far, and my impression is that Jimmy Mogglia´s intentd is not to make a neutral analysis of the figure of Stalin but to add more fuel to the general narrative demonizing and take more deads on their backs.
In the part devoted to the time when Stalin robbed banks to finance revolutionary activities ( something that I do not see any crime since they rob us all the time as when break the government forces us to rescue them. Here we have a saying: “Whoever robs a thief, 100 years of forgiveness” ), he insists on telling us that in one of the holdups in Tblisi, there were no less than 14 people killed and 50 wounded. We do not know how this account was made or who has certified this.
Also it devotes almost all video No. 3 to give a picture of Stalin as a womanizer and corrupter of minors.
What no one has done so far in the world, not even in this blog, is to count the deaths from the Tsarist system, taking into account that people had a life expectancy of 30 years thanks to the miserable conditions in what they lived. Nor has anyone done a tally of deaths provoked by the Rothschilds among the workers at the expense of whom they made their fortune.
Nor anyone has done a tally of all lovers of the Tsars and other people of the court.
If a poor devil like Stalin had several romantic partners ( and they have been able to tell us about only 4, from his youth, including his two known legitimate women and that his first wife died, and taking into account that he suffered several long exiles in Siberia ), a record I guess easily overcome by any reader of this blog who was not too unattractive. How many would have not had those with the power and wealth. As I have understood from something that I have read, there was even a Princess, to whom some writers have devoted some poems, that was not exactly a paragon of virtue.
As I see it, what Stalin did raising the standard of living and working conditions and therefore the life expectancy of the Russians, and not only, but also their quality of life by facilitating them access to culture, was to save the lives of millions of Russians which otherwise would have been exterminated by the miserable living conditions they lived in the Tsarist system and the exploitation of slavetraders like the Rothschilds.
To defend the revolution of those trying to reverse it was therefore trying to save the lives of most of the Russians, even sacrificing the lives of those who wanted to give back them to the Middle Ages and into a life of slavery and misery.
Fortunately, what someone has done already is to count the deaths that occurred because of the pre-planned fall of the USSR and the next pillaging of the country, whose responsible must be sought in the US (CIA, Harvard University,….) and between the Russian traitors, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Khamenev, Bukharin, Khrushchev, Yeltsin and Gorbachev, and whose quota of dead far exceeds that assigned to Stalin.
The very people you list as “traitors” to Russia paved the way for Stalin’s rule through intrigue and conspiracy. Without Zinoviev and Kamenev carrying water for Stalin against Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Oktober, the man would have remained an historical nullity as he was in 1917.
Robert Conquest was an MI6 spy, confessed, so his data have no credibility for me.
The same with other data from Russian spies whio have sold themselves to the English or American or the Russian neoliberal opposition of today in Russia or outside Russia.
In general, I tend to not trust AngloAmerican sources on this issue of the history of the USSR/Russia.
I totally agree. Grover Furr did some very thorough investigations, debunking the myths about Stalin. Here is a link to a presentation in Oslo in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmj2Lj5jB0
Another revealing book is “The Great Conspiracy against Russia”, by Michael Sayers and Albert E. Kahn. It was published in 1945, so may be hard to find.
In this book it is made clear how much the Trotkyites were responsable for many atrocities in their civil war against Stalin which went on till WW2. Trotsky went even so far to collaborate with the German en Japanese fascists, whome he promised huge parts of the Sovjet Union when they succeeded in overthrowing the Sovjet government.
The good thing in the serie of Jimmy Moglia is that he makes clear the class character of the anti-soviet policies of the West. It is vital to understand the present devellopments. More than Russophobia it was the fact that Russia’s natural wealth was nationalized, out of reach for capitalist explotation and their constant attempts to create a fith column in the Soviet Union, which eventual succeeded in 1991, after Chroestjov laid the groundwork, starting in 1956. It is interesting to note that both Gorbachov and Yeltsin are decendends of the Kulak class. It is worrying that in the Russian international media and in other news outlets, this element is totally absent and everything is focussed on Russiaphobia and anti-Russian policies of the West. I am not familiar with how the Russian people look at these things, but I cannot believe that the fact that Stalin still has a tremendous support in Russia only comes from the desire that they are looking for a strong leader in difficult times. I am convinced that millions in Russia still cherish the ideals of the Soviet Union, despite the errors that have been made. How else to explain the fact that Chroestjov is seen as the worst Soviet leader, and the despise of Gorbachov and Yeltsin as traters.
Unfortunately for not-Russian speaking people it is hard to follow the internal debate, since the English publications who are pretending to give another view of present day Russia, like RT, Sputnik, Russia Insider a.o., only give the view of the present Russian elite and totally ignore this aspect. It will be interesting to see what they will make of the 100 year aniversary of the Russian Revolution. But I have no optimistic feelings about that.
Totally agree, comrade Observer from Hollande, and I am also waiting with great expectation what will be made of the 100 aniversary of the October Revolution and of the figure of Stalin by the current Russian leadership. It will definitely determinate that my support continues to be so unconditional as it has been so far.
For starters, they have already supported the opening of a memorial to the “figure” of Yeltsin, with visit of Comrade Putin included, buy have not allowed/supported the same for Stalin ( -100 points ).
Elsi, the work “The Great Conspiracy against Russia” there is in Internet, in Spanish, I have it downloaded, may I forward to you?
Yes, you can forward it to me, comrade Oxandabaratz.
How are you, I hope you are well, not seeing many f***ing UkroNazis around.
For me I think I have given them the dodge, by now!.
Salud!
Thanks a lot Oxandabaratz.
Observer from Holland
The big problem of Russia today is the lack of any philosophy – like the communist one or the socialist if you wish was – which can unite the people under one flag so to say.Is Russia a capitalist state ? yes,it is.Have the communists anything to say on the daily policy of Russia ? no.Or have they any influence in that policy? no.Is there a huge communist youth movement ? no.But there are huge numbers of nationalistic and patriotic movements in the ranks of the youth.All of them are mostly following the current president Putin.I tend to call them National-Patriotic movement.Maybe this is just the beginning.To achieve victory in international arena you must have a well defined doctrine,an idea which inflames the souls of the people whom in return will accept even the biggest sacrifices for their ideal.Now ,if we look at the Russian political establishment we will hardy find such a pure and defined doctrine.I know,the current political leaders (including Putin – whom I respect the almost) are giving us one surprise after the other but that is not yet the real one.I also understand that Russia is not yet so strong militarily – but mostly economically – to deal in a direct manner with her enemies.That’s why is the so called “winning more time” policy very well in place.We can chewing on this a few pages…
The evidence Stalin provided that Trotsky collaborated with Hitler came from Stalin’s own imagination, not unlike Kerensky’s insinuation that Lenin and Ludendorf were BFF.
Hitler the anglophile saw himself as a partner of the British, who were the pathbreakers for nazism according to Goebbels. Trotsky really was a partner of the angloamericans. Saying Trotsky made a deal with Hitler therefore isnt necessarily an absurdity. Trotsky wanted the USSR to remain without a developed industry, mainly a land of farmers and having to rely on import of technology. Trotsky’s world revolution was simply an early example of the perpetual war the angloamericans need to crush their competition everywhere. He despiced the russian people and organized terror from abroad. Stalins purges were partly about that but his associate zelots you name undoubtedly terrorized many innocents. Was that what Stalin tacitly wanted? Who knows.
This guy is very condescending. He imagines himself to be extremely wise and clever, and likewise that many, if not most, others are below his intellectual standard.
It is tiresome to see so many folks like this speaking from such great height on the Internet. They think they are capable of sharing great wisdom with the ignorant masses only because they are too poorly educated to know how much knowledge there is in the world.
The truth about Stalin is that one needs to read a truly huge amount of history in order to understand the environment where he was forged, as a man and as a political actor. Stalin, as an individual, is hardly interesting at all. Stalin, as a focal point of historical forces, is hugely important and interesting.
If this holds true, it follows that discussions of Stalin the man are very much distractions from the serious issues of the time of Stalin and Hitler, and of Ford and General Motors. Those who dwell on the man are guilty of indulging in a cult of personality, and avoiding serious discussions of substance.
Worse, the idea that one man is responsible for the sins of the many is hardly a new one. It falls far too close to the tree of theology and self serving fantasy, if what you seek is an understanding of why things happens in the real world.
I’ve met quite a few scholars who believed they knew a great deal about Stalin. None of them had read his works, the copious volumes of political dogma he left behind. Why?
Hint: Stalin the author is incredibly boring, and slightly hysterical in tone. He rants on and on about trivia.
Stalin was a party man, a born politician of the left. He spoke for hours without saying a thing. That makes him whatever you want him to be, which is the great secret attraction of all systems of representation.
All said as you look down from great heights?
“It is tiresome to see so many folks like this speaking from such great height on the Internet.”
The great thing about the internet is you can turn it off.
The way anglosaxons under control of England and its satellite 5Eyes of evil spying nations have demonised Putin and ascribed so many crimes to him, makes obe convinced that if anglos hate someone then that man -Stalin in this case -must have been a good man for his country and nationalist to boot.
So far I watched parts 4 and 5 of Jimmy Miglia’s Life of Stalin. An excellent and highly objective presentation.
[that was “Jimmie Moglia’s”]
We should counter crude Western propaganda about Stalin with some facts. A good place to start would be documented statistics about the USSR system of penal colonies, better known by the acronym GULAG for “Chief directorate of camps” (in Russian ГУЛаг, for “Главное управление лагерей”), the USSR government agency that administered the forced labour camp system in Stalin times.
The tables provided on pages 1048 and 1049 of the October 1993 issue of the American Historical Review provide a detailed breakdown of the data provided below. See the study by Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov at http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf
——– TOTAL ———————————- TOTAL DIED
——– GULAG ———- POLITICAL ——- (VARIOUS CAUSES):
——– PRISONERS: — PRISONERS:
1934 —— 510,307 —— 135,190 ——— 26,295
1935 —— 965,697 —— 118,256 ——— 28,328
1936 —- 1,296,494 —— 105,849 ——— 20,595
1937 —- 1,196,369 —— 104,826 ——— 25,376
1938 —- 1,881,570 —— 185,324 ——— 90,546
1939 —- 2,022,976 —— 454,432 ——— 50,502
1940 —- 1,850,258 —— 444,999 ——— 46,665
1941 —- 2,417,468 —— 420,293 ——– 100,997
1942 —- 2,054,035 —— 407,988 ——– 248,877
1943 —- 1,719,495 —— 345,397 ——– 166,967
1944 —- 1,335,032 —— 268,861 ——— 60,948
1945 —- 1,740,646 —— 283,351 ——— 43,848
1946 —- 1,818,621 —— 333,833 ——— 18,154
1947 —- 2,027,796 —— 427,653 ——— 35,668
1948 —- 2,475,385 —— 416,156 ——— 27,605
1949 —- 2,356,685 —— 420,696 ——— 15,739
1950 —- 2,561,351 —— 578,912 ——— 14,703
1951 —- 2,528,146 —— 475,976 ——— 15,587
1952 —- 2,504,514 —— 480,766 ——— 10,604
1953 —- 2,468,524 —— 465,256 ———- 5,825
Thus, the sum total of all prisoners in “Stalin’s Gulags” that died due to various causes over the 20 (twenty) year period, from 1934 to 1953, was 1,053,829.
