Talk:Joseph Stalin

Battles in infobox

I have recently been checking infoboxes of various political leaders and I noticed the battles they fought only include the physically fought ones e.g. the infobox of Adolf Hitler includes World War I and not World War II, Harry S. Truman includes WWI and not WWII, Korean War etc. Thus, I will be removing the battles in which Stalin did not physically fight in. MawlidistMan (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Heads of states don't personally participate in wars. But they cause them.--Aristophile (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the wars which heads of states cause are not shown in the infobox. See Stalin's WWII ally Winston Churchill, see Stalin's successor Nikita Khrushchev, Hitler, Truman etc. They only include the wars which they personally participated in. Thus, I proposed the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War in Stalin's infobox since Stalin's personally participated in them. MawlidistMan (talk) 8:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the logic of removal in the light of the other examples. The infobox for Stalin is already long enough without being bloated by this long list.Sbishop (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Due to the examples you provided I agree that this article should be like those other articles. Perhaps that infobox part can be divided into two separate sections, one with battles that he was more physically involved with/in like the Battle of Tsaritsyn and the other section with battles that match the description “Heads of states don't personally participate in wars. But they cause them.”

But I reckon the examples you provided would have to be changed too. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to better reflect this point as of this revision: Special:Permalink/1170721708. Based on my review of the articles you linked and others, I believe that the undocumented "rule" is that only the years-of-service/wars in which a military rank was held are listed, while those in which the person was a civilian commander-in-chief are not. In Stalin's case, this excludes 1941–1943, since he was the CiC but held no rank until he made himself a Marshal in 1943. I think what is acceptable to list in this case is somewhat open to interpretation, however, since in other cases like Hitler or Truman the position of commander-in-chief is implied by their other offices (Fuhrer, President) listed in the infobox, while that is not the case here. — Goszei (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede is pro-Stalin inclined, has to be changed (BOLD VERSION)

Unlike leads for other genocidal dictators such as Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler, Stalin's lead presents him as a normal figure all the way until the last part of the last paragraph. Even the last paragraph isn't good, because over half of it refers to how much cherished Stalin is. This is an absurd article and the lede needs to be immediately revised. Here is the edit I applied, which should stay, which improves NPOV and likens the article to others like it on Wikipedia (Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler etc.) beginning of the lede " was a Soviet politician, political theorist, revolutionary and dictator " end of first paragraph of the lede " With the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed shortly before the start of World War II in Europe, he is responsible for aiding Nazi Germany and co-responsible for starting the war, from joint military action to the sharing of intelligence and critical supplies. His policies, chiefly the Great Purge, the Holodomor and multiple massacres, genocides of ethnic minorities and deportations, resulted in millions of victims. " By the way, Hitler has his fans, too. Galehautt (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, referring to an earlier argument posted here above, that "dictator" isn't a title. "Leader" isn't a title either, and Stalin wasn't a president or prime minister. He was the general secretary with absolute power from 1928 until his death. Galehautt (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

And of course, "dictator" itself has a grounding in marxism/leninism/stalinism. Marx referred to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which Lenin changed into the "dictatorship of the vanguard" which Stalin changed into just a dictatorship where he dictated with decrees the course of the country. There's also Lenin's concept of "democratic centralism" which is dictatorial in its very nature, with Stalin narrowing the governing body of "democratic centralism" to himself. And let's not forget that the Soviet Union was totalitarian, especially under Stalin. Galehautt (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The introduction already states that he was a dictator.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Where? Galehautt (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph. Mellk (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Mind telling me what discussion is here? I see no discussion, so I assumed everyone agrees. There has to be a time limit. Galehautt (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Silence is not consent. You made a bold edit, it was reverted (twice now), your obligation if you want your material included now is to gain WP:CONSENSUS, and there's no time limit for that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, how do I go about it now? Galehautt (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You try to gain WP:consensus on this page. If you can't, you move on to something else. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How and when was consensus gained for the horrendous way the article looks now? If the community was as inactive when the current lede was forced through as it is now, I see no reason why I should not edit the lede. Why be so defensive about Stalin? Is there any way, for example, that other editors or perhaps the administration could be pinged to solve this matter? Galehautt (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page archives, quite clearly this was not as a result of the community being "inactive". If you decide again to restore your changes, this will be considered disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruption is not my wish, correction is. It is sad though how active you guys are at blocking this edit and aren't so active at discussing it. That is disruptive in its own way. Galehautt (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, at the moment, "us guys" aren't so active at discussing something that has been argued here since at least 2004, and the consensus has been to not do what you are suggesting. Unless you have new arguments or something else has changed, it's just a rehash of an old discussion, which shows no sign of a changed consensus. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I should ping all of the administration then. And have a vote. I wonder how Jimbo sees it, too. The broad societal consensus is different, no matter whether you're on the right or the left. I would suggest you read a book or two by Anne Applebaum because you're in the wrong. We here on Wikipedia do not support genocidal tyrants here. We here on Wikipedia love democracy and rule of law here. Galehautt (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The question of whether Stalin committed genocide is debated. Apollo1917 (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The question whether Holodomor was a fully orchestrated genocide of Ukrainians is debated, not whether Stalin was genocidal (see: deportations of Baltic peoples, Russification/Sovietization etc.) or whether the Holodomor happened. Galehautt (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote, in WP:WIKIVOICE, that the Holodomor and other events were genocides. This is called a POV edit. Overall, your changes do not follow what the body says. Where does it say he is co-responsible? See MOS:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see where the contention is now. I will fix this. Galehautt (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You are still disruptively editing. Mellk (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the edit according to your comment. Is there anything that is still contested? I mean it's no surprise there's no discussion when I'm introducing an edit and you guys revert it and can't even point to what's contested in my edit. A bit kafkaesque Galehautt (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You are edit warring at this point and have already violated WP:3RR. You need to self-revert and get consensus on the talk page, not continually make changes to the article. Mellk (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You are edit-warring. I still don't know what's contested. Galehautt (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on rather than continuing to rant. Mellk (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a humorous essay and you seem to have run out of arguments to clutch it. Galehautt (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

From the first paragraph: "Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator"--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So he was a dictator! Galehautt (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Should I RfC? Galehautt (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have edited slightly my proposal. I shall implement this improved edit now and see what you guys think Galehautt (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you need to get consensus on the talk page. You do not restore the same contested edit with slight changes to the wording. This is still a POV edit. Mellk (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What is contested precisely? Galehautt (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

See above. Mellk (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing. If you have no argument, why chip in? Galehautt (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As another voice to indicate that you lack consensus for your desired change. We don't need to repeat all the arguments that have made for this for twenty years; "I agree with the existing consensus" suffices. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no proof that there is an existing consensus. It's just you and the other guy. You're both just mere users, too, not admins. You're nobodies. Before 2022, this page could've attracted mostly the attention of commies. We do not like authoritarians here on Wikipedia. I for example am a friend of one Anne Applebaum and I know what the consensus is. If you can't even point to a single thing that you contend with, you should just get out of my way. Galehautt (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Um, I've been an admin here for almost 20 years, but that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion; admins don't decide content, the WP:CONSENSUS of the Wikipedia community does. I'm not going to argue your points with you; I don't have to. It's quite clear from this history of this article and the history of this talk page that WP:CONSENSUS is to omit the term "dictator" from the first sentence of the article. Here is the result of a search of the talk page archives for the word "dictator". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Times change, so do articles. Discussions that were relevant to the shape of the article 10 years ago may not be relevant now. For example, the lede already in the first paragraph (though not in the first sentence, sadly) mentions that he was a dictator. That may not have been there 10 years ago. So in the current situation, I don't see why he shouldn't be described as a dictator. This is not my personal remark either, I'm merely trying to follow the standard set in other articles, which I think is far more important than any state of discussion pertaining to this sole article 10 years ago. And the standard set in other articles is such that people like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot etc. are invariably titled "dictator" so I do not know why Stalin's article should be different. Galehautt (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, the "dictator" thing is just one of two points I bring up. Galehautt (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Support changing the lede in line with other 20th century dictators. This goes against the standard set by the article of every other tyrant which highlights their actions in the lede, not their cultivated appearance. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I also support Galehautt (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You were recently blocked for personal attacks and edit warring, if you continue with this then it will likely lead to a longer block (though at this point I think an indefinite block is best). Mellk (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is also a personal attack and I see you have not learned from the previous block. Mellk (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

2 supports. Do you oppose, as a single person? Might want to reconsider who is edit warring. Galehautt (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a person, not an account. I will not waver. You will not win. Sorry. You will either be blocked or not but you won't win. That's all. You can't block truth. Galehautt (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but we can block you-the-person for personal attacks as I just did. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Length

At over 20k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I added the section sizes template just above. Just going by the numbers, and starting at the top: §Early life is about half the size of its corresponding sub-article and could probably be 30-50% shorter. Joseph Stalin during the Russian Revolution, Civil War, and the Polish–Soviet War is listed as the main article §In Lenin's government, and it could definitely be expanded and possible re-titled to something like Joseph Stalin during Lenin's government. The section here is longer than that article, though it covers a few more years of history. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a Good Article that has been reviewed by others for months. It is a biography that satisfactorily summarizes Stalin. From May to November 2018 the article was reviewed by many editors who consensually agreed to the promotion. Editors who call for content splitting forget that the article is a biography of a central historical figure. Furthermore, Wikipedia has many biographies longer than this one, and few have received a content splitting proposal. They are complaining that the 20k word article is difficult to comfortably read, yet the article is well written, unlike much longer articles. --Zoldyick (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

But WP:AS states that articles over 15,000 words should "definitely" be split (or trimmed?). I brought it down close to 18,000 words by spinning off personal life and political views. But I'm stumped on what else to trimm. LittleJerry (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's because it's not that simple. All sections of the article are balanced in terms of text content, coverage of facts, and information about Stalin's life. By unilaterally splitting this content, we are unbalancing information and texts. (Look at the Political views section...) I insist on this point, the article is about one of the most relevant personalities in recent history, and it will inevitably be fulfilled. But in this GA version the article is very well written and organized. We cannot say that at some point he goes off topic. What WP:AS doesn't realize is the fact that some articles are vital to the project. --Zoldyick (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Hello! I am new here so I apologize if this is the wrong procedure for doing this. I would like to make an edit to the lead.

The sentence I would like to change is this: “Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator.”

I would like to change it to this: "Stalin governed the country as part of a collective leadership, and was given a leading role."

The reason for this change is to acknowledge the existence of varying interpretations regarding the extent to which Stalin consolidated his power. This proposed edit aims to present a more cautious perspective. The following is a collection of both primary and secondary source evidence that challenges the traditional notion of dictatorship. It is crucial to present a balanced view by considering diverse interpretations and engaging with counterarguments. This proposed edit aims to provide a nuanced understanding of Stalin's leadership position alongside the concept of collective leadership.

1. This report was published by the CIA in 1955. This report asserts that Stalin was a powerful leader, but doesn't actually call him a dictator. However, it's important to note that the information the CIA based this report on is not present in the report itself. The CIA could have made an error in this report and Soviet archives have since been opened since 1955, creating more available evidence to examine. The CIA said this about Stalin: "Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team..."

2. This excerpt is taken from Georgy Zhukov's Memories, published in 1969. In this source, Marshal Zhukov offers a perspective that challenges the widely held belief that Stalin single-handedly made all military and strategic decisions. Zhukov recalls how Stalin did not make decisions in isolation, but rather made decisions collectively. While this account offers an alternative viewpoint, it is essential to examine multiple sources and perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of Stalin's decision-making during his leadership. Marshal Zhukov states: "After J. V. Stalin's death appeared the tale about how he used to take military and strategic decisions unilaterally. This was not the case at all. I have already said above that if you reported questions to the Supreme Commander with a knowledge of your business, he took them into account. And I know of cases when he turned against his own previous opinion and changed decisions he had taken previously."

3. Vospominaniia I Razmyshleniia was published by Georgy Zhukov in 1969 in Moscow. It highlights an environment where individuals felt relatively comfortable expressing their opinions. This suggests a certain degree of openness within the leadership structure. This greatly reflects a collective leadership, not a dictatorship. However, one thing that's important to note is the broader context with democratic centralism and how it can silence people's voices. It's also important to understand that this quote doesn't discredit other evidence that exists, it merely provides nuance. Marshal Zhukov said this: "His style of work, as a rule, was businesslike. Everyone could express his own opinion without being nervous. The Supreme Commander treated everyone the same way - strict and officially. He knew how to listen attentively when you reported to him with knowledge of your topic. He himself was laconic, and did not like verbosity in others."

