Talk:Joseph Stalin

Misspelling!

I came here from the Lenin mausoleum article as the reference seemed disturbing. Now I see the error is even in the title, his first name is Josif correctly. And if I remember well, his original name is Ioseb (in Georgian). I was quite surprised no one realized such a mistake yet. Didn't want to just change a title though, I am not aware of the process technically - not to damage references or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.81.254 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world Stalin's first name is most frequently Anglicized to "Joseph". Xelkman (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Soviet calendar

Should we mention the introduction the Soviet calendar, consisting of five- then six-day weeks, in the Changes to Soviet society, 1927–1939 section? His ability to change time itself exemplifies his totalitarian rule. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Many governments change time: for example, conversion to the Gregorian calendar, adoption of daylight saving time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but changing the number of days in the week (three times!) is on another level. AFAIK only the similarly revolutionary (and similarly crazy) French Republican Calendar with its decimal time is comparable. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even modern totalitarian regimes content themselves with just renumbering years. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It could be included here. Then again what about all the politicians who introduced Sunday trading? Should that be in their articles?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure that's comparable. I was thinking just a brief paragraph explaining why it was introduced and the effect on the workers. @Carrite:, this is kinda your area isn't it? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think you're exaggerating the issue. I think this is really a testament to the USSR as a revolutionary society, rather than Stalin as tyrant. This was an experiment that failed. Other things, such as female workforce participation (even female fighter pilots) have since been accepted more widely. Unlike the day and the year, the week does not represent any astronomical reality. It is part of a Jewish religious tradition that is now accepted worldwide. Changing the way that time is measured is no more "totalitarian" than changing the measurements of other things, like introducing the metric system or a new currency. It's not fundamentally different, but the practical effects on ordinary people tend to be more profound. The comments in the Soviet calendar article about the effects on workers are comparable to the effects on workers who work weekend and night shifts in developed countries today.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"The week does not represent any astronomical reality." That's certainly true, but forcing people to work continuously for 30 days is quite a radical concept? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The week is 1/4 of the lunar phase cycle in Earths days (rounded to the nearest integer) = number of days between the phases (New moon, First quarter, Full moon, Third quarter (or last quarter)), so it is definitely representing an astronomical reality. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.101.134 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The effects on ordinary people/industry were indeed profound. Religious/traditonal practices of hundreds of years standing were upended, many couples were effectively seperated, varying time-schemes used by different industries led to confusion and chaos in many places, etc. You say it's "a testament to the USSR as a revolutionary society, rather than Stalin as tyrant", but of course Stalin gave the nod to all this, it's virtually impossible to separate him from Russian history in this period. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reaction by successors

The subsection misinforms, tt was a sine function, Khrushchev rejected, Brezhnyev partially refurbished, Gorbachev rejected. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My text was removed drop garbled mathematics comment.

The subsection misinforms isn't mathematics. Please don't defend misinformations.

The current text suggests that opinions of the succesors were more and more anti-Stalinist. It's not true because Breshnyev criticized Khrushchev so in some way accepted Stalin, compare Leonid Brezhnev#Legacy. Generally in Communism leaders criticized their removed predecessors and prised old dead leaders.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"it was a sine function" is inarticulate as mathematics and as history. Try to express yourself in clear English. it looks more like binary: 1-0-1-0 Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I write as I can. As far no one is capable to review the page better than me.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article includes a long condemnation of Stalin published in 1974 when Brezhnev was in charge.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life

On 22 January 1905, Jughashvili was in Baku when Cossacks attacked a mass demonstration of workers, killing 200. This was part of a series of events which sparked the Russian Revolution of 1905. Riots, peasant uprisings and ethnic massacres swept the Russian Empire. In February, ethnic Azeris and Armenians were slaughtering each other in the streets of Baku. [Early life of Joseph Stalin] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liketeahouse (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

There is a line that 47 girls were found locked in Stalin's basement in the 1930's. This never happened and has no citation, so wtf? 206.63.236.221 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Now removed. The editor concerned has been warned. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

when he succeeded Lenin he promoted Russian nationalism

The recent edit is wrong, Stalin opposed Lenin, compare Georgian Affair. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above "Russian nationalism". While the two clashed over the Georgian Affair, I don't see how that contradicts the edit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalin had opposed Lenin even before he succeeded him. The quoted phrase suggests that Stalin changed his view.Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Russian inventors

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002070204700200108 - probably here, I can't see the text.Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Intellectuals and Apparatchiks: Russian Nationalism ... by Kevin O'Connor Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian national heroes promoted by Stalin

Alexander Nevsky (film)

Ivan the Terrible (film)

Pyotr Pervyy, based on Peter I by Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy

Alexander Suvorov#Legacy

A Life for the Tsar rewritten as Ivan Susanin.Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but his regime also promoted other culture:

• The 750th anniversary of Shota Rustaveli's Georgian epic "The Knight in the Panther Skin" was celebrated in 1938.
• Stalin obviously liked Alexander Kazbegi's Georgian novel, The Patricide, because he took from it his pseudonym "Koba", and the author was honoured in many ways.
• And Quiet Flows the Don (a novel which became a film ) celebrated Cossack culture.
• As did the film Cossacks of the Kuban.
• Armenian composer Aram Khachaturian, who used Armenian folk tunes in his music, was highly decorated.
• Ukrainian Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky was glorified as a hero of class struggle and a film made about him in 1941.
• Ukrainian activist Taras Shevchenko was honoured in a number of ways, including by the naming of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

The regime also promoted non-Soviet heroes such as Spartacus and welcomed activists from around the world like Paul Robeson. As pointed out before, the USSR had a Russian majority. It is not surprising that the Russian language, culture, and history would feature in education, books, films etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Portraits

I've taken this out:

After the Soviet victory in World War II, all official portraits of Stalin omitted his Georgian origins, although this process had begun earlier, since the 1930s official portraits had begun to soften his prominent Caucasian features.(Medvedev, Zhores A. (2006) The unknown Stalin p. 248)

Firstly, because it's badly written. Secondly, it's a very big call. It was widely known that Stalin was Georgian, and he spoke with a Georgian accent. Could it just be that Stalin's hair was going white? I don't know what Mevdedev actually says, and what the basis for it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

we can reqrite it--but wiki editors can't argue with leading RS. See https://books.google.com/books?id=v3BrNF80AzUC&pg=PA248 for the statement. Rjensen (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but this seems to be trivial speculation. Medvedev spends a lot of time on the rumour that Stalin was Nikolay Przhevalsky['s son]. According to Simon Sebag Montefiore, this is an "absurdity" and Przhevalsky was actually gay (Young Stalin, p 24). At the same time, there were biographies of Stalin and memoirs of people who knew him in the early days, so there was no doubt he was Georgian. I also don't think it fits under "Culture". It overlaps with information given under "Appearance". Maybe there should be a section "Portrayal"...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalin spent a lot of attention on his image and historians have paid attention to the Stalin cult and "the image of Stalin projected by the mass media". Davies (2004) says " While the cult of the leader has been a distinctive feature of communist regimes since the time of Lenin, Stalin's cult was a particularly striking example of the phenomenon. A recent study regards it as the defining theme of public culture in the Stalin era." [see also Gill, The Soviet leader cult 1980] . the portrait info looks good. I think you're missing the point: everyone knew he was Georgian. The idea was to glorify his heroism in the media and portray him as a hero to all groups in USSR. Take a look at North Korea imagery in 2017 to get a feel for USSR in 1950. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and as I said maybe we should have a section about that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree --separate section - good idea. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The section "Cult of Personality" also talks about the portrayal of Stalin. (Incidentally, it gives a different measurement for his height). I think it would be appropriate to consolidate all information about the portrayal of Stalin there.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done some tidying up. There seems to be somewhat of a contradiction, in that the Medvedevs claim that his portraits were trying to airbrush away his Georgian origin, but we also record that the leading actor that depicted him in film was the Georgian Mikheil Gelovani... I think we need more information on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

All portraits, except one in the Stalin museum, hide his prominent pockmarks. Notable?

Gravuritas (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's just normal.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin started World War II

Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Hitler (and Stalin) could not have invaded Poland in September 1939. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:1DE8:35B4:521D:6763 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

This article compared to Winston Churchill

There is an extreme bias, especially in the introduction of this article to questionable interpretations of historical events. If we compare this article to that of an equally controversial contemporary leader Winston Churchill, it looks very unbalanced and makes Wikipedia look partisan.

• Various "Famines" are mentioned in the introduction of this article and a supposed "kill count" in the millions provided, but the Bengal Famine (where millions of people died) is not mentioned in the introduction of Churchill's article.
• Churchill as Secretary of War supported the suppression of dissident groups and civilians in Ireland through the Black and Tans, who often murdered political dissidents without trial (for instance George Clancy, the Mayor of Limerick) and tortured civilians. That is not mentioned in the introduction for Churchill's article, yet here the trials of some Trotskyist and Bukharianite anti-Soviet elements is portrayed in bias language as a "show trial" and a "suppression" in the introduction of this article.
• This article is laughably put into the category of "Antisemitism in Russia", yet Churchill, who wrote an article for the Sunday Herald in 1920 entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism" claiming that Bolshevism was an "international Jewish conspiracy" somehow does not have such a category attached to his Wikipedia article.

IMO we either need some balance across the board, or a re-write, de-emphasising the tabloid-esque controversy mongering which is so prominent on this article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You have made several good suggestions for the Churchill article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And it does show bias in this article. There is no reason that similar events should be treated differently because their alleged perpetrator is English or Georgian, Conservative or Communist. Wikipedia is neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to report what the reliable sources say, whether favourable or negative. Wikipedia is only "neutral" regarding disputes between reliable sources. Otherwise It is not neutral about Stalin -- instead it reflects the consensus of RS that he was a very nasty person. Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The supposed "kill count", the "famines", all nicely put into quotations marks. It's a rather sickening comment, denying historical facts, in the same way some deny that the holocaust ever happened. If anything, the OP's original comment is extremely biased, and that's putting it mildly. As Rjensen indicated, what matters is what reliable sources report, and the consensus on historians on Stalin and his court is quite clear. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, OP kind of lost me at "equally controversial contemporary leader Winston Churchill". There's really false equivalency there. Churchill wasn't responsible for the Bengal Famine, in any meaningful way (he did make a shockingly callous remark about it, but that's quite a different thing). And so forth. Not even exactly clear what OP wants, specifically. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The underlying issue is what happens if reliable sources and venerable Wikipedians are biased. Churchill's article does suggest he was responsible for the Bengal Famine, and he was head of government for the British Empire, so the responsibility lies ultimately with him. However, mainstream historians do not calculate a "kill count" for Churchill. With Stalin, however, for some historians this is all they do. No one has found an executive order by Stalin saying that he wanted the crops in Ukraine to fail. But this doesn't matter.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Stalin intentionally starved people in the Ukraine, just for being Ukrainian is a highly contentious suggestion. There have been famines in the Russian Empire for a long time before the Soviet Union ever existed and there were also famines in the Russian part of the Soviet Union at exactly the same time. It is in no way comparable to the Holocaust. So to put in the introduction that Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians, while not saying that Churchill killed millions of Bengalis is extremely bias as an interpretation.

The point is that, like in Bengal under Churchill's watch (there were active independence movements there too), many people did die in a famine.... but for one we put a sinister spin on it (Stalin) and in the other it does not get mentioned in the intro at all (Churchill). We mention purges of Trots and other insurgents against the Soviet state, but we do not mention Saint Winston's kill 'em all and let god sort them out antics in Ireland. The overall picture is systematically bias.