We also see that the total prison population (which includes the mass of common criminals as well as the political prisoners) in any single year never exceeded 2,6 million – while the total number of political prisoners (so-called “subjects of repression”) never exceeded 580 thousand.
Now contrast this with the data provided by the article published in 30 January 2012 issue of New Yorker under the title “The Caging of America”., http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/30/the-caging-of-america . An excerpt:
“… Over all, there are now more people under “correctional supervision” in America — more than six million — than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height. …”
The U.S.’s 6 million vs. Stalin’s 2,6 million…
Yes, Sergey, but this studies have been made mainly by Americans, I am waiting for when in 2017 the archives will be delivered and we can know exactly the amount of deaths, but this time from Mr. Puntin´s administration, from whom I do not expect something less than the truth. And I hope also that they will made the culprits accountable and for this they will extend the national and international arrest warrants required.
Besides, why do you not tell us about the deaths estimated were produced by the fall and looting of the USSR, about 12 millions of Russians, thanks to the reformist/ 5th columnists in the Russian government and, how not, the invaluable hand of the US.
@ elsi
In case you might have misunderstood the point of my post.
Throughout the western media (and even in some comments which you see on this site – in fact, on this very page!), myth of supposed “tens of millions” (!) of dissenting Soviet citizens killed by Stalin is shamelessly perpetuated. Some throw at us the number “60 million”, some “20 million” (as one commenter on this page actually did – just scroll above), some even “100 million”. However, the statistics quoted in my preceding post completely debunks that, showing that in the 20 year period, from 1934 to 1953 (the year of Stalin’s death), the total number of deaths in the Soviet penal system was about 1 (one) million, and that includes deaths from natural causes, diseases – and executions.
One of the chief Western propagandists, touted as “the authority” on the subject of Stalin, Robert Conquest, notorious for his pseudo-historic 1968 book “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purges of the 1930s”, claimed that in 1939, at the hight of Stalin’s prosecutions, there were “9 million” political prisoners in USSR. However, the statistics show that in that year there were only 454,432 political prisoners.
And so on.
Concerning “… this studies have been made mainly by Americans …”. Not so. Only one of the three authors is an American. Of the other two, one is German-French, another Russian. I also draw your attention to the acknowledgements at the footer of page 1017 of the linked study.
However, the fact that the study has been published in American Historical Review, and not in a Russian journal, ought to put to rest any potential charges that it is “merely Russian propaganda” (such arbitrary charges are not uncommon these days), but give credence, if not to the exact numbers involved, then that these numbers are at least upper bounds of the actual numbers! I.e.: not “9 million”, but not more than 454,432, and not “60 million” but not more than 1 million.
A good place to start debunking Western slander of Stalin.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
=======================================================
P.S.
J. Arch Getty (John Archibald Getty) is an American historian and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Gabor T. Rittersporn is a German historian and Research Director Emeritus at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris.
Viktor N. Zemskov (Виктор Николаевич Земсков) was a Russian historian, doctor of historical sciences, Research Associate of Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow.
Ok, Sergey, excuse me, understood, perhaps I read your comment too quickly, and also had already noticed that Zemskov was Russian, but there are too many Russians working for the Americans inside and outside Russia as to feel suspicions. Rittersporn I thought that was also an American ( the only one Rittersporn I knew was an actress ).
You see, I am not a woman from academia but more like Koba, a selfmade proletarian, studying as much of politics as my spare time allows me, mainly from the net and not even following any reasonable secuencie at all, but taking one thing from here and another from there.
Sergey, you seemd to me always like you were in my line of thinking but the other day I get a bit confused for one source you were recommending me in the cafe.
Anyway, would be great living in Moscow or wherever you could live in Russia to be able to meet and that you could show me more material of study about these issue. Perhaps, one day, who knows…
Thanks for your contribution to the truth, I do not want any more than the truth to be recognized and published all over the world, the liars exposed and the culprits taken accountable.
I feel it like a mission or a duty, nnd as Koba has no living descendants who want to do it, at least I have no idea of any, I kinda adopted him as my greatgrandfather.
@ elsi
Oh, I see, that was /moveable-feast-cafe-2016-03-22/comment-page-1/#comment-222096 , with a link to Mlechin’s interview. Exactly because that interview was on notorious “Echo Moskvi” I made a very clear qualifier: Very interesting – if true (!), one may say… Yes, if true.
According to Mlechin (!), Stalin allegedly fought in the United Nations tooth and nail to have Israel recognised, fighting stiff resistance to it by the USA government at that brief moment (the roles switched only a year or two later). One may recall that the British had for quite some time been fighting the Jewish insurrection in Palestine (which was under British rule), making that scenario somewhat plausible (veracity is quite another matter!), so the whole subject may warrant some investigation.
Some of the early background on Stalin and the pressures which surely would have influenced his thinking.
Paranoia – that bit about agents and double agents – who do you trust? That countries before and since WWII wanted to destroy Russia/socialism/communism now seem to be historical fact. I guess anyone under those circumstances would have good reason to trust nobody.
No saint, but not the person portrayed by the western media that I grew up on. Perhaps a man for his times. Not the best but the best available?
A bit tedious and too general. More facts would have contributed more to a better understanding of a ‘controversial’ personality (and history) than the default phraseology of Antifa. As expected, the Elephant in the room was assigned to the memory hole, although it would have shed more light on many ‘paranoid’ decisions of Stalin – like the Great Purges, Crimean Affair, Doctor’s Plot, than the Antifa talking points.
It should have weighed more on the facts on the ground in the wake of the Pact of 1939 and in the lead to the War, like negotiations regarding USSR joining the Axis ( in October 1940, Ribbentrop wrote to Stalin about “the historical mission of the Four Powers – the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Germany – to adopt a long range-policy and to direct the future development of their peoples into the right channels by delimitation of their interests in a worldwide scale. Stalin replied, referencing entering an agreement regarding a “permanent basis” for their “mutual interests) and the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact.
I appreciate both Jimmy Moglia and Historical Sketches, having enjoyed many episodes from the series (the Schism, War of the Roses, Tamerlan) beginning with the hours of useful material from the Ukraine series. My sincere thanks to The Saker for calling my attention to it amidst the Maidan coup d’etat. Like nikov, I appreciate his non-‘Western’ point of view on these matters.
But this series on Stalin has great problems. To start, he covers the years of 1917-1930, including the brutal way in which Stalin went from an historical afterthought to the events of Oktober to the “conspiracy of the epigones” (Trotsky’s phrase) that catapulted him into power, in ten minutes.
In his biography My Life Trotsky wrote of Stalin’s rise in the aftermath of Lenin’s death: “The general policy became one of a replacement of independent and gifted men by mediocrities who owed their poses entirely to the apparatus. It was as the supreme expression of the mediocrity of the apparatus that Stalin himself rose to that position” (501).
I quote Trotsky because Stalin’s rise to power seems a pretty important area on which to focus, yet it merits almost no attention. The series overview announces that the third episode covers until 1924 and the fourth resumes in 1930. In reality, volume 3 really ends with 1917 by suggesting that Stalin “sided with Lenin” during that critical year without mentioning the myriad times and places his thoughts and ideas diverged from Lenin. Moglia’s line that “Stalin sided with Lenin” represents a gross distortion of the historical record.
Moglia goes on to ignore the nearly catastrophic role Stalin played on the southern front during the Civil War, he ignores Stalin’s early support for the NEP (unlike Trotsky), he ignores the conspiracy by Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin to seize power in the aftermath of Lenin’s first stroke. He ignores Staln’s policies towards Britain in the mid-20s, the alliance with Chaing Kai-Shek and consequent slaughter of Chinese communists in the late 1920s by the KMT. He ignores the ultra-left “social fascism” policy at the Comintern (which he controlled) that helped to birth the NSDAP in Germany.
Instead, Moglia offers us this grotesque and ignorant speculation at 3:40 of episode 4: if Trotsky’s view (Permanent Revolution) had prevailed, the USSR could not have withstood Hitler’s attack more than a decade after Stalin purged him and the opposition he led. Nonsense on so many levels! If Stalin’s view had prevailed in March 1917 (before Lenin and Trotsky’s return from exile) the outcome would have been “socialism in ZERO countries”.
In place of a real analysis of Stalin’s rise, we get a sanitized history replete with the phrase “Stalin’s view prevailed”. One has to wonder why, rather than telling us how that view emerged “victorious”, he ignores the means by which this took place.
Trotsky wrote, “Only a politics that serves a great historical task can insure itself morally irreproachable methods. On the contrary, the lowering of the level of political aims inevitably leads to moral decline…. The chief difficulty that the conspirators faced was that of coming out openly against me before the masses of the people. The workers knew Zinoviev and Kamenev, and listened to them readily. But their behavior during 1917 was still too fresh in everyone’s memory. They had no moral authority in the party. Stalin, beyond the narrow circle of the old Bolsheviks, was almost unknown.”
So what is it that catapulted “the outstanding mediocrity in the party,” to the commanding heights he attained? Watching the series provides no serious answer to this question.
” If Stalin’s view had prevailed in March 1917 (before Lenin and Trotsky’s return from exile) the outcome would have been “socialism in ZERO countries” …” >>
It was not only Stalin’s view in March 1917, but EVERY Bolshevik top leader (including Trotsky) except Lenin made some erroneous view/judgment at different points of time before the Bolshevik revolution actually swept away the entire power base of transitional government (post-Tsar). The political views/positions of those leaders during the two decades that precede 1917 prove that Lenin possessed the imagination and farsightedness that made the first socialist revolution possible.
” It was as the supreme expression of the mediocrity of the apparatus that Stalin himself rose to that position ” >>
History proved that Stalin’s ‘mediocre’ talents could convert USSR from a poor backward country in 1924 to the second most powerful country in 1945. Trotsky’s ‘extraordinary’ talents (related to continuous revolution) would have collapsed USSR before 1940s.
I agree with you on Lenin’s far sightedness. This, too, Moglia overlooks in assessing the life of Stalin.
The last year of Lenin’s life, and the fears he raised about Stalin, merit no mention in the video series.
Your final point, a re-assertion of the point made by Moglia that I addressed in my original response, constitutes pure speculation and rests itself on nothing concrete. One could just as easily speculate that a sophisticated Comintern policy would have cut the rise of German fascism off at the knees. Instead, the policy of “Social Fascism” embraced paved the way for Hitler’s rise and 25,000,000 dead in Stalin’s USSR.
