quote:

---

Mr Putin has complained that the negative view of the Soviet past in current history textbooks is down to the fact that the authors received foreign grants to write them.

Now, the Kremlin claims it wants to change that situation and a recommissioning of Russia's history textbooks is under way. A handbook for teachers, on the basis of which a future textbook for students could be written, is called The Modern History of Russia, 1945-2006. Only one of the authors is a professional historian. The book calls Joseph Stalin a "contradictory" figure, and states that while some people consider him evil, others recognise him as a "hero" for his role in the Great Patriotic War (the Second World War) and his territorial expansion.

---

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
29 percent of Russians disapproved of Stalin in an opinon poll last year. However, 47 percent approved of Time Magazine's man of the year in the same survey. By North American electoral standards, that's a majority. With those kinds of numbers, our two old line parties might consider Joe Stalin more electable than either Stephane Harper or Stephen Dion.

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
hmmm "a balanced assessment of Stalin". While we are at it, should we also have a "balanced assessment" of Hitler?

---

You should learn to quote properly - it's as simple as "copy and paste".

I said "a balanced assessment of the Soviet Union under Stalin". That would include an assessment of how the Soviets managed to defeat the Nazi onslaught (my personal chief concern) after having spent almost two years in denial, from September 1939 to June 1941.

I'm not really interested in assessing Stalin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
OK, and while we're at it, let's have a balanced assessment of Germany under Hitler. I hear he conquered all of France in a week and made the trains run on time.

---

Not only do you see the world in "good" vs. "evil" terms - you have a regrettable tendency to reverse them in some cases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
OK, and while we're at it, let's have a balanced assessment of Germany under Hitler. I hear he conquered all of France in a week and made the trains run on time.

---

There would be some benefits to a so-called balanced assessment of Germany under Hitler. I see it all the time in discussions, and I think the general public would benefit from a clearer idea of what's similar, and what's different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
The fact that the Soviet Army was victorious in WW2 does not vindicate Stalin's actions.

---

I agree. Stalin, along with others in the leadership of that country, committed terrible crimes, which have been documented. But those crimes are used by some to negate the whole experience of the Soviet Union - indeed, to put a sign of equality between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That's just as wrong as trying to gloss over Stalin's crimes.

There are two different interpretations of "balanced" floating here.
A researcher who tries to do a dispassionate, comprehensive analysis of historical persons or events can be said to attempt a "balanced assessment"

That does not mean the researcher is saying (as some seem to think) that the "good" "balances" out with the "evil" in the research subject, although, an overall negative or posititive value assignment may be the result of an attempt at a "balanced assessment".

Research that is only determined by a conclusion is not research --that is the provence of the propagandist.

As to the story itself, the greatest evidence of a backward move to Stalinism is not the acknowledgment that Stalin is a "contradictory" figure (it's hard to be completely negative about the defense of one's homeland against Hitler) it is the government's (i.e.Putin's) top down propaganda dictate on how history should be written and taught in the schools. And that is really only the tip of the iceberg in the increasingly repressive regime. Russia has reinstituted a number of cold war activities from nuclear bomber flights etc, All of which can be seen as ominously indicating a return to Stalinism.
---------
And that is where those who scoff at "balanced assessment" stop.
And that is indeed where The West's propaganda system stops as it portrays this Russian regression and cold war mentality in a vacuum--with horror and feigned bewilderment. The causative factors (and most important,the remedies)are suppressed or shunted to page 12.

But a "balanced assessment" might include:

August 9, 2007
US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance
by Paul Craig Roberts

"This week the Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles. The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance.

This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China.

Cynics believe that the neocons are just shills, like Bush and Cheney, for the military-security complex and are paid to restart the cold war for the sake of the profits of the armaments industry. But the fact is that the neocons actually believe their delusions about American hegemony.

Russia and China have now witnessed enough of the Bush administration's unprovoked aggression in the world to take neocon intentions seriously. As the US has proven that it cannot occupy the Iraqi city of Baghdad despite 5 years of efforts, it most certainly cannot occupy Russia or China. That means the conflict toward which the neocons are driving will be a nuclear conflict.

In an attempt to gain the advantage in a nuclear conflict, the neocons are positioning US anti-ballistic missiles on Soviet borders in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is an idiotic provocation as the Russians can eliminate anti-ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. Neocons are people who desire war, but know nothing about it. Thus, the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war. However, US administrations after Reagan's have broken the agreements and understandings. The US gratuitously brought NATO and anti-ballistic missiles to Russia's borders. The Bush regime has initiated a propaganda war against the Russian government of Vladimir Putin.

These are gratuitous acts of aggression. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are trying to devote resources to their economic development, not to their militaries. Yet, both are being forced by America's aggressive posture to revamp their militaries.... "

pluses:

the heroic defense against Hitler
some measure of social benefits

minuses:

The setting up of a completely unjustified massive state security apparatus

The rigid adherence to the War Communist model, even though this was unnecessary after the defeat of the White Russian forces.

The pointless fixation with maintaining absolutely closed borders and forbidding the Soviet people from travel.

The destruction of the Soviet cultural scene through censorship.

The sabotauge of the antifascist cause in Spain(through Stalin's insistence on having the Brigades waste lives, time, money and ordnance fighting the POUM and the anarchists when they should only have fought against the Falange).
Had Stalin let the antifascists win, the siege of Leningrad would never have occurred and the lives of millions of Soviet citizens would have been spared(as well as all the victims of the Holocaust, since Hitler would have been overthrown in all liklihood if the fascists had lost in Spain.)

