Grover Furr: Stalin was demonized

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

I visited the Sacharov musuem in Moscow this weekend. It deals with the repression during the Soviet Times. In one of the displays there are copies of the famous documents ordering the start of the Great Terror, signed by Stalin. What is remarkable though is that the different documents have different Stalin signatures. I asked the guide about it and she explained that a PP (in the name of) Stalin signature (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stalin_Signature.svg ) was used for documents that Stalin did not sign himself, and that Stalin used his real name Jugashvili, for documents that he signed himself.

If this true then the different documents on display could tell something remarkable

1 the general order for a purge of enemies of the state, without much details is signed with the real Stalin signature

2 the detailed procedure send to the different regions, stipulating how many people needed to be rounded up and how many killed, was not
signed by Stalin, not even by PP, but by the head of the NKVD Nikolai Yezhov.

3 The smaller note of a region requesting permission for additional round up and killings, is signed with the PP Stalin signature.

As can be seen on Wikipedia the PP Staling signature is easily to find and is described as the real signature, used as the base for many claims of Stalins knowledge and responsibility. Eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#/media/File:Great_Purge_Resolution_of_Central_Committee.jpg – document for the great purge, signed za J S, which is an abbreviation of the PP Stalin signature. And further on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#/media/File:Great_Purge_Stalin_Voroshilov_Kaganovich_Zhdanov_Molotov.jpg

A list of names – again the abbreviation of the PP Stalin signature.

The real signature of Stalin seems very difficult to find. I eventually found one on a site that sells signed historical documents – the signature is found in the upper left upper left corner of the first page – difficult to see but different from the PP Stalin signature.

http://www.historyforsale.com/html/prodetails.asp?bw=0&documentid=285910

Besides the obvious sales trick of the seller, it seems indeed that ‘Stalin's autograph is one of the rarest of all 20th century world leaders.’ – the price of this document is also very high in comparison with documents holding the PP it seems.

http://www.icollector.com/Stalin-Military-Orders-Signed_i9781405

http://rt.com/usa/stalins-signature-sold-12500/s

Does anybody has more info on this? It could be though one of the reasons why there is more and more controversy on Stalin, what he knew and what he approved himself.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Great find, ST!

 

[Possibility of Being]

Hmm. What I read was not from Makow or Rense. That I know. One source is the Red Symphony, but that's not what I was thinking of either (we don't know for sure that source is reliable, either, and doesn't include the specifics I had in mind). What I was referring to is supposed to have happened after 1933, and Hjalmar Schacht was actually behind issuing a different Mark that was used to pay workers for infrastructure projects and other job creation programs. The workers accepted pay in this government issued Mark as others also accepted it to buy what they needed. I'll try to see if I can retrace and find where I read about this.

Not exactly; according to Wkipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_%28currency%29

"Mark" can refer

to one of the following historical German currencies:
1619–1873: the mark banco of Hamburg;
1873–1914: the German gold mark, the currency of the German Empire;
1914–1923: the German Papiermark;
1923–1948: the German Rentenmark;
1924–1948: the German Reichsmark;
1944–1948: the military mark of the Allied occupying forces;
1947: the Saar mark;
1948–1990: the East German mark;
1948–2002: the German mark, also called Deutsche Mark or D-Mark, and abbreviated DM;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Rentenmark

The Rentenmark (RM) was a currency issued on 15 October 1923 to stop the hyperinflation of 1922 and 1923 in Weimar Germany. It was subdivided into 100 Rentenpfennig.