At the end of the day, Stalin dragged up a feudal nation to the status of an industrial superpower, raising the living standard of millions, saved the population of Eastern Europe from being reduced to the status of helots under the self-appointed herrenvolk of the Third Reich, stopped the successful completion of the Holocaust and the post-WWII "threat" of the Red Army forced Western governments to concede a social welfare state to their citizens. So Rjensen's assertion that it is a settled fact that he was a "baddie" of history and Winnie a "goodie" isn't so clear. Wikipedia should reflect that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, but the Bengal Famine and the Ukraine Famine were different events. It makes no sense to say "If Stalin caused the Ukraine one, then Churchill caused the Bengal one; and if Churchill didn't cause the Bengal one, then Stalin didn't cause the Ukraine one". And that seems to be the gist of your argument. The two events have to be considered separately.

Stalin had a complicated legacy. IMO you're entirely correct that Stalin probably saved the world from Hitler (a Russia under a Czar, or Kerensky, or a White regime, or even Trotsky would probably have fallen to the Nazis, who probably would have attacked regardless of who was ruling Russia) and did other good things. So? Does that mean we should give him a pass on the other stuff? Hitler built good roads and was kind to animals, but so?

Churchill's Britain just quite simply didn't have anything like the Gulag. It just didn't, is all. I did Yakov Taubin's article, which has "Taubin was executed... This place is now Yuri Gagarin Park within the city limits of Samara and contains the mass graves of several thousand victims of execution by Soviet authorities". It's just a simple plain fact that they haven't dug up any mass graves from Churchill's regime in Finsbury Circus. IMO this is a significant difference between the figures, and I think that most people would agree. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian oppressive dictatorship, there wasn't just Holodomor, there was also stuff like GULAG, executions, mass deportations, purges, overall a lots of really nasty stuff that happened on practically whole duration of Stalin's rule. Churchill's record doesn't really compare, which is also the reason why historical depictions of those two leaders are quite different.--Staberinde (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It would help if Claiomh Solais or Jack Upland would make concrete suggestions for the article, backed up by reliable sources. Instead of providing cynical commentary, defending not only a brutal mass murderer, but even worse, defending even his murderous actions. Not different at all from those who come to the Holocaust article and claim that it never happened. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

At least we could remove the category "Antisemitism in Russia" which is not supported by the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin did not save anyone in eastern Europe - he began a world war by invading Poland in conjunction with Nazi Germany in 1939, and then invaded and enslaved all of eastern Europe and the Baltic States for the next 50 years. Stalin did not stop the Holocaust - he actually refused to bomb the death camps. (AndreMonahan (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

With your last comment, I think you are thinking of Roosevelt: see Auschwitz bombing debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin refused to use his huge air force to bomb the death camps in eastern Europe. He also kept the Japanese informed on US movements and positions throughout the Pacific War. (AndreMonahan (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

Is that you, Harvey?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What? My grandfather was murdered by the Soviets in Poland in September 1939, without trial. I find the idea that Stalin "saved" anyone in eastern Europe highly offensive. Do not forget the Soviets supplied the fuel the Germans used to wage war in 1939-41. (AndreMonahan (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC))

Stalin's alliance with Nazi Germany almost destroyed the Soviet Union in 1941. Without the pact Hitler would not have been able to overrun France or invade the USSR. (81.135.14.62 (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

Hmmm, lucky he never got his hands on Bury St Edmunds, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Further to the point which got lost in the arguments above, I don't think the category "Antisemitism in Russia" is useful here. The main article is Stalin and antisemitism. This makes it clear that the sources and the evidence are equivocal. Historian Albert Lindemann is quoted as saying: "Determining Stalin's real attitude to Jews is difficult. Not only did he repeatedly speak out against anti-Semitism but both his son and daughter married Jews, and several of his closest and most devoted lieutenants from the late 1920s through the 1930s were of Jewish origin, for example Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, Maxim Litvinov, and the notorious head of the secret police, Genrikh Yagoda." According to Simon Sebag Montefiore (Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, pp 270-71), Stalin's "antisemitism" was a "mannerism", consisting of jokes etc, but he also campaigned against antisemitism, set up the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and associated with Jews. I think this issue is complex and can't be reduced to a label.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe for a start you should refrain from misrepresenting sources. You claim that Montefiore describes Stalin's antisemitism as a mannerism, consisting of joke (how harmless!), but the sentence in question is: "Stalin was an anti-semite by most definitions, but until after the war, it was more a Russian mannerism than a dangerous obsession.". And to cite the Jewish Autonomous Oblast as evidence for the absence of Antisemitism, that's either naive or cynical, your choice. In any case, even ignoring your misrepresentation of sources, including Stalin in this category does not imply that he was an antisemite, but rather, that antisemitism is one of the defining feature of this person. That so many historians and scholarly sources devote so much attention to this question shows that indeed it is one of his defining features. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:10AD:C5A4:9EE1:64E0 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was planning a new Holocaust at the time of his death. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:B98A:425B:9BF6:AD48 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC))

I was referring to the whole two pages written by Montefiore, not the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And?? To summarize these pages as saying that Stalin just liked to make jokes about Jews is a gross misrepresentation. That you keep insisting doesn't make it better. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:20CF:BE7A:7A79:8171 (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There are historians besides Montefiore who are of the opinion that Stalin was in fact antisemitic. There is no reason to put all the WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT on the former.--Galassi (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think both of you are going off on a tangent. Yes, Montefiore labels Stalin as an "anti-Semite", but he goes on to paint a more complex picture:

• "He enjoyed the Jewish jokes... But he also enjoyed jokes about Armenians and Germans..." And his close henchman Anastas Mikoyan was Armenian.
• "On the other hand, most of the women around him, and many of his closest collaborators, from Yagoda to Mekhlis, were Jewish."
• "Stalin was aware that his regime had to stand against anti-Semitism..."
• "Stalin founded a Jewish homeland, Birobizhan, on the inhospitable Chinese border..." (Not that the area is particularly inhospitable. It has high rainfall and is linked to the rest of the world by the Transiberian Railway.)
• "In 1937...[Jews] formed a majority in the Government."
• After hearing Kaganovich's complaint about Jewish jokes, "He never again allowed such jokes in front of Kaganovich".