The refusal to allow a Popular Front until 1935, when it was too late to matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
minuses:

The setting up of a completely unjustified massive state security apparatus

---

Stalin was paranoid though, Ken. He was paranoid of western aggression against the revolution in the early 1920's before gaining power from Lenin. Can we imagine the paranoia he might have nurtured after western aggression part two was realized with Russia being the object of Hitler's disaffection ?.

Stalin pleaded with Churchill and Roosevelt for a second front for over two years. The official story on the Munich agreement was that our side didn't believe Russia could mount much of a defence against Nazi Germany. The history channel doc I viewed said the western leaders fully expected the Nazis to occupy the Kremlin in about six weeks time after start of barbarossa and the opening up of the Eastern front.

There is an interesting partial parallel to the portrayal by film director Sergie Eisenstein of the royal figure of Alexander Nevsky,whose "patriotic" defense of the motherland was deemed more important for propaganda than was his royalist system of rule.
Here is Wikipedia on Eisenstein's spectacular film:

"Alexander Nevsky was made during the Stalinist era, when the Soviet Union was at odds with Nazi Germany. Stalin directly requested that Eisenstein make a film that would warn the Soviet people of German aggression.[citation needed] The film contains many elements of propaganda that reflect the political situation of the 1930s. The helmets worn by the Teutonic soldiers resemble larger versions of German soldier helmets from the 20th century, while "in the first draft of the Alexander Nevsky script, swastikas even appeared in the invaders' helmets."[1] The film also shows Nevsky making peace with the Mongols, his old enemies, in order to face the Teutonic Knights, hinting at the necessity of making peace with the Western powers to deal with Nazi Germany.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

pluses:
the heroic defense against Hitler

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Oh, what's the use?

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Dog:

"Heroic" is a little strong, I'd say.

---

Actually, "Heroic" is a little weak.

The resistance of Russia to Hitler is possibly unparalleled in human history.

quote:

---

The resistance of Russia to Hitler is possibly unparalleled in human history.

---

How does it compare to, say, the resistance of Russia to Napoleon?

Or the resistance of Vietnam to China/Japan/France/USA?

I wonder why he keeps coming up 54 years later?

Its like the Hitler recurrences.

To me and mine , having lived the real Stalin experience and having been for the most part , wiped off the face of the planet , except for in fact , the torture endured struggle of my grandfather resulted in my being here to tell all of you that this is like someone from BC telling all of us how Clifford Olsen had a great credit rating.

I shake with repulsion at the mere mention of his name.

I understand the Jewish plight and many others.

I don't want to really hear how Stalin or Hitler was just a great motivator or set up this or that that's lasted or was anything more than a greedy disgusting horrible example of the worst the human animal can produce!

We need a federal election.
We are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for topics.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: salubrious ]

quote:

---

The resistance of Russia to Hitler is possibly unparalleled in human history.

Stalin was a monster without doubt, but don't sell the sacrifice of the Russian people short.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Oh, what's the use?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
You know, I've sat here for quite some time trying to come up with a reply to this thread and the defense of Stalin being offered here. And I simply cannot believe that anyone would be able to defend a genocidal madman. You might as well defend Hitler, while you're at it. Any defense of Stalin is a defense of totalitarianism in general. I am speechless, this board has lost any semblance of reason. Embraced the hate, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
Stalin was no Jimmy Carter.

---

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
But anything that in anyway softens the crimes of Stalin is an intellectual atrocity and completely dishonest.

---

We could mention deliberate genocide in Ukraine. And we would eventually have to make some comment on wealthy Kulaks who profited by Lenin's NEP reforms for free market farming and child labourers who broke their backs in the fields for them. Kulaks had farm tractors, but not many individual peasant farmers had them. Peasants had plots of land but had to till soil by their own sweat and toil. Many Ukrainians had no choice but to work for Kulaks. Potatoes were a main course and second course for very many in the late 1920's. There are varying stories of inclement weather the months leading up to famine, and there were stories describing Kulaks sabotaging farm equipment in protest of collectivization in 1928. It's clear that Stalin waged war on the Kulaks. Steel production for munitions and farm equipment was in desperate need. And those prophesying war were accurate in the end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
Why is it, that good people always want a prick to lead them?

---

What if Stalin hadn't been a prick ?. Would Hitler have been content to trade freely and fairly with a Kerensky or Trotsky led Russia ?.

Joe Goebbels wrote news stories about how Stalin was liquidating the middle class in the Soviet Union, and that Europe would be next. Many people did trust Hitler more than Stalin in the 1930's. Canada's Prime Minister at the time said after visiting Berlin in 1938 that Hitler had a "sweet face" and that his eyes were "liquid pools of integrity." Canadians knew then that Hitler was a leader we could all trust.

Tommy Douglas also visited Berlin in the late 30's and came back with a different opinion of Hitler.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
Why is it, that good people always want a prick to lead them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
Hitler was a Prick, as was Stalin. Germans are good people too.

---

killing of virtually the entire Polish resistence (even homegrown POlish communists) so he could ensure that only pro-Russian puppets would be in power in postwar Poland.

Ordering that Jan Masaryk the Czech social democrat be murdered and a coup staged to bring Stalinist thugs to power in Prague...this was followed by the viciously anti-semitic Slansky trials.