” One could just as easily speculate that a sophisticated Comintern policy would have cut the rise of German fascism off at the knees. Instead, the policy of “Social Fascism” embraced paved the way for Hitler’s rise and 25,000,000 dead in Stalin’s USSR. ” >>
No, it was Stalin’s industrialization drive and ideological cleansing against Trotskyte infantile disorder-cum-romantic fantasy, which saved USSR against the German Nazism (created and nourished by AngloZionists in USA and UK, and midwifed by Trotsky himself). And, it was Stalin and his Comrades who finally freed China from Japanese Fascism to end WW II.
What you pejoratively call “Trotskyite” (credit to Stalin’s ally Bukharin for inventing the phrase, yes?) is really Leninism. Moreover, Stalin’s “industrial drive” started nearly a decade after after Trotsky proposed (as War Commissar) abandoning War Communism in Winter 1919/20. Around the same time, Lenin put Trotsky on restoring the railways. I wonder why?
To “save” the USSR from German Nazism required two things: first, a USSR. This would have never happened under Stalin’s rule because Stalin did practically nothing in 1917 (apart from giving Lenin a haircut, according to Moglia) during the decisive moments of February to October. In fact, Stalin used his platform has editor of Pravda to advocate the merger of Soviet and provisional government! Thankfully, Lenin and Trotsky arrived on the scene to make history.
Second, it required a woeful misreading of Nazism. in 1932, responding to the short-sided and idiotic “Social Fascism” policy appropriated by the Comintern, Trotsky wrote, “Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!” A year later, he wrote the pamphlet What is National Socialism”.
Finally, it was Stalin who demanded party-line support for the KMT as they slaughtered the communists of Shanghai in 1927.
Trotskyism has indeed achieved “Socialism in zero countries”. Just a zoo of squabbling sects of arrogant, deluded Western trash. Trotskyism veers between defeatism, utopianism, and outright Western imperial arrogance. It’s the Full Spectrum Impotence doctrine at its very finest.
When you say “Trotskyism” you mean “Leninism”. Stalin turned Lenin on his head (as Lenin himself knew and acknowledged), but not until he created a mausoleum.
Any guesses as to who said this on the fist anniversary of the October revolution? “The entire work of the practical organization of the uprising was carried on under the immediate direction of the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky. One may state without hesitation that the party was indebted first and foremost to Comrade Trotsky for the garrison’s prompt going over to the Soviet and for the able organization of the work of the Military Revolutionary Committee.”
I’ll give you a hint–the same guy said this a few years later: “Comrade Trotsky did not and could not play any special role either in the party or in the October revolution.”
On one level, Moglia is right: “Stalin’s view prevailed”. But hardly due to the logic of his arguments!
Nussiminen is correct here, that becomes obvious if you listen to the last remains of the western so called “Left”, which makes every communist turn in his grave before he has died (speaking of myself anyway).
That’s strange, Martin, since Nussiminen hasn’t made an argument.
He has rhetorically turned Stalin’s hostility towards Marx and Lenin into an asset and ignored the means he used to catapult himself into power.
as if there was any doubt, I made the previous comment.
All right, here we go: Proletarian Nazi Army
Talk about defeatism, utopianism, and Western imperial arrogance. Care to submit some similar flattery about the Pindostani armed forces, Trot?
You are aware that Trotsky wrote this nearly a year prior to German’s invasion of Soviet Russia. At the time, Saint Joe was still BFF with Adolf!
The resistance that emerged in occupied France, in occupied Italy, in occupied Yugoslavia, in occupied Greece, etc. did not come from from the workers and peasants of the German armies, certainly, but they did come from the workers and peasants of Europe. That these uprisings were smashed after the war by Uncle Sam (Stalin’s new BFF after he broke up with Hitler) speaks, again, to his lack of both and ideological and moral compass.
Compared to the USSR’s political position at the time–that is to say Molotov-Ribbentrop–Trotsky’s position, even here (in exile an ocean away, living in Mexico on the eve of his assassination by your beloved) stands up better than does Uncle Joe’s in Summer of 1940.
So I once again direct you back to 1932: who had the more accurate analysis of Hitler and fascism before it re-armed and ran roughshod over most of Europe? Stalin, whose Social Fascism policy crushed the left, or Trotsky, who advocated fighting it from the start?
And here’s another gem for you:
Neocons = Trotsky-cons
Trotskyism is so incredibly pathetic, forever spouting the same old worthless dogmatic tripe. It has never liberated anybody; nor will it ever. All it does is giving Western pretend revolutionaries a pretext to start parroting the Western imperialist bourgeoisie. To wit: How wonderful everything could have been were it not for Stalin…
I guess you could say that Trotskyism is heavily dependent upon a still missing technical innovation: the time-travel machine. Once we have the ability to time-travel, Western ultra-super-duper revolutionaries in general and the Trots in particular will retroactively bless Humanity with their perfect, flawless revolutions. Politics elevated to a 100% shining, spotless pastime, lightyears away from a nullity such as Stalin.
One minute you denounce sects, Nussiman, the next, to prove something, you post a piece of ‘analysis’ from a communist sect. Was that irony? I especially liked the 1926 galactic communion (from the mausoleum?) between Lenin and Stalin!
To the chagrin of many, a search of public records doesn’t require time-travel. It requires that you act in good faith. Here’s a few questions:
Who was chairman of the Saint Petersburg Soviet in 1905, Trotsky or Stalin?
Who crafted the Zimmerwald Manifesto, Trotsky or Stalin?
Who wrote on the one-year anniversary of the Oktober Revolution, “The entire work of the practical organization of the uprising was carried on under the immediate direction of the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky”?
Who did Lenin send to the Brest-Litovsk conference, Trotsky or Stalin?
Who did Lenin appoint to create the Red Army out of whole cloth and manage a war, in spite of having no experience in the military, Stalin or Trotsky?
Who did Lenin charge with restoring the railways even as the civil war continued. Stalin or Trotsky?
All this is fact. I will stop there, since you will no doubt move on to other non sequiturs if you respond.
Sadly for you, the memory hole doesn’t work as well these days. Stalin represents the perfect harmonization between the Bolsheviks and the Czar against Lenin and Marx, through Trotsky–low-hanging fruit once Lenin died.
The fact that he was purged doesn’t make Trotsky’s stand any less right towards fascism in 1932. And it doesn’t make your holy icon’s position–one with real political consequences on a global scale (unlike Trotsky)–any less wrong.
Twenty-five million died in the Soviet Union, many of them because Stalin did more political pirouettes than a ballerina from 1924 onward. He brutally enacted “Socialism in Zero Countries” at home while Germany re-armed. How much will power it must take for your to ignore that basic, obvious fact.
Wow.
Nussiminen,
However hard you try to provide actual proof about how Stalin saved Soviet land and peoples against the Fascist and Trot pseudo-socialists, the Trot trolls can not stop – Trotsky left behind an amazing success story for his followers (the fact that Trotsky earned unaccounted money from AngloZionist bankers/oligarchs to live a life with quite good standard whenever he stepped out of Russian land) … His followers also follow Trotsky’s steps – but to earn such money, all types of lies-damn lies have to be repeated day-in and day-out, year after year, generation after generation.
What can we make of Stalin in 2016? I’d say next to Hitler he’s the most attacked leader from the 20th Century. But let’s look at him closer. I come to that task in the manner of Mark Anthony saying “I come to bury Caesar,not praise him”.
Stalin came to power in an underdeveloped great land. With the masses of people uneducated peasants. With the entire World lusting for the destruction of that huge nation.He used a different ideology,and manner of speaking. But his rule was much like an authoritarian Tsar from the Russian past. I won’t say Ivan Grozny,but before him,maybe his Grandfather Ivan III called Ivan the Great ,fits Stalin better. Here is what was said about him,I think one could same something similar of Stalin: Sometimes referred to as the “gatherer of the Rus’ lands”, he tripled the territory of his state, ended the dominance of the Golden Horde over the Rus’, renovated the Moscow Kremlin, and laid the foundations of what later became called the Russian state. He was one of the longest-reigning Russian rulers in history.
Like many leaders of that, and previous times, his “reign” was a dictatorship (I won’t shy away from that word). And many people died during that period. Some innocent,many guilty,even if some were guilty of crimes we might not always think of as crimes. His enemies have certainly expanded the numbers of victims considerably. But still there were many victims. And that is the basis of the hatred of him through the years since. But that isn’t the sum total,by any means of his reign. He turned a weak giant of a nation,into the second greatest industrial power of the 20th Century. He educated an entire nation. He industrialized that nation. He defeated the greatest military power of that time. Saving the entire World from the horrors of nazism. And freed China and Korea from the Japanese Empire. By ordering the development of the Soviet atomic bomb,he laid the basis for the MAD doctrine that has given the World general peace between the great powers for over 70 years. He laid the basis also, for the Soviet Space Program. In reality,it could be said of him something similar to what was said of another bloodstained great ruler,Augustus Caesar,” He found a Rome built of bricks,and left a Rome built of marble”.
Could someone else done the same in Russia. And certainly with less bloodshed? We will never know the answer to that question. We didn’t live in that time,and place. All we can do is look at the results,and read what people say happened then.Today in Russia Stalin has regained much of his lost popularity. Even with all his perceived “wort’s”,over half the population in polls say they view him favorably.Most do that because of what he accomplished for the USSR,not how it was accomplished.
Uncle Bob 1, your analysis seem to me the most accurate and fair so far, only I would add that he saved many more lives than those he curtailed, not only in Russia itself, but, as you point out, in other parts of the world.
Even accepting your point about his government being a kind of dictatorship, I am not aware of any other dictatorship which could have saved so many lives in the world.
Thanks,but remember even dictatorships aren’t just oppressive (or at least the old-fashioned ones). Even the nazi party member who was the Ambassador of Germany to China. Saved many Chinese from being murdered when the Japanese seized Nanjing during WW2 (the infamous Rape of Nanjing).By hiding them on German owned property and giving false documents of German protection.But yes,I think all and all,the Russian people have it right on Stalin.Had he not industrialized Russia,and built the infrastructure,and weaponry he did. There is a strong possibility Hitler could have defeated a weak Russia.And without Russia in the war. I doubt the other allies could have beaten a German and Japanese combination. The Germans would have been able to field millions of more troops and vast amounts of equipment for the other fronts. And hook up with Japan through the Asian parts of the conquered USSR. While the food and mineral resources of the USSR freely available to Germany and Japan would have assured them of not worrying about allied sea dominance.The war would have lasted for many more years,with a stalemate. Or ending with either an Axis victory or a negotiated settlement. Which would have given Germany and Japan mastery of Europe and Asia.The importance of Stalin and the USSR to the allied victory in the war is beyond even a doubt. The leading element in that victory.