As I said, I don't think this can be reduced to a simple label. Any serious analysis of Stalin and antisemitism has to weigh up a range of issues, but the category "Antisemitism in Russia" doesn't do that. It gives undue weight to something not discussed in detail in the article, and a similar category is not used for people such as Churchill, Richard Nixon etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Montefiore makes it very clear that Stalin was an Antisemite. That there are some nuances to this, fine, there always are. After all Hitler also protected some Jews, like Ernst Moritz Hess. In any case, the question is not whether Stalin was an Antisemite or not, but rather, whether this is one of his defining features. The fact that so many scholars and historians discuss Stalin's antisemitism indicates that yes, indeed, it is one of his defining feature. Much more so than many of the other categories. Your quotes, by they way, are selective and taken out of context. But I guess you know that. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:5042:69BE:99F7:76D4 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a difficult question. One vibe I kind of get from some editors is "Stalin was an evil monster, so let's put him in every possible bad category" which might not be the best way to approach it. Looking at another member of this category, Itzik Feffer, who "was a Soviet Yiddish poet executed on the Night of the Murdered Poets". Apparently this was part of the liquidation of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. All these people were Jewish, which makes sense given the name of the organization. But whether these people were killed specifically for being Jewish or just under Stalin's "let's kill lots of people generally, especially members of organizations" policy I'm not sure; probably the latter IMO. If there was a Catholic Anti-Fascist Committee or whatever I bet they didn't fare too well either. So maybe wiping out this particular group of Jews all at once just solidifies Stalin's membership in the category "All-round evil monster" rather than "Antisemitic evil monster". And so forth for a lot of the other stuff.

Since its contended, I wouldn't put him in the category. Categories are crude instruments and unlike text material you can't hedge membership with reasons and counter-examples; you're in or out. Because of this I think the question is not "Was Stalin antisemitic as a defining characteristic" but "Was Stalin antisemitic as a defining characteristic beyond reasonable doubt". I don't think you can answer "yes" to the latter question, so I wouldn't include him. Herostratus (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether Stalin was an Antisemite or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the question of Stalin's antisemitism is widely discussed in scholarly sources, and it is for that reason that he should be included in this category. That's what the policy on categories states. Case in point, the category is named Antisemitism in Russia, not Antisemites from Russia. But the article should be moved into the category Antisemitism in the Soviet Union. More appropriate. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:5042:69BE:99F7:76D4 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. It's not "Antisemites", and since Stalin's antisemitism is widely discussed, and there is the doctor's plot and all, I can see how it would be a service for a reader looking into the general subject of antisemitism in the Soviet Union to be directed to this article. So I withdraw my objection and concur with your suggestion. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There is very little in this article about antisemitism. The category makes sense at the Doctor's Plot and Stalin and antisemitism articles, but it is not useful here.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin as an "anti-semite" is an American Cold War propaganda fiction. Anti-semitism as an ideology was criminalised in the Soviet Union and illegal throughout Stalin's time, being associated with White-guardists and Christian mysticism. Stalin and other Bolsheviks were opposed to reactionary tendencies in the Jewish community, such as the rabbis and ethno-nationalism (Zionism; especially after it became clear that it was allied to American Imperialism), but at the same time encouraged proletarian and progressive elements of the Jewish community (evidenced by the likes of Kaganovich). Just as the Bolsheviks were opposed to reactionary tendencies within all other communities. Bukharin was an ethnic Russian, does that make Stalin a Russophobe for opposing him? Or for removing Yezhov from power? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And in regards to espionage, there were absolutely pro-American spies in the Soviet Union (whether medical practitioners or otherwise), just as there were pro-Soviet spies in the United States during the Cold War. Some of these people happened to be of Jewish descent. By describing suppression of spies for carrying out espionage as antisemitic, we may as well say on Dwight D. Eisenhower's article that he was "killing Jews" because Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed during his presidency. It is silliness. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In the same spirit one could call your comment Stalinist propaganda. No thanks, I'd rather go with "American Cold War propaganda". At least that propaganda is supported by facts and scholarly sources, and displays human decency. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:3D10:EE4B:CB0F:30BA (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is we are meant to uphold a neutral point of view, not take sides. Just because the Americans and their associates found it useful to portray Stalin as an antisemite during the Cold War as an attempt to get the Jewish community to support their cause doesn't mean we should spout this war propaganda as if it were fact. Of course Imperialist publications are going to support an imperialist narratives, what does that prove? Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki rule is that we are neutral between the scholarly reliable sources. If you have reliable sources that say Stalin was not anti-semitic and was not planning to kill the Jewish doctors, please add it. No one has to be neutral between the killer and his victims. Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin carried out genocide against Jews and allowed the Warsaw Uprising to be crushed. He was beginning a new holocaust when he died. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:E911:27CD:6EA:A466 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

Even in Israel, despite the tumultuous relationship between the Soviet Union and Zionism, President Shimon Peres stated to President Vladimir Putin in 2012; "Without the Red Army victory it is unclear if we would be able to meet here as a free people." If Stalin was such a hardcore antisemite, as the Americans/British claim in their quest to prop up neoliberalism, why would leaders of a Jewish state praise an army under his leadership? Even those on the Israeli right such as Netanyahu have stated in 2016 of supposed genocidal antisemite Stalin's Army, "We will never forget that the Red Army liberated Auschwitz." - Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Re "Stalin carried out genocide against Jews and allowed the Warsaw Uprising to be crushed", what did the Warsaw Uprising have to do with Jews? It didn't have much of anything to do with Jews. I think this is an example of "Stalin was horrible, he killed my grandfather, he was a monster, the worst person ever, we need to put him in every bad category. Put him in Category:Coprophiliacs and every other bad category". This isn't helpful.