Blockading West Berlin and trying to starve it into submission

His insane delusional ravings about a "doctors plot" in the early 50s where he thought that Jewish doctors were trying to kill him...this also led to pogroms and attacks on Jews in Russia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

How does it compare to, say, the resistance of Russia to Napoleon?

Or the resistance of Vietnam to China/Japan/France/USA?

We should avoid meaningless propaganda claims.

---

This statement is based on ignorance of history. I assumed most people know about Russia's sacrifice in in WWII -- but perhaps not.

Russian dead in WWII were 26 million (link).

That's 1/2 or 1/3 of total casualities in the war, depending on what figures you use. (Canada lost 50,000 -- the US 500,000).

Resistance against Napoleon and against the US in Vietnam was also heroic -- why does pointing out the reality of WWII somehow negate these struggles? It doesn't, except in a strawman argument.

Again, Russia's resistance in WWII -- which came from the heart of the people, not Stalin -- was really unprecedented.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I think it is important to assess how the Soviets defeated the Nazi invasion, while no other country of Europe that was physically invaded was able to prevail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Any opinions?

---

That is like a whole series of threads. I could write for weeks on end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Any opinions?

---

I think the west considered Russia a weak ally against Hitler. All of them, including Hitler, misunderestimated the extent of the secret steel plants and factories churning out everything from farm tractors to munitions.

After the corporate sponsored war machine punched its way into the heart of Russia and laid siege to the gates of Leningrad, Stalingrad and stopped short a few dozen miles from Moscow, Stalin went home and awaited the people's assassins.

quote:

---

I think it is important to assess how the Soviets defeated the Nazi invasion, while no other country of Europe that was physically invaded was able to prevail.

---

This reminds me of a column written by Andrew Coyne in which he commented that "the Chinese, the Russians, the Germans and the French, who between them have never liberated a single country, including their own. How very sad. How unspeakably silly."Column

quote:

---

I think it is important to assess how the Soviets defeated the Nazi invasion, while no other country of Europe that was physically invaded was able to prevail.

---

simple:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liang Jiajie:

This reminds me of a column written by Andrew Coyne in which he commented that "the Chinese, the Russians, the Germans and the French, who between them have never liberated a single country, including their own. How very sad. How unspeakably silly."Column

If Stalin would not have pushed his five-year plans, Russia would not have been prepared to begin pushing out the German armies. His mass industrialization campaign allowed Russia to produce the armaments necessary to fight the German armies. On the other hand, he purged many officers whose knowledge might have shortened the Great Patriotic War.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

Other leaders could just as well have pushed industrialization without half the body count or loss of freedoms, uncluding our own.

---

note: this comment DOES NOT DEFEND STALIN

But wasn't industrialization in the West achieved through a high body count (enclosures, genocide against indigineous people, police massacres, enviromental catastrophe) and loss of freedoms (right to assembly, free speech, pre-capitalist social structures etc.)?

It took us a hundred years or more to get those freedom back. The Russians looked right on schedule there in the 1990s to do the same -- until the West intervened and pushed them into pauperdom.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

quote:

---

Other leaders could just as well have pushed industrialization without half the body count or loss of freedoms, uncluding our own.

---

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=+=-:

note: this comment DOES NOT DEFEND STALIN

But wasn't industrialization in the West achieved through a high body count (enclosures, genocide against indigineous people, police massacres, enviromental catastrophe) and loss of freedoms (right to assembly, free speech, pre-capitalist social structures etc.)?

---

Did you know that in 1941, the leader of Russia (ok ok, USSR) wasn't from Russia, and that the leader of Germany wasn't from Germany? And that a Georgian and an Austrian engaged in the largest land battles ever seen, and led their adoptive countries to ruin?

And did you know that IF the US repeals the 28th Amendment, as some wish, Arnold Schwarzenegger could become the US President, as prophesied in the movie Demolition Man? And that Arnold is from Austria, just like Hitler. What does this mean?

John Connor(T-III): The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. I wish I could believe that. My name is John Connor, they tried to murder me before I was born, when I was 13 they tried again. Machines from the future. Terminators.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And did you know that Tom Clancy wrote a novel in 1994 called "Debt of Honor", in which an airliner is deliberately crashed into the US Congress building? Maybe Tom Clancy gave this idea to the 9/11 terrorists, as some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
I must say, even the quality of trolling has gone downhill. Back in the days of yore we had to wait at least a few posts before figuring out if someone was at all serious.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
If you want to have real fun here try a little humour first, rather than obvious insults to others intelligence, let us know when youve figured out the difference.

---

See, there you go again. Now you're insulting me because I dare to have a little fun with conspiracy theories. Check out my comments on the SPP thread. They're serious. Do they meet with your oh-so-important standards, Erik?

quote:

---

Or is it all serious, comrades-in-arms, hang-the-rich, no time for joviality because it wastes energy needed for the revolution, and such...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:
Nor much comradeship present also.
But plenty of Liberal, "holier-than-thou", individual anger and sniping in the style of the PC hypocrytes in the US.

---

quote:

---

So I gather by your own theories then that Edoard Shevardnazi is the next inline for the Kremlin, or is he still among the breathing?

---

Heh,
Thats what I was gonna say. Good thinking Erik HalfaRed.