After the Occupation of the Ruhr in early 1923 by French and Belgian troops, the German government of Wilhelm Cuno reacted by announcing a policy of passive resistance. This caused the regional economy of the Ruhr - the industrial heartland of Germany - to virtually grind to a halt. The occupation authorities reacted with arrests and deportations to strikes and sabotage. ... The government covered its need for funds mainly by printing money. As a result, inflation spiked and the Papiermark went into freefall on the currency market. Foreign currency reserves at the Reichsbank dwindled.[1]

As hyperinflation took hold, the cabinet of Cuno resigned in August 1923 and was replaced by the cabinet of Gustav Stresemann. After Stresemann reshuffled his cabinet in early October, Hans Luther became Minister of Finance.[1][2]

Working with Hjalmar Schacht at the Reichsbank, Luther quickly came up with a stabilization plan for the currency which combined elements of a monetary reform by economist Karl Helfferich with ideas of Luther's predecessor in office Rudolf Hilferding. With the help of the emergency law (Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 13 October 1923 which gave the government the power to issue decrees on financial and economic matters, the plan was implemented that same day, 15 October 1923.[2]

The newly created Rentenmark replaced the old Papiermark. Because of the economic crisis in Germany after World War I, there was no gold available to back the currency. Luther thus used Helfferich's idea of a currency backed by real goods. The new currency was backed by the land used for agriculture and business. This was mortgaged to the tune of 3.2 billion Goldmark, based on the 1913 wealth charge called Wehrbeitrag which had helped fund the German war effort in World War I. Notes worth 3.2 billion Rentenmarks were issued. The Rentenmark was introduced at a rate of one Rentenmark to equal one trillion old marks, with an exchange rate of one United States dollar to equal 4.2 Rentenmarks.[2]

The Act creating the Rentenmark backed the currency by means of twice yearly payments on property, due in April and October, payable for five years. Although the Rentenmark was not initially legal tender, it was accepted by the population and its value was relatively stable. The Act prohibited the recently privatised Reichsbank from continuing to discount bills and the inflation of the Papiermark immediately stopped.

Thus the monetary policy spearheaded by Schacht at the Reichsbank and the fiscal policy of Finance Minister Hans Luther brought the period of hyperinflation in Germany to an end. The Reichsmark became the new legal tender on 30 August 1924, equal in value to the Rentenmark. This marked a return to a gold-backed currency in connection with the implementation of the Dawes plan.[2]

The Rentenbank continued to exist after 1924 and the notes and coins continued to circulate. The last Rentenmark notes were valid until 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsmark

The Reichsmark was introduced in 1924 as a permanent replacement for the Papiermark. This was necessary due to the 1920s German inflation which had reached its peak in 1923. The exchange rate between the old Papiermark and the Reichsmark was 1 ℛℳ = 1012 Papiermark (one trillion in both UK and US English, one billion in German and other European languages, see long and short scales). To stabilize the economy and to smooth the transition, the Papiermark was not directly replaced by the Reichsmark, but by the Rentenmark, an interim currency backed by the Deutsche Rentenbank, owning industrial and agricultural real estate assets. The Reichsmark was put on the gold standard at the rate previously used by the Goldmark, with the U.S. dollar worth 4.2 ℛℳ.
Great Depression

As the market crash of 1929 expanded into the Great Depression, Germany was forced to effectively take the Reichsmark off of the gold standard when it imposed exchange controls in July 1931. It retained a gold peg at that time. At the transition of Germany to National Socialist control, the Reichsmark was recruited as a financial weapon in the quest to rearm Germany. The Reichsbank turned on the printing presses to finance Adolf Hitler's jobs programs. To control inflation, severe wage and price controls were instituted, foreign currency exchange rates were manipulated, and interest rates increased. Such measures were effective for a time but by January 1939 the Reichsbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, was sounding the alarm and was summarily relieved of his post.

So if I understand it correctly, there was a change of German currency in 1023/24 and it somehow helped in stopping the inflation of the Papiermark. But they were still taking money from the West (loans, later mostly investments, etc.) during that period, so I'm not sure about Germany becoming independent under Hitler/Schacht.

It seems that for some reason the main goal was to bring the Nazis and Hitler to power and that's where they (US bankers etc) put most money and effort in. After 1933 big US cartels were already set in Germany, war industry was running full steam and the richest kept making profit of it before and during the WW2.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Stalin Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 by Stephen Kotkin (2014) reveals essentially the same.

It is a must read.