We need to think about what the purpose of a category is for the reader. Categories are to help the reader find and organize information, not for us to express our opinions. If a person is studying (or just perusing) articles about antisemitism in Russia and/or the Soviet Union, should we direct her to this article along with the others in that category? That is the main purpose of a category. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Peres was referring to the fact that Israel was only created because of World War II. Stalin began the war by invading Poland as an ally of Nazi Germany. If Stalin had cared about ending the Holocaust he would have bombed the death camps. Perhaps Netanyahu should remember the Holocaust would never have happened without Stalin helping the Nazis overrun Europe in 1939-41. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:E911:27CD:6EA:A466 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

He/she probably meant the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. But anyway, the discussion goes from absurd to even more absurd, between the dude whose ancestors got murdered by Stalin and the Stalinist dude who not only defends, but even embraces murder and repression. It's either excellent trolling or ***redacted***. Anyway, it's hard to dispute that Stalin's antisemitism (or absence of) is discussed quite extensively in a wide range of reliable sources (or what others call imperialist/neoliberal/whatever sources - heck, who knows, maybe these are even Trotskyite-Zinovievite sources, the worst of the worst). PS: I wouldn't take statements from politicians on state visits too serious ;) Nice try though. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:AC92:7CA2:B658:82B6 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What is absurd about someone's ancestors being murdered? (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:E911:27CD:6EA:A466 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

Well, yes, let's look at sources — rather than just talk about them.

• I don't agree that most biographies discuss this "extensively". For example, Stephen Kotkin's Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 barely mentions the issue in 900 pages, but perhaps he will discuss it in later volumes. Nor does Sarah Davies and James Harris (ed) Stalin: A New History.
• Sheila Fitzpatrick (On Stalin's Team, p 217) says: "Whether Stalin was a lifelong anti-Semite or became one in his final decline is a matter of debate. Khrushchev said he was, but other members of the team denied it. What seems clear is that until close to the end, he was careful in public to follow the Bolshevik party line, which had always been strongly condemnatory of anti-Semitism. There was never any hint of anti-Semitism in his public statements... That prohibition remained in force even in Stalin's last years, when, with de facto state-supported anti-Semitism rampant, the press continued not only to avoid overt anti-Semitism, even in coverage of the Doctor's Plot, but also from time to time to report punishment of specific officials guilty of it."
• Robert Conquest (The Great Terror, p 65) says that Stalin was guilty of "anti-Semitic demagogy" not antisemitism.
• In a blog post [1] Australian professor Roland Boer argues that Stalin was not antisemitic.

There is clearly a range of scholarly opinions, and (as I have said) the issue is complex and nuanced. (On the other hand, it is at best ridiculous to describe Hitler's antisemitism as "nuanced"!) While the category is "Antisemitism in Russia" (or the Soviet Union), almost all the people in these categories are either overt antisemites (and known for antisemitism) or victims of antisemitism. If readers are interested in the topic, they should be directed to Stalin and antisemitism rather than here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing additional sources, that show that indeed Stalin's antisemitism is a recurring topic in scholarly sources. Which dovetails with why this category is accurate, needed and in line with the policy on categories. The sources you provide with the exception of the blog also show that Stalin indeed is considered an antisemite (or worse, an antisemitic demagogue, how nuanced is that?).

But I am also worried about how you misrepresent sources. Not cool. The quotes you provide are cherry-picked and conveniently leave out important parts that contradict your party line.

For example, you quote "There was never any hint of anti-Semitism in his public statements...". Full sentence, "Sheila Fitzpatrick - 2015 - ‎History

There was never any hint of anti-Semitism in his public statements, and as Khrushchev commented, "God forbid that anyone should quote publicly from any private conversation in which he made.. anti-Semitic remarks." [The part left out was left out in the source, too].

One should be able to trust other editors that they accurately present sources, but in your case, I don't think that's the case. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D9CF:57A1:9372:34D3 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I left out that Khrushchev comment because it was repetitive, and I was copying it from the book. By contrast, you haven't provided a single bit of evidence for what you are arguing.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's the only reason why you left out that part. How convenient. It's then no surprise that you misrepresent the whole discussion so far, by claiming that I did not present a single bit of evidence, when in my very first edit I present an excerpt from Montefiore that makes it clear that Montefiore considers Stalin to be an antisemite. You misrepresent sources, you mispresent discussions, there is really no point in continuing this discussion if you sink to such low standards. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Claíomh Solais: It's rather bad style to remove the category, while the discussion is ongoing. Please self revert and seek consensus first. Same for removing Trotsky's text, using a rather cynical edit summary. Your promotion of a mass-murderer and his ideology is problematic to say they least. Although at least you are not even pretending to edit from a neutral point of view. Abovesky (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Axis ally

There should be more coverage of the fact that Stalin was Hitler's ally for the first two years of World War II, beginning with their joint invasion of Poland. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:B403:49FD:D376:4706 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

The Soviet Union was never a member of the Axis powers, nor was it ever in an alliance with the Third Reich. Unless you want to say that the British Empire and its proxy French Dominion were part of the Axis forces with the Munich Agreement in 1938 and collaborated with the takeover of Czechoslovakia. Never seen a picture of Stalin and Hitler together, but there are pictures of Chamberlain and Hitler palling around.