But, continuing in vein of conspiracies, isnt it entirely possible that another Georgian, Jimmy Carter may become a Russian or Chinese leader?
Bitter after being rejected in his USian homeland Im sure he's out for revenge
And like they said, he's considered history's greatest monster.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
Weird, Russia and East/Central Europe are still on a different rail gauge.

---

And Russia is supplying natural gas and oil to European markets. I believe Ukraine receives a better deal for Russian gas than Canadians do with Canadian gas sold to us by American-based companies handling it for us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I'm genuinely interested to know why we believe war communism in Russia was unnecessary after 1922.

---

Well...gee..."we" believe that once the Whites had been defeated, the USSR, while it still faced some internal disputes, faced nothing that was truly a mortal threat to its very survival(remember, this is before Hitler had emerged, in the early 20's), and certainly nothing that so jeopardized the Revolution that the Revolution had to completely abandon its humanity simply to remain in power(we could well ask if it was WORTH defending a state that had, as Stalin's state did, abandoned both its own humanity and the doctrine of internationalism as well, but that's another discussion).

The workers of Europe would have ensured that no further serious challenge to the survival of the Soviet Union would occur. While some measure of internal security was probably necessary, it was unnecessary to demonize all dissent and it was a disastrous mistake to continue bureaucratic control of the economy rather than let the workers take control of the means of production.

This may seem counterintuitive to you, Fidel, but the best way to secure the survival of the Soviet Union would have been to for its leaders to keep their actions consistent at all times with the Revolution's ideals. Those who would respond to this assertion by saying or even thinking "oh come on, you don't think the Soviets could actually ruled by hope rather than fear" are not in any true sense of the Left and never were.
This is why all Revolutions that are attempted now and in the future must avoid all the security made by those who followed the Soviet line.
A Revolution that has no heart ISN'T a Revolution at all. It's just one group of people killing another group of people and not worth anyone's time or sympathy.

As to your point about the Soviets industrializing by deliberately restricting production of consumer goods forget the fact that, in the end, the lack of consumer goods did as much to destabilize the Soviet state as any deviously clever foreign conspirator.

And, if nothing else, Fidel, can you at least agree with me that, once the Great Patriotic War was won, there was no excuse for any more repression in the Soviet Union, or for their incredibly stupid decision to impose a colonial occupation regime in Eastern Europe and desecrate the holy name of "socialism" by applying it to the Warsaw Pact?

I mean, at that point, fascism was forevermore defeated. Why couldn't Stalin do the decent thing and resign in 1945 to make way for socialism with a human face? Why was it that the Soviets could never actually TRUST the intellectuals, the artists, and the workers?

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Well...gee..."we" believe that once the Whites had been defeated, the USSR, while it still faced some internal disputes, faced nothing that was truly a mortal threat to its very survival(remember, this is before Hitler had emerged, in the early 20's), and certainly nothing that so jeopardized the Revolution that the Revolution had to completely abandon its humanity simply to remain in power

---

There is no truly mortal threat to our very survival and nothing that so jeopardizes our democracy that we have to completely abandon our humanity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

This may seem counterintuitive to you, Fidel, but the best way to secure the survival of the Soviet Union would have been to for its leaders to keep their actions consistent at all times with the Revolution's ideals. [...] A Revolution that has no heart ISN'T a Revolution at all. It's just one group of people killing another group of people and not worth anyone's time or sympathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Even if we leave the cold war aside and blame that on both the super powers, what is the excuse for North America to be on a war footing now. Security certificates, agent provocateurs, prisoner rendering to police states for torture, police executing mentally ill people in the streets for the crime of striking a police officer and on and on.

There is no truly mortal threat to our very survival and nothing that so jeopardizes our democracy that we have to completely abandon our humanity.

Don't get me wrong Stalin was a murderous asshole however your arguments if they apply to him also apply to the leaders at the SSP summit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And, if nothing else, Fidel, can you at least agree with me that, once the Great Patriotic War was won, there was no excuse for any more repression in the Soviet Union, or for their incredibly stupid decision to impose a colonial occupation regime in Eastern Europe and desecrate the holy name of "socialism" by applying it to the Warsaw Pact?

---

Okay good points all, but you're suggesting that the Soviets should have simply forgave and forgotten the patriotic war and the 30-40 million dead Russians by 1945 and not bother with moving the line of defence westward by the same layer of E. European countries where the Nazis began rounding up Jews and declaring local people enemies of the Third Reich. 50 - 83 million total dead and missing at the end of the war. As bad as the Soviets were, they sent oil and raw materials and humanitarian aid to developing countries like Cuba and Vietnam for far less than western market values. The U.S. and France? didn't give one thin dime to the Vietnamese for massive loss of life and destruction. This was at a time when countries could experience sudden political and economic difficulties for merely trading with COMECON nations.

What I'm saying is, yes, wonderful people's socialism in any large, oil-rich, natural resource abundant country sounds like a darned good idea certainly. But the Soviets didn't see it happening all that easily as what you're suggesting was possible. And neither did Arab nationalists who simply wanted to give lecherous British and western energy companies the boot in the 50's and 60's.

At the same time, the Soviets continued using a body count racked up by a fascist war of aggression against the revolution part two to justify an iron curtain for 40 years.

And the Yanks spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on Keynesian-militarism and waging proxy wars and surrounding the Soviets with nukes. I'm trying not to be half as condescending in my reply to you as you were with me, but I think you're off your rocker to suggest to us that anyone in Russia would have followed you in embracing openness with the fascist west, which is essentially what Russians thought of all western nations after that business with waiting over two years for a second front against Hitler. And if you don't believe me, then ask anyone who's been to Russia and visited any of their patriotic war museums or watched the still traditional military parades in any medium to large city.

quote:

---

Why was it that the Soviets could never actually TRUST the intellectuals, the artists, and the workers?