Hi Red Star

could you give a brief overview of the main thesis of the book and what it essentialy reveals? - is it a

the blurb promises a balanced and humanised Stalin, which goes against standard accounts.

from Amazon description

Stalin gives an intimate view of the Bolshevik regime’s inner geography of power, bringing to the fore fresh materials from Soviet military intelligence and the secret police. Kotkin rejects the inherited wisdom about Stalin’s psychological makeup, showing us instead how Stalin’s near paranoia was fundamentally political, and closely tracks the Bolshevik revolution’s structural paranoia, the predicament of a Communist regime in an overwhelmingly capitalist world, surrounded and penetrated by enemies. At the same time, Kotkin demonstrates the impossibility of understanding Stalin’s momentous decisions outside of the context of the tragic history of imperial Russia.

and some extracts from comments on the book on amazon

If Stalin deteriorated into murderous sociopathy, he was not always so. Sometimes he was incredibly brave, clinging to his convictions with resolve and courage. Usually detached, and always willing to use men for his purpose and women for his needs, Kotkin captures the boundless dichotomy in this smart, always ambitious man. One who begins with good, even noble intent and along the way trades principle for power; compassion for control. In the end, perhaps the author's greatest accomplishment is to show how the most seemingly ordinary men are capable of extraordinary evil; how sheer force of will can change history.

Stalin was also very complex both emotionally and intellectually and, as Kotkin says, is not easy to categorise. The key problem in assessing Stalin is to differentiate the political from the personal. It is virtually impossible to differentiate between his commitment to Marxism and his mental state, because of his successful promotion of his personal dictatorship. His behaviours fit both perspectives. It is not hard to observe an apparent tendency to paranoia, malevolence to close colleagues and a victim psychology. The counterargument is that, once Stalin’s overall project is accepted, many of his tactics including the great purge became a necessary step to fulfil that project in the face of deep-seated restorationist tendencies engendered by forced collectivisation and the – by then – transparent abandonment of all inner-party democracy. It is not paranoia if he had the insight to see a crumbling of the Soviet State machine and the courage to do what was required to fulfil his goal. In that event, what was wrong with Stalin was not any personal mental state but the simplified neo-Leninist project to which he was unswervingly committed. Kotkin deals with this complex reality with the formula that Stalin’s psychology flowed from the political situation – this is neat, but somewhat gnomic.

He fails to understand Marxism at all and champions a clear liberal agenda that condemns Stalin as a dictator hungry for power and control. If only Stalin had seen the benefits of capitalism, much evil would have been avoided! The book is yet another work in the dreary list of efforts to demonise Stalin, rather than analysing the dynamic of veneration and demonisation itself. It may well be the first ideological salvo in a new Cold War.

This seems not to be the Thesis that Gover Furr is defending (at all- - not that Kotkin might be closer to the truth - or that the Lobazewski thesis will be the correct one after all.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I haven't been able to find my way back to the source I'd read about Nazi Germany issuing it's own currency. And yes it was the Reichsmark / Rentenmark that was supposed to be used to pay workers in Germany and also pay reparations to countries. There was also a specific mechanism mentioned about the Rentenmark and how it was issued (I remember, I think, that it was a link in another article that I followed where I found this info). Anyway, it may be erroneous information, and I probably didn't doubt it because in the Red Symphony there was the claim that Hitler was brought to power for war, but betrayed the Money Power and had to be destroyed - also anyone who HAS in reality done or tried to bypass the control of the Money Power has been destroyed by whatever means necessary. But it may not be true in the case of Hitler/the Nazis....

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

I haven't been able to find my way back to the source I'd read about Nazi Germany issuing it's own currency. And yes it was the Reichsmark / Rentenmark that was supposed to be used to pay workers in Germany and also pay reparations to countries. There was also a specific mechanism mentioned about the Rentenmark and how it was issued (I remember, I think, that it was a link in another article that I followed where I found this info). Anyway, it may be erroneous information, and I probably didn't doubt it because in the Red Symphony there was the claim that Hitler was brought to power for war, but betrayed the Money Power and had to be destroyed - also anyone who HAS in reality done or tried to bypass the control of the Money Power has been destroyed by whatever means necessary. But it may not be true in the case of Hitler/the Nazis....

