• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Defending Stalin?

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Historical accuracy is always valuable. But I've also found that strong emotions color how we view basic facts so that needs to be taken into account as well.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Worth discussing.

Of course I would say that.

The existential dread of people confusing defending historical accuracy and taking the side of the "enemy" is something I've never been able to put to rest. People may say they don't like political correctness, buts it ussually because they like cheap talk and attention. When it comes down to really serious stuff, the moral outrage, hysteria and instinct to conform kick back in. I understand it and I can even respect it given what Communists including Stalin have done, but I don't like it when it becomes dishonest. It alarms and angers me because unless you are willing to ask "dangerous" questions you don't know how deep the dishonesty goes.

Red-baiting isn't what it used to be, but when you hit Stalin reason goes out the window.
 
Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

Not sure there is a great risk of falsifying history as most popular history in general is already distorted to a pretty high degree :grimacing:

Not sure I can say it is important to question the 'official version' of history as it tends to have very little effect, but normatively it is the right thing to do.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?
Of course.

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?
Questioning is always right.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?
It's always worth trying to preserve and present historical accuracy. However, with Stalin, Lenin, and communism in general, it's an uphill battle.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

Worth discussing.
I've read quite a bit specifically on Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot for the exact reasons you suggest.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Seriously?

  • All those in favor of accuracy regarding Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot raise your hand.
  • All those in favor of normalizing Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot raise your hand.

And then there's Trump who reminds us that there's good and bad on both sides.
 

Srivijaya

Active Member
I think for me the greatest enigma is in how a set of ideas intended to foster equality and end exploitation ended up being so brutal when put into practice.

Setting aside the capitalist anti-communist hysteria and propaganda, we're still left with a huge body count. Everyone who wanted out was shot. Paradise was not optional.

Unusual.
 

socharlie

Active Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?
It worth to uncover real truth, absolutely. I am about 99.99% sure that it is impossible.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

I agree. I've always felt that it's better to take an objective, dispassionate view about history. There are lessons which we can learn from history, but if we view many of the villains of history as strange anomalies who just popped up out of nothing (or some kind demonic spawn), then I don't believe such lessons will be very useful.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

There are actually some people I've known who have never even heard of Stalin.

But I can't imagine why anyone would feel threatened by Stalin today. The man has been dead for over 60 years.

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

Some of it might also depend on where some of these reactions come from and why. Some people might simply be shocked by the sheer numbers of victims involved, as if determining the most evil villain in history is simply a matter of looking at a scoreboard of number of people killed. Then there are those who might claim that the number of victims is "exaggerated" so as to make it seem lesser than it really was. But I don't know that using a scoreboard to gauge historical events is very helpful or informative, at least in terms of learning the lessons of history so that we don't repeat it.

Stalin could never have come to power if Lenin had not come to power, and Lenin could not have come to power if not for Tsar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm. It's probably the same for Hitler, when you really come down to it. Mao could never have come to power if not for Western imperialism in China, which also had corrupt, incompetent, tyrannical leadership prior to Mao. (General Marshall tried to go over to China to mediate between the Nationalists and the Communists, and he was equally disgusted by both sides.) When it comes to Pol Pot and dictators of that stature, I see them as the result of resentment and a direct consequence to Western colonialism.

I think that's really where a lot of historical accuracy is lost, since a lot of people see it more as disconnected events and a series of villainous individuals, without really looking at the cumulative causes and effects that come about.

I try to explain this to some of the more rigid anti-communists and get nothing but blank stares. My point would be, if you don't want someone like Stalin to come to power, then it would be in your best interests to support better wages, better working conditions, and a better standard of living for all. Those who go against that because they think it's "socialism" are missing the barn by a mile and a half.

I think of a quote attributed to Tsar Nicholas while he was being held by the Bolsheviks just before his execution: "He's not a monster. I've never known a heart without some murder in it. I made these men. They are our Russians. I am responsible for what they are. I let them starve. I put them in prisons. And I shot them. If there's hatred in them now, I put it there. But they ARE filled with love. And mercy, too. You must remember that."

So, if there's a lesson to be learned from all of this, it's that people should not abused or mistreated to the point where they are filled with nothing but hatred.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

Yes.

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

No, I don't think historical accuracy should be sacrificed. As far as what is inherently dangerous or taboo, that's a tough question. I think it should be based on principles and consistent application of those principles. That's where the problem comes in. If we say "Stalin was evil because he killed a lot of people," then we'd have to say the same about many other leaders, some of whom are honored and revered in their own countries. If we say "Stalin was more evil because he killed more people," then that's a "scoreboard" argument which isn't very principled. It's like saying it's okay to kill one or a million, but if you kill ten million or more, that's "evil." It's a silly argument advanced by silly people.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?
Traditional history is always subjective interpreting history in context to its momentand always changing!!! Since accuracy has zero to do with it I vote stalin was a moron. Yea yea yea I know it's complex but still Stalin was a moron regardless. He is lucky he had Hitler, that guy now forget it, no revising needed at all not complex even.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?
...or...
2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

Absolutely to both- to anything or anyone, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is like not looking into a mirror lest you see a blemish.

Positive:
If it weren't for Russia and Stalin there would have been a lot more casualties for the western allies and WWII probably would have been lost
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

Don't forget Lysenkoism - Wikipedia. An exert:

Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison or fired,[3] and numerous scientists were executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents.