---

Gore Vidal said the Republican-"Democrat" cabal took it upon themselves never to trust Russia since around Truman's time in the sun. And I thought it was all about trust?. I know the Republicans still talk about how great America could be if they could ever trust the rest of the world enough to stop shovelling half the U.S. annual borrowing/spending to the military industrial complex and connected friends of the Elephant Party. I think Russian military brass were scared out of their minds after shock and appall over Baghdad and swift invasion of Iraq. And I think no country can afford socialism for the majority, given our total subserviance to a global monetary system, if socialism for the rich is bankrupting us now. And I think that's the "intention of starve the beast conservatives" in your country and our follow the leaders in Ottawa.

Excuse me, I have to go and watch this American televangelist preaching to Yanks about the coming nuclear war with Russia. Apparently this particular evangelist has been preaching this so-called bible prophecy in your country since the 1950's!. I will continue to "imagine" socialism in all countries for all people, Ken.

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

you're suggesting that the Soviets should have simply forgave and forgotten the patriotic war and the 30-40 million dead Russians by 1945 and not bother with moving the line of defence westward by the same layer of E. European countries where the Nazis began rounding up Jews and declaring local people enemies of the Third Reich.

---

Setting up a chain of police states that destroyed almost all popular support for Communism was not the only option Stalin had in 1945. And it is an insult to those Soviets who died fighting fascism to say that their memory could ONLY be honored by keeping a bloodsoaked dictatorship in place. Why could Stalin not honor them, instead, by saying "the time for terror has ended, the time for hope and dreams has returned"?

The USSR could easily have got all the countries of Eastern Europe to sign voluntary defense pacts after 1945, since the Soviets had been their liberators. There was no reason to impose this by force and to make what they called "socialism" into a punishment. It's like they believed those countries had WANTED to be occupied by Hitler.

And again, after 1945, the USSR had such high regard among the ordinary people in all parts of Europe that those people would have stood as one against any American attempts to overthrow the Soviet state. If they'd only given the human spirit a chance, forty-seven years of repression, decay, and failure could have been avoided.

I'm not saying a Soviet state dedicated to building genuinely democratic and humane socialism would have been easy. No one with a functioning central nervous system would say that. But it would have been easier for the USSR to build postwar security by reembracing the true ideals of the original Revolution than it was for the USSR to decide that it could only be secure by demanding blind obedience from all and making politics and life come to a dead stop.

If only they'd decided to try to make the Warsaw Pact a paradise instead of a prison.

People CAN be stirred and motivated by hope, you know. That's what we of the Left are SUPPOSED to believe. If you believe that hope can't work, that only force and terror can work, than you stop being on the Left.

Che had it right:
"At the risk of sounding ridiculous, a true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love."

Stalin loved nothing but the sound of human beings being killed. He hated the idea of a better world. Stalin just wanted power for himself.

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The USSR could easily have got all the countries of Eastern Europe to sign voluntary defense pacts after 1945, since the Soviets had been their liberators. There was no reason to impose this by force and to make what they called "socialism" into a punishment. It's like they believed those countries had WANTED to be occupied by Hitler.

---

I'll try to reply to this because it's the next most powerful condemnation of Stalin after Ukrainian famine and purges of the 1930's.

Decisions in Russia in the years following WWII were directly affected by events leading up to and during WWII. I think that's a base of logic everyone might agree on. I can only examine the most significant historical facts throught to their supporting facts and minor details before beginning to distentangle and understand the recent past. Because I can only pretend to know the mind of Stalin and influential western leaders and captains of industry at the time. WWII transformed Joe Stalin from tyrant to a tyrant with a new moniker, 'father Stalin' for millions of Russians who lived under oppressive Tsarism and fought the Tsar's turf battles against Nicholas' German cousins in their same lifetimes. By what I can tell, every dilemna had a military solution for more leaders than just Joe Stalin in the first half of the last century.
Joe Goebbels coined the term 'iron curtain' in 1945 and the British bulldog ran with it.

quote:

---

If they'd only given the human spirit a chance, forty-seven years of repression, decay, and failure could have been avoided.

---

Can we imagine what they were telling Russians about the repression and fascist aggression happening on our side ?. Americans and Canadians began wondering about war criminals living in our midst at least as far back as the 1970's, but declassified U.S. government documents reveal that Nazi war criminals were collecting government paycheques to spy on our former WWII allies. The Russians knew. All I'm saying, Ken., is that trust was not a recurring theme during the cold war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
minuses:
Had Stalin let the antifascists win, the siege of Leningrad would never have occurred and the lives of millions of Soviet citizens would have been spared(as well as all the victims of the Holocaust, since Hitler would have been overthrown in all liklihood if the fascists had lost in Spain.)

---

This is totally incomprehensible to me. We might as well suggest that had Chamberlain accepted the Oster conspirator's pleas for help to overthrow Hitler in 1938, Europe and Russia would have been spared WWII.

If the Soviets had little weaponry to spare for the right, they should never have wasted it attacking non-Stalinist antifascists. The POUM and the anarchists never initiated hostilities against the Brigades.