Brilliant analysis, Uncle Bob!
I agree.
Stalin accepted a country with plows and left it with spaceships.
@ Uncle Bob 1
I take my hat off to you. This is a brilliant summation. I’ve noticed that every thread often raises up one person who shines. On a recent blog, when the one named Liz let loose her vomit, it was Ngoyo. On this one, it is you.
Thinking about Josef Stalin and the fierce attacks from western media, intelligence services and politicians demonizing him as Satan reincarnate, I can’t help but compare this with the western vilification of Vladimir Putin. I wonder if, what has been said about Joe Stalin, is as trustworthy as the disinformation about Vlad Putin now.
As you so nicely pointed out, Stalin inherited a country in far worst shape than Putin did when he appeared on the throne, so to speak. He faced a massive control by the 5th column (Zionist traitors) of his day. Russia/USSR was controlled at every level, including the security & intelligence services, and military by this 5th column, most of them Jewish. His country was surrounded by enemies on all sides, and all intent on Russia’s total destruction.
During his rule he: ended Jewish control, so putting an end to their reign of terror.
Annihilated the 5th column, culminating in that famous affair with the ice pick in Mexico. Built the country into an industrial powerhouse, etc, etc. But you have already laid all this out, so I won’t repeat it again.
Not bad for a tyrant (said tongue in cheek).
It makes me wonder, going back to my original point, whether, if Putin had been Stalin and achieved all this, would the same stories have been applied to him? If the vilification and lies being spread about Russia and Putin today are just that – lies and vilification; then how true are the stories about Stalin? Can they be trusted (considering the sources). The questions are worth asking.
For good or worse, Stalin was the man for the moment. No other personality would have achieved as much in similar circumstances. I take my hat off again, and this time for Uncle Joe – no saint, of course, but certainly not the devil either. The world has a lot to thank him for.
Thanks. And I was thinking much the same as you about the Stalin-Putin connection. We’ve seen how the West has demonized Putin. And all that with little to work with. Given the length and events of Stalin’s time in office. Just think of the garbage they could have written (and did). I think as I said above,the Russian view is correct on Stalin.
Thanks Jimmy for the brilliant presentation on Stalin. Yes there are elements that still needs to be understood, especially the rise of Brezhnev and his somewhat partial rehabilitation of Stalinism, Stalin undoubtedly is clearly misunderstood in most parts of the English speaking world, fed with a staple diet of propaganda that passes of “free press”. Only a few, very few, appreciate the fact that but for Stalin the whole planet would have been swallowed by capitalism imperialism that is now showing its real face — Global fascism !
Stalin and “Lucio” are the only bank robbers I know who did not steal for themselves but for the dispossessed and exploited of the Earth and the cause of these.
“Ukrainian intellectual talks about the “repression” of Stalin”
https://culturaproletaria.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/intelectual-ucraniano-habla-sobre-las-represiones-de-stalin/
“Stalin´s speech at the Mayakovsky Metro Station Moscow (06-11-1941)”
https://culturaproletaria.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/discurso-de-stalin-en-la-estacion-de-metro-maiakovski-de-moscu-06-11-1941/
“Stalin on Ukrainian nationalism”
https://culturaproletaria.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/stalin-sobre-el-nacionalismo-ucraniano/
In Spanish, not very long, try to translate, comrades, MUST READ!
Thanks, dear comrade Elsi.
***** Stalin on Ukrainian nationalism *****
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fculturaproletaria.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F12%2F02%2Fstalin-sobre-el-nacionalismo-ucraniano%2F&edit-text=
The following text has been extracted from an interview given by Stalin to AS Yakovlev, on March 26, 1941.
“We believe the right fight hard against all kinds of nationalism. They are the greatest help of our enemies and the worst enemies of our people. Nationalist dream of destroying the Soviet Union and turn it into a single national state, then make it easy prey for our enemies. They dream of physically destroy most of the people who inhabit and transform the remaining part in miserable slaves of the invaders.
It is no coincidence that there are these despicable traitors among the Ukrainian people. Leaders (Führer) of Ukrainian Nazis, all of them, both Melniki, as Konovalcij and Flag, the Germans received the order to spread among Ukrainians hate the Russians and thereby separating Ukraine from the Soviet Union.
It’s the same old story, as in ancient times, in the Roman Empire: divide and conquer. The British are experts, especially when it comes to creating hatred and ethnic conflicts. Through bribery and corruption of the different leaders of nations, rule over a capitalist island, which to a large capitalist factory, where men around the world are enslaved and raptured seems, to build a “great” empire British in which they say -at the British, own the sun never will. But while we live, this will not be part of us!
Imbeciles Hitler described the Soviet Union as a “house of cards” that will collapse upon encountering a serious difficulty. They think the friendship of our peoples is not strong enough and it will break.
In the case of a German attack on the Soviet Union on people of different nationalities, we will defend our land and our people and no human life will be escatimada for our beloved country.
Do not underestimate the Nazis! If you do not punish them severely, we bring many problems! Therefore it is necessary to keep them in jail. Do not let that undermine the unity of the Soviet Union! ”
(JV Stalin, Vollständig gesammelte Werke. Band 15, “Ein Gespräch mit AS Yakovlev, 26. März 1941”, S. 17)
In “Proletarian Culture” the blog omarxistaleninista.blogspot.com.es
Thanks to you, Martin, for translate, I was in a hurry when I posted that important text about Ukrainian nationalism by Stalin.
Stain’s GULag system was not at no point comparable to Hitler’s Konzentrationlageren system.
The first, despite of the harsh conditions, the terrible mistakes and even some local commnaders brutality had never had the puesue of exterminating. Media of GULag punishing was between 5-10 years. Prior to the Great Terror (which was not launched by Stalin himself), large amout of GULag immates were rehabilitated, and even endedn as guards; as ong as the State provided cultural equipments for them (of couse in the critical period of the 1937-38 this changed, because the inmate was no more a “potentical comrade/citizen”, but an enemy).
GULag is a complex phenomenon, subbject of changes and evolution, but it was not a paralell of Hitler’s extermination camps system.
Very true. Neither did it come anywhere close to presentday Pindostani incarceration levels; nor the genocidal orgies in the colonial world, of which Guantánamo and Baghram are but two recent examples. The fantasies of Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, Hearst et consortes are pure garbage bought and paid for by the propagandist sector of Western imperialism.
I applaud Mr. Moglia for undertaking this important series on the life and administration of Joseph Stalin. He succeeds in providing a necessary context on Stalin as an individual and a leader. Where I believe the series could be improved is in the insertion of more detailed discussion on specifics of important events of the 1930s, and on the allegations made in the Party Congress of 1956. Such specifics would give a viewer more material with which to draw some inferences about those events. As it stands, the series often simply lists events as occurrences without providing any backup information with which to evaluate these events and claims made about them.
I particularly believe the final part, section V, on 1956 is deficient. Just exactly what actions did Khrushchev allege amounted to a “cult of personality”? Exactly how was Stalin deficient in preparing the USSR for a Nazi invasion? Marshall Zhukov, for example, came to Stalin’s defense. In exactly what ways did the judicial actions of the 1930s amount to repression and overreach?
It is instructive, and to Mr. Moglia’s credit, he does mention, that the Party Congress did not permit any discussion of these allegations. Much of what Khrushchev claimed has already been debunked (see Grover Furr’s, “Khrushchev Lied”).
Nevertheless, I am gratified that Jimmy Moglia has chosen to shine the spotlight on the man who directed Soviet society through industrialization, collectivisation and the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany, and finally, through rebuilding of the society following that War. The provision of some additional specific information with which to evaluate the slanders brought against Stalin, would have facilitated many listeners in draw reasonable inferences.
Hats off, Saker — this was a most welcome blog post with an honest account of Stalin. As i*ve pointed out on numerous occasions here, the hateful screams and noises of deranged Western imperialism have ultimately hardened the Russian people to look at Stalin with the respect and admiration he deserves. “European values”, by contrast, are scorned and reviled as never before as they too deserve accordingly; not least in Russia.
The beauty of these recordings lies in the fact that Jimmie Moglia, his modest appearance notwithstanding, totally trashes the Western narrative of Stalin all along the line, most critically mentioning the West’s atrocious crimes past and present. And, in this regard, I would like to pay homage to deceased Belgian revolutionary Ludo Martens who, in his excellent book Un autre regard sur Staline (Another view of Stalin), published 20 years ago, made the following prophetic observation against the backdrop of contemporary triumphant neoliberal counterrevolution:
“At the end of the 20th century, humanity has in a sort of way returned to the initial state, to the years 1900 – 1914, where the imperialist powers thought that they could run the world among themselves. In the years to come, as the criminal, barbaric, and inhuman character of imperialism shows itself more and more clearly, new generations who never knew Stalin will pay homage to him.”
Trotsky, Gorbachov, Yeltsin, Pussy Riot: Glorious heroes of the glorious West and, hence, mortal enemies of Russia; state and people alike. Lenin, Stalin, Putin: Heroes of Russia and, hence, all deeply hated by her enemies at home in general and the latters’ sponsors abroad in particular. But the Zionazis are on the losing side of History. Reactionary lies, slanders, and imbecilities are wearing off as the scum behind them have nothing but squalor, chaos, and decay on offer, just as Ludo Martens predicted.
Thanks, comrade Nussiminen, for the reference to the book by Ludo Martens.
I have already a bunch to read catched in this thread.
I also wanted to thank The Saker for bringing the issue to discussion, despite being a bit skeptical in the beginning, because I am feeling a bit of despair with the contents of the blog lately which seems to me overwhelming right wing conservative/capitalist, and therefore I was expecting to see nothing but fascists and anti-communists commenting here, like those I have met already in the blog, and so I said I was not going to comment since I refuse to discuss anything with people who want to erradicate me.
Toujours à ton service, chère camarade elsi :-)
Yes, “Another view of Stalin” by Ludo Martens is indeed a masterpiece alongside “Blood lies“, written by Grover Furr.
Moreover, I share your sentiments/worries regarding the overall ideological make-up of the blog as of late. In one way, this is very much “proof positive” of the fact that what we see is the unfolding of the terminal prolapse of the West. Fascist conspiracy theories are in vogue, offering consolation to the West’s pampered, reactionary petty bourgeoisie now being exposed to ever more raw, contemptuous, and lawless Elite rule. Indeed, to add gross insult to injury, “The Great Unwashed” from countries destroyed by Western imperialism are now let in to the Heimat; a total affront to White bigotry. I admit I feel strong rage whenever my “dear Swedish compatriot” Liz submits her infantile drivel on this blog.
The West is dying — unless Russia ends up subdued, raped, and destroyed by it. This time around, Stalin’s achievements will have to go all the way.