As far as my understanding goes for the moment I think Hitler was brought to power specifically to fight aagainst Russia/communism. Nikolai Starikov has written about this in 'Who set Hitler up against Stalin. I gave a short overview in thread about this book, of which I reproduce the relevant parts below.

The central thesis of ‘who set up hitler up against Stallin’ is that powers in the UK/US have been grooming Hitler from the beginning to create a formidable aggressive force to attack Russia. Hitler was scouted from very early on by a german-american agent, Hanfstaengel, and made into the man he became. Starikov even indicates that Mein Kampf would if not written by, be inspired to a large extent by conversations of Haenfstangel. He was financed from the beginning by the UK/US and brought to power in Germany. The reason for this was that the Bolshevik Revolution, set up by the English to destroy Tsarist Russia went bad after Lenin did not follow the original plan. It was then decided that the Soviet needed to be destroyed as well, preferably by the Germans, in order to guarantee continued empire of the British. Once Hitler was brought to power, he was allowed to expand the German territory, relaunch the industry and armament, all in preparation of an assault on the Sovietunion. All went to plan, until march 1938, when Hitler refused to annex a part of from Tchechoslovakia, which would brought Germany in direct border contact with the Sovietunion. As with Lenin, it seems that the trained mad dog of the British was barking against is master.

Suddenly, overnight Hitler became the monster that needed to be stopped and pressure started to force him to attack Russia. Things when completely wrong when Germany and the Sovietunion signed a non aggression pact. Polen was used as a bait for Hitler to force his hand. War was declared when Hitler invaded Poland, but a strange non war continued for more than 8 months while pressure was continued on Hitler to attack Russia. As with Poland, France was abandoned and sacrified bythe British, and when Hess went to London to negotiate peace between Londen and Berlin but got a definitive no, Hitler finally attacked the Sovier Union.
...
Other books that seem to explore a indentical thesis as Starikov are ‘Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich’ from Guido Preparata and ‘Wall street and the rise of Hitler’ by Antony Sutton.
...

If this was the case, it could be possible that Hitler in a later stage (1939) turned against the Anglo Saxon money-system - according to Starikov Hitler continued to convince the Anglo Saxon establishment of his intentions to make peace with them and that he would attack Russia, so it seems to me for now unlikely Hitler did turn against them in 1939 - the earliest would be when it became clear the Nazis would loose the war.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yeah, that's what I meant by Hitler being brought to power for war (on Russia), Jeremy. Sorry I wasn't more clear. There's certainly evidence that what Starikov and others have written is true - the British and the "West" have been trying to destroy Russia for centuries.

 

[redstar]

Stalin Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 by Stephen Kotkin (2014) reveals essentially the same.

It is a must read.

Hi Red Star

could you give a brief overview of the main thesis of the book and what it essentialy reveals? - is it a

the blurb promises a balanced and humanised Stalin, which goes against standard accounts.

I'm reading it, I have not finished yet. Basically Kotkin says Stalin did terrible things but he tried to moderate the Bolsheviks. Also the did the things he did because he thought it was necessary. He was a true revolutionary and he tried to democratize the Bolsheviks. Kotkin says basically you can not judge Stalin actions to be purely bad. The book is the first volume and covers until the year 1928.

That is, in some manner, similar to what Ernesto Guevara talked about Stalin. He said Satalin was a true revolutionary and that his acts can not be understood out of context. One needs to be a rebolutionary to understand Stalin.

In other order of things, I think the October Revolution was an Illuminati/PTB backed operation that went wrong when Lenin died and their other agent Trotsky could not access power because of his sudden ill. That gave Stalin, a man outside the PTB plot, the opportunity to achieve total power. Given the quasi-paranoid personality of Stalin and his powerful mind, he noticed almost instantly the top members of the KPSS and the government were an obstacle and the PTB agents infiltrated the top. He started almost instantly negotiations to moderate them and take them out of power. Yes, maybe he ordered the killing of a lot of them and the falsification of evidence in the Moscow Processes but, in the end, the biggest achievement of Stalin was to make the PTB plot to fail so they needed a 2nd plan and they brought Hitler to power to retake control over the USSR. That failed too, because Hitler got out of control. In the end a very complex situation was created but the PTB succeeded partially creating the WWII and maybe they retook control over the USSR after the Stalin death. That is the reason Khrushchev and the soviets tried to blame Stalin for everything after his dead and started the "De-Stalinization".

