Talk:Joseph Stalin

Talk:Joseph Stalin/ archive1 Talk:Joseph Stalin/ archive2 Talk:Joseph Stalin/archive3

Opening

New stuff was added to the opening. "Totalitarian" is a made-up propaganda term developed in think tanks and the like. It's just a POV mud-throwing term like terrorist. The US blowing the hell out of Fallujah or mining Nicaragua's harbor isn't terrorist, but some Iraqi shooting an American rampaging through his home is a terrorist. Secondly all opposition was not removed. There was Zionist opposition which was thought not to have been dealt with at his death, the so-called anti-Party group fought with what became Khrushchev's government which would not have happened if everyone was on the same page. Anyone cognizant of the last years of Stalin's life and the years after his death will know all opoosition was not removed. Anarchist opposition was dealt with in Lenin's time, Stalin took care of Trotskyist and then Right Opposition opposition, but there was still opposition, exemplified by Khrushchev really, who (stupidly) sought peace with the capitalist countries. Finally there is nothing linking Stalin's rule to millions of deaths. We have discussed this point quite often. Unreconstructed Stalinist 20:41, 23 Nov 2004

Wow I'm really impressed with your "non-Americentric" (ie virulently anti-American) views. Go figure.

Fallujah is not terrorism, it is a part of war and the occupation -- we are not deliberately targeting civilians. The Nicaraguan harbor is more sketchy but again, when we're talking terrorism we're usually talking more deliberately targeting innocent civilians, not economic sabotage. I would agree with you on the Iraqi thing if the resistance didn't consist of radical Islamist thugs whose tactics include pretending to surrender and then blowing themselves up, or targeting Iraqi civilians not allied with them (the definition of terrorism.) And is a well-accepted historical fact (except, perhaps, from hagiographic Soviet "history" of The Man of Steel from within Russia) that Stalin presided over an extensively totalitarian state apparatus and that opponents faced potential imprisonment without trial, deportation to the gulag, or death. It's also well known that how he successfully established the Soviet heavy industrial economy involved ludicrously high quotas (and, consequentially, forced difficult labor) and class elimination of the "exploiters," ie the kulaks. Now it's fine if you think the fact that the establishment of the Soviet Union as a formidable economic and military power outweighs all this, but these facts are well-established. Trey Stone 05:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yaa, it's good to live in the USA where people never have to face "ludicrously high quotas (and, consequentially, forced difficult labor)". Right. The US imprisons more of its populace than any country except for Rwanda incidentally. "Virulently anti-American", sure - the whole world is "virulently anti-American" along with half of Americans, fine.

Elimination of kulaks is not elimination of *all* opposition. It would be like Republicans eliminating trial lawyers and it being said they eliminated all of their opposition. And totalitarianism is a nonsense POV propaganda term that like terrorist would get the boot from any article, as it will in this one. Chomskian High, Class of 2007 06:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's not fine but if you want to follow that line of braindead totalitarian leftism then OK. BTW, you should go tell people who grew up in the German Democratic Republic that "totalitarian" is a propaganda term. Trey Stone 05:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was recently talking with someone who gre up in the GDR who was telling me how the US propaganda system was much more totalitarian than in the GDR. He said the standard prime-time American shows, dramas about upper middle class people and sitcoms show a completely false view of how most Americans live their lives, which is of course correct. At least in the GDR you could vote for all the pre-war parties in the elections - in West Germany people were denied the right to vote for the KPD, so you could vote for any party, as long as it was pro-capitalism. Some democracy. I won't mention how West Germany was primarily run by "rehabilitated" SS, Gestapo and Nazis Making up stuff on the spot 06:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeah it's pretty obvious you're a liar and a vandal so I won't waste anymore time on this. Trey Stone 08:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether he is a liar and a vandal or not, changing his signature as you have is vandalism. Fred Bauder 11:14, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jeah sorry about that. He's a special case. Trey Stone 01:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would call myself a Marxist, but I reject Stalin. If we take the official definition of 'totalitarian' - Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed, then Stalin was a Totalitarian. ALL democracy in the Soviet Union had vanished by 1928. The original poster makes some valid comments, but his obvious pro-Stalin views do not hold much weight. By the way, Nicaragua took the USA to international court in the 1980s. The court ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force', which is international terrorism

Just because an international court decides an act is terrorism does not make it terrorism (although I agree that the economic sabotage essentially can be classified that way, but it's obviously not the same gruesome type as practiced by bin Laden and his cronies.) Trey Stone 08:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Just because an international court decides an act is terrorism does not make it terrorism". So you now defy international law. What a great century to look forward to if Americans don't agree with international law. Obviously 9-11 was dreadful, but the US has killed more civilians in other countries...and supported regimes which massacred thousands.

I would point out that I would probably not always agree with an international court's decisions. A good example of this is a resolution by the UN (not the same binding deal as an international court, but using for comparison) that declared Zionism to be a form of racism, which I do not agree with. Trey Stone 11:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The concept of Zionism is a state for Jews. This is therefore racist, because it is nationalistic, and aims at dispossesing Arabs of their land (in Palestine). Hitler wanted a nation for only Aryans. This is racist. Theodore Herzl wanted a state for Jews only. Surely this is racist? I am talking about the *theory* of Zionism, not Israel.

Adding totalitarian to this article is something done recently, which I immediately reverted. It was put it the second sentence so that the first thing people would see is a negative POV comment on the USSR. This article survived for years without the recent POV addition, it can continue to survive. How come The second sentence of George W. Bush's article doesn't call him an imperialist? For the same reason it doesn't belong here. User:Usama bin Lopez al-Berkeley 00:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess a bunch of foreigners should be forced to move to Ireland to displace it's predominantly white, Christian population. After all, it is a mostly Caucasian country with laws no doubt influenced by Catholicism -- as such it is racist and nationalistic. And I cannot for the life of me comprehend why the Jewish people would desire a home state after 1945. What the hell were they thinking?

Your braindead analogy to Dubya doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Imperialism is only a fact if we are taking permanent control of countries in order to benefit the home country, which Dubya hasn't done. Otherwise, it's povulation pure and simple. In contrast, no one disputes the extent of Stalin's political control through Soviet society. His own successor didn't even try to deny it, so please. Trey Stone 01:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits by 82.166.133.142

This guy doesn't look like vandal, see his contribs . I'd refrain from reverting him on sight. In particular, Pismamedov vs. Papismedov, I suspect he can be right. "Pismamedov" version seems to converge to a single source, of Russian origin. A Russian can easily "hear" "...Mamedov", a common muslim name.

Dear 82.166.133.142,

Please get yourself a name, so that one can talk to you, and please provide your sources. Mikkalai 18:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm slowing down on the reverts; the main reason I did it in the first place was that he was breaking links right and left by changing spellings. For all I know he's correct in the spelling. --jpgordon{gab} 19:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a reason people can edit pages without an account, so please respect the people that do so. I'm seeing it more and more often that people just revert changes made by ip users without even looking at them or checking which version is the more valid. Also, you can make a talk page for users with only an ip so you cán talk with them/ --82.74.253.46 01:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To talk at a talk page of an anon IP is like to go out into the forest and shout. If a guy doesn't bother to get a name, he is mostly unlikely to look at the IP talk page.

If a person makes regular contributions, I see no reason not to spend 45 seconds to regester oneself. You are not asked to provide your credit card or SSN here. Mikkalai 03:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oh really? in comments with a standard signature is always a link to the talk page plus history->ip->user talk also gets you there. Plus if you think it's wrong that people can edit pages without registering go win some wikipedia elections and then forbid it, but as long as it's policy to let everyone edit please respect that. --82.74.253.46 11:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are problems with IP adresses. Some addresses are shared by multiple contributors, sometimes by thousands of people. In such cases it's very difficult to separate honest edits from vandalism. Human memory is not very good at remembering IP adresses. IP addresses may change, or users may change them. No one is stopping you from editing as an unregistered user. But such edits are usually treated differently because the number of vandals or clueless people among unregistered contributors is higher than among registered. You are correct, you can contribute without registering. But your opponent is also correct when he says talking to an IP is usually a waste of time. You can continue without registration, but don't be surprized when you get more reverts than a registered contributor. --Gene s 11:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

opening paragraph

Looking over the opening paragraph compared to what was there a few weeks ago I see this sentence:

"Meanwhile, Stalin consolidated his personal power and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through a combination of beneficence, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges (See Gulag) that resulted in millions of deaths."

I see many problems with this.

• I've gone over a million times everything regarding the idea of "Stalin consolidating his personal power". If everything Stalin did was to benefit himself personally, he never would have been able to do anything. Obviously the Politburo, the Central Committee, the Party, and the USSR went along with him. This has been discussed to death. And others have agreed.

Obviously you don't know how it was. Initially the Politburo was not so tame. There were bloody struggles. Stalin turned out to be better in this. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• ruthless is POV.

Yep. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• what the hell is "(See Gulag)"? Don't people just follow normal wiki links in a normal article? This seems like trying to hit someone over the head with POV and direct them somewhere.

Nitpicking. Easily fixable.Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• and finally there is the tendency to mush this all together. Personal power consolidation, eliminating opposition, tactical retreats which resulted in deaths. It's all squeezed together as if it is all related and all one thing - Stalin's quest for personal political power resulted in millions of deaths. This tendency to try to throw everything together into one sentence with a handful of mud-slinging accusations is unfortunately all too typical of these articles.

Right-o. There were deaths, but for the political idea, rather than personal power. Due to democratic centralism Stalin didn't need to kill many to have all power to himself. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the fact that his regime is widely regarded as a quintessential example of totalitarianism at the time, along with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, is worthy of mention. "Gulag" is appropriate because this is really where it originated. Trey Stone 04:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I accept that the CPSU went along, but the fact was you had a huge personality cult centered around this one man and as the head of state he was responsible for his government's actions. Trey Stone 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't forget that the article is about Stalin, not about Soviet