Trotsky was such a hero to the glorious west that he was denied asylum in Germany, France, England, and the United States once Stalin and the rest of the “Socialism in Zero Countries” purged the Left Opposition in the 1920s from the USSR.
Moglia addresses none of the means by which the historical record was falsified to do so. The falsification continues today, linking Oktober to Pussy Riot!
Stupid Stalin, you did it all wrong. Let the squabbling sects of infallible, invincible, and irresistible Western ultra-super-duper-revolutionaries show you how to go about it!
Seriously, Trots are just parasitically feeding off the Western MSM. Were it not for the constant slander against Stalin from the Ziomedia, the silly thing known as Trotskyism wouldn’t be around at all, mind you. At bottom, Trotskyism is a plea for bourgeous respectability among pretend revolutionaries in imperialist countries.
The ‘Ziomedia’ owe much to Stalin’s recognition of their beloved little apartheid state, don’t they? So, too, does the military industrial complex. For 50 years, the most reprehensible political scum on the planet attacked working people using the Stalin bogeyman.
The book-burnings and double-barreled effort by Stalin to disappear the man he credited with the Petrograd rising in his own words (before denouncing him years later) offers a nice vantage point of who was “constantly slandering” whom. Stalin decorticated Leninism in 1924, scattering it to the winds, and for this you blame the victims.
I understand the difficulty of defending the political 180°, but your straw man fails. Rather than denounce unnamed “Trots”, why don’t you attack Trotsky’s deeds (or even his words)? Why don’t you denounce Lenin, too, since he had the same view of Stalin by 1922?
But let’s cut to the chase: can you defend Stalin’s policies towards the General Council of British Trades Unions in 1926, his support for Chiang’s Kai-Shek’s slaughter of Shanghai communists a year later, or, most significantly, his “Social Fascism” policy that enabled the rise of the NSDAP?
Who was right about Nazism in 1932–Trotsky (exiled to Turkey since none of his “respectable” “bourgeois” “allies” in Europe would grant him asylum) or Stalin (the person who exiled him)? How many of those 25,000,000 dead Soviets could have been forestalled by an correct analysis of fascism in the early 30s, before Germany was re-armed by Stalin’s allies-to-be on Wall Street?
Stalin’s buddies–the “irresistible Western ultra-super-duper-revolutionaries” Roosevelt and Churchill–did a wonderful job of advancing the cause of Western Imperialism atop the blood of dead Russians… but not before Saint Josef shook hands with Hitler!
The historical sketch by J.Moglia is certainly of great interest. The author undertook an heroic attempt to remind us, in a very compressed and concise format, who Stalin was, under what circumstances he “operated”, what was the initial state of the substrate he took power over (very early Soviet Russia), and what result he brought it to. The essential shortcoming of this sketch is its size: it is enormously difficult to describe and explain a very complex phenomenon in a few lines. Two particular points struck me as deserving far more substantial explanations:
1) The signature of the Molotov -Ribbentrop pact: the presentation barely mentions the very complex and lengthy discussions betveen the UK, France and the USSR in 1938-1939, initiated ans enforced by the soviet government, that never brought any plpable result and finally “cornered” Stalin into the signature of the pact. In French one could call it “sauve qui peut” – by experience Staline seemed to understand that he could count on nobody’s support, but could only protract the peace for his country for some months or a couple of years. Read Churchill’s memoirs on this point: his presentation is relatively complete and honest, he was just unable to strike the final summarizing point.
2) Political repressions of 1937-1939. The phenomenon is so complex, and Stalin’s personality played such a tremendous role in these events, that I consider it utterly impossible to describe and decompose it in such a sketch.
The merit of the author is the sincere and relatively successfull attempt to show that Stalin and his policies may not be considered separately from the context, context local geographically and local in time.
Today one may not say that the figure of Stalin “regains popularity” in Russia. Still, time and generations passing away, the historical judgement steadily becomes more equilibrated and detached. This evolution follows the general pattern of the historical perception of Richelieu and Cromwell by their descendants.
The still very high interest for the Stalin’s personality may certainly be explained by the apparent, or seeming, lack of political will and capability in the modern pilitical class. The reign of Stalin was eventful and bloody, but eventually created a basis for a steady and relatively happy development of the country he directed. If it was not so, the personality of Stalin would not have been so passionately and restlessly discussed.
To those interested I recommend the Robert Service biography of Stalin. A serious, ample and equilibrated analysis.
Good review and analysis, Vadim! And yes, Robert Service’s biography is highly recommendable! Beyond Service’s book, the only other biography perhaps worth reading would be Isaac Deutscher’s. Now Deutscher was a Trot sympathizer, so the reader needs to take that into account. But given that, Deutscher does attempt to be objective.
Thank you, Eric. I am not acquainted with the Deutscher’s biography of Stalin. Your recommendation is amply sufficient to me for putting it on my reading list for the coming months. In this field I am not professional, neither really, or at least particularly, emotionally involved, but Stalin’s personality and role have tremendously interested and intellectually exited me for the last 20 years, so I have been reading here and there on occasions…
Well, just finished viewing episodes 4 and 5 and must say that I have changed my mind completely.
Very informative on anecdotes and historical facts which I did not even know but which seemingly to other things I had read about Stalin, leaves the impression that many people who really reached to know him, also came to appreciate him much and even love him.
I especially liked to know about those satirical magazines in the USSR and the anecdote about Count Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg crying when he was leaving his mission in Moscow because of losing his friends Stalin and Molotov ( a sign that true friendship can exist between people of such different origins….)
Episode 5 is very moving and I have to say that Jimmy Moglia looks to be very knowledgeable in Russian History and Culture, and especially Literature.
So, thanks a lot to Jimmy Moglia for this series, I think he has done a great and original work, and my sincere apologies for having expressed my reservations in advance.
In my defense only to say that I have never seen in this blog anything who resembled making any kind of justice to Stalin, on the contrary, since I arrived here now almost 2 years and a half ago, I have seen always here referenced Solzhenystsin and his book as if it were the word of God, and hence my skepticism.
The German ambassador to the USSR at that time was an aristocrat who believed in Bismarck’s policy of entente between Germany and Russia, whatever their regimes. He was quite upset about the German invasion of the USSR.
“I know that after my death, on my grave will be thrown heap of trash. The wind of history will blow it away without pity.” Y.V.Stalin
In counting the cost, remember the several million soldiers needlessly killed in the first months of the War. Stalin discounted all warnings about Barbarossa, and, once it was launched, persisted in over-riding his generals. In consequence, again and again, whole armies were surrounded and slaughtered or captured. Only when Stalin began to cooperate with his generals did they together make an effective team. Zhukov gets most attention. Arguably, Vasilevsky, the head of the High Command, deserves more credit.
Stalin’s initial incompetence is not in doubt. The War has been analysed in detail. From the Soviet side, there is Eriksson, Glantz, and Bellamy (and an increasing number of Russian scholars picking apart the Soviet version); from the German, all previous work has been superseded by Stahel’s four volumes and counting.
I couldn’t watch the whole thing. This presentation is like a horse tranquilizer. Dead boring and at least 50% of it is unimportant and irrelevant. I lost all respect to that author at once. And mind you, I am fascinated by Russia’s history.
To me Stalin was incomparably worse than Hitler. Hitler never murdered his own people by the millions, never turn them into slaves, and while the state controlled everything important, basic private property was still allowed in Germany. If Hitler did not decide to conquer the world, his internal policies would be nothing special for those days.
Stalin … was completely despicable. Mass murder after mass murder, state slavery, gulag…
Think about one thing, the life of american slave in the 19th century was 20 years longer than the average russian citizen during Stalin’s years.
back2freedom,
‘You are not alone’ … There are many more who sings Hitler was incomparably better than Stalin !
And, why not ? In ‘democracy’ under ‘human rights watch’ (everything brought to you, by the Master of the World i.e. the AngloZionist plutocratic cabal) every Fascist Nazi Corporatist has the ‘right’ to feel and say Hitler (and Mussolini, and Hirohito, and all the west European Rulers who were elected and/or selected by the AngloZionist plutocratic cabal) was/is better than Lenin/Stalin (and Putin) !!!
,Trolls, say something new, give some twist, to continue to receive the payments from the Master ….
Well you didn’t comment at all on my reasons to claim Hitler was much better than Stalin. I am not aware of any claims, from any side of the war, that Hitler turned on his compatriots, let alone mass murder. The economy of germany under Hitler was far superior than USSR under Stalin too. For one thing, nobody in Germany starved to death, compared to millions dying in USSR from starvation. All of Hitler’s outrageous actions were pointed towards the rest of the world. You can’t dismiss facts with gibberish, and there was nothing other than gibberish in your post. Why even post it? you didn’t have one argument.
back2freedom
In the last year of the War, many Germans were executed on the merest hint of a suspicion of defeatism. And Hitler refused to surrender because of his conviction that Germany’s defeat proved that the German people did not deserve to survive and should be exposed to slaughter by their enemies.
Before then, the only compatriots he turned on were political opponents, Jews, homosexuals, and the handicapped… (I’m sure I’ve missed out some.)
The German economy was focused on rearmament in the 1930s,not sustainable growth. The war economy of the 1940s was clearly ruinous.
The German people, whom Hitler considered the Master Race until they let him down, were fed with the spoils of war from conquered lands.
Soviet industrialisation was, I suspect (but it would take a lifetime of study to demonstrate) was unnecessarily costly and inefficient. The reform of agriculture and feeding of the industrial workers was brutal, incompetent and murderous. The famine avoidable. The summary execution of thousands was plain murder, and counterproductive (see the effect on the Red Army) A detailed look at the records of the individuals killed would seem to suggest that the common denominator was that they were innocent of the crimes they were charged with. Sabotage by outside forces and Party politics appear to have induced paranoia. Shipping millions off to the camps was an economic waste as well as a human tragedy.
All this is probably true. To assert it, you really do not need to make silly and false comparisons with Hitler.
For any English speaker interested in this, a good place to start is “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia” by the British historian Richard Overy. (He’s also the author of the definitive history of aerial bombing in Europe in WW2, a good assessment of why Germany lost, and a short history of Russia’s war, among others.)
At long last, we’re finally being blessed here by people speaking perfect “Westish”, spouting the West’s classical curriculum of shallow “Stalin – Hitler” hyperbole.
As usual, what passes for ‘political science’ and ‘history’ in the West has got zero explanatory power. The simple — yet profound — fact of the matter is that Stalin and the USSR that he led have left an indelible mark on the fascist West by the tremensous Soviet achievements that took the West 500 years of global genocide, rape, and enslavement to accomplish for its own home constituencies. Putin’s Russia elicits the same reactions for very similar reasons.
Nussiminen
Never read experts. There’s a risk they’ll require you to think. They may even prove your prejudices wrong.