There was never any excuse for this, nor was there any excuse for the Communist newspapers starting the smear that the POUM was in league with the fascists. Stalin knew this was a lie.

And of course the pro-fascists in the U.S., Canada and the UK were to blame for what they did as well. But the Soviets were supposed to be better, ok?

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[edit]

Very slow post, cross posted with Ken

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
What I meant(and I think you actually know this)was Stalin's insistence on having the Brigades engage in battle AGAINST the POUM and the anarchists, instead of only fighting against Franco and letting the other factions alone.

---

I was only aware that Russia was the most significant source of aid to the Republican government of Spain. And Germany, Italy, France and U.S. car companies were supplying both Hitler and Franco with many more thousands of wheels for fascism.

quote:

---

And of course the pro-fascists in the U.S., Canada and the UK were to blame for what they did as well. But the Soviets were supposed to be better, ok?

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

---

Ken, the official line was that neither Churchill or Roosevelt felt as if Russia could be a meaningful ally against Nazi Germany at the beginning of WWII. Much devastation and missing manpower in Russia as a result of WWI and civil war for even the decade afterward.

The point you still miss, Fidel, is that if the antifascist side had prevailed in Spain(which was likely had Stalin not ordered the Brigades to attack the other antifascists instead of concentrating all the Brigades efforts exclusively on beating Franco)the myth of fascist military invincibility would have been broken.

Once this myth was broken, Hitler would probably have been overthrown. Thus there would have BEEN no Great Patriotic War and no massive loss of Soviet life.

But making sure no non-Stalinist forces got to share credit for beating fascism in Spain was all Stalin really cared about.

Then, in 1939, Stalin signed the Pact and proved he waan't even really AGAINST fascism or for international solidarity, and went to the disgraceful extreme of sending the German Communist exiles back to die and putting up graphics extolling an "Aryan-type" Soviet ideal man.

And yes, Fidel, the U.S., the U.K, and Canada all cooperated with the Reich in those years. You don't need to jump right back in with yet another "the capitalists were just as bad" post. We all GET that by now. It still doesn't excuse the reactionary direction the USSR took after 1924 and never really abandoned.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

I was only aware that Russia was the most significant source of aid to the Republican government of Spain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Once this myth was broken, Hitler would probably have been overthrown. Thus there would have BEEN no Great Patriotic War and no massive loss of Soviet life.

---

This is interesting but a rather large assumption which I find difficult to fathom not knowing what you do apparently.

Who was going to overthrow Hitler aside from the Oster conspirators who pleaded for Chamberlain's help?. Churchill, an opposition member of parliament at the time, wrote a letter to Berlin of which the contents were never revealed. Soon after, the conspirators were rounded up, given kanagaroo trials by the Nazis and beheaded. Chamberlain said they were "anti-Nazis" and weren't to be trusted. And with them went a large opportunity for the west to help kill the fuhrer before ever having to hand him Czechoslovakia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
From Fidel

Given your posting history this is
a) not what you meant to say
b) an admission of inexcusable ignorance
c) a spectacular lie

---

Well, I do recall saying earlier on that many, many socialists and ant-fascists from all over North America and Europe travelled to Spain to fight fascism. So I'm not sure what you're implying with your rude comment above.

By what I've read, Stalin initially believed Hitler was preparing for a war between capitalist nations. As the 1930's rolled along with fascist maneuvering in Spain with western compliance and approval by absence of interventions, Stalin began to realize the inevitable: that Russia was about to suffer the largest loss of life of any nation in a war for the second time since western aggression against the revolution part one and from 1918 to 1922. He guessed exactly right.

No one expected Russia to be as prepared as they were. Millions of workers around the world were in awe as Russia stood alone against Hitler's corporate-sponsored war machine from June 1941 to liberation of Eastern Europe. To this day, Russia's Patriotic War museums still refer to all western nations as fascists.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Here's some background from an independent Marxist perspective:

http://www.critiquejournal.net/spain32.pdf

---

Well Jeez, Ken. Is that the same Stephen Schwartz who apparently now identifies himself as a neoconservative in his wiki biography ?.

That piece makes Stalin out to be Hitler's stooge. It's a wonder he didn't commit to full stoodgery and appease Hitler entirely and invite them to make with lebensraum without any fight at all. Lo' and behold, the truth about Stalin comes out in U.S. print in 1996 after alleged Soviet archives apparently contained Stalin's memoirs verbatim. What an amazing coincidence. After reading that, I'm surprized Stalin didn't arrange a coup d'etat against himself to impress his old pal the fuhrer.

Note the glaring lack of criticism or even mention of western complicity with fascism for the most part.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

The article proves Stalin's guilt in this matter.

And yes, the Yanks and Brits were bastards on this, but the Soviets WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ANTIFASCIST! Stalin didn't stop Hitler until it was too late to matter. He made sure the Holocaust had done its work, he made sure the non-Stalinist left was slaughtered throughout Europe.

Stalin wasn't on our side, Fidel. Why don't you admit it and just pack it in on being an apologist for him?

And the fact that Schwartz identifies as a neocon now doesn't mean he was wrong then.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe some of those guys became neocons because some on the Left STILL wouldn't admit that Stalin was an irredeemable bastard?

It was a destructive choice on their part, but I can't help but think it was partly due to some people being willing to take an honest look at the past and to acknowledge injustices when they occurred.

We need to speak truth to history as well as to power.