4. This is another quote from Zhukov's memories. It offers insight into Stalin's leadership style. Marshal Zhukov shares his observations during the war, stating that Stalin was open to discussing difficult questions and engaging in debates. Rather than imposing his own thinking on others, Stalin fostered an environment where diverse viewpoints could be defended and discussed. Marshal Zhukov said: "By the way, as I was convinced during the war, J. V. Stalin was not at all the kind of person before whom it was impossible to raise sharp questions and with whom it would be impossible to argue and even firmly defend his point of view.

If anyone claims the opposite, I will say frankly that their statements are not true."

5. Sergei Shtemenko was a general who had close contact with Stalin during the war years. He presents insights suggesting that the Soviet Union maintained a collective decision-making process rather than a dictatorship. Shtemenko writes: "I must say that Stalin did not decide and did not like to solve important issues of the war alone. He was well aware of the need for collective work in this complex area, recognized the authorities on a particular military problem, took into account their opinion and paid tribute to everyone. In December 1943, after the Tehran Conference, when it was necessary to outline action plans for the future, a report at a joint meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the State Defense Committee and the Stavka regarding the course of the struggle at the front and its prospects was made by A. M. Vasilevsky and A. I. Antonov, N. A. Voznesensky reported on the war economy, and I. V. Stalin took over the analysis of international problems "

6. This source, Tak Bylo, was published in Moscow 1999. According to the book, there are accounts suggesting that Stalin demonstrated attentiveness and an ability to change his mind when engaging in discussions with people. This perspective challenges some of the allegations against him, providing a different viewpoint on his character and decision-making process. Anastas Mikoyan writes: "He was also attentive to the proposals by the generals. Stalin listened carefully to what was said to him and to counsel, listened to disagreements with interest, extracting intelligently from them that bit of truth that helped him later to formulate his final, most appropriate decisions which were born in this way, as a result of collective discussion. More than this: it commonly happened that, convinced by our evidence, Stalin changed his own preliminary viewpoint on one or another question.”

7. This is a speech from Stalin at the plenum of the central committee on October 16, 1952. It sheds light on Stalin's leadership position and his expressed desire to be relieved of his duties. Stalin highlights the need for fresh perspectives and vigor within the Communist Party by emphasizing the importance of bringing in new individuals with energy, dedication, and political leadership qualities. The sincerity of Stalin's request is a matter open to interpretation, as conclusive evidence supporting or refuting its seriousness remains elusive. Stalin says: "They say, why do we need an enlarged Central Committee. But isn’t it self-evident that we need to get new blood and new strength into the CC CPSU? We arc getting older and shall sooner or later die, but we must think into whose hands we shall give this torch of our great undertaking, who will carry it onward and reach the goal of communism? For this we need younger people with more energy, dedicated comrades and political leaders. And what does it mean to bring up a dedicated, devoted political leader of the State?... I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts! [General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.]"

8. This book was published by historian Sebag Montefiore. It presents evidence suggesting that Stalin faced open criticism. It's important to note that dictators can sometimes tolerate criticism. However, when considering the notion of collective leadership alongside this evidence, the label of "dictator" may not fully capture the complexity of the situation. It is crucial to understand the context of democratic centralism during that period and its impact on the extent of permissible criticism. Montefiore wrote: "Molotov admired Koba but did not worship him. He often disagreed with him, and criticized, Stalin right up until the end… Voroshilov, Mikoyan and a Molotov frequently disagreed with Stalin…"

9. This book was published in 1995. It contains Stalin's letters to Molotov by various scholars and provides insights into Stalin's leadership style and decision making process. The evidence suggests that Stalin adopted a collective leadership approach, as he faced challenges in achieving his desired outcomes.. They write: “In a September 1930 letter to Molotov, Stalin stated “I propose Kaganovich from the Worker-Peasant Inspection as the candidate for head of civil aviation” [Footnote] On October 15, 1930, Goltsman was confirmed by the Politburo as head of the Civil Aviation Association”

10. This quote comes from the book Stalinist Terror by Arch Getty and Roberta Manning, published in 1993. It provides nuance to how the decision making process allowed for different viewpoints. They write: "In the fall of 1938, when the question arose of removing Yezhov from his position at NKVD, Stalin proposed the candidacy of G. M. Malenkov as the new Commissar of Internal Affairs. But a majority of the Politburo recommended L. P. Beria for the post."

11. This quote is from Pat Sloan about his time in the Soviet Union in the 30s. He describes his experiences in the country with Soviet democracy. It's important to note that this account represents just one perspective and focuses primarily on grassroots democracy rather than higher levels of Soviet government. In his description, Sloan highlights that his participation in an election was open to all working members of the community, regardless of nationality or citizenship. He writes: "I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship are no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organisation was called. by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?"

12. This quote is from Sidney Webb's book: The Truth About Soviet Russia in 1942. Webb discusses how the Soviet Union allows and even encourages criticism of various aspects of the USSR: "...free criticism, however hostile it may be, is permitted, even encouraged, in the USSR, of the directors of all forms of enterprise, by the workers employed, or by the consumers of the commodities or services concerned."

13. This book was published in 1998 by Robert Thurston. Thurston provides additional information regarding the criticism of Soviet officials: "Of course, criticism had been strongly encouraged during the purges, and local records contain plenty of it.152 The press strongly endorsed criticism from below at the end of 1938. Pravda denounced "haughty answers to critical questions by the Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Party district committee. . . .Such a statement by a party leader does not facilitate healthy Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism. On the contrary, it leads to stopping up, to tying up the initiative of the masses, to putting brakes on uncovering enemies."

14. Stephen Wheatcroft published this in 2007. He suggests how Yefim Georgievich Evdokimov guided Stalin and even calling him the Evdokimov "architect of the Shakhty trial": "Evdokimov had a demonstrable influence on Stalin in guiding him to adopt certain policies at certain times."

15. J. Arch Getty wrote this book in 1985 analyzing the history of power in the Soviet Union. He suggests that Soviet Russia exhibited more characteristics of a traditional society rather than a highly organized totalitarian regime. "According to most Western views, power was transmitted from the top to the bottom, from the center to the localities... Theoretically, every committee was completely subordinate to the one above it, and individual members had no power or control at all. The political reality was much different. In fact, the chain of command collapsed more often than it functioned. The Communist Party, far from having penetrated every quarter of Russian life, was more an undiciplined and disorganized force with little influence outside the cities. Soviet Russia in the '30s resembled a backward, traditional society far more than it did the sophisticated order of totalitarianism."

16. Sidney and Beatrice Webb write in 1938 about Soviet government structure. The suggest that the Soviet Union had democratic institutions and explicitly write about Stalin's allegations of dictator: "...the Communist Party in the USSR is unlike the religious order in not being subject to any chief imposed upon it from without, and being democratically governed by its own membership, dispersed in. some 130,000 Primary Party organs, which elect a pyramid of tiers of committees, rising up to an All-Union Conference, with its central committee and sub-committees; Stalin, whom foreigners are apt to think of as a dictator, being merely the principal secretary to the organisation, a post from which he could at any moment be dismissed by the highest committee."

17. Sidney and Beatrice Webb also published a book in October of 1936 called "Soviet Communism: Dictatorship or Democracy?". They draw a comparison to other dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler, highlighting that Stalin does not possess the same level of authority over his fellow citizens or even the members of his own party: "Sometimes it is asserted that, whereas the form may be otherwise, the fact is that, whilst the Communist Party controls the whole administration, the Party itself, and thus indirectly the whole state, is governed by the will of a single person, Josef Stalin. First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow-citizens and not even over the members of the Party to which he belongs. He has not even the extensive power which the Congress of the United States has temporarily conferred upon President Roosevelt, or that which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president... He is, in fact, only the General Secretary of the Party, receiving his salary from the Party funds and holding his office by appointment by the Party Central Committee, and, as such, also a member (one among nine) of its most important sub-committee, the Politbureau."

While the sources presented above offer evidence that challenges the theory of Stalin consolidating power and suggest a collective decision-making process, it is essential to recognize that there are alternative interpretations. Some historians argue that while collective decision-making existed, Stalin still held significant influence and authority within the Soviet system. It is important to consider a range of viewpoints to form a comprehensive understanding of Stalin's governance. Atinoua (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a bunch of problems with this mass of quotations:

1. Most of them aren't relevant to the question of whether Stalin can be considered a dictator. That Stalin during the Great Patriotic War took into account the military advice of others and was willing to reverse decisions he had previously made are good traits for a leader to have, whether an elected official or an absolute monarch. That doesn't answer whether such decisions could be made and unmade against his will.

Likewise Getty writing that the 1930s USSR "resembled a backward, traditional society far more than it did the sophisticated order of totalitarianism" has nothing to do with whether Stalin was a dictator or not. After all, Russia before 1917 was surely even more of "a backward, traditional society" yet at the head stood a notorious autocracy.

Stalin desiring "fresh perspectives and vigor within the Communist Party by emphasizing the importance of bringing in new individuals" would, again, be a salutary trait. but it implies that dictators must be opposed to the replacement of subordinates and must adhere to ideological dogmatism. It's also worth noting that around the time Stalin made his speech, the Politburo was replaced by a far larger Presidium which I've seen historians generally regard as a way for Stalin to swamp earlier supporters he had now regarded as untrustworthy (Molotov, Mikoyan, etc.) with newcomers who owed their positions to him and could thus be expected to have 100% loyalty.

As for Evdokimov, leaving aside that he could only have influenced Stalin for a limited period (given he was shot during the Great Purges), I don't see how having "a demonstrable influence on Stalin in guiding him to adopt certain policies at certain times" challenges Stalin being a dictator, given that plenty of wielders of dictatorial power have had influential advisers. To give an infamous Russian example, Rasputin's influence over the Tsar.

Thurston's remarks about criticism of lower-level officials in the USSR during the Great Purges are, again, not relevant to Joseph Stalin, who was evidently exempt from any such criticism. Ditto for Webbs' remarks about the functioning of lower rungs of the state and Communist Party apparatuses and criticism of enterprise managers and the like.

2. The CIA report was addressed on this talk page less than a year ago. See Archive 23.

3. The Webbs' books on the Soviet Union aren't considered reliable sources by any historians I'm aware of. When said books are mentioned it's almost invariably either to mock or denounce them as prime examples of uncritical texts by Western "fellow travelers" of the USSR. This doesn't mean everything they write is erroneous, but what they do write should be checked against better sources (especially given that the Webbs had no special knowledge of the inner workings of the Soviet leadership whereas nowadays there's the Soviet archives and memoirs by Soviet officials.)

4. Pat Sloan was a lifelong member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, writing his book at a time when the CPGB was not known for tolerating any significant criticism of the USSR let alone Stalin. In later decades Sloan seemed to have no problem regarding Stalin as a man who had consolidated power in his own hands. Thus he complained that Soviet authors who claim the USSR is democratic were downplaying and obfuscating "the whole Stalin phenomenon, an emanation of the Soviet system" (see Labour Monthly, December 1971, p. 567) and in his last book Sloan wrote that "during the last years of Stalin, there was an internal dogmatism such that nobody apart from Stalin dared to voice a new idea, even on the basis of Marx's own original exploratory work." (Marx and the Orthodox Economists, 1973, p. 7) Sloan further states in that book, "Nobody today, for example, would dispute the fact that in the last years of Stalin centralisation was carried to fantastic extremes, supported by the illegal activities of the state security services." (p. 152)

5. The sincerity of Stalin's offers to resign, as you note, are "open to interpretation." I'm not aware of any historian who attaches much weight to them. I've already noted above the less-than-democratic context of Stalin's speech. It's also worth adding, since you've quoted the Webbs, that they themselves believed Stalin "may be thought to have become irremovable from his position of supreme leadership of the Party, and therefore of the government" given "the emotion of hero-worship, of the traditional reverence of the Russian people for a personal autocrat." In consequence, "He will therefore remain in his great position of leadership so long as he wishes to do so." (Webbs, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? Vol. I, 1936, pp. 438, 440) The Webbs' argument alone would be enough to indicate that Stalin could scarcely have expected his "request" to be accepted by those present, and instead that he desired merely to have his colleagues reaffirm their support for him.