Certified Westerners = Certified Garbage. Applies with special vigour to what passes for the Western ‘intelligentsia’. Could well have become a most distinguished member of this, ahem, fraternity if I hadn’t configured my brain against Soros :-)
Nussiminen
…So you’re, what – just too intelligent to put in the work of scouring the publications of those who’ve put in the hours in the archives?
The rest of us have to rely, alas, on hard work and humility.
Well they are both mass murderers. One can’t help but compare them. Also, you don’t seem to disagree with any of my points, and I don’t disagree with yours.
1. Hitler never turned on his own people, with the exceptions you mentioned, and at the end of the war he was no longer rational (ok, he was irrational before that too)
2. Germany’s economy, sustainable or not, was the Envy of Europe. You forget USA never left the great depression until the war started. Not germany. Full employment since 1934. To talk about starvation in Germany was impossible.
Compare this to the 1930s in USSR. In that decade ALONE, about 10 million starved to death, BEFORE THE WAR STARTED.
3. USSR pesants did not have the right to leave their villages without party approval. Every village was given a goal, and people were shot if goals were not met. According to Yuri Maltsev, in that decade Stalin reached the rate of 10 000 people shot PER DAY. People knew they could not meet the goal and tried to escape, but if they catch you outside your village you get shot on the spot. The horrors of State Slaves is well described by Yuri Maltsev.
Not talking about the war, but the 1930s alone, would you rather have lived in Germany or USSR?
back2freedom
“Hitler never turned on his own people, except…”! He turned on his own people. All of them.
Would one prefer to live during a boom, however unsustainable. Most people would say, Yes. None would enjoy the inevitable bust, if they could foresee it. Not a good basis for a comparison between economies.
Would I prefer to live in a developed economy or a developing? What do you think? Again, not a good basis for comparison.
“Not talking about the War, but the 1930s alone…” Why? For the Nazis, the 1930s were all about preparing for the War.
I think I touched on the crimes and disasters of Soviet industrialisation. You seem curiously enough to go easy on the Nazis because they focused their venom outside Germany. (I’m sure it’s just the way you’ve expressed yourself.)
The Soviet Union for most all of its history pursued a defensive strategy. The Nazis were always intent on aggression.
You are right that Germany and the Soviet Union were the two great European powers, and both were totalitarian. It is informative to compare and contrast them.
Mass murder this, mass murder that.
However that may be, you cannot deny that you — as most other Western sheeple — are thoroughly immersed in a “popular culture” which delights in bloodshed and all-out moral depravity. On this basis, I can’t really understand your problems with people practicing mass murder, fake or otherwise. Makes me strongly suspect it’s other qualities you find wanting here. As far as we know, neither Stalin, nor Hitler were Anglos, gays, or Jewish supremacists, right?
Hitler should be compared to Churchill; two ardent genocidalists strongly committed to ‘European values’.
Nussiminen
This is an odd comment for someone intelligent enough, in their own opinion, to have joined the intellectual elite (only you saw through them).
“Mass murder this, mass murder that… mass murder, fake or otherwise…” Are you saying, mass murder is no big deal? Or that you can pretend some mass murder didn’t happen (because you approve of the perpetrators and their cause)? Or what?
You presume to tell me what I think contrary to any evidence available to you.
It is certainly worth comparing and contrasting Churchill the imperialist and Hitler the fascist and Stalin the Bolshevik. Despite the continuing hero-worship of Churchill, there is plenty of work on his life and times. (If you are looking for ammunition, read Mukerjee “Churchill’s Secret War”.)
“Anglos, gays, or Jewish supremacists” – For all your great intellect, you embarrass yourself.
Shut down this conversation now please. You are getting personal. Mod on Duty.
Those must be very old stats you’re tossing around here. Should be corrected (upwards) by at least two orders of magnitude. You know, when it comes to Stalin’s killing sprees, the sky is the limit!
Rinse and repeat, please.
An incredible distortion of history!!
Jimmie is smoothing the way for a “re-assessment” of Stalin; but he is using Stalin merely as a conveyance through which he white-washes the reign of terror that was the Soviet Union from 1918 through 1948.
Only in Part 3, does Moglia focus his discourse on Stalin himself.
Followers of the Saker are going to express their own views of the Soviet Union during the Lenin-Stalin years. Many, I am sure, have delved personally into the many accounts of this period.
The period after 1991 up to 2002 was a golden age for openness in historical terms. Documents reporting on events that occurred during the 2oth century leading up to both world wars, and the creation of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Israel were declassified and released to the public. Unfortunately, “for security reasons”, the information regarding the United States and Israel have been restricted in the wake of 9-11 and the “War on Terror”.
From the archives of the Kremlin, we have learned not just the raw numbers of cruelty and destruction wrought by the Soviet Politburo during these years; but also we have learned that it was consciously done in order to wipe out -through terror if not death itself- any vestiges of the way things were. To say that eventually the Soviet leadership realized that their tactics were to aggressive belies the fact -by that point- that they had achieved their objectives.
Kremlinologists estimate that 20-30 million Russians were killed during these years. Soviet “apologists” calculate that the number was somewhere between 9 and 12 million.
In 1956 during that infamous special session in 1956 accused Lazar Khagonovich of overseeing the killing of 50 million Russians. Kagonovich did not disagree with the number. He simply reminded Kruschev that he also participated in that killing.
Solzhenitsyn estimated that the number killed during the entire Soviet era, including Kruschev and Brezhnev, amounted to 60 million.
There is absolutely no way that this extended period of abject cruelty and suppression should be “justified”, nor anything that came out of it to be considered as an advance of the human condition. That other political “isms” also had their periods of human oppression should not be rendered as an excuse for -nor as a mitigation of- the horrors that occurred during this period of Russian history, especially when one realizes that this cruelty was openly acknowledged deliberately pursued by the hard core of the original members of the Soviet Politburo.
Arthur,
You are absolutely right in saying ” An incredible distortion of history !! ” – a correction though, your statement should have been ” An incredible distortion of history that was concocted by the generations of academicians paid by the elite-aristocratic AngloZionist families since twentieth century beginning !! “
Yes. Most ‘unfortunate.’
The kind of ‘unfortunate’ that would reveal the close collaboration between American industrialists (Rockefeller) some wealthy Jews (Rotschilds) and British/German politicians in the creation of the holocaust narrative to market the desirability of a Zionist heimat in ‘British’ Palestine.
Not to mention the ‘strategy of tension’ designed to ensure perpetual frozen conflict to control oil-production.
This can’t be quite right.
The holocaust got surprisingly little attention in the ten to fifteen years after the War. It took the work of Raul Hilberg to begin the chronicling of what happened. It was only latterly that it became an academic industry and the Zionist propaganda weapon of choice.
“British/German politicians”?
By the 1940s, the British were trying to contain the Yishuv and outside Zionists, who therefore turned on them. Britain and the Zionists fought a dirty war until Britain shamefully washed its hands of the mess it had made. The story of why President Truman backed Israel is an interesting one and is now getting the academic interest it deserves. Who were the German politicians?
UK and US policy in the Middle East once oil was discovered was never a great secret. The release of documents only confirmed what everyone knew.
“Kremlinologists estimate that 20-30 million Russians were killed during these years. Soviet ‘apologists’ calculate that the number was somewhere between 9 and 12 million.”
Bzzz, wrong answer. Stalin killed at the very least 2 trillion, and please remember that this estimate doesn’t include the offspring that would have come to life later on.
One never ceases to be moved by the tender, loving care ‘certified Westerners’ seem to have for Russians who lived in Stalin’s USSR. Given Stalin’s appreciable popularity in contemporary Russia and the West’s unstinting hatred of the latter, one wonders what Stalin should have done to please today’s certified Westerners. Kindly invite Western imperialism to show him how Russians should be dealt with?
But I have news that I am very dear even in the West…..
Lavrenti Pávlovich is saying that suddenly I have even a Spanish great-granddaughter…..
If so, perhaps I go back, would like to meet the girl….
Ironic that one can reliably judge whether someone of importance in the world outside of the United States and its “allies”, is worth a damn, by the degree of hatred and invective directed against that person. Using this standard, Joseph Vassarionevich Dzugishvili, must have been a very, very great man!
There are some people here criticizing Jimmy’s viewpoints, and surely no one is above criticism. But please if you’d go back to the start of his series, you’d much better understand his methods. He seeks to present facts that are not commonly (in the west) shown, and all within a limited format. Although as he himself quoted from Nietzsche, that when it comes to history “there are no facts, only interpretations”. He has also stated that curiosity is the mother of knowledge. So if he piqued your curiosity, all the better.
re: Stalin and his legacy: I leave this to the next generation of Russian historical scholars. But Putin did recently dedicate a memorial in Moscow to the victims of Stalinist regime ( ooooh, there is that no-no word: regime).
I find the utter sectarianism on this site and totally illogical statements rather amusing. As if the horrors of one brutal ruler as any bearing on the historical or moral assessment of another. As Stalin himself supposedly said: ” One unnatural death is a tragedy but the death of hundreds is a statistic” This is the Zeitgeist of the times, still.
What matters is those individual deaths of people and how they reverberated though out the families they left, the milieu they left a gap in, and so on throughout the generation of the time. This the Russians will decide and will decide if they ever want to do it that way again.
As for those who rant about Jewish control of the Bolscheviks—after Lenin’s death, party membership was thrown wide open and its composition altered. Game change.
As for Trotsky: sigh. He was wrong about many things –he romanticized unduly the working class and its ability to see past nationalistic prejudice and discounted “the peasantry” ( it was the people of the land who saved Russia by their sacrifice in WWII) as a force to bind society together. The peasants were always feared in Russia by the ruling group which ever one happened to be in power. And as there were slave rebellions in the Western hemisphere much feared by the ruling groups and squashed ruthlessly, so too, there were peasant uprisings in Russia. Again, Russian scholars will asses these. Perhaps the speed in which action was taken against Mozgovoi, a rural based populist, was part of an archetype gut level response.
Archetypal moments happen: Like circa 1955 Southern USA, when I sat in a railroad car with my brother’s hand firmly over my mouth ( even then the yappy one) as the white people sat deathly still in a pre lynch moment as a black man argued with a conductor who was bullying him. ( My mother before she, too, froze turned and hissed to my brother sitting beside me in the seat behind her—“Keep her quiet”)
There are certain things in a culture that are non verbal experiences common to that culture in place and time, and perhaps, only truly understood by those who lived them.
@As for those who rant about Jewish control of the Bolscheviks—after Lenin’s death, party membership was thrown wide open and its composition altered. Game change.
The Party lost its ‘purity’, soiled by the pesky ‘natives’ (Russians)? Is that why Stalin was declared an antisemite?