I think the PTB tried to start their World Domination Program using the October Revolution. They tried to export that "color revolution" to other countries. But the time was not right. They noticed this after WWII. So, if they retook control over the USSR, they changed to plan B and used the Cold War as a method to restart their plot and create, one step at a time, a more "propitious climate" to achieve their NWO.

It is said too by many historians that the failure "exporting" the "communist revolution" was too due to Stalin transformation of the communist revolution, from a impersonal and international idea, into a nationalistic and leader centered one.

In the end, if we think carefully, thanks to Stalin the USSR became a Word Power, industrially, military, politically, etc. Without Stalin the soviets would have not industrialized the country in time to repeal the nazi invasion. Stalin worked hard to industrialize the country in a time the occidental countries were affected by an economic depression. Stalin used the money earned in the Collectivization to buy cheap machinery an technology in the west in order to prepare the USSR in a run to win or resist an future but well predicted war. Maybe a lot of people died and Stalin got much "bad" karma, who knows, but, maybe that was too a necessity of the destiny.

It is curious but, every the time a very true danger has come, which could have made Russia to suffer a total conquest by a possible world dominator power, a leader has emerged that have saved her... a leader with its lights and shadows but a capable leader that saves Russia. And this leader always has emerged or has come to power in strange circumstances.

Catherine I the Great → Ottoman Empire / She expanded Russia more or less to its current borders
Alexander I → Napoleon
Stalin → Hitler
Putin → U.S.A.?

The Russian Federation would not exist today without that people, who knows who they were... You could find there 20 different countries, divided and easily controllable.

I think the PTB have tried their world takeover several times:

1) Napoleon
2) International Comunist Revolution
3) Hitler

They failed always... and, was it because Russia?

But the great question is: The Cassiopaeans have said there is only One Government and our current politic and governments are only puppets. They have said this Secret Government has technology much more advanced (several thousand years) to ours.

So, my question is: What happens here? This Secret Government does not control Russia? if not, why? why they don't use this technology to take Putin out of power? is it because Russia has this technology too but they keep this in secret??

BTW, sorry for my bad English :P

 

[GregP507]

Even if you discount the entire western account about Stalin as negative propaganda; countless sources from within the former Soviet Union document the man as a paranoid and murderous psychopath, including several Russians I know personally. It stretches credibility much too far, to portray him as some sort of misunderstood benevolent genius. He was certainly not.

 

[Possibility of Being]

Even if you discount the entire western account about Stalin as negative propaganda; countless sources from within the former Soviet Union document the man as a paranoid and murderous psychopath, including several Russians I know personally. It stretches credibility much too far, to portray him as some sort of misunderstood benevolent genius. He was certainly not.

Those countless sources may be partly forged, those several Russians you know personally may be biased due to long-term propaganda. When Khrushchev revealed the 'whole truth' about Stalin, accusing him of all wrongdoings, crimes, genocide and what not, he might have been trying to find an easy scape goat. That would be more beneficial for that still Soviet government at that time and would help to have some trust from the people - as opposite to blaming communism, NKVD, previous governments. Can you see my point?

And to be clear, I'm not trying to say Stalin wasn't evil simply because I still don't know that. I just can see how it might have been possible and handy to blame any- and everything on one single person.

 

[Possibility of Being]

If this was the case, it could be possible that Hitler in a later stage (1939) turned against the Anglo Saxon money-system - according to Starikov Hitler continued to convince the Anglo Saxon establishment of his intentions to make peace with them and that he would attack Russia, so it seems to me for now unlikely Hitler did turn against them in 1939 - the earliest would be when it became clear the Nazis would loose the war.