Finally, it's important to note that the degree of power Stalin wielded wasn't static, so that he may very well have been faced with limitations on that power in 1930 or 1938 that were not necessarily still in place by the time of his death. Books like The Nature of Stalin's Dictatorship (edited by E.A. Rees) go into this, notably Stephen Wheatcroft's contribution to that book titled "From Team-Stalin to Degenerate Tyranny" which does support the notion that Stalin "consolidated power to become a dictator." --Ismail (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree.Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you very much for your feedback. I appreciate your thorough response regarding my proposed edit, and how quickly you responded too! You make really valid points and after reading them all, I now realize that some of the sources I provided do not directly address the central question of whether or not Stalin was actually a dictator. Accuracy and relevancy is very important and I respect your commitment to these high standards. I would like to reiterate the intention behind my proposed edit. My aim was to introduce a more cautious perspective, acknowledging the existence of varying interpretations regarding the extent to which Stalin consolidated his power. By presenting a nuanced understanding of his leadership position alongside the concept of collective leadership, I believe we can provide readers with a more balanced view and encourage critical thinking.

As you mentioned, just because Stalin took into account the military advice of others and was willing to reverse decisions he had previously made, it doesn’t automatically mean decisions could be made and unmade against his will. And I agree with that. I believe the evidence presented in sources 5 and 6 should be explored more, which highlight instances of collective work and discussions within the leadership structure. These sources provide nuance of the decision-making process of Stalin’s time, suggesting a more complex leadership dynamic than a straightforward dictatorship.

You also made a point about how Russia before the revolution was even more backward yet it was also an autocracy and you’re right that evidence 15 does not mention Stalin being a dictator. This evidence does suggest that the western understanding of Soviet history, of Stalin being a dictator, as it existed in 1985, was not entirely accurate. It provides a greater context of the extent of power consolidation. I believe a more nuanced position regarding his leadership position can be created to avoid oversimplifying it, and I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

Regarding evidence 7, you raised a point regarding Stalin's desire for fresh perspectives and new individuals within the Communist Party. It is true that this trait, in isolation, does not necessarily contradict the concept of dictatorship if the reasoning was to have an army of yes-men. When examining Stalin's actions in the broader context, it becomes essential to consider the motives and implications behind his emphasis on bringing in new members. While it is true that the replacement of the Politburo with a larger Presidium could be viewed as a means for Stalin to ensure loyalty and control, it is also important to consider the potential benefits of introducing new individuals into the decision-making process. Stalin said “We are getting older and shall sooner or later die, but we must think into whose hands we shall give this torch of our great undertaking, who will carry it onward and reach the goal of communism? For this we need younger people with more energy, dedicated comrades and political leaders.” And followed by requesting to be replaced as General Secretary. It is possible that this is not a sincere request, but if it is sincere then it suggests that Stalin continued to operate with collective leadership despite playing a bigger role. And even if it wasn’t sincere, it indicates an acknowledgement of needing a collective approach. If there is evidence that Stalin rejected the cult of personality around him, then we may be able to conclude his resignation was sincere. And if there are more instances of Stalin offering to resign that may also indicate that he was more sincere in his request.

The point you made about evidence 14 is a fair point as well. It is true that dictators can have influential advisors and this evidence alone does not change that fact. At the minimum, this evidence suggests that Stalin was receptive to input, but Stephen Wheatcroft goes further and places responsibility for the Shakhty trial on Evdokimov. This does suggest that Stalin was not alone in the decision making process.

While it is true that Thurston’s and Webbs’ remarks (evidence 13 & 12) may not be directly relevant to Stalin, they do contribute to a broader context. Thurston’s remarks are significant because it highlights a degree of openness and flexibility at least at certain levels. They indicate that the Soviet system encompassed various levels of decision-making and internal debate and supports the argument for collective leadership. Criticism also suggests a certain level of accountability that existed within the system. This kind of checks and balances is not something typically associated with dictatorships. With regards to whether Stalin himself could be criticized, evidence 8 suggests that certain members were able to criticize Stalin. Voroshilov, Mikoyan and Molotov were named. Evidence 4 also suggests that others were able to question and even argue with Stalin. This is not to say that criticism by all people, at all times, for all actions was tolerated by Stalin, but this evidence does not reflect characteristics of a dictatorship.

I wasn’t aware of the discussion regarding the CIA report (evidence 1), but I have now read it and the discussion that occurred about it. The first point I took from that conversation was that the idea of collective leadership was common at the time. If this is true then I agree that it makes sense that this report may not accurately represent history. There was also a point about how this document may not have been the consensus of the time, and even if it was, it’s an older document and there are newer perspectives, including newer perspectives from the CIA. I agree with this. Especially with Soviet archives being accessed, there is new evidence that can be examined. The final point that I saw being made was about these archives, including letters between Stalin and Molotov. Robert Conquest explains how we now know Stalin was very critical of Molotov with his lack of hostility to the west. (Feel free to add or correct me if my analysis is incomplete.) Overall this evidence is important because it shows how, at some point, at least some within the CIA believed Stalin was not a dictator.

With regards to the reliability of The Webbs’ books (Evidence 12, 16, and 17), I agree that if they are unreliable then they should not have priority over more reliable work. I haven’t looked into this yet so I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Relying solely on their writings may not provide a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of Stalin's leadership and the nature of the Soviet system. I agree that multiple perspectives must be analyzed and considered, and I am very interested to hearing what you think!

You made a really good point about Pat Sloan (evidence 11) with his criticism of the Stalin-era. The quote you shared from Labour Monthly continues: “... is but touched upon, and that confusingly: 'The ideology of the cult of the leader is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism”. There were definitely huge problems within the Soviet system. His criticism of Stalin’s cult of personality are justified and should be taken into consideration when analyzing Stalin as a whole. As you pointed out, the CPGB did not tolerate significant criticism of the USSR which means that it's possible Pat Sloan was not telling the whole truth in this passage. The lack of criticism within his book may indicate a lack of free speech within the CPGB. This evidence cannot be taken alone and other evidence must also be analyzed before a conclusion can be made about just how accurate (or inaccurate) his claims are. You also mentioned his book Marx and the Orthodox Economists where Sloan talks about criticism within the USSR. This book was written in 1973 and could be reflecting the Soviet Union’s positions at the time (critical of Stalin). Like the original document I quoted from, this evidence could just be reflective of the time period instead. Sloan’s later works contradict some of the other evidence I have here which suggests one source isn’t telling the truth or the reality of whether Stalin consolidated power and became a dictator is complex. This is why we need to be more cautious when dealing with this question.

You also mentioned how the Webbs viewed Stalin as being irremovable against his will, but it wasn’t because he consolidated power and became a dictator. They write that it was because of the cult of personality around him, and even write it was “against his will”. On page 439: “It seems to us that a national leader so persistently boosted, and so generally admired, has, in fact, become irremovable against his will, so long as his health lasts, without a catastrophic break-up of the whole administration.” The full context of the quote you provided on page 438 reiterates this: “At this point it is necessary to observe that, although Stalin is, by the constitution, not in the least a dictator, having no power of command, and although he appears to be free from any desire to act as a dictator, and does not do so, he may be thought to have become irremovable from his position of supreme leadership of the Party, and therefore of the government.” It’s very clear that there was a strong cult of personality around Stalin which is something to be very critical of. This cult of personality does not imply in one way or the other whether Stalin was part of a collective or a dictator.

I also wanted to reiterate that evidence 9 and 10 suggest that not everything Stalin wanted, he received. Stalin wanted Kaganovich to take the position of head of civil aviation, but Goltsman ended up being picked instead. Stalin wanted Malenkov to be the new head of NKVD, but Beria ended up being picked instead. This evidence supports the idea that Stalin did not have absolute power in the government at the time.

The last thing that I wanted to say is that I agree with you that the degree of power Stalin wielded wasn't static and that we can work together to create a more cautious and more balanced perspective on this topic. If my original suggestion does not do justice for the complexities of the available evidence regarding collective decision making and dictatorship, I would be open to working together towards creating a more cautious and balanced page. You made many good points, so I am more than willing to revise the proposed edit. Thank you again for your reply! Atinoua (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's important to remember that "not everything Stalin wanted, he received," but I don't think this is incompatible with being considered a dictator. Nicholas II evidently didn't get everything he wanted, and I'm sure even Hitler had occasions where Führerprinzip wasn't enough to get his way (in fact there was a lot of debate among German historians as to whether he was a "weak dictator" or not.) For a leader to get literally everything he or she wants would require extraordinary powers unknown to mere mortals.

As for my thoughts on whether "evidence 15" provides "a greater context of the extent of power consolidation," the answer is no, since it's talking about the efficiency of the Communist Party apparatus in regard to Soviet society rather than Stalin's role as leader of the party and country, and even here it's specifically talking about the 1930s and not covering the post-WWII period. The Kuomintang surely had an even less efficient administration of China during the years Getty covers, yet I don't think anyone would argue this means Chiang Kai-shek wasn't a dictator.

I do not see how Stalin's speech "suggests that Stalin continued to operate with collective leadership despite playing a bigger role." You haven't actually demonstrated that Stalin operated on the basis of a collective leadership during the final years of his life, whereas there are historians who argue he very much did not, such as Yoram Gorlizki (see his article "Stalin's Cabinet: The Politburo and Decision Making in the Post-War Years.") Stalin's verbal "acknowledgement of needing a collective approach" means very little in that context.

The Shakhty Trial was held in 1928, at a time when Stalin evidently still had to reckon with Bukharin and others in the Politburo and Central Committee. If you want to argue that Stalin in the 1920s was to some extent beholden to a collective leadership, I don't think you'll find many historians disagreeing.

I don't see how "various levels of decision-making and internal debate" at different rungs of the Soviet state and party apparatus meant there must have existed collective leadership at the level of the Politburo. If collective leadership at Stalin's level existed, we can simply focus on evidence for that rather than bringing up disputes in particular regions or cities or villages.

As for disagreements and arguments by certain of Stalin's colleagues in the Politburo, during the discussion of the CIA document last year I noted that, in regard to the post-WWII period, Molotov practically begged Stalin for forgiveness over a minor political incident and decades later said that if Stalin had lived for another year or two, he (Molotov) would most likely have been killed. I also think it would be worth looking into Mikoyan's memoirs on the postwar period (rather than just his words on Stalin's handling of military affairs during the Great Patriotic War), since I suspect he concurs with other sources that in Stalin's last years any collective leadership had withered.

As for Pat Sloan, I do not think it is accurate to say that in the 1970s he was merely "reflecting the Soviet Union's positions [toward Stalin] at the time," given that as noted he explicitly criticizes Soviet authors for their insufficient treatment of what he terms the "Stalin phenomena" among other things. Furthermore the CPGB itself was among the more "liberal" (so to speak) communist parties by the early 1970s, not always being in line with the CPSU on foreign or domestic affairs. Pat Sloan seems to have supported this "liberal" attitude.

When citing the Webbs on Stalin having become irremovable, I did not claim it was because the Webbs thought he had "consolidated power and became a dictator." I brought up the Webbs' quote in the context of Stalin "requesting" to resign in 1952 to show that if the Webbs thought no one could remove Stalin, then it isn't unreasonable to assume Stalin himself must have known this when making his "request." I also brought it up because you had quoted the Webbs writing that Stalin was "merely the principal secretary to the organisation, a post from which he could at any moment be dismissed by the highest committee," without bringing up the important qualification that the Webbs also thought he could not, in actual practice, be dismissed.

As for the cult of personality, there are historians and recollections by Soviet officials who hold he was not so opposed to it as the Webbs would have liked to think (and again, the Webbs had no special knowledge on this subject.) Molotov for instance claimed that at first Stalin "resisted the cult of personality, but then he came to like it a bit." (Molotov Remembers, p. 220) In any case, not all dictators have had personality cults around them, and I don't think we need to discuss this subject to establish whether or not he ever held dictatorial control.

As for the appointments of A.Z. Goltsman in 1930 and Beria in 1938, two comments:

1. As I said at the start of this reply, a dictator need not always get what he wants, and two instances of a clash of opinions in an eight year period isn't exactly an impressive display of Stalin being regularly opposed, let alone having to genuinely argue for his positions to get his colleagues to vote with him as, say, Lenin often had to do.

2. I don't actually see any indication that the appointments of Goltsman or Beria were opposed by Stalin. The source for Goltsman merely indicates that in September Stalin had written to Molotov proposing Kaganovich for head of civil aviation, and that a month later the Politburo (which, after all, Stalin was part of) decided on Goltsman. Isn't it possible that Stalin had changed his mind, either on his own accord or at the suggestion of others? Likewise the source for the appointment of Beria only mentions Stalin having proposed Malenkov and a majority of other Politburo members recommending Beria instead, with seemingly no rival voting having taken place or other sign of Stalin trying to convince his colleagues and failing.