The subject of peasants is apropos when discussing Stalin, and his relationship to the early Bolshevik Party. During one of his exiles to Siberia, by the Tsarist regime, some of his Party “comrades” who were in exile with Stalin, criticized and mocked him, for spending time talking to, and fraternizing with, the peasants. They criticized Stalin for wasting his time. Of course, such a viewpoint only makes sense if one doesn’t consider peasants human beings.
Such an incident reveals a great deal about Stalin as a person, the friction between Stalin and the upper bourgeois class background of most early senior Bolsheviks, and the changes which occurred in the USSR and the Communist Party, starting in the late 1920s.
The insight to the intellectual and social development provided by Jimmie Moglia of Stalin is invaluable. Stalin’s intellectual development aside, Moglia does not address the Ukrainian deaths nor the gulags. Why? By omitting them is Moglia contending they did not exist? I think he does himself a disservice and takes away from his presentation by not taking this head on.
I am producing a documentary on Charles Lindbergh and the influence his populist Congressman father C.A. had on his son becoming the leader of the non interventionists in the run up to WWII. I have been intensely studying the WWI & WWI period and have come to the point where nothing surprises me any longer. I am very well aware of how Western historians present the “text book” facts of the two wars and the leaders.The saker provides invaluable forum and an opportunity to present and expand on the work of such revisionists as Beard, Tansill, Raico and Denson to name just a few. I was surprised to discover, although yet to confirm, that the famous Reichstag fire was not set by the Nazis but by communist agitators. Would appreciate more info on this…
But back to Moglia’s Stalin, one of the more interesting facts was that the Russian Revolution was a top down movement. Having always been a great admirer of Russian culture, especially their literary history I now have an even greater appreciation thanks to Moglia. So, the question still remains; was Stalin the mass murderer he is portrayed as being in the Western media or has Stalin received the same PR that has succeeded in equating Hitler as evil incarnate? Let me briefly explain the Hitler statement. It has become quite evident, beyond a reasonable doubt that Hitler, for all his shortcomings, was not the maniac he has been portrayed as being and that he did not want war with the West. Hitler actually had the greatest admiration for England and especially America. (FDR’s social programs were based on German National Socialism) There are many instances to back this statement, one being the Battle of Dunkirk. The Germans overwhelmed the English army with the entire army pinned against the Channel, essentially prone and helpless, Hitler decided to let them go. Now, if he was planning an invasion of England why would he of done that? Never mind the fact that Hitler repeatedly was rebuffed in his many attempts to sue for peace. Keep in mind that the first trains for Auschwitz did not roll until 18 months after the fall of France. The invasion of Poland was occurred after the Poles refusal to negotiate a highway and railroad line to the Baltic that German was willing to finance and lease back from the Poles. You have to dig long and hard to discover the behind the scenes guarantees from FDR and Britain that kept Poland from negotiating.
So, it is most interesting to be presented by this alternative view of Stalin and look forward to The Saker’s response.
Hitler = Just another braindead Westerner practicing ‘European values’.
Very thoughtful. For those who care to read about them secondhand, the documents related to the Nazi era which were opened to public inquiry after 1995, might force them to regard Hitler differently.
This stream of dialog is about Stalin and the times he lived in. It would be interesting to watch and listen to Moglia convey his impressions of Hitler, should he ever try to do so.
“Unfortunately for not-Russian speaking
people it is hard to follow the internal
debate, since the English publications who
are pretending to give another view of
present day Russia, like RT, Sputnik, Russia
Insider a.o., only give the view of the
present Russian elite and totally ignore this
aspect. It will be interesting to see what
they will make of the 100 year aniversary of
the Russian Revolution. But I have no
optimistic feelings about that.”
I have little or no idea of internal Russian perspectives, but I do have one on how the West has been ‘inoculated’ against communism: decades of post-war Western propaganda are not going to disappear overnight.
Nor is the ground currently fertile in which to sow the seeds of worker revolt: advanced de-industrialization, technology, service/consumer economy, perpetual discontent through media and indoctrination make for a very different world from Stalin’s time. Marx would forget trying to define ‘the means of production’ – he would probably be Michael Hudson.
The pro-Russian English media you mention are a kind of ‘halfway house’, which, while they don’t challenge capitalism, do at least reduce the perceptual divide between Russia and the Western countries (the Latin Americans have a much better grasp of the propaganda machine, which is why they have been targeted much more intensively.)
More problematic is the anomaly that is China: a communist system that enthusiastically pursues a capitalist oligarch-generating economy , and class-exploitation. Worker conditions in this, the workshop of the world, are far from ideal.
Even if Xi seeks a better future for workers, the cognitive dissonance remains, making it much easier for Western antagonists to equate communism with totalitarianism and inequality, Figures such as Stalin become much easier to taint as emblems of repression, not egalitarianism as a result.
It would be a good idea for Russian historians to collect a broad range of memoirs from the Russian population that lived under the Soviet and use these English outlets to publish them: if they don’t, set up sites themselves. And, in the interests of objectivity, include debates between those regret its passing and those who don’t.
I am disappointed. A bunch of anecdotes, most familiar, not an analysis of Stalin’s life and politics. His accent got heavier with each episode, which made it painful to listen. While I agree generally with his interpretation of Ribbentrop Molotov pact, his claim that eastern parts of pre wwii Poland were historically Russian is dubious.
I have to say I’ll take Stalin and Mao over Hitler, exactly because their crimes whatever they were, were committed against their own societies as opposed to aggression against others like today’s Empire. I am not excusing them, but what Stalin and Mao did might be considered a price payed for transforming backward, feudal societies into modern industrial ones.
Skeptic,
I’ll comment on two of your entries:
First of all, “Russian Lands” the statement depends on who you are talking to and how far back you go. Going back to VII century and later, these lands were called “Red Russia”, hence Russian lands. The lands called today by Polish people “Litwa – Lithuania” were attached to Polish crown by marriage. Interestingly enough, it was the Polish queen Jadwiga who died giving birth to the child of “Litwin’ Prince” Jagiełło, otherwise called Rus. In my mind, since the teritory was a private property of a king, shouldn’t the kingdom be called Russian-Lithuanian instead of Polish?
Okay this is just to throw some wood in the fire.
As for the Stalin and Mao, it all boils down to “Communist Manifest” and the philosophy behind it. Which one you ask? The one that goes thousand or so years back, which claims “convert or die”, and no it has nothing to do with Christianity.
Today we have guys like Bush say: “you are with us or against us”, just a wordage, right? Well, million or so Iraqi lives later …
In my mind one or 460,000 (Syria) or million (Iraq) or 20-60 (Russia, China) makes no difference in my understanding of crimes against humanity.
That’s all I have to say.
Well, Jagiello was Lithuanian, hence Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. The territories of Lithuania, Belarus and Western Ukraine were controlled by Polish crown until 1793. The Commonwealth was a multinational state as is Russia now. The cities and towns were typically Polish and Jewish while countryside was local population. Not sure if many people spoke Russian. In the 19 century there were several uprisings against Russia. Vilnius and Lvov were Polish cities.
Regarding Hitler and today’s Empire I feel strongly against external aggression, the ultimate crime according the the Nuremberg trials.
@Skeptic
Close enough, but not quite. This was not a commonwealth. This was a Polish-Lithuanian Union, where Lithuania being the junior partner, and the Polish king ruled them all. Jagiełło was a Ruskiy Kniaz, whether you like it or not. You can read polish texts regarding the battle of Grunwald, which spell out that Jagiełło provided his Russians from Litwa. Territories of modern Ukraine and Bialorus never existed as countries or kingdoms and thus never had official status in the Polish Crown. Jews while plentiful had no say in the affairs. This lasted until Poland was divided into three between Tsaritsa Katerina (Russia) – Prussia – Austria, the year mentioned by you. Those lands (Rus) then became part of Russia, except for Galicja and some parts to the south which were grabbed by Austria.
Regards,
@Skeptic
To finish this off, I found an interesting Polish article on the Polish-Lithuanian Union:
http://www.wawrzak.org/geneza_uni_polski_litwy.htm
(which is tytled: The Genesis of Polish-Lithianian Union)
Somewhere down it says, and I quote:
” … szanowanie ruskiej tradycji, t. zw. “stariny”. Istniała ogromna przewaga ilościowa i kulturalna ludności ruskiej nad litewską. Z tą tolerancją wiąże się fakt, że książęta litewscy, którzy panowali na zienliach ruskich, przyjmowali chrzest ruski. ”
I translate:
” .. respecting Russian tradition, known as “starina – oldness in russian”. Existed huge numeric advantage and kultural of russian population over Lithuanian. This resulting in the fact that Lithuanian princes ruling over the Russian lands, were accepting Russian baptism” .
This is a small example justifying the words of Stalin regarding lands being Russian.
This simply undermines modern popular correctness, and false nation-hoods.
My apologies and respects.
back2freedom,
” Well they are both mass murderers ” >>
Same old AngloZionist academicians’ plot – equating Nazi genocide with Soviet repression ! Repeating nonsense does not make any sense.
By definition “genocide” is an art which was perfected by all Germanic tribes who originally destroyed the Roman civilisation, and from 500 AD to 1450 AD established themselves in all regions what is now call as west, north, central Europe. The same Germanic tribes spread over North America, South America, Oceania, Africa between 1500 to 1900 AD.
GENOCIDE was carried out by BRITISH ELITES in North America, Australia, south region of Africa, south region of Asia ;
by SPANISH & PORTUGESE ELITES in South America ;
by FRENCH ELITES in north region of Africa and in south-east region of Asia ;
by DUTCH ELITES in south-east region of Asia ;
in comparison, GERMAN ELITES had much less time to get indulged in GENOCIDE in east region of Europe between 1940 to 1945 and in south region of Africa between 1880 to 1918;
History, as we know, does not mention any genocide by the original Slavic tribes of east Europe !
If anything, Soviet (Russians/Ukrainians/Belarusian) peoples lost 25 million lives to save the world from Fascism (created and nourished by AngloZionist aristocracy of USA, UK, France to bring destruction in USSR).
Just a reminder – please no caps its like screaming – saker site moderation policy. If you click on the plus sign when writing comments it gives you several opitons like bold, italics etc. to highlight points. Next caps will go to trash. Mod on Duty
First you quote me, and then you immediately go to attack a point that I didn’t make. I’m really curious in that case why bother quoting?
I said Stalin is a mass murderer, not that he carried genocides. A lot of ethnic groups accuse Stalin of genocide, but given the sheer number of ethnic groups that were decimated I think it is safe to defend Stalin on this front because he obviously carried indiscriminate mass murder.
Also the quality of your post and the other posts is very low, no evidence of anything, no sources, just blindly spitting at people you don’t know. I happen to love Russia and I love Putin. I don’t care what you think. I just have the view that the Russian people have better future with Freedom, not under state totalitarianism.