Soooooo progressive! ;)
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?

...or...

2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

Historic accuracy should always be preserved when discussing anyone. Otherwise its not history, It's fiction or simply opinion. I would rather know the truth even if I end up not liking it.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.

2748.jpg


However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.

Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".

If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.

So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:

1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?
..or...
2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?

Whose history? It is very difficult to check veracity of rumour data (propaganda) on which perceptions are created by the powerful. OTOH, one can find the following account:

In the 1960s, anti-Soviet propaganda originally published in Nazi Germany, was republished by a former British secret service agent named Robert Conquest under the more respectable cloak of Harvard University. In his 1969 book ‘The Great Terror’ Conquest puts the number of ‘Stalin’s victims’ (in inverted commas) at ‘between 5 and 6 million’.

But by the 1980s, Conquest was alleging that there had been in 1939 a total of 25 to 30 million prisoners in the Soviet Union, that in 1950 there had been 12 million political prisoners.

But when, under Gorbachev, the archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU were opened up to researchers, it was found that the number of political prisoners in 1939 had been 454,000, not the millions claimed by Conquest.

However, it is really very difficult to verify the correctness of numbers. What is certain is that Stalin and Beria were murdered by Stalin’s internal opponents. Stalin had to contend with ruthless external and internal foes throughout and it seems that eventually and inevitably he lost out. There is evidence that many of the known executions were actually carried by internal foes and blamed upon Stalin. I think that the complexity of the situation was so enormous that disturbing distortions were inevitable.
 
Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison or fired,[3] and numerous scientists were executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents.

Reminds me of this:


“Why did you execute Bogrov?”

“Why? Because of the submarine question,” said Ivanov. “It concerned the problem of tonnage” “—an old quarrel, the beginnings of which must be familiar to you.

“Bogrov advocated the construction of submarines of large tonnage and a long range of action. The Party is in favour of small submarines with a short range. You can build three times as many small submarines for your money as big ones. Both parties had valid technical arguments. The experts made a big display of technical sketches and algebraic formulae; but the actual problem lay in quite a different sphere. Big submarines mean: a policy of aggression, to further world revolution. Small submarines mean coastal defense—that is, self-defense and postponement of world revolution. The latter is the point of view of No. 1, and the Party.

“Bogrov had a strong following in the Admiralty and amongst the officers of the old guard. It would not have been enough to put him out of the way; he also had to be discredited. A trial was projected to unmask the partisans of big tonnage as saboteurs and traitors. We had already brought several little engineers to the point of being willing to confess publicly to whatever we liked. But Bogrov wouldn’t play the game. He declaimed up to the very end of big tonnage and world revolution. He was two decades behind the times. He would not understand that the times are against us, that Europe is passing through a period of reaction, that we are in the hollow of a wave and must wait until we are lifted by the next. In a public trial he would only have created confusion amongst the people. There was no other way possible than to liquidate him administratively. Would not you have done the same thing in our position?”


Arthur Koestler. “Darkness at Noon.”
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is a good response.
It's very nice to see informed and reasonable discourse coming out of threads like these.

@Stevicus response echo'es my own thinking on this subject and I'm happy to see it. :)

This was not the reaction to the thread I was expecting at all. My experiences all pointed to the conclusion that this was going to be a ****-fest of epic proportions. It's what I wanted but we'll have to see how it goes.

I don't expect to get an even remotely accurate historical evaluation of Stalin from a realistic moral perspective.

Anti-sovietism has left boundaries in people's opinions in a very rigidly defined way.
The only two major worldviews you can encounter on Stalin are that he was one of the worst people to ever exist and murdered people just for the sake of prolonging his own cult of personality, or the Grover Furr worldview where he did nothing wrong ever.

Both views seem too convenient a propaganda narrative to seem true to me.

I think we can only expect a realistic appraisal of him when those who experienced hell in the USSR and their children are no longer around. Questioning the hegemonic view on Stalin really just makes one seem like a "stalinist".

I think the problem is that you won't get an accurate view of Stalin because using him as a "devil" figure is too convenient for the ruling class. Calling someone a Stalinist is much like calling someone a racist or sexist (or a fascist for that matter); it doesn't matter if the accusation is true because using the term is a way of shutting down the conversation. The myth is very powerful and most biographies of Stalin will fall in to the first category and you get roughly the same arguments repeated over and over again.

I have looked around the second view and whilst I don't agree with it, it has highlighted the gross level of distortion and how almost any anti-stalinist/anti-soviet idea is accepted without much thought. We tend to believe the absolute worst without really understanding what is going on.

I think for me the greatest enigma is in how a set of ideas intended to foster equality and end exploitation ended up being so brutal when put into practice.

Setting aside the capitalist anti-communist hysteria and propaganda, we're still left with a huge body count. Everyone who wanted out was shot. Paradise was not optional.

Unusual.

Its a fascinating question and is one that will outlive any communist dictatorship. There are some really big lessons from history if people can figure out the answer to why all those "good intentions" became one of the most barbaric dictatorships in human history. Unfortunately is rarely goes key phases like "human nature", "lack of incentives", "totalitarianism" and "communism failed", etc and people just take them as a given without really thinking about it.
 
Top