And, before this even comes up, I honor the courage of individual members of the Brigades, especially at the lowest level of the units. The Lincolns and the MacPaps were often heroic fighters as individuals. I have no quarrel with their rank-and-file(as in any organization, those at the base of the hirearchy are always the most honorable people). It's the Stalinist lackeys at the top who were the problem. Those guys at the top didn't give a flying fuck about Spain or about stopping fascism. They just did what Uncle Joe told 'em. The ones who were better than that usually defected to the POUM or the anarchists, the most pure and honorable factions in the war.

If I write with passion on this, it is in part because I've only come to realize in recent years how badly Stalin betrayed the people of Spain, and the world Communist movement, a movement made up of far better people than the Soviet regime ever deserved as supporters.

There was no reason to compromise their idealism in the name of short-term geopolitics.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And yes, the Yanks and Brits were bastards on this, but the Soviets WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ANTIFASCIST! Stalin didn't stop Hitler until it was too late to matter. He made sure the Holocaust had done its work, he made sure the non-Stalinist left was slaughtered throughout Europe.

---

Wow. That's a lot to lay on the shoulders of one man, don't you think?. I think it was terrible that so many leftists and anti-fascists AND JEWS were murdered BY FASCISTS in Spain and Germany and E. Europe.

And with the established history of fascist aggression against Russia in WWI and 25 INTERNATIONAL armies and mercenaries who marauded through Russia and slaughtering willy-nilly, ANY leader of Russia worth his weight had a responsibility first and foremost to pull everything together in Russia for the coming Nazi war of annihilation against Soviet communism in Russia.

What Stalin did do was beg and demand a second front against Hitler for over two years! Roosevelt didn't see fit to send American troops against Hitler until late 1942!. And while the enemy laid siege to the gates of Leningrad, Stalingrad and were parked a dozen miles from Moscow, prominent Jews were telling Roosevelt about the concentration camps across Europe as well as the mass exterminations which actually began in Russia and Ukraine. There was no such thing as Russian POW's, only machine guns, flamethrowers and death by starvation in the work camps alongside the Jews. The final solution in Russia meant Jews, Russians, everybody!

quote:

---

Those guys at the top didn't give a flying fuck about Spain or about stopping fascism.

---

Okay, but can you see an overall pattern unfolding by 1938 and the alleged order to the IB to stand down and, consequently, avoiding further loss of life?. Because apparently by that time Hitler's luftwaffe were flying bombing raids in Northern Spain, and the Nationalists were driving Ford and German and Italian trucks all over the country.

And this is leading up to the mother of all battles against fascism.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And even if we accept that Stalin's primary responsibility was to protect the Soviet Union from a Nazi invasion(which assumes Stalin WANTED to prevent such an invasion, rather than encourage it to happen in order to create a battle he could use to build his own personal mythos), there is no way that attacking the anti-Stalinist antifascists in Spain was going to help that effort. Nor did preparing the USSR for a fascist invasion require falsely accusing the POUM of collarborating with Franco, something Stalin KNEW they would never possibly have done.

Why can't you admit that Stalin should've left the POUM and the anarchists alone and had the Brigades ONLY fight against Franco?

And once again, you know perfectly well that nothing I've said absolves the US, UK and Canadian governments OR US corporations from their despicable role in supporting the Falangists. Stop acting like I'm letting the capitalists off the hook. I hate them for what they did and denounce them for it. Denouncing what Stalin did does not conflict with denouncing capitalists.

What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" (or perhaps, in this case, two wrongs made a Far Right) do you not understand?

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Well, I do recall saying earlier on that many, many socialists and ant-fascists from all over North America and Europe travelled to Spain to fight fascism. So I'm not sure what you're implying with your rude comment above.
[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

You're assuming that battle would've occurred even IF the antifascist side had prevailed in Spain.

---

Ken, I see where youre coming from, but youre just engaging in speculation.

So, lets asume that Stalin didnt meddle into the republican factions' business and kept supplying weapons to SPain.

If Franco wouldve been defeated,after such desperate struggle it would happen at a real cost to USSR. ANd stratergically, its no big boost for the Soviets. Stalin was already fatalistic by that point that the West will egg on Hitler to strike Russia. 1938, Munich and corporate aid to Franco made it obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
You're assuming that battle would've occurred even IF the antifascist side had prevailed in Spain.

---

Alright, Spain is under Republican control. But Hitler is still planning barbarossa and annihilation of everything and everyone inside Russia. Stalin has an eery feeling about what's around the corner, because since 1933 he's been reading Mein Struggle and underlining all references to Bolsheviks and Jews. This was also revealed by historians in recent years. I'm imagining Stalin putting two and two together with the fact that Hitler has been violating Treaty of Versaille with rearming Germany to the eye teeth, and he realizes things aren't looking good for certain people in Russian-speaking countries.

quote:

---

And even if we accept that Stalin's primary responsibility was to protect the Soviet Union from a Nazi invasion, there is no way that attacking the anti-Stalinist antifascists in Spain was going to help that effort.

---

How much effort and resources were put into waging war against the anti-Stalinist leftists in Spain?. I was under the impression that Franco's fascists tookover the country in 1938 ?.

quote:

---

Nor did preparing the USSR for a fascist invasion require falsely accusing the POUM of collarborating with Franco, something Stalin KNEW they would never possibly have done.