What the Soviet Union did have was a brief non-aggression pact in place, either side of defending against military attacks by the Third Reich in Spain and then the Eastern Front during the Second World War proper, after all other avenue, including approaching Poland for a defense pact, were frustrated. This article totally demolishes the bourgeois narrative about Molotov-Rippentrop and also outlines that the reactionary government in Poland was not just a passive bystander in the events. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

no RS mentioned for the claim. our job is not to protect Stalin's reputation but to tell what the reliable sources say, They say alliance that involved military invasion of Poland & splitting control of much of eastern Europe--EG Baltic states became Soviet sphere--plus shipments of vital oil. look at the titles: 1) Roger Moorhouse - The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 (2014) at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0465054927 2) Mark L. Haas - 2007 writes: "a tacit alliance with Germany against the Western powers with the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939." 3) Timothy Snyder - 2010 - writes: "during the German-Soviet alliance (1939–1941)" 4) Angelo Tasca 1951 book title: The Russo-German Alliance: August 1939-June 1941; 5) a famous French historian: François Furet - 1999 writes: "The pact signed in Moscow by Ribbentrop and Molotov on 23 August 1939 inaugurated the alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was presented as an alliance and not just a nonaggression pact." Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

These "bourgeois" sources are quite a bit more convincing then this article by a PhD candidate on an obscure webpage. Abovesky (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin invaded Poland as an ally of Nazi Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was NOT a non-aggression pact, it was a pact to create aggression. Britain and France did not invade Czechoslovakia in 1938. Stalin offered to formally join the Axis Powers as a full belligerent against Britain on 25 November 1940. (81.158.250.96 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

Saying that Stalin was an ally of Nazi Germany implies that he would have been cheering the Fall of France. In fact, he greatly disturbed by it.[2][3] In fact, according to this [4], the annexation of Moldava and the Baltic states was intended to strengthen the USSR's position against a German invasion, rather than part of an alliance with Germany. Stalin's reaction to the Fall of France isn't mentioned in the article, and perhaps it should be.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin very much wanted France to be crushed and its vast colonial empire dismantled, he was just alarmed at the speed with which Hitler was able to defeat France in 1940 (as it showed how weak the Soviet Union was). The invasions of the Baltic States and Moldova were intended to recreate the Russian Empire as a Communist superpower. Stalin wanted the alliance with Nazi Germany to be maintained until the British Empire was destroyed. (FernandoHerndkl (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi Fernando. Are you a sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is also borderline obscene to quote the opinion of Leon Trotsky in the article under that section on the non-aggression pact. When the Nazis were rounding up Jews to send them to the gas chambers, many of Trotsky's disciples were organising strikes in Allied countries to try and retard the war effort. Trotskyists were careful to couch this as "revolutionary defeatism" for capitalist countries and making claims that they supported defence of the Soviet Union over the Third Reich (in reality, Trotskyist so-called "support" was used by them to try and infiltrate subversive propaganda against the Soviet government into Russia). Trotskyism was de facto pro-Nazism in WWII, no Trots ever fought in combat against Hitler, so lets spare the naked opportunism of their saints' quote (if he had lived to see Barbarossa, we don't know what position he would have taken, but his anti-Stalin views were certainly fanatical). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your opinion of Trotsky is unfair and irrelevant, but it does seem questionable to quote him here. 'Economic cooperation was so considerable that in 1939 Trotsky called Stalin "Hitler's quartermaster".' Well, Trotsky called Stalin a lot of things. Why is his opinion decisive here?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictator?

I think it is somewhat contentious to use this word, in the introduction. It is essentially a snarl word used as a stand in for "bad guy." Simply describing him as the General Secretary of the CPSU is the most neutral;

Public policy in the Soviet Union was directed by the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, not just Stalin as an individual. Stalin also offered to stand down as General Secretary several times but the party refused to let him. This doesn't sound like something a dictator driven by the lust for power would do. Also, Stalin did not amass any sort of personal fortune from his position, he did not pass on any fortune to his family looted from the public purse. Most of this "totalitarian dictator" mystification comes from the influence of Hannah Arendt's writings/opinions/gibberish. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, biography.com is pretty clear, as is BBC, history.com and Encyclopedia Britannica. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

British state media is not exactly going to have an balanced view of one of their most successful enemies. There was no Soviet equivelent of Hitler's Führerprinzip or even Mussolini's Duce in the system, marks of dictatorship of that age. The revolutionary vanguard in Marxist-Leninism leads the proletariat, it is true, but the vanguard isn't just one man, it is the party itself. Stalin was just the General Secretary. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I read Robert Conquest's book on him, but long ago, and Conquest (and similar things I have read) sure give the impression that Stalin was calling the shots. My understanding that there was the "cult of personality". But more importantly, I don't think that the politburo or his ministers acted as much of a brake on him. His ministers feared him IIRC. To say otherwise would be historical revisionism, which is not proof that it is wrong, but we tend here to go with the generally-accepted consensus on stuff, and for us do otherwise requires quite a heavy burden of proof. Herostratus (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that biography.com isn't "British state media", and neither is Encyclopædia Britannica. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is a very much fringe view that Stalin was not a totalitatian dictator, it has no place in mainstream historiography. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It says "effectively the dictator of the state.", which is very much supported by reliable sources. Abovesky (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As its article shows, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union grew out of an ancillary position, which under Stalin became all-powerful. Stalin did not have a government post until the German invasion, when he became Chairman of the Sovnarkom (Premier), the position that Lenin had held as head of government. To say that he was just party secretary the rest of the time would put him in the same league as people like Ronna Romney McDaniel or Patrick McLoughlin. No, clearly, he was a dictator, but this was not official and legal as it was in Germany and Italy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Legally officially was the general secretary of the Communist Party. The party made the decisions and USSR, and told government officials what to do. You do not have to be a government official to be a dictator. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If Stalin as party secretary had the legal right to tell the government what to do, he would have had the right to tell Lenin what to do. He didn't. He did not have the legal right to amass the power that he did. The 1936 Soviet Constitution was the first constitution to mention the party, but still did not mention the party secretary, and did not say that the party had the right to tell the government what to do. A dictator by definition is a government role. You can't be a dictator and not in government. But Stalin, up till the German invasion, did not have an official government role. That was the reality of how he operated. That is not an argument that he wasn't a dictator. It is the opposite.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was a dictator like Gaddafi, who had no government role in Libya and was not head of state. (81.158.250.96 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi IP 81. :Hi Fernando. Are you a sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious in describing Stalin as "effectively the dictator of the state". Opposing viewpoint is basically just fringe Stalinist revisionism. If you want to see sources, then you can check archives for previous times this discussion came up, or maybe just use google and don't limit your search to blogs ran by Stalin fanboys. There are buttloads of sources describing Stalin as dictator, many biographies use "dictator" even in title.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland talks about "legal rights" under Lenin and Stalin. Who decides those rights? answer: the dictator does. Nobody tried to take him to court for violations. Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A gentle reminder: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph Stalin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Some of the recent sections of this talk page are too general, with too much wool-gathering about the person in general rather than precise suggestions for specific improvements. Granting that i've been as guilty as anyone of indulging in this scrum, maybe we should tone this down a bit; it's a time sink. I would say:

• General screeds such as "The general tone of this article is too harsh/kind, he was worse/better than depicted" aren't necessarily very helpful, and perhaps a good ignoring is called for.
• This is a mature article. Although this is not a hard rule, generally we want to make incremental changes, rather than rewriting whole sections.
• If you do want to rewrite whole sections, consider creating a draft in your user space for editors to view and consider.
• As for smaller changes -- it would be good to specify the exact text you want added/deleted/changed, and references are required, and they need to be good references, from respected and neutral historians or the the equivalent. Herostratus (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

But there are a lot of issues within the article that take a controversial or polemical view of Stalin and so some of these points need to be discussed and teased out. There is an orgy of diabolisation across not just this article, but many Marxist-Leninist articles in general (typically in the form of blood libels, "human rights" or whatever). A diabolisation which is not present on articles about bourgeois figures, ideas, states, dubious actions, legacies, etc. If Wikipedia is to properly apply a NPOV and avoid systemic biass, then we need to make sure there is no class motivated bias in articles. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I quite agree. Apparently someone even had the gall to suggest that Stalin wasn't a dictator. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I seem to discern the handiwork of the diabolical User:HarveyCarter.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. "Sword of Light", meet "broken spoon of plastic". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to Herostratus's comment about this being a "mature" article, it is noteworthy that swathes of this article have no references at all, so to insist that any additions should have good references seems a bit perverse. Some of the information seems a bit quirky, such as the claim that Stalin (like a cartoon Captain Hook - see below) thought Hitler was still alive or that Truman thought that Stalin was a squirt. Sure, you can get references for these things, but do they belong in an article of this length? There is an issue of undue weight. Given that the Korean War, one of the major wars of the 20th century, is dealt with in two short paragraphs, the space given to many other issues seems excessive. Ironically, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact discussed above actually gets two whole sections, which is out of proportion to the short treatment of WW2, which doesn't mention the Battle of Stalingrad, the Siege of Sevastopol (1941–42), the Siege of Leningrad etc. In fact, it gives very little indication of Soviet contributions to WW2, even though that's a key part of Stalin's historical significance. Yes, this article has been around a long time. It might be mature; it might be decaying. But it is very far from a genuinely good article. If people want to discuss improvements — well, that cuts both ways. Critics should suggest concrete improvements with references etc. But equally other editors should accept fair criticism in a thoughtful and constructive manner. Dismissing criticism with flippant or bureaucratic remarks achieves nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet "contributions" included starting World War II by invading Poland in September 1939 in conjunction with Nazi Germany. (86.179.100.252 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Definitely Poland then, and not Bury St Edmunds? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What??? Stalin invaded Poland in 1939 in a pre-arranged joint invasion with Germany. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact World War II would never have happened. Germany did not have the oil to fight until Stalin provided it in the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement. (86.179.100.252 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Has a branch in Suffolk, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin didn't believe that Hitler was dead...???

Further to the discussion about this "mature" article, the section Final victory states:

Despite the Soviets' possession of Hitler's remains, Stalin refused to believe that his old nemesis was actually dead, a belief that remained with him for years after the war ended.

While this has two citations, it is only one view, and I don't believe that it is the consensus view of historians. This is not exactly what the Death of Adolf Hitler page says either. I think it would be better to leave any speculation about this in the Death of Adolf Hitler article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether Stalin believed that Hitler was dead or not, I think it's not really that relevant for this article. So I would not oppose a removal of this sentence. Abovesky (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I think Stalin lost most of his beliefs after about a year, didn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence and placed it on the Death of Adolf Hitler talk page. My understanding is that Stalin used to torment Zhukov by asking him whether he'd tracked down Hitler, never letting on that the NKVD had found the body. I think it was particularly objectionable to call Hitler Stalin's "old nemesis". I now realise it was more like "old Axis comrade".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

There are currently two sections called "Religion", one under "Changes to Soviet society" and one under "Personal Life". While theoretically these could be different topics, the current content essentially covers the same ground in each. I query whether we need a section under "Personal Life", as Stalin was an atheist. Of course, it is important to note his time in the seminary, but we have already done this under "Early Life".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Merged.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversies about Stalin

I think the contents of this, if kept, should be merged into the relevant sections or other articles.

