I'd like to add to the discussion about Stalin and Soviet Union that we need to remember there's a lot of evidence that the whole Bolshevik Revolution was founded by Wall Street bankers and was part of a plan of those in power. The owners of factories in US and bankers were later cooperating during cold war with soviets. It turns out that it's not like Soviet Union was the real enemy of the States... Maybe it was all just an act to create an enemy for people to live in fear? To accelerate the technology development? And Stalin as well as other leaders were not Russians and they didn't serve the Russian nation.
Those books I think describe this issue quite well:
I wonder if anyone read them and what's your opinion.
I read the first book, which is an expansion of Sutton's work (with more data, and which corrects some of the things he missed or got wrong). Spence's conclusions aren't exactly how you framed them. Wall Street types and bankers (may of them ideological socialists and/or anti-tsarists) funded, but did not "found" the Bolshevik revolution (maybe that was just a typo). And it wasn't exactly a "plan of those in power" - more a plan of some powerful people. Some supported the Bolsheviks, and many others did not. A lot of "spy vs spy" stuff was going on at the time. And yeah, arguably, the Bolsheviks wouldn't have been successful without the foreign support they received.
Also check out the chapter "Conjuring Lenin" in
Conjuring Hitler by Guido Preparata. Much of the support for the Bolsheviks was geopolitical in nature. Those doing so wanted to destabilize the Russian Empire. They didn't predict that it might create the USSR as it came to be - that would require more foresight than they possessed.
Look at yourself in the mirror after all those statements that you make about Stalin and ask yourself why.
We need to build the future, not destroy ourselves with the past.
We can do both. I.e., not necessarily
destroy ourselves with the past, but look at it dispassionately while also building a future worth living.
None of you present here have the competence to discuss historical figures, such as Stalin.
A cynic would say none of us (including you) has the competence to discuss anything. But this is a research forum, and we can try our best to tease things out - which includes looking at the work of people who arguably do have the competence. But we can also question
their competence. Again, research forum.
And if you are discussing Stalin and his motives, then include here the historical figures of the same time, for example, Hitler.
We have, and we do. Speaking of which, I don't think Hitler was a clinical psychopath either. But Goering definitely was.
I have long had this thought, but it is incorrect to generalize about the whole Soviet period. Yes certainly the USSR was not an enemy of the USA and only played this role, but it began only with the murder of Stalin by British secret services, confirmed by Cs, Khrushchev Brezhnev and others (thanks to their sabotage management any libertarian can now pompously say that the planned economy does not work in the USSR, although modern transnational corporations are essentially the same, and the USSR is a state-corporation).
Yes, the Soviet system went through many transformations.
Stalin may be an unempathic charateropath, but he is a sovereign charateropath smart and powerful enough not to submit to the PTB otherwise all the western bankers would not have had to nurture the Nazi project in Germany to overthrow their allegedly own Soviet project.
I think this is too black and white. Stalin did not submit to the foreign PTB. He
was the domestic PTB.
There are a lot of books, memoirs of top generals, politicians and even ordinary people who happened to encounter him in life. You would be surprised how attentive, caring, rightful, empathetic etc. he was.
I'll refer back to my previous post about borderline parents. Yes, they can be very attentive, caring, empathetic, etc. But they can also be the exact opposite. Not psychopaths, but not psychologically healthy either. Stalin wasn't all evil. He was more complex than that. But he was no Putin.
The system had of course drawbacks. (Gulag narrative-please research declassified official documents -not traitor Solzenitsin).
Yep, like this one, based on those documents:
The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) [Khlevniuk, Oleg, Staklo, Vadim A.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series)
smile.amazon.com
He gave such a leap forward to the country even after his death (his funeral - was something of a record. Millions people came and all crying-or may be they were doing it at gunpoint??
I'm sure we can all think of similar examples of people genuinely supported by masses of people who didn't necessarily live up to who the people thought they were.
My grandmother 90 years old now-their generation still highly admire him and ‘demand such a ruler now’. According to social research- in 2000 - 50% of the whole population admired him and strangely enough in 2021 - 80%. May be you have a rational explanation for that phenomenon?
Yep: people in general aren't rational, especially about their national history. It's normal, and there's not much anyone can do about it.
And I hate to read the comments of the offended boy who boldly condemned pedophilia on the forum in a thread that is devoted to a completely different problem.
It's ok, it's on a new thread now. No offense required!
We boldly condemned Stalin, because a book was written by order of the West, which says that he is a pedophile and we firmly believed in this and now we are angry and discussing this here because we have no other problems. Are you out of your mind?
You're talking about Stalin's relationship with the 13-year-old still? "By orders of the West" is a bit hyperbolic, IMO. Here's the story behind the story:
Stalin and his lover aged 13 | Mail Online