---

Anything to maintain the illusion of a pact with Hitler. The truth in war is precious?. I don't know. I do know I'm not a military strategist in 1938 in a country still recovering from massive loss of life in WWI and a "civil" war in the previous decade.

quote:

---

Stop making that insinuation. I hate them for what they did and denounce them for it.

---

I'm not trying to explain the order for the IB to stand down. I have your's and Stephen Schwartz' opinions and claims to fact to go by. So I don't know what to say, so I'm not denying anything at the same time.

What I am saying is that war historians have speculated on so many History Channel A&E documentaries that it appeared to the very paranoid Stalin that Britain and France were probably in collusion with Hitler and planning a fascistarama through Europe and probably Russia as per the previous big imperialist extravaganza in WWI and 25 "IB" invasion of Russia to restore a Tsar to the throne. But it's still only speculation.

But Stephen Schwartz has irrefutable proof from Soviet archives that Stalin was a mixed up fascist wannabe whose proposals for power-sharing were rejected by Hitler and Mussolini, and Franco too I can only presume. I find it strange that only Stalin was viewed as an appeaser with Molotov-Ribbentrop I&II but not Chamberlain or Daladier with their Munich appeasement or Churchill claiming to have put his all into it with a few spies here and there. The Russians always accused London of handing them intercepted Nazi radio communications too late to be of any use.

I don't know, Ken. Stalin referred to the Dunkirk retreat and other failures as "the sideshow in the Mediterranean." Perhaps he would have liked a do-over in Spain given today's 20-20 hindsight.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Anything to maintain the illusion of a pact with Hitler. The truth in war is precious?. I don't know. I do know I'm not a military strategist in 1938 in a country still recovering from massive loss of life in WWI and a "civil" war in the previous decade.

---

Excellent point Fidel. While Stalin did have a weird tendency to see 'spies' among his rivals and other unlikely folks, he was right about the war preparations.
Since early 30's, when Hitler was'anointed', the Soviets had constant drills and war preparations.
Like you said, being occupied by 20 capitalist armies didnt exactly put them in a trusting mood toward the West.
Only FDR's US had cordial trade with USSR. Others didnt.

Lets put it this way. In 1934, FM Laval of France made some kind of an alliance with USSR.
WHile it wasnt a strong one, at least that was a step.
Britain remained neutrally cold.
But the Czechoslovakia crisis has ended hopes of an Anti-Hitler coalition.
Stalin was offering to send aircraft and troops to Czechoslovakia. They had to go thru Poland. Stubborn anti-Russian Poles refused, so that was that.
France started talks with the Soviets that didnt go far. But when the French sent some low-level ministry jackass on a cargo ship to Russia with no serious diplomatic offers Stalin has given up on the West. His next diplomatic moves were cynical attempts to buy time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

The statement I quoted implied you were ignorant of Stalin's orders to attack the Anarchists. Were you?

---

Yes, I was unaware until Ken's reply. And you ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:

So, lets asume that Stalin didnt meddle into the republican factions' business and kept supplying weapons to SPain.

If Franco wouldve been defeated,after such desperate struggle it would happen at a real cost to USSR. ANd stratergically, its no big boost for the Soviets. Stalin was already fatalistic by that point that the West will egg on Hitler to strike Russia. 1938, Munich and corporate aid to Franco made it obvious.

Now please tell me, from a startegic point of view, would the Republicans declare war on Hitler and give significant aid to USSR? Their PM, was it Caballero?, did he say any militant rethoric against Hitler?
And even then, strategically, Spain does not border neither Germany nor Italy. And it was devastated by war. Mightve made a difference in defending a passive France, but certianly not the USSR.
BTW, I did read Homage to Catalonia. Powerful and great book.
Still, seems the REpublic was losing by then anyway.

---

Oh...dear...God...Oh...dear...God...

Please don't tell me you just made the arguement(which it looks like you made in that quote) that Stalin HAD to sacrifice Spain to the fascists in order to protect the USSR.

Please tell me you didn't just argue that a Republican/antifascist victory in Spain would somehow have put the USSR in GREATER danger of a Nazi attack.

And OF COURSE a victorious Republican Spain would have declared war on Hitler. The antifascists in Spain, unlike Stalin, BELIEVED in solidarity. Why the hell would you think they wouldn't join in the antifascist fight in other countries?

Remember the last verse of "Viva La Quinta Brigada" :

Ya salimos de España,
Rumba la, rumba la, rumba la,
Ya salimos de España,
Rumba la, rumba la, rumba la,
A LUCHAR EN OTROS FRENTES,
¡Ay, Manuela! ¡Ay, Manuela!
A LUCHAR EN OTROS FRENTES,
¡Ay, Manuela! ¡Ay, Manuela!

To suggest they wouldn't have fought Hitler is a mortal insult to all those on the antifascist/Republican side.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

What if ? What if Tito's multi-ethnic guerilla fighters had been wiped out, and the Nazi's oil supply lines from Romania and Turkey through the Balkans had been re-established ?. The Panzers and troop carriers wouldn't have run out of fuel. I don't know that Stalin even knew the extent of the fighting there. Or would it have even mattered to Stalin with all of Russia on their heels and fighting for the right to exist in 1941 ?.

A wehrmacht tank commander said his wife woke him from nightmares countless times into his golden years. He often remembers being there at largest tank battle in history at Kursk, and the terrible smell of burning flesh. Another soldier of General Paulus' army can't put the madness of Stalingrad out of his thoughts. The song of the Volga River plays on in his mind forever.

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]