Back on Stalin’s mass murders.. In one of Putin’s shows where he answers questions live on national TV someone asked him is it true that Soviet union killed 43 million russians, not counting wars. Putin said he didn’t know that, and that the head of KGB can better answer that question. The KGB said they didn’t have the exact number ready, and Putin promised that KGB will report next week. So next week all Russia is listening, and KGB comes and admits that the number is about right, but many of the deaths in the gulag were not really murders but people dying from cold and starvation, which he said can be considered ‘natural causes’. The police grabs you out of your house and family and loads you like cattle on a train and you go to the gulag, where they don’t clothe you or feed you, and you die from natural causes.
Wow,I’m impressed. You’ve managed to surpass even the most talented Western disinformation propagandist with those figures. Usually when they get close to that number in their propaganda,at least they include the war dead.
Western drivel, void and trivial.
The Western petty bourgeoisie would be quite happy to see Russians wiped off the face of the Earth. On this basis, their ceaseless howling against Stalin is explained by at least one of the below proposals; maybe both:
a) Stalin was no Anglo; hence not entitled to slaughter Russians.
b) As suggested by the rapid population growth throughout the Stalin years, there were no mass murders — that’s precisely what pisses the Western petty bourgeoisie. The rest is Western wet dreams.
Straight-Bat
I don’t follow.
It is true that political discourse in the West reeks of hypocrisy. Some massacres happened, others we don’t talk about. So Pol Pot – bad. Suharto – our friend and ally. Likewise, Stalin – bad, and numbers can be plucked out of the air and multiplied by ten to arrive at estimates of his victims.
It is also true that every European imperial power in the modern age has been guilty of mass slaughter. Germany arrived late, as you say. It couldn’t do otherwise. It only came into existence in the late 19th century. It made up for lost time. In listing the guilty, you seem to be keen to exonerate Germany for some reason. (By the way, the Germanic tribes can be accused of massacres, rape and pillage etc. but not genocide – they did not systematically try to wipe out the peoples they conquered.)
It is also true that Soviet sacrifice defeated the Nazis. The Nazis were not created by any “AngloZionist” aristocracy (even putting to one side the anachronism of the phrase). Many supported them and saw them as a bulwark against the Communists. Big business did business with them. German industrialists thought they could manage them. Many liked the idea of the Nazis and the Soviets destroying each other. Nevertheless, the US and the British Empire fought Germany because they determined that it was in their interests to do so.
(It is not obvious that the question of massacres by Slavic tribes is relevant.)
It is true that many academics allow their research to follow what is politically correct.
Nevertheless, all the above has been studied in detail from many different perspectives, politically correct and incorrect and everywhere in between, and written up so that you can learn from all the work that has been done. I do not see why Stalin and the Soviet Union should not be subject to the same scrutiny. You can be as scathing as you like about shoddy research, politically motivated manipulation of evidence, selective attention to some facts and not others etc. But it is not a good idea to shout down anyone and everyone who dares criticise Stalin. It is unlikely to get you to an accurate assessment of what he did.
Ewan,
” I do not see why Stalin and the Soviet Union should not be subject to the same scrutiny. ” >>
I am in 100% agreement with this statement of yours. Definitely every incident and action during the three decades of (approximately 1923 to 1953) Stalin era should be studied thoroughly and critically.
” you seem to be keen to exonerate Germany for some reason ” >>
Not at all – I mentioned they carried out genocide during pre-WW I period of south region of Africa and during WW II period of east region of Europe.
” By the way, the Germanic tribes can be accused of massacres, rape and pillage etc. but not genocide ” >>
There can’t be anything more outrageous than this statement from you … Anglo-saxons wiped out entire north American and Australian tribes – anglo-saxons are also part of Germanic tribes.
” The Nazis were not created by any “AngloZionist” aristocracy (even putting to one side the anachronism of the phrase). Many supported them and saw them as a bulwark against the Communists. ” >>
Whatever may be your wish-list the historical fact is “AngloZionist” aristocracy (specifically the bankers and industrialists) created and nourished Nazis so that they can manipulate Hitler as “a bulwark against the Communists” (to borrow your words).
Irony is, as we discuss now, even today the same incidents are getting repeated. The “AngloZionist” aristocracy forgot that, ‘history repeats itself first as a tragedy. then as a farce.’
Straight-Bat
Talk of the European imperial powers of the last five hundred years as “Germanic tribes” seems to imply that, similarly, to study Stalin’s rule from 1923 (approximately) requires us to study the “Slavic tribes” who came to Europe from out of the same Eurasian mists of time as the “Germanic tribes”. I would like to think that you agree that this is silly. In studying Stalin, it is more useful to concentrate on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with maybe a quick survey of Tsarist autocracy and of the roots of capitalism in Western Europe, but surely not the first millennium AD. And in studying the European imperial powers, likewise, the last five hundred years is more germane than the first millennium AD. I grant you that the first half of the second millennium will be relevant in studying the emergence of the imperial powers and in trying to answer how they came to be so uniquely powerful and lethal. Again, talk of “Germanic tribes” brings precisely nothing to the discussion.
“There can’t be anything more outrageous than your statement…” is, therefore, also, clearly, silly.
The “German elites had much less time to indulge in genocide” sounded like distinguishing them from the others as slightly less heinous. I’m glad we can agree that a massacre is a massacre and genocide, genocide.
Talk of an “Anglo-Zionist aristocracy” creating the Nazis seems to me as uninformative as calling the European imperial powers “Germanic tribes”. It hides more than it reveals. The rise of the Nazis has been chronicled in detail. It seems to me counterproductive to conceal that detail under thought-stultifying sloganising.
(So, for example, some Zionists tried to collaborate with the Nazis once they were in power (to persuade German Jews to join the Yishuv). Many more tried to persuade other countries, in particular the US, to do something, anything, to save the German Jews (before the War) and (during the War) all European Jews. That they failed does not make it sensible to say that they “created” the Nazis. If by “Anglo” and “aristocracy” you mean the British aristocracy, you surely know that in the 1930s they were divided in their opinion of the Nazis, and that some of those you might classify as pro-Nazi were in fact intent only on safeguarding the Empire… but as you are, perhaps, aware, there is any amount of complication attaching to any interpretation of your slogan that comes anywhere close to coming into contact with the real world… What then is the purpose of the slogan other than to vent and feel righteous?)
Ewan,
You can’t bring in the fact that the same “eurasian mists of time” about five thousand years back gave rise (after long and continuous synthesis) to both “Germanic” and “Slavic” group/branch, simply because, as the ancient (500 AD onwards) history shows, the socio-cultural norms and socio-political structure of both the groups became very divergent as their trail of movement/migration differed. Hence, my discreet logic of mentioning how destructive/genocidal the aristocrats of “Germanic” tribes during past 500 years towards the aboriginals of ‘America’ and ‘Australia’ continents as compared to how accommodative the aristocrats of “Slavic” tribes (Russian) during past 500 years for the aboriginals of ‘Asia’ (central and north Asia) continent is well-founded (you may like to do some study how the Mongol, Kazakh elites got absorbed within the Russian aristocracy when Russian empire spread its wings).
If i have to accept your logic, then we will find it difficult to differentiate among any community / ethnicity, because ancestors of all living homo sapiens arrived out of south-central African forest about 50000 years back.
I don’t know why you are time and again pointing out that i’m trying to be biased towards German Nazi aristocracy ! Undoubtedly, they were mass murderers who carried out genocides in east Europe (of Jew, Roma, Pole, Russian people) and in south region of Africa (Namibia, correct me if i’m wrong). What i meant is, British, Spanish, Portugese aristocrats indulged in genocide for far longer duration resulting in far more significant demographic changes (than what German aristocrats achieved).
Coming to the subject of “Anglo-Zionist aristocracy” creating the Nazis. Your statements remind me of a golden rule followed by professionals: If you cant convince the opposite side (because of lack of facts), confuse them. Let me sum-up response in two points:
(1) formation of “Anglo-Zionist clique” which draws elites/aristocrats of banking/trading/industry/landowning background has been centuries old process. Undoubtedly, all founding members of Bilderberg Group like the British and Dutch monarch /familiesy were/are key components of the “Anglo-Zionist clique”.
(2) the rise of the Nazis, right from Hitler’s life in prison (long before he was ‘selected’ to lead government) is well-documented but least studied. And, if anyone forgets to count the cooperation between Nazi leaders and AngloZionists, he/she is trying to become ‘selectively’ informative.
(3) even if the AngloZionist clique created-groomed-controlled the Nazi government, (Rudolf Hess was held as a captive during WW II by the AngloZionist clique, and got killed before he was to be set free with Soviet government was decidedly on the retreat before dissolution of Warsaw Pact and USSR), it could not control Hitler’s genocidal instincts against the east European population including Jews.
How strange that, anybody / everybody from west Europe, 5-Eyes, Israel comment passionately on Hitler’s genocide against Jews – almost none of them mentions Hitler’s genocide against Roma, Russian and Pole peoples ! It is probably because, the elites/academicians/ intellectuals ‘belonging to’ or ‘feeling affinity with’ AngloZionist causes, still continue to feel about the final betrayal of Hitler when he want genocidal against the Jews (which, by design, was not to be) !
A most excellent article followed by an equally, mentally stimulating comment section. With all those excellent links we need a longer day. A quick off topic comment if I may. Concerning Herr Hitler and comrade Stalin, they were pikers compared to America the Babylon, et alia, the United States of America. Two short links, case in point. (abc. net.au/news/2014-11-10/us-military-deployments-map/5875274 ** academic. evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html ) We champion the genocide cause. Saying that, the ancient (to current) history of the landmass we now call Russia is most fascinating. Concerning Hitler and Stalin, they must not only be examined in the context of their time but also with consideration of the hidden hands guiding them. Example: Was Stalin a result of a joint U.S/Russian military action ca. 1863?
A brutal murdered, dictator and thug. But that was yesterday, plus, it wasn’t done to me.
So yeah. Then you apologists excuse the evil. Its quite easy to deal with 20 million dead.
The whole population of the earth replenishes every 80 years or so.
And again the communists come out with ‘Stalin wasn’t a real Marxists’ garbage.
Nobody is ever a Marxist once the evil, failure and destruction set in. Then its something else.
Before that though, Marxism is ever tarnished. So wash rinse and try again. Disgusting.
The life of a butcher.
HLD,
You are right !
Stalin’s life is the life of a butcher of AngloZionist oligarchy and Fascists and pseudo-socialist trolls !
Haha, butcher indeed. Hitler and the Nazi soldiery on the Eastern front were to find that out as few other Westerners. Stalin has left an indelible mark on the psychotic West ever since. Putin evokes the same emotions for very similar reasons: Crimea, Donbass, Palmyra…
Nussiminen,
You could have added another line –
President Putin actually conveyed to the Turkish consulate officer in August 2015 something like ‘Aleppo will become Syria’s Stalingrad’. He proved it rather quickly by February 2016.