I think it comes close to the (in)famous "Unconditional Surrender" policy issue. From the little I know, it looks to me as the Anglo-Saxons not only wanted to have USSR destroyed by the Nazis, but also to get the whole Europe smashed to the ground, stripped out of its industry and infrastructure, probably to put their dirty hands on everything and make sure they would profit enormously from its restoration by the means of loans, contracts, etc. when the war is over.

And thank you Jeremy for the quote. Looks like Starikov is a must read.

 

[Possibility of Being]

Here is a brief note about Stalin by Starikov from his blog:

Stalin and the fools

22.12.2009

It is Stalin birthday today. Communists brought flowers to his grave. I'm sure that many other Russian citizens, not being communists and not going to build a socialism, whose grandfathers had been killed in World War II, also wanted to bring the flowers there. Why?

Because Stalin defended Russia. We shall put the ideology aside and simply tell the truth: this ordinary Georgian man defended the country. He defended it twice – first from "Lenins guard" with the appointee of the bankers- owners of Federal Reserve System Trotsky at the head. Then from the other appointee of the same bankers – Adolf Hitler. Stalin outwitted Trotsky and all other revolution clique by means of the sophisticated schemes of intraparty strife. Stalin outwitted Hitler by means of strong will, in the awful situation, by blood and life of his millions solders. But he won. And Russia – USSR was saved and grew. The only thing that Stalin was not able to do is to create the succession in governance.

More about the same in an interview with Andrei Fursov (Eng. subtitles). Stalin Here and Now (13 min):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkA5u9u3TB0

How true it is, I don't know, but makes a lot of sense.

 

[GregP507]

To minimize the existence of documents authorizing the execution of thousands of Soviet citizens, each bearing Stalin's personal signature, is like ignoring the fact that Russia's current president has acquired billions in personal wealth by stealing it from his own country.

I have met survivors of Stalin's purges in the Ukraine, and to discount their stories is to dishonor their suffering and their immense struggles to survive. Russian friends have told me that they estimate that over 30 million souls perished to appease his paranoia.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

To minimize the existence of documents authorizing the execution of thousands of Soviet citizens, each bearing Stalin's personal signature,

Please re-read the thread. You seem to have missed some important details.

is like ignoring the fact that Russia's current president has acquired billions in personal wealth by stealing it from his own country.

Comparing the existence of signed documents (about which there MAY be some question, again, see this thread) with unsubstantiated rumors from people who don't like Putin and have a vested interest in slandering him is like, not even wrong.

I have met survivors of Stalin's purges in the Ukraine, and to discount their stories is to dishonor their suffering and their immense struggles to survive.

No one is discounting their stories. We haven't even heard them.

Russian friends have told me that they estimate that over 30 million souls perished to appease his paranoia.

30 million MAY have died (figures like that are hard to know with certainty), but that this was a result of Stalin's paranoia is exactly the question being analyzed here. If you can't separate your emotions from your thinking, it will be very hard to come to objective conclusions. That's all the participants of this thread are doing. We may very well end up coming to a conclusion more in line with the official version. Again, that is the question, and it can only be determined with a clear head. Your post above doesn't really contribute much to that end - paramoralistic arguments aren't really appropriate.

 

[Voyageur]

This has been an interesting thread, and another possible history on the underbelly of what has been written and taught, what has paved the way of historical belief. Unlearning things has been a staple around here, so I'm open to looking at this further and reviewing what was learned. For this subject, it's a wee bit uncomfortable on the basis of what I think is known, yet as always, the more I think I know the less I know.

It seems that the evidence to undermine Russia has been an old endeavor; to vilify Russia has been a constant through the ages - so what is going on? The take down of the Czar and his family, and the following revolution that ripped away the Russian fabric holds sway to outside intervention and the beginning of a new narrative, a narrative crafted that suits the usual suspects. The political, corporate and banking plays during the war years seems evident. It seems evident that Russia was going to suffer and suffer she did. With ponerization being active at so many historical levels, what we think we know can be so twisted around and hidden.

Will see where this goes.

Thanks.