I'm sure this article can be improved upon, but I do think that the statement you took issue with (“Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator") remains valid on the basis of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. --Ismail (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for your reply.

You’re right when you say that Stalin not receiving everything he wants automatically means he isn’t a dictator. And if Stalin wanted Malenkov, but the majority of the Politburo wanted Beria, then Stalin did not have the final word, at least for this example. That is why it’s important to be more cautious, especially when it comes to the extent that Stalin consolidated power.

For your point on evidence 15, you’re right that the evidence is talking about the level of efficiency the Communist Party has to exert control over the country. And this control is very weak. The reason this provides a greater context to power consolidation is because Stalin did not (and I think your point is that maybe he was not able to) exert control over the country.

The reasoning for why various levels of decision-making and internal debate supports the argument for collective leadership is because it reflects a broader tradition within the country of a collective democracy (which I will go into more later). Having independence and debate at lower levels of state apparatus (as well as in the military) also shows that Stalin was not dictating these sections of government.

Regarding your comments about evidence 8, I do agree that it is worth considering what Stalin may have done. I also think that it's important to look at what Stalin did (or did not) do. These disagreements and arguments that continued throughout Stalin’s life do not add to the idea that Stalin was a dictator. It suggests that Stalin was not exempt from criticism and had, at least some level of a collective approach to decision making. That being said, I do agree with you that Molotov speculating he would have been killed carries significance.

Pat Sloan’s perspective and criticism of the “Stalin phenomena” (and his alignment with a more liberal position) provide an alternative viewpoint that should be weighed alongside other evidence. Here, Sloan is writing criticism of the Stalin era writers, specifically on his cult of personality. Criticism of Stalin’s cult of personality is something that reflects the Soviet Union’s perspective as they denounced this cult of personality after his death. This is what I am referring to when I say his perspective may be reflecting the Soviet Union's positions at the time. It’s important to look at all of Sloan’s analysis of the Soviet Union including both when he writes about collective democracy, and when he criticized the Stalin phenomena and his cult of personality.

I apologize for misrepresenting your view regarding the Webbs and thank you for correcting me. I agree with you that if Stalin was aware that he was so “persistently boosted” and “generally admired” that he became irremovable, then it may have influenced his attempts to resign. There may be evidence which suggests Stalin denounced this cult of personality, and if so, then it suggests Stalin not only did not have total control over this cult of personality, but also that Stalin wanted to distance himself from this cult. Resignation is one way that could be achieved. Also, you write about how the “Webbs also thought he could not, in actual practice, be dismissed.” This may suggest dictatorship, but their view is that he cannot be dismissed because of how loved he is, not because he had total control. This means it is true that “he could at any moment be dismissed by the highest committee” had he not been extremely popular and thus suggests more collective leadership instead of dictatorship.

I agree with you that 2 instances in an 8 year period does not prove that Stalin was regularly opposed. As you pointed out, this was in 1930, and 1938 and there were many more years that Stalin may have changed his mind. Evidence 9 and 10 merely suggests that different viewpoints within the country had different amounts of power. You also mentioned how it’s possible that Stalin had changed his mind and you’re right. With regards to your point on Beria being recommended, it suggests that the decision making process, at least in 1938, was not entirely Stalin being at the head and everyone else following.

I also want to clarify that my perspective is not that Stalin operated on the basis of collective leadership during the final years of his life. My perspective is that Stalin was given a leading role, and I hope that we can work together to create a cautious and more balanced view. We can add more nuance to our article and reduce the risk of oversimplification. The evidence that I have shared so far aims to question whether or not Stalin consolidated power and became a dictator.

It is important to note how Yoram Gorlizki’s perspective in Stalin's Cabinet: The Politburo and Decision Making in the Post-War Years is already one which presupposes Stalin consolidated power and became a dictator. Despite this, Gorlizki mentions: “...rather than one Politburo there were in fact a variety of distinct 'politburos' in the late Stalin period. Despite this diversity, each 'politburo' was deployed by Stalin to lock his colleagues into a system of collective responsibility; each offered a flexible yet reliable system by which the dictator could bind his peers.” Gorlizki is arguing that despite Stalin’s power consolidation, there remained a degree of independence.

He continues “Despite Stalin's importance, even at the height of his dictatorship the Soviet system never freed itself entirely from a deep-seated Bolshevik tradition of party 'democracy'.” According to Gorlizki, there were not just one, but several distinct 'politburos' in the Soviet system. Despite Stalin's centralization of power, these 'politburos' represented a degree of independence and diversity in decision-making. This suggests that the tradition of collective decision making we have been discussing continued even into the “height of Stalin’s dictatorship” although Gorlizki does say that the ultimate goal was to maintain control and loyalty to Stalin's leadership.

He also writes: “... a 'third' politburo, one without Stalin, acquired sufficient momentum and coherence to negotiate the gulf represented by Stalin's death with minimum disruption.” By expressing the cohesiveness of this politburo after Stalin’s death, it implies that the ruling group, with their shared understanding and experience gained from working together, was prepared to continue decision-making in a relatively smooth manner. This further reinforces the notion that, despite the concentration of power under Stalin, the Soviet system retained, to some degree, collective decision-making capacity that could endure beyond an individual leader's rule.

Continuing: “The Politburo thus served as an important counterweight to an energetic Council of Ministers apparatus.” This suggests how there were differing factions within the Soviet government. It suggests that the Politburo’s role wasn’t to rubber-stamp the decisions made, but to be a counterbalancing force to ensure power was not concentrated in one institution.

Continuing: “On 13 April the Politburo adopted a resolution on the Orgburo and secretariat which assigned responsibilities among the new secretaries and attempted to define the relative powers of Orgburo and secretariat, something the leadership had never found it easy to do.” The fact that the leadership found it difficult to define the powers of the Orgburo and Secretariat suggests that there were competing interests and tensions among the individuals involved which adds to the complex power dynamics at the time. This further shows why we need to approach this with more caution to maintain a high quality and accurate article.

Continuing: “By the end of Stalin's reign the discrepancy between a Politburo which, in reality, had become jaded and undisciplined, and the considerable leadership functions which this body was expected to exercise, had become accentuated. It may have been for this reason that Stalin decided to modernise the Politburo. Thus at the XIX Congress the name, membership and operations of the Politburo were all fundamentally changed. This reorganisation of the  Politburo was more than a simple 'rationalisation', however. The reforms of October 1952 underlined the cabinet's role as an agency of bolshevik leadership. In fact, the creation of the new presidium resonated closely with the calls for 'party democracy' and the demands for increased accountability and collective decision making which were raised in the run-up to the party." This increased accountability and calls for party democracy reflects tendencies associated with collective democracy, not dictatorship. It signaled a recognition of the need to avoid excessive concentration of power in a single individual, like a dictator.

Continuing: “The XIX congress stimulated efforts to 'democratise' the party at all levels. Steps to promote 'internal democracy' within the party included more frequent meetings of the party rank and file, mandatory reports of the apparatus to full party committees and a host of protest votes against sitting party officials. Such moves to reactivate party 'democracy' were twinned with steps to regularise the party's decision-making processes at all levels. At the very highest tier, the Politburo and Orgburo were merged into the Presidium, with an enlarged full membership of 25 and 11 candidate members. In contrast to its narrowly constituted predecessor, the new larger Presidium appeared to be more representative of the different sectors of the Soviet party-state and thus more open to outside influences.” This continues to add to the idea that it was not Stalin did not have absolute power. There was more diversity and more representation within the government, and therefore more power.

Continuing: “The evolution of the cabinet in Stalin's last months reflected broader developments within the Soviet party-state. Prime among these was the holding of the XIX Congress, which had direct consequences for the Politburo. Apart from its new name, the regular sessions of the Presidium Buro accorded with the new post-congress emphasis on 'collective decision making'.” This suggests that the Soviet leadership, under Stalin's last months, shifted towards a more collective decision making process rather than relying solely on the directives of a single leader.

Continuing: “At the same time the oncoming succession also left its mark on the cabinet, which became less dependent on Stalin than it had been in earlier years and which, in line with Stalin's own wishes, accommodated a new generation of younger leaders, many of whom were from the provinces.” With the cabinet becoming less dependent on Stalin, it means they were more open to embracing a new generation of leaders. This shift signaled a more collaborative leadership style.

Even in the conclusion, Gorlizki says: “The system of rule, however, never descended into a pure dictatorship where Stalin pursued policies in his own name, bypassing the Politburo altogether. In fact, Stalin approached the Politburo with a measure of caution and reserve… Despite frequently being excluded and manipulated by the leader, members of the Politburo under Stalin were treated relatively leniently…” This suggests that despite holding immense power and authority, Stalin was not inclined to govern as an outright dictator, imposing his policies without any consideration for the Politburo. Instead, he demonstrated a certain level of caution and reserve when dealing with this key decision-making body. While there were instances where he excluded and manipulated its members, they were, on the whole, treated relatively leniently.

He also mentions: “Even at its height, Stalinism had never become an unalloyed personal dictatorship, for it always contained a strong trace of Bolshevik ideology. At times, such as the XIX Congress, this ideology became more robust and the practices of internal 'party democracy' were revived. This had direct consequences for the organisation of the party and its ruling committees. It was because of its claim to be more 'democratic' than any other institution that, at the time of the XIX Congress, party committees were elevated over institutions of the state. This, however, came at a price: the rise of party institutions was conditional on the resuscitation of 'collective decision making' within the party, a commitment that reached to the nerve-centre of the party's power. To the extent that three politburos had co-existed under Stalin-the expanded sessions of the de jure Politburo, the closed meetings of the inner circle, and the Politburo without Stalin-it was to be a combination of this drive for collective decision making and the fact of Stalin's death itself that would allow the last of these politburos-the Politburo without Stalin-finally to come into its own.” He ends this article by writing Stalinims never became a personal dictatorship, and highlighted the collective decision making within the party. Although Gorlizki continues to call Stalin a dictator despite also writing about the collective decision making that remained, I believe we should continue to take a more cautious approach in our article to prevent oversimplification.

I also want to clarify that Stalin’s resignation is not simply a verbal acknowledgement of a need for collective democracy. It demonstrates, if sincere, a lack of dictatorship of Stalin through his initiative towards growing collective democracy. However there is more evidence which suggests that Stalin’s reasoning for his resignation in October 1952 was genuine. The question of how Stalin’s resignation in 1952 (evidence 7) actually suggests that Stalin continued to operate with collective leadership is a fair question. The answer is that by resigning, and by bringing in newer, younger members, Stalin would no longer be a part of the decision making process. There would be new leadership and collective decision making would continue. This evidence was taken from Leonid Nikolaevich Efremov’s notes, a young man, on the October 1952 Central Committee Plenum. It adds to the idea that Stalin was genuine when he said that older people (including himself) should be replaced with younger people. This suggests that Stalin wanted new voices and leaders within the party:

“Yes, we did hold the Congress of our party. It went very well, and many of you might think that amongst us there exists full harmony and unity. But we have not this harmony and unity of thought. Some people disagree with our decisions.

They say, why did we significantly enlarge the membership of the Central Committee? But isn't it self-evident that we need to get new forces into the CC? We old people will die out, but we must think to whom, into whose hands we shall pass the baton of our great undertaking. Who will carry it forward? For this, we need younger, dedicated people and political leaders. And what does it mean to bring up a dedicated, devoted political leader of the State? It takes ten, no, fifteen years to educate a state leader.

But just wishing for this is not enough. To educate ideologically firm state activists can only be done through practice, in the daily work of carrying out the general line of the party, of overcoming all sorts of opposition from hostile opportunist elements who are striving to slow down and interrupt the task of the building of socialism. And we must have political activists of Leninist experience, educated by our Party, in the struggle to defeat these hostile attempts and to achieve complete success in the realization of our great goals.

Is it not clear that we must lift up the role of our party and its party committees? Can we forget about improving the Party's work among the masses, as Lenin taught us? All this needs a flow of young, fresh forces into the CC, the general staff of our Party. This is what we have done, following Lenin's instructions. This is why we have expanded the membership of the CC. And the Party itself has grown a little.

The question is asked as to why we relieved some prominent Party and state figures from their important posts as ministers. What can be said on this account? We replaced comrades Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, and others and replaced them with new workers. Why? On what basis? The work of a minister - this is hard, peasant labor. It demands great strength, concrete knowledge, and good health. This is why we have relieved some deserving comrades from the posts they occupied and appointed in their places new, more qualified workers who take initiative. They are young people, full of strength and energy. We must support them in their important work.”

Additionally, it’s important to understand that there may be other perspectives of post-war Stalin. Stalin’s centralization of power does not necessarily mean consolidation into a dictatorship. By acknowledging different perspectives and interpretations, we can have a more accurate understanding of the complexities of Stalin’s role as a leader. The original suggestion of “Stalin governed the country as part of a collective leadership, and was given a leading role.” may not be the best way to ensure a cautious and balanced perspective on this. I would much prefer if the solution were a collective process but I can also add suggestions. What are your thoughts on “Stalin governed the country as part of a collective leadership, but centralized his power in later years.” This way, it acknowledges how collective leadership shifted over time and there is acknowledgement of his power centralization without the oversimplified assertion of dictator. I appreciate your feedback. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't hold that Stalin didn't or was not able to "exert control over the country." I hold that it makes little sense to argue that Stalin could not have been a dictator because of bureaucratic inefficiency. For example, Getty writes that the Communist Party in the 1930s had little influence outside the cities. This is true in the sense that rural membership was lower than that of urban membership. But during collectivization all sorts of personnel were sent from urban areas to the countryside to carry out the program, frequently resorting to force and violence. The fact that there were relatively few Communist Party members in rural areas in this period can help explain things about Soviet society and the countryside in particular, but I fail to see how it has any bearing on whether Stalin himself was a dictator or not.

Where do you get that "Stalin was not dictating these sections of government"? If you mean in the sense that party and state officials at lower rungs of the ladder *weren't* being tasked with implementing measures originating in the center (a center increasingly dominated by Stalin) and that they could easily risk their jobs if not their lives if they failed to carry out said tasks, then I think you'd have to find more sources than Getty for that. If you mean that Stalin wasn't an omnipresent deity who could simultaneously serve as the dictatorial head of every party and state entity in the country from Moscow to the smallest village, then sure, but by that silly criteria nobody has or ever could be a dictator.

Again, if there was indeed "a broader tradition within the country of a collective democracy," and this touched the Politburo, then you should be able to demonstrate this in regard to the Politburo.

To write that, "There may be evidence which suggests Stalin denounced this cult of personality, and if so, then it suggests Stalin not only did not have total control over this cult of personality, but also that Stalin wanted to distance himself from this cult." There is, in fact, evidence that "Stalin denounced this cult of personality." It *can* suggest that he wanted to distance himself from any responsibility for it, and of course Stalin could not have been personally responsible for every single manifestation of the cult across the entire country. But there are also authors who write that Stalin's public "denunciations" were in themselves part of his cult, reflecting a desire to glorify his "modesty."

As for the Webbs, again I've noted they aren't a reliable source and had no special insight into how the leadership of the party actually functioned, so that their mere assertion that Stalin could "at any moment be dismissed by the highest committee" carries no value. It was doubtless true in a purely "legal" sense, that Stalin could be removed in accordance with party statutes, but then he could just be another example of a dictator who ruled under a system which was democratic on paper but not in practice.

"I also want to clarify that my perspective is not that Stalin operated on the basis of collective leadership during the final years of his life. My perspective is that Stalin was given a leading role. . ." Who "gave" him this "leading role"? On what basis do you distinguish this "leading role" from that of a dictator? Why do you not accept the label of "dictator" but do accept that of "leading role"? (Besides, it would certainly be silly to argue that Stalin had no "leading role" in the 1930s or even the latter half of the 1920s, even if he could not be called a dictator at the time.)

The existence of unofficial "factions" (factions being, of course, illegal according to the party's own statutes) and "competing interests" once again have nothing to do with whether Stalin (or any other leader) could be considered a dictator or not. There have been plenty of dictators who have had to either reckon with such groups or manipulated them to keep control.

Writing that "Stalin was not inclined to govern as an outright dictator" is irrelevant. No one claimed that Stalin wanted to crown himself emperor or otherwise assume an openly dictatorial posture. Pretty much any academic work on Stalin will argue that he ruled via manipulative methods while giving the appearance of collective leadership (such as Gorlizki writing on how Stalin would circumvent the Politburo by "elevating" individuals to private meetings where Politburo-tier subjects would be discussed with certain actual Politburo members deliberately excluded.)

Again, I don't see how Stalin's own words at the 1952 plenum are "proof" that his request to resign was sincere, and I've already noted there are multiple authors who point out that the actual effect of "bringing in newer, younger members" to the leadership was to dilute the power of Molotov, Mikoyan, and other older members by bringing in personnel dependent on Stalin for their sudden promotion.

At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of reliable sources consider Stalin a dictator, including historians who (like Getty in his Practicing Stalinism and Gorlizki in his aforementioned article) note that at times Stalin was frustrated at how inept, corrupt, or otherwise inefficient the state and party organs could be. If you want to argue that the nature of Stalin's leadership was more complex than is usually presented in pop culture or whatever, I certainly won't object. But I see no reason, on the basis of Wikipedia's own standards, to adopt your suggestion of replacing the term "dictator" with "leading role." --Ismail (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, most reliable sources agree that Stalin succesful established a dictatorship within a [party] dictatorship. And some say that he was possibly the most succesful dictator in modern history if measured by total power only. As Stephen Kotkin asked rhetorically, what other leader succesfully purged his entire army leadership and remained in power thereafter? (and this doesn't even address the purging of the secret service and communist party leadership) Machinarium (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again for your reply! In order for our article to have a more cautious, balanced, and a neutral point of view, it’s important to acknowledge the complexities of Stalin’s role as a leader. Looking over my original suggestion, I do agree with you that the suggestion does not cover the extent of power consolidation. I propose this edit suggestion instead: “Stalin governed the country as part of a collective leadership, but centralized his power in later years.” This prevents the problem of oversimplification of Stalin’s role as a leader, but it also acknowledges that Stalin centralized power in later years. What are your thoughts on this?

I need to clarify that I am not saying that Stalin could not have been a dictator because of bureaucratic inefficiency. What I am saying is that evidence 15 suggests that Stalin did not have absolute power. Instead of “a sophisticated order of totalitarianism”, Russia resembled “a backwards, traditional society”. This lack of absolute power, adds nuance to the question of whether Stalin was a dictator and it is important to address this nuance in our article. There is evidence which suggests the extent that force and violence used in the 1930s was not frequent. Mark Tauger writes in Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation (pp 71-75) about an OGPU report from March 1931. This report lists 13,754 protests which had occurred in 1930. According to their data, there were around 2.5 million people who protested these changes, and Tauger estimates 3.3 million total protested. He then writes how the rural population at the time was 120 million, and the population of people over 15 was 70 million. This means that 5% of peasants protested the collectivization. Tauger then analyzes the evidence regarding the extent that violence was used against the protests that did occur. The majority of these protests were resolved peacefully with 10.0% of protests suppressed violently in February, 12.4% in March, and 2.8% in April. Tauger writes that the reason the majority of protests that occurred were resolved peacefully, was a result of explanation of local policies.

To answer your question about what I mean when I wrote that Stalin was not dictating the government is this. By allowing criticism of government, criticism of directors of enterprise, and even criticism of Stalin himself, it suggests that there were various perspectives within the Soviet government. It’s not simply the idea that Stalin was omnipresent, which is obviously not true. And it’s also not simply implementing tasks that the center created. While it’s true that they did enact the decisions made by higher levels of government, the evidence that I have presented, as well as some of the evidence you have presented suggests that collective decision making remained to some degree.

The idea of a broader tradition within the country of a collective democracy was touched on by Yoram Gorlizki. (I’ll number this so that it’s easier to reference.) Gorlizki writes: “Despite Stalin's importance, even at the height of his dictatorship the Soviet system never freed itself entirely from a deep-seated Bolshevik tradition of party 'democracy'.” This is also reflected in the other quotes from Gorlizki although that was the quote that directly referenced their tradition within the Politburo.

The next point you made was on the question of the sincerity of Stalin’s denunciation of his cult of personality. I recognize that historians interpret his denunciation as being part of his cult, which is a good point.

The Webbs spent months in the Soviet Union so I don’t think it’s fair to write off their writings as unreliable. I do think their writings should be taken into consideration in their proper context. We’ve already discussed how Stalin’s centralization of power came after these books were published in the 30s. You’re right when you say that it’s possible that he could be a dictator in a system that’s democratic on paper. That is why we should look at the other existing evidence which supports his aim for collective leadership.

Your next question is very important and is something which contributed to me wanting to change my original suggestion. My new suggestion provides more context, is more cautious, while also acknowledging Stalin’s centralization of power. This does create a new question: Why centralization of power and not dictator? The evidence that we have gone over suggests that collective leadership remained influential to some extent in the upper echelons of their government in Stalin’s years. The complex situation at the time combined with the importance of caution when making broad statements (such as the word dictator) is why I believe we should use “centralization of power” instead of “dictatorship”.

The next point you make is about how the existence of competing interests does not necessarily mean Stalin is not a dictator. You go on to explain how some dictators reconciled with dissenters. I agree with you, and there would need to be more examination of the extent that these competing interests had in the decision making process.

When it comes to Stalin’s lack of inclination to govern as an outright dictator, the reason it’s important is that his “caution” and “reserve” suggest that others were involved in the decision making process.

I need to clarify that the evidence I presented was not Stalin’s words, it was Leonid Nikolaevich Efremov’s notes. He had attended the plenum and did not feel as though Stalin was being deceptive, manipulative, or insincere. The primary source that suggests that Stalin’s actual desire was to bring in younger, newer members comes from Khruschev’s Secret Speech in 1956. Khruschev says: “Stalin evidently had plans to finish off the old members of the political bureau. He often stated that political bureau members should be replaced by new ones. His proposal, after the 19th Congress, concerning the election of 25 persons to the Central Committee Presidium, was aimed at the removal of the old Political Bureau members and the bringing in of less experienced persons so that these would extol him in all sorts of ways.” Khrushchev as a source should not be dismissed immediately as unreliable (despite his obvious bias), but rather it should be analyzed and understood within the context. There may be other primary source evidence that I am unaware of, but Khruschev’s word alone is not enough. We would also need to reconcile with Efremov’s document. Was he duped by Stalin? Was he writing to “extol” him? These questions add to the necessity to be more cautious on whether Stalin’s centralization of power means he was a dictator. I hope that my edited suggestion is more balanced than my initial suggestion, and that we can come to an agreement on the extent of Stalin’s centralization of power. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with changing Stalin gradually becoming a dictator to Stalin having "centralized his power in later years." The latter just sounds like a polite euphemism. It reminds me of post-1956 Soviet works that referred to "violations of socialist legality" under Stalin instead of directly mentioning such things as the groundless execution of hundreds of thousands of people during the Great Purges.

I've repeatedly addressed your attempts to conflate being a dictator with being an omnipotent and omnipresent being. We both concur that "Stalin did not have absolute power." The difference is you seem to think that means he couldn't have become a dictator, whereas that certainly isn't the view of Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and other historians who have emphasized the limits to Stalin's dictatorial power.

I fail to see how the shifting degree of violence amid the campaign for forced collectivization (of which there's plenty of books, e.g. Lynne Viola's Peasant Rebels Under Stalin) indicates whether Stalin was a dictator or not. Tauger himself states that "most of the protests took place after Stalin’s article ['Dizzy with Success'] was published" and that it "stimulated many of the protests in the same way that it led peasants to leave kolkhozy. It is also at least conceivable that if the article had not been published, some of the peasants who protested or left farms would have simply acquiesced in the kolkhoz." In other words, a more lenient line was taken in the months following Stalin's own decision to permit a temporary slowing-down (and to some extent rolling-back) of the collectivization drive. None of this has any bearing on him not being a dictator at the time (let alone in later years), and if anything it shows that already in 1930 the mere issuing of his words (if I am not mistaken, at the time of its publication in Pravda the article was attributed solely to him) was evidently intended as orders which every rung of the Soviet state and Party apparatus involved with collectivization were supposed to heed.

If you have evidence that there was criticism of Stalin in, say, the Soviet press or at meetings of local soviets or what have you, go ahead and show it. I continue to hold that workers criticizing an enterprise director by accusing him of failing to implement the latest directives of the Five-Year Plan or whatever has nothing to do with whether Stalin himself had dictatorial power.

The Webbs spending months in the USSR is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that they acquired insight into the inner workings of the Politburo and Central Committee. Furthermore, as Michael David-Fox notes in his Showcasing the Great Experiment (p. 217), while visiting the USSR they were given guided tours of two collective farms explicitly designed to impress foreigners, whereupon Sidney Webb told the tour guide, "How vile appear the legends spread about famine and poverty in the USSR after this!" Such appear to be the kind of "insights" the Webbs were capable of taking in during their time on Soviet soil. This does not mean that every single line of the Webbs' book is utterly useless, but, again, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? has acquired a well-deserved reputation for unreliability and I've never seen any historian cite it as an authority for the nature of Stalin's leadership.

To claim that "the evidence I presented was not Stalin’s words, it was Leonid Nikolaevich Efremov’s notes" is rather silly given that Efremov was, after all, jotting down Stalin's words, which are what you presented as evidence. What is your source for Efremov not feeling "as though Stalin was being deceptive, manipulative, or insincere"? More importantly, where are the historians who concur with such an assessment? By Wikipedia's standards we need not to rely either on Efremov or Khrushchev; historian Oleg Khlevniuk for instance writes that Stalin's proposal "would add younger and relatively unknown party leaders, giving Stalin an even freer hand in regard to his older comrades." (Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator, pp. 305-306) --Ismail (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The change to “Stalin governed the country as part of a collective leadership, but centralized his power in later years.” is change is not a euphemism. It prevents the oversimplification of labeling him a dictator (and I don't mean an omnipotent leader) while still acknowledging changes in power. I am not, and have never tried to conflate dictator with omnipotence, This is one quote from me which shows this: "It is true that dictators can have influential advisors." You write this: "The difference is you seem to think that means he couldn't have become a dictator." But this misrepresents my intended argument. To clarify, my point is that the available evidence suggests that Stalin's consolidation of power does not reflect that of a dictatorship. All of the evidence I have presented (and some of the evidence you have presented) suggest a desire for democracy and collective decision making. Your argument is that the consolidation of power could be viewed as a fight against party bureaucracy, especially considering how many of the old guard had died in WW2.

The point I made about the majority peaceful collectivization of power was because you had written: "during collectivization all sorts of personnel were sent from urban areas to the countryside to carry out the program, frequently resorting to force and violence." This is important because if resistance to collectivization were infrequent, then the argument that violence from collectivization is proof of dictatorship comes up short.

The goalpost is set to whether or not people would be punished on the basis of criticizing Stalin. I have presented evidence which shows that people have criticized Stalin and were not executed. The conclusion that comes from this is that criticism of Stalin alone is not the reason for punishment and that other factors would have to be considered. For example, Trotsky was critical of Stalin, and there is also evidence that him and his followers had plotted and attempted to assassinate Stalin on multiple occasions.

The Webbs spending months in the USSR is not irrelevant because they directly experienced the Soviet system. Michael David-Fox criticism here is that its obvious famines did occur. In hindsight, we now know they did but at the time it was less certain. It could be interpreted as criticism of lack of access to information. Regardless, the evidence I presented from the Webbs should be examined as is, not on the merit of what Sidney Webb mistakenly said to a tour guide.

Leonid Nikolaevich Efremov was not just jotting down Stalin's words, he was also writing his own interpretations of the speech. There is nothing in the primary source document which suggests that Stalin was insincere but it's possible that other primary source or secondary analysis of primary sources exists. Oleg Khlevniuk's point is not that Stalin's resignation was insincere or that it doesn't reflect Stalin's democratic tendencies. His point is that other leaders were to be kept in check. And rightfully so. Leaders like Khrushchev were very bureaucratic and by limiting their power and bringing in newer members, it could help to preserve a collective democracy. It's important to look at all the available evidence and draw a conclusion that's balanced. This is why it's so important to not oversimplify Stalin's role to be a dictator. Let me know if there's more that needs to be clarified. Atinoua (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You say you "never tried to conflate dictator with omnipotence," but most of the examples you've given of Stalin supposedly not being a dictator are merely examples of Stalin not having unlimited power to do anything at any moment and to automatically transform his wishes into effective commands like a genie. Hence for instance you citing Getty that the 1930s USSR "resembled a backward, traditional society far more than it did the sophisticated order of totalitarianism," a statement that by itself has no bearing on whether an individual could wield autocratic power in such a society (as the Tsars demonstrated.)

I did not claim that "violence from collectivization is proof of dictatorship." I was making the point that the center was capable of imposing itself on the countryside in important ways despite the paucity of party members in rural areas, and even added that I failed to see how the subject "has any bearing on whether Stalin himself was a dictator or not."

The goalpost is whether Stalin ever became a dictator, not whether everyone who ever criticized him was executed for doing so. You've presented evidence (which no one denies) that the Soviet press and party/state/etc. meetings could criticize real or perceived shortcomings and personal defects in regard to, say, the manager of an enterprise failing to fulfill the directives of a Five-Year Plan. This has nothing to do with Stalin. As I wrote, "If you have evidence that there was criticism of Stalin in, say, the Soviet press or at meetings of local soviets or what have you, go ahead and show it."

Where is your evidence that "[Trotsky] and his followers had plotted and attempted to assassinate Stalin on multiple occasions"? The only "evidence" I can recall of actual plotting, let alone claims of assassination attempts, come from the infamous Moscow Trials which no historian considers remotely credible in this (or virtually any other) regard. Not to mention that criticism of Stalin obviously isn't monopolized by Trotskyists either now or then. Rather than bring up the "other factors" that led to numerous critics of Stalin being arrested and/or shot on real and/or imaginary charges, you should just bring up those open and unpunished criticisms of Stalin which you purport exist.

What does the Webbs "directly experienc[ing] the Soviet system" mean? Did they attend meetings of the Politburo? Did they interview persons who divulged special knowledge of the deliberations of the leadership? The answer in both cases is no. I bring up Michael David-Fox's criticism because it shows how uncritical the Webbs were of Soviet reality. The Ukrainian famine is a great example of this, since the Webbs, upon hearing information of the famine from Malcolm Muggeridge and other sources in good positions to know what happened, decided to trust Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky for information on the subject, and Beatrice wrote in her diary that Maisky "comforted us about the food shortage." And as David-Fox notes, Maisky helped in the making of the Webbs' book.

The bit I quoted from Khlevniuk isn't even about the sincerity of Stalin's "request" to resign, it's the fact that his replacement of the Politburo with a much larger Presidium would have enhanced his personal power. Whether you think Stalin was justified in doing this and whether Khrushchev was "very bureaucratic" is irrelevant (though Gorlizki in his article "Party Revivalism and the Death of Stalin" notes that Stalin entrusted none other than Khrushchev to head an "anti-bureaucratic" campaign for more active and regular party meetings at lower levels of the CPSU apparatus in Stalin's last months.) And again, if there are historians who consider Efremov's interpretations credible, you ought to be able to cite them. --Ismail (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The evidence that I gave shows that Stalin was not only not in control of every decision made, but also that Stalin was criticized and there was some level of collective decision making that existed. My argument is that the available evidence suggests that Stalin's centralization of power may not have been a consolidation into a dictatorship, and we should approach this more cautiously to have a balanced article. That is also something that some of the sources you provided say as well. For example, this is one of the pieces of evidence I provided: "Molotov admired Koba but did not worship him. He often disagreed with him, and criticized, Stalin right up until the end… Voroshilov, Mikoyan and a Molotov frequently disagreed with Stalin…"

I had brought up the statistics of violence imposed on the countryside because there was a comment saying that violence was frequently used. The lack of resistance to collectivization, and in the resistance that did exist, the lack of violence used to resolve those conflicts, may indicate a healthy (at the very least, not oppressive) relationship between the population and the government. You’re right that the center was capable of imposing itself onto the peasants, and that imposition reflects one of cooperation, not oppression.

You’re right that the goalpost is set to whether Stalin became a dictator and it’s also true that dictator isn’t quantifiable. There is no melting point for a leader becoming a dictator. A dictator is a label for someone who meets enough specific characteristics. For example, if people were able to criticize Stalin and face no penalties, it would help to suggest that Stalin was not a dictator. If the CIA were to say that Stalin was not a dictator, but a captain of a team, it would help to suggest that Stalin was not a dictator. If there were different viewpoints in the Soviet government, it would help to suggest that Stalin was not a dictator. Each piece of evidence could be mentioned here.

The evidence that proves Trotsky had plotted to overthrow the government isn’t relevant to the point I am making and would only distract from the point. The point is that criticizing Stalin alone would not lead you to be punished.

Michael David-Fox’s criticism could be interpreted as criticism of lack of access to information and my main point is that each piece of evidence is not irreconcilably tied to one another. What this means is that you would need evidence of historians showing how the evidence I presented is incorrect. It’s important to avoid committing the fallacy of composition.

Oleg Khlevniuk’s point of Stalin enhancing his personal power does not mention whether this power centralization is consolidation into a dictatorship. It doesn't speak on Stalin's democratic tendencies. There would need to be more evidence to support this claim if this is a claim you’re making. The evidence regarding Efremov's words is a primary source but I would be interested if there were any historians who question the credibility of it. Atinoua (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox image

File:Iosif Stalin.jpg

Stalin in the 1940s

I propose the use of this official portrait of Stalin in the 1940s (File:Iosif Stalin.jpg) in the infobox over the current image, a 1937 portrait in which he holds a pipe (File:Stalin Full Image.jpg). The 1940s portrait has several advantages over the pipe portrait, consistent with the "natural and appropriate" guidance in MOS:LEADIMAGE:

• It is his most famous portrait by a wide margin (being widely issued to commemorate his 70th birthday in 1949), and is more representative of him at the peak of his international importance and recognition, in the World War II and early Cold War era. He is wearing his Marshal of the Soviet Union epaulettes and Hero of the Soviet Union badge.
• It is higher quality, and has a conventional composition typical of Wikpedia's infobox images. He is centered, with a clear view of his face, unlike in the pipe portrait.
• It is more neutral than the pipe portrait, which has too much "character" and seeks to portray him as "folksy" and "the everyday friend of the people". Both portraits are propaganda images, but the 1940s portrait is more straightforward in portraying him as a political leader and historical figure, rather than "humanizing" him.

To quote the MOS, the 1940s portrait is "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". I have read the somewhat recent discussions at Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 22#New infobox image and Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 23#New Infobox image, at which this image was not proposed but the deficiencies of the pipe portrait were pointed out by several editors. The alternatives proposed there had various problems, such as low quality or poor poses. — Goszei (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur. --Ismail (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You made some good points, and I would like to hear what other people think about this. This image you suggest does play into Stalin's cult of personality and I worry it idolizes him. Of course both images do this, but it may be better to portray him as folksy rather than godlike. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That portrait is included in the article 4 times. We don't need another one. The current image is more realistic and recognisable as Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Stalin in 1950

I have just found and uploaded a seated portrait of Stalin in 1950 to Commons. I think this cropped version is an even better candidate for the infobox than the 1940s portrait, as his appearance seems minimally retouched and closer to other photos, like those from the Yalta Conference. Overall the image strikes a more natural tone, and he lacks his ostentatious military decorations, reducing the concern about idolizing him. Thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This one is much better! I am OK with this change. Atinoua (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO the previous one is better. It may lack "his ostentatious military decorations," but on the other hand these hint at his role in the Great Patriotic War, which was clearly a major part of his life. --Ismail (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't think the proposed one is perfect either since, like all other Soviet photos, it's been retouched to look as if he had perfect skin. Photos from 1941 by Margaret Bourke-White are one of the few that showed what he really looked like, see here for example: [1] but unfortunately they are not available on Wikimedia. Maybe this one from the Tehran conference is a good alternative (it's currently also used on the Russian and Georgian wikipedia pages): Machinarium (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"...been retouched to look as if he had perfect skin." This point has been brought up multiple times and has been found to be invalid. MOS:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It doesn't matter if the skin is cleared up. Does the image show Stalin as he would be recognized by the average reader? Would we expect the lede image for Britney Spears to show her without makeup? LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

But anyway, I prefer the current image or the 1950 one. Stalin is more recognizable for his tunic. After this, I think we need to stop with these image discussions (unless the lede image is deleted). They keep occurring every couple months and its getting repetitive. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is getting repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between make up and 'photoshopped' imagery (for lack of a better word). This article heavily favors old propaganda images that make him look prettier than he was, but I don't think an informative encyclopedia should be doing that. Neither for the lead image, with MOS:LEADIMAGE also stating that images "should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic".Machinarium (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Make-up also makes people "prettier" than what they are. These are the same photos used in RS books about him. Hence the "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the 1950 one, as there he's without a hat and the photo is taken from a shorter distance, unlike the 1937 one GreatLeader1945 (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Stalin in 1943

Again, there's a difference between a person wearing make-up, which is the way a person managed to present himself/herself in real life, versus a manipulated photo of that person which is not what the person actually looked like. Non-manipulated photos of Stalin are also used in RS books and are essentially superior to distorted ones, especially since the latter are known to have helped shape his cult of personality. Machinarium (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I see that Machinarium has a uploaded a much higher quality scan of the 1943 Tehran image (with fewer scratches and marks) to Commons. That portrait was favored (by a large margin) at the previous discussion in Archive 23, but I believe that it was replaced at some point with the previous pipe image due to quality defects. Now that those have been resolved, I support it as the best available choice. Side note: in an ideal world, I agree that the photos of Stalin taken by Margaret Bourke-White for Life magazine would be excellent, and I hope they will be used here when the copyright lapses (I believe in 2036). — Goszei (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That photo is already in the article. I'll support the 1940s photo instead. LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It can we please settle on the image already? I thought we were done with this but people are still obsessed and can't move on. The 1950 portrait shows Stalin in his familiar tunic, which he wore during his rule, and focuses in his face. I don't get the obsession with the Tehran photo. His face is a tiny part of the photo and he is wearing atypical attire. LittleJerry (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Tehran image is also from a weird angle; the 1950 portrait is so much more natural. Loytra (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I support the portrait I have provided in the article since it is a high-quality and vintage version of the 1940s portrait and emphasizes Stalin's importance as a historic figure. SurrealSurgeon (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to just change the main image without support from other users. If you revert one more time I will report you for edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

PS. Your image is terrible. Its not even a photograph. Its not accurate and glorifies Stalin LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"A biography should lead with a portrait photograph", per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

LittleJerry Goszei Personally, I prefer the Tehran photo. Among other reasons, it is significantly less blurry than the current image.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The current image focuses on the face and has a better angle. So it's positives outweigh the negatives. I really wish this conversation would end. LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

LittleJerry Regardless of whether you find this topic drawn-out or not, the fact remains you have not obtained a consensus in favor of your image. Based on my review of the discussion, you have 4 editors in favor of the current 1950 image, 3 in favor of the 1943 Tehran photo (including myself), and 2 others who (while not supporting the Tehran photo) have voiced opposition to the current image. In total, that's a vote of 5:4 against the present image.

When this issue was decided on a year ago by numerous editors including myself, we reached a consensus by holding an Rfc. Seeing as how we now have another ongoing debate about this issue with no firm consensus in sight, I propose we hold another one to put this argument to bed once and for all. Emiya1980 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Just my 2p: I see the appeal of the Tehran photo. It's clear, crisp and well-framed. IMHO, it just doesn't look as much like Stalin as the current (Stalin in 1950) version. However, I don't think either of them would be a mistake. The "Stalin in the 1940s" one would be a distant third. He looks like something from a wax museum. Any of those three, however, is far better than the plastic abomination that just reverted a couple weeks ago. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Start it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Lede is pro-Stalin inclined, has to be changed (MILD VERSION) - improving the flow, calling a spade a spade

Hello. Some of you may know me and may have heard of or seen the trouble I have personally had with applying changes to this article with staunch opposition from some user. I have decided to formally disjoint my attempts and highlighted the earlier attempt as BOLD VERSION where it is currently Supported by 2 users (including me) and no further feedback. This MILD VERSION concerns the change I have most recently tried to get accepted which I consider as quite cosmetic and one which shouldn't cause any uproar at all. Alas it did. Well here goes: (1) I think it would be good to fix the flow of the first paragraph of the lede after the "He held power as ..." sentence as currently it's too lengthy in my opinion and constructed in a turgid way with redundancies. Here is my proposition for the flow of the rest of the first paragraph:

• He formalised the ideas he followed as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism. Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to establish a dictatorship.

This at the same time improves upon the long-standing discussion whether Stalin should be given the title of "dictator" by removing the word altogether by turning away the discussion from titles to the status of the regime of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and so on.

• (2) The most egregious whitewashing in this article that I have seen so far is the euphemizing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by linking to it only as to "a non-aggression pact" (as if it was just a generic, peaceable non-aggression pact, lookie how good a man our boy Stalin was) in the rest of the lede. It's important to note that this was the style of official Soviet historiography with its historical revisionism, and later has been continued by post-Soviet Russia too and is now universally recognized as Russian propaganda. The solution required and suggested by me is only cosmetic also, just remove the euphemizing linking and input the title of the article as it is, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

What do you guys think? Galehautt (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. You also seem to have forgotten you were reverted several times already by multiple editors, therefore framing this as "staunch opposition from some user" comes across as disingenuous. Also it was a non-aggression pact. By invading the USSR, Germany broke the pact of non-aggression. The invasion of Poland is mentioned right afterwards anyway. Mellk (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I wrote "some user" without naming names to avoid accusations of personal attacks. I'm glad you showed up but I'm concerned why you aren't alright with just linking to the article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as it stands and are afraid of WP:WEASEL WP:SPADE. Note the secret protocol.

Galehautt (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ummm, it is linked. Mellk (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's linked: "his regime signed a non-aggression pact with Germany" and I propose just: his regime signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany

Galehautt (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence becomes less clear. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

How so? Galehautt (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Germany ended the pact" (but then it is not clear this is a non-aggression pact). Replacing this makes it unclear to the reader what "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" is. Therefore, "non-aggression pact" suffices. Mellk (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that you end any sort of secret pacts you have with someone when you invade them. Maybe it's not clear to you but I think to everyone else it is. If there is no further trouble with this proposed edit, I hope the positive feedback is secured and I can go through with it. Galehautt (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed change does not indicate this was a "secret pact". And the pact itself was not secret, there was a secret protocol. Mellk (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You're pasting snippets from the paragraph to pretend there would be some inconsistency in it after applying my proposition, which is absurd. To demonstrate this, let me paste the whole thing with my clearly sensible cosmetic Wikipedianism applied:

• In 1939, his regime signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland. Germany ended the pact by invading the Soviet Union in 1941, after which Stalin joined the Allies of World War II as one of the Big Three.

Furthermore, using your logic, as it stands right now it actually is inconsistent because it does not follow how a non-aggression pact could pave the way for the Soviet invasion of Poland while the Germans were busy invading Poland themselves. Galehautt (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The article on the pact says it was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that partitioned Eastern Europe between them. If you have a problem with it being defined as a "non-aggression pact", you should go to that talk page instead. Mellk (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with that article. Any further questions? Galehautt (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Then the current wording is fine, because "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" does not tell the reader what it is. Mellk (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh, it does. It says "resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland." Galehautt (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This does not mention it is a non-aggression pact. Mellk (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It was an aggression pact truth be told. Galehautt (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And "a non-aggression pact" does not tell the reader what the M-R Pact was at all because it's WP:WEASEL WP:SPADE Galehautt (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not weasel wording. Mellk (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My bad. It's WP:SPADE Galehautt (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That article defines it as a "non-aggression pact". Also, you keep editing your comments after someone has replied to them. See WP:REDACT. Please self-revert. Mellk (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixing typos is OK. Galehautt (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this and this are not fixing typos, you have changed the meaning. Mellk (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I was meaning to write WP:SPADE. English is not my first language, English-language Wikipedia isn't my first home, it is 4 AM here and I mistakenly linked to WEASEL instead of SPADE. Galehautt (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, I already replied to that comment. You should strikethrough it instead. Mellk (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. Good suggestion. Galehautt (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't even end the opening sentence on that. It continues and only then places the period. Galehautt (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So if there are no further questions to calling a spade a spade, I would be glad to complete this edit. Galehautt (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not how consensus works. You do not proceed with your edit if "there are no further questions", especially when you have been reverted countless times already. You have been told this multiple times already. Mellk (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit was only reverted by you. Then my reverts of your reverts were reverted by you and other users claiming to counteract an alleged edit war on my part. If there are no further questions, the case is then clear. Galehautt (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not what the edit history shows, but frankly, I have ran out of patience now. Mellk (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit history shows what I said. You were the first to revert each time. Then my reverts of your reverts were reverted by you and other users. Galehautt (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, this was the first time you were reverted. Mellk (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That was the bold edit. I am speaking of this mild edit. Galehautt (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you have made your case for a change.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Galehautt (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I was addressing you, Galehautt.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay. If that's the case, you have sadly not made any argument to the contrary. Galehautt (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• The line read better, as is, and has been taken from the starting line of our article. The OP is seeing things where none exist and so, I oppose the proposed changes.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Which line? Galehautt (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I await a time when not mostly Stalin fanboys who worship Juche pay interest to this article. This time will come, it always does, to all articles. I wonder how Hitler articles would look if mostly Hitler fanboys paid attention. Yuck! Yuck twice over, against reason and morality. Galehautt (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith and Demanding change in an uncivil way isn't going to work. I do personally think this article could start a bit stronger, maybe by changing the first sentence like this: "a politician ... who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953" into "a politician ... who gained dictatorial power over the Soviet Union in the 1920s and held it until his death in 1953". But maybe I'm alone in this (among the civil users). Machinarium (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That would be OK, but sources don't agree when he became dictator.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

True, though I believe at least there is a general consensus among historians that it was during the late 1920s, right? Machinarium (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a survey of the dates given by historians.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Montefiore 2003 assesses that in 1929 that "Stalin was the leader of the oligarchs but he was far from a dictator" (this quote is included in the article), that in 1934 just before Kirov's assassination "Soviet Russia was enjoying its last months of oligarchy and approaching the first of dictatorship", and that in 1937 after the first of the Moscow show trials and amid spreading arrests, "If there was any moment when Stalin emerged as dictator with power over life and death, it was now." Most other historians are not this specific, but there is a general agreement that Stalin was the undisputed leader after Trotsky and Bukharin were expelled in 1929, if not already a personal dictator, and that after the Great Purge he was certainly a dictator. I think the best way to reflect this is the phrase "who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953, ruling as a dictator after consolidating power in the 1930s". — Goszei (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Trotskyist propaganda

I disputed the validity of a source and an editor reversed me. It turns out that the source In Defense of Leon Trotsky is clearly Trotskyist propaganda. First of all, its author is not a historian like the other sources cited. As we can see on the "About the author" page, "David North has played a leading role in the international socialist movement for nearly 40 years, and is presently the chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site." In other words, David North is anything but a historian. This is a Good Article based on the sources of renowned historians, and the content I disputed to is referenced by a source wishing to defend Trotsky, an opposition figure to Stalin. It seems to me to be a case of a conflict of interest from a source who will be partial to one of these historical figures. The disputed text says "Other socialist writers have challenged the interpretation presented by Service and pointed to the fact that the generation of bureaucrats that rose to power under his tutelage presided over the stagnation and breakdown of the Soviet Union." By who? Who are these "other socialist writers"? --Zoldyick (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt North qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. There are academic works that discuss avowedly socialist critics of Stalin and the USSR, such as The Social and Political Thought of Leon Trotsky by Baruch Knei-Paz and Western Marxism and the Soviet Union by Marcel van der Linden which would make more sense to cite. --Ismail (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. North is not a good source.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I call for content and source removal. This is a GA. We need to maintain the level of quality. --Zoldyick (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that piece of propaganda should be removed as an obvious case of going against WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part of lede about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and WWII

Why are events of 1940, i.e. occupation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia (part of the sentence The Soviet Union, which had annexed the Baltic states and modern Moldova during the war, established Soviet-aligned governments in Central and Eastern Europe.) mentioned after the end of World War II? The sequence is illogical.

In addition, why is it not made clear that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact directly led to World War II, while there is a whole sentence dedicated to Despite initial catastrophes, the Soviet Red Army repelled the German invasion and captured Berlin in 1945, ending World War II in Europe.?

I propose that the Soviet occupations of 1940 be mentioned as part of the sentence In 1939, his regime signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland and that something be written to clarify Stalin's role in beginning WWII. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

See: Causes of World War II. Mellk (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You addressed nothing and practically ignored most of what I wrote. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for edit

Although I know this subject is already highly controversial, there is a glaring error/bias in the Legacy subsection that states characterizations of Stalin as all powerful are “‘over-simplistic stereotypes’—promoted in the fiction of writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Vasily Grossman, and Anatoly Rybakov’”.

My argument is that the sentence should instead read “McDermott nevertheless cautioned against "over-simplistic stereotypes" that portrayed Stalin as an omnipotent and omnipresent tyrant who controlled every aspect of Soviet life through repression and totalitarianism.” While it should be common knowledge with a figure as controversial as Stalin to err on the side of fact, referring to these authors as “promoting fictions” of Stalin, even if a direct quote from McDermott clearly violates the integrity of the article by implicitly 1. Assuming McDermott’s cautioning/advice about how one should view Stalin is immediately correct and must be taken into account for an understanding of the facts of Stalin’s life, and 2. Disregarding the works of three authors’, one of whom was a Nobel Prize recipient, as fictions. I understand this phrasing may be a literal use of “fictions” to refer to fictional works that take place during Stalin’s tenure as Premier, the wording is, at best, confusing and unnecessary. Additionally, the connotation of the pejorative “promoted” makes that best-case scenario less likely.

Ultimately, that particular sentence adds nothing to the article about Stalin and would perhaps be better suited in a slightly less controversial article about McDermott’s feelings on those authors perceptions of Stalin. 96.245.165.159 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to be more cautious on these kinds of topics. What do others think? Atinoua (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The sentence makes sense in context.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t mean this in an aggressive manner towards you, but how does the context make that sentence any less confusing or biased? To be honest, the section is a little disjointed anyway, so I don’t think context helps much. It uses the qualifying word “fictions” to describe the work of an author whose most well known Nobel Prize winning work is a non-fiction. At its worst impression, it’s biased slander of a well known author. Alternatively, if it’s referring to their fictional works, it still gives a confusing impression that their works are mainly fiction.

I think a good common ground here would simply be change the word “fictions” to novels; it can’t be read with a negative connotation, and makes it clear that it’s referring to fictional characterizations of Stalin by those authors. That way, it changes very little, retains as much as possible of the original meaning, and reduces confusion. 96.245.249.198 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Portrait

Because of Stalin's immense significance in history, I believe that a high-quality portrait for him is necessary. If you have a problem with this, feel free to let me know. SurrealSurgeon (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the lead image above at #Infobox image. — Goszei (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User blocked for trolling/abuse/whatever. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on nationality in lead

Should the lead sentence say "Georgian politician, political theorist and revolutionary", "Georgian revolutionary and Soviet politician and political theorist", "Soviet politician, political theorist and revolutionary", or some other option? Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot)Of the three suggested options at least, "Soviet politician, political theorist, and revolutionary" would seem to be by far the most obvious and easiest to support by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. Stalin's background as a Georgian, while not irrelevant, is quite secondary to his notability as perhaps the single most defining figure of the soviet state and era. I can't imagine that much more than one in fifty of the (staggeringly uncountable) relevant sources, on the first occasion they describe the man and his consequence to history, choose to describe him as a "Georgian" before describing him in terms of his soviet role. Worth note, though: I feel like this is not the first time I have seen this particular debate on this particular page, and it looks as if there was a semi-stable longterm version "Georgian-born Soviet..." which would be perfectly acceptable as well. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not seeing any WP:RFCBEFORE here. I personally don't stand on that formality if the issue is something I can see coming up repeatedly without a strong consensus, but don't be surprised if you face some calls for a procedural close here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There are a numbers of these nationality RfCs right now with little to no WP:RFCBEFORE. The complaint will definitely come. Personally I don't mind. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Georgian-Born Soviet" for everything. Stalin, similar to Hitler, wasn't born in the country which he turned out to lead. I think the execution of birth and nationality on the leader of the Reich's article is a good standard for us to set. When people think of Stalin, they think USSR, and sometimes equate the two directly. Georgian-Born Soviet acknowledges his heavy involvement in the USSR while simultaneously acknowledging his Georgian ethnicity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing many things here. Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary, which became Austria after WW1, but he renounced his Austrian citizenship years after migrating to Germany, going for German citizenship instead. Stalin was not born in Georgia, it simply did not exist at the time. He was born in the Russian Empire which after a revolution renamed itself the Soviet Union / the USSR. Russian citizens became Soviet citizens (with the exception of lost territories) due to a change in name, not because of migration. It's therefore wrong to say Stalin wasn't born in the country he turned out to lead Machinarium (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is MOS:ETHNICITY. Stalin's Georgian origin is relatively insignificant to his life and actions. He is not famous for being a "Georgian politician", but rather for being a Soviet one. — Golden ^talk 17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Soviet Unless I am grossly mistaken Stalin was a citizen of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union and never had Georgian citizenship. His Georgian ethnicity is not significant/relevant enough for the opening sentence. Include it in the lead, but not the first sentence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• This has been argued too often.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, if I had done a search of the archives and seen the degree of previous discussion here (which to be fair, has been spread out pretty thinly across at least 16 years), I would have structured my response slightly differently. That said, it seems that "Georgian-born Soviet" was a stable version at least as recently as earlier this year. Was that the result of a consensus discussion or just something that went unchallenged for a while? I will say that in reviewing some of the previous discussion on this matter, it became nakedly transparent that a lot (not all, but plenty) of the dispute and previous input was based on a nationalistic bias by RGW/POV editors playing the blame game: no one wants to claim Stalin so much as make one nationality or the other (Russian or Georgian) claim him as the cultural result of their populations, so that all his evils and baggage can be neatly apportioned to the "correct" aggrieving society.

That said, the proper purpose under which we must now analyze the issue is one of WP:WEIGHT and pragmatics. The weight here pretty clearly militates for 'Soviet' as the dominant, and possibly exclusive, descriptor, insofar as the lead sentence is concerned. The one argument that I can think of that legitimately gives me reason to think "Georgian-born" might be appropriate is that I think that the average marginally or near-completely uninformed reader coming to this article (particularly from the regions which make heaviest use of en.WP) probably does assume Stalin was of Russian extraction. And it really doesn't hurt anything: it is accurate, afterall. The counterpoint to that is that not much is lost by delaying it a sentence or two.

Honestly, either 'Soviet' or 'Georgian-born Soviet' works, and it seems pretty clear to me that more effort is being put into changing and arguing over this than the difference really warrants, if you remove any offended national or ethnic pride and look at this in purely encyclopedic terms. So whichever the outcome this time, since we are taking the trouble to go through a formal RfC process, it should be logged at the top of the page as the standing consensus, unless another roughly comparable or larger consensus finds otherwise. In other words, possibly spare the next group of editors. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree with everything you say.Sbishop (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Georgian-born is reserved for those who were born Georgian citizens and then lost it while receiving other citizenship. It's not reserved for ethnicity or historic region. Hence Hitler is called Austrian-born while Napoleon is not called Corsican-born or Italian-born. Similarly Trotsky is not called Ukrainian-born or Jewish-born, but Russian-born. Stalin, his parents, and his grandparents were all born Russian citizens/subjects. It was only his great-grandparents that were born in the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti (i.e. eastern Georgia). Machinarium (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Soviet without 'Georgian', for several reasons. • I cannot find an example where ethnicity is in the lede (and certainly not lead descriptor) unless it's uniquely notable, usually for ironic reasons. Ex: Gandhi is Indian, not Gujarati. • As per the first part of Snow Rise's comment, Stalin's Georgian roots are not irrelevant but have nothing to do with his notability. Even Hamilton, whose birthplace has generally shocked American audiences of the eponymous musical, is described as 'American' instead of 'Nevisian' or 'Nevisian-American'. His birthplace owes little or nothing to his encyclopaedic importance. • As Rando notes, Stalin was never Georgian by nationality. If he been born in a country other than the one he ruled, (ex: Hitler), I could see something like 'Ethiopian-born Soviet...' or 'British-born Soviet...', but Georgia was fully integrated into his country of birth. • I think the most important point is a corollary to that: Adding 'Georgian' would be extremely confusing and potentially misleading to most readers. The ideal example is Bonar Law. He was born in Canada, so can fairly be described as Canadian. However, like Georgia with the Russian Empire, Canada was part of the British Empire at the time of his birth. Calling him a 'Canadian-born British...' is simply WP:UNDUE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Soviet Georgian, it's not disproportionate to mention Stalin's nationality in lede, this is done for many other Soviet figures on wiki. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  His Georgian ethnicity is already mentioned in the lead (beginning of the second paragraph). The RfC is about whether to mention it in the first sentence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just Soviet or Russian/Soviet per Random person no 362478479 and Last1in. LittleJerry (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Soviet per Last1in and MOS:CONTEXTBIO. He was not a Georgian by citizenship or nationality, and ethnicity is conventionally left out of the lead sentence per MoS. The phrase "Georgian politician" is especially misleading because he never held office in a Georgian state. "Georgian-born" implies that he was a citizen/national of Georgia at birth and later stopped being one, which isn't the case either. The current construction of "Soviet politician, political theorist and revolutionary" fits the best, including in its ordering of Stalin's roles; his career as a politician came to be the major one from a notability standpoint and overshadowed his contributions to theory and revolutionary activities. — Goszei (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: he wasn't a Soviet revolutionary. The USSR didn't exist during the Russian Revolution. He also wasn't known as a political theorist.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you there, though technically he was a "Russian revolutionary" / "a revolutionary in the Russian Empire". But we could just call him "Bolshevik revolutionary" or "a revolutionary" rather than "Soviet revolutionary". Machinarium (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, that is incorrect on both counts. Stalin formed his first collection of followers by teaching Marxism and his own political theories built upon that base. Next, the first recognisable soviet (a word meaning 'council') was the Ivanovsky Soviet, formed in the 1905 revolution. That's nearly a generation before the Bolsheviks and the USSR. Since he was the second great leader of the USSR, the word also works as an adjective for him as a politician and as a theorist and as a revolutionary. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think Jack Upland has a point on the first count. The idea that "Soviet" functions in this list as a demonym (uppercase) and later to mean "in favor of power to the soviets" (lowercase) is tenuous, and I don't think most readers would take it that way. I think there's a fair case for listing Stalin as both a "Soviet politician" and "Russian revolutionary" in the lead sentence (as in our articles on Lenin and Trotsky).

  As for the second count, while Stalin's contributions to the canon of Marxist theory are negligible compared to Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, etc., I think that describing him as a "political theorist" is fair considering his role in theorizing "socialism in one country" (which he expounded in late 1924 before it was expanded upon by Bukharin and became party orthodoxy) and for codifying Marxism–Leninism with works like the Short Course. There's also his article Marxism and the National Question, which the article mentions. I think there's an argument for not listing it, but I slightly favor its inclusion. — Goszei (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Soviet Russian, Georgia the country didn't exist when he was born, and shouldn't be included per MOS:ETHNICITY in the lede. He was born in the Russian Empire and it became the Soviet Union. Ortizesp (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Russian and Soviet since he was a citizen of the Russian Empire first and then the USSR when it was founded. No Georgian in first sentence per MOS:ETHNICITY. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be up to a vote, there's clear MOS:ETHNICITY guidelines. These indicate we should go with either Soviet, or Russian-born Soviet (no, not Georgian-born, as he was not born a Georgian citizen). Since calling him Russian is apparently too sensitive, just Soviet will do (this might be even more correct anyway because the Russian Empire and the USSR were still the same sovereign country but with a different name and regime). We had added that he was born into a Georgian family in what is now Georgia in the 2nd paragraph to accommodate everyone. Machinarium (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Soviet Machinarium above said it better than I could. However, absolutely not "Russian-born", due to the connotations that carries (i.e. implying that he is ethnically Russian, which he was not), as Russian and Soviet are practically synonyms, no matter if used correctly or incorrectly. Curbon7 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Infobox Image (2023)

Once again, an argument has arisen amongst Wikipedia Users regarding what image used for the lede with no clear consensus. In order to address this issue, I have decided to open an Rfc so the issue can be resolved once and for all.

Which of the following images should be used in the infobox?

• 
  Current image
• 
  Alternative #1
• 
  Alternative #2
• 
  Alternative #3

Emiya1980 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Current Image - It is clearly identifiable as Stalin thus meeting WP:ASTONISH better than the others. Alternative 1 is crisp and clear but, at least to me, just doesn't look like Stalin. I would pick it if if the current image is rejected by consensus. Alternative 2 is an odd angle and an awkward pose. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment Another option could be c:File:JStalin Secretary general CCCP 1942 flipped.jpg; though it is a side portrait, I think it quite representative of the subject and it is much higher quality/reso than the others. Curbon7 (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Current Image, it is the most neutral out of the 4 portraits that doesn't glorify him, as per MOS:PORTRAIT.It's also easy for readers to correctly identify him. Alternative #3 would also fit the criteria of neutrality but it has a weird side angle. Meanwhile, Alternative #2 is a propaganda portrait of Stalin from 1937 so I wouldn't support it. GodzillamanRor (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)