• Harriman: this should go under "Personality". It is not really a controversy anyway.
• Birth date: as it stands, this is confusing. We are given the choice of 1878 (here) or 1878 (under "Early life"). In any case, this issue is already covered in a footnote to "Early life" and in the Early life of Joseph Stalin.
• Death of one man: This is already covered in Wikiquote [5]. There seems to be some evidence that he did say it, so there's not much of a story here.
• Nicolay Przhevalsky: This really belongs in the Early life of Joseph Stalin article (if anywhere). According to Simon Montefiore there were many rumours about who Stalin's real father was. There doesn't seem any point in singling out one of them. As I said above, Montefiore considers this one to be ridiculous on the grounds that Przhevalsky was gay, among other things.
• Okhrana: This is already covered in the "Early Life" article. If mentioned here, it should be in the "Early Life" section.
• Red Terror: I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean and what the controversy is. The source doesn't use the phrase "Red Terror", and our article Red Terror refers to the period of Lenin. In any case, this would seem to belong under "Purges and deportations".

In all, there doesn't seem any point in this section, which is just a random collection of issues, some of them quite trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He had painters shot

Under "Appearance", it says 'he had several painters shot who did not depict him "right"'. The source is Nicolai Tolstoy's Stalin's Secret War. I can only see it through Google books in snippet view, but it appears that this comes from an anecdote by the composer Shostakovich. If that's all it is, it doesn't seem a good enough source. Historians such as Montefiore and Sheila Fitzpatrick indicate that Stalin took an indirect role in the purges, and that his motives were often hard to understand, so this seems uncharacteristic. It seems more like the action of a cartoon tyrant...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

An indirect role in the purges? Yes, poor old Stalin had to forgo the pleasure of shooting so many people himself as he was rather busy. And as the numbers rose, even signing all those death warrants himself got a bit tiresome. Must have been quite irksome for the genocidal bastard. Motives? When he ever need those? For goodness sake stop this rubbish.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not rubbish. You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Stalin wasn't involved; I'm saying, in my understanding, it wasn't as simple as Stalin saying, "Shoot this man, he makes me look like a squirt". As you say yourself, when did Stalin need motives? But we are saying that painters were shot for not depicting him right. Even if they were shot, how would anyone know the motive?The main point is that Shostakovich is not a reliable source. How would he know? It's just a rumour. Unless there's more substantial evidence it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Vsevolod Meyerhold, although not a painter, a friend of both Shostakovich and Prokofiev, was certainly shot under the Great Purge. James Meek in The Guardian discusses it here. So it would be no surprise if a few painters also met a similar fate. But you're saying we can't mention this as "Uncle Joe didn't actually pull the trigger", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course he had painters shot, and writers, actors, etc. (although "he had them shot" is a simplification in many instances; rather, he created and ran a system that would allow and even ensure such people would be shot. How many of the people shot during the Stalin regime, how many of them were individually named by Stalin... most were not. And of course, although many were shot, more were sent to deadly camps and so forth.

Anyway, the question is not how many artists were liquidated under the Stalin regime, but whether Stalin actually said more or less "Comrade X painted me poorly, shoot him". I agree that that doesn't sound like Stalin, although it could be true.

Now, if it came to be understood that Stalin was unhappy with Comrade X's work, a very bad thing might happen to Comrade X somewhere down the line. The head of his local Artists Union, sensing the general climate, might not allow him to to renew his guild membership, and so he's unable to work. His friends avoid him. And from that he might be put on a list of unreliables. And then maybe the next year there's an arrest quota to fulfill. And so he's off to a camp, and dies there from pleurisy two years later.

But that's very different from "he had several painters shot who did not depict him "right""... who? How do we know this? This is not the sort of thing that good records were necessarily kept of. Herostratus (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Herostratus for understanding my point. Of course, Stalin murdered artists. But what's the evidence for this specific claim? As far as I can see, the evidence is just a rumour repeated by Shostakovich.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

David Remnick is quoted, by Antony Bell in his 2011 Great Leadership: What It Is and What It Takes in a Complex World, here making that claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Shostakovich is an unreliable source or is merely repeating rumours. After all, it seems that the source provided found it wortwhile to quote Shostakovich. Maybe someone should check the library and provide the full quote from this particular book. In any case, simple solution, attribute that claim to Shostakovich. Abovesky (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rise to power - no references

"In December 1934, the popular Communist Party boss in Leningrad, Sergei Kirov, was murdered. Stalin blamed Kirov's murder on a vast conspiracy of saboteurs and Trotskyites. He launched a massive purge against these internal enemies, putting them on rigged show trials and then having them executed or imprisoned in Siberian Gulags. "

This paragraph, with some quite startling claims has absolutely no references. It makes it sound like Stalin personally decided one day to kill everybody with his bare hands, just for fun. There is no real evidence that the Moscow trials were "rigged" or that the saboteurs were not actually working to overthrow the Soviet leadership. A lot of evidence exists to the contrary. In the United States, the death penalty for certain offenses exists; we do not attribute these to specific American presidents, so why are we attributing the capital punishment carried out on terrorists to Stalin personally? Prison labour is also common in many countries, including the US to this day (Federal Prison Industries and California Prison Industry Authority) so why are we treating criminals sent to them as "victims" (that word is even used!). Claíomh Solais (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What you call "startling claims" is the scholarly consensus. Certainly citations should be added to this and other sections, but adding a fact tag is utterly inappropriate. WHat is startling are your absurd and offensive claims about the victims having been terrorists and criminals. Abovesky (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP policy is that we must assume good faith. On that basis, the OP's scepticism can only be explained by naivete and ignorance on a truly colossal scale. Go and read some more about the period and about Stalin's mass-murdering proclivities, then come back and use this talk page to apologise to any representatives of his victims, O ignoramus.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The shortage of references in this article generally is very bad for such a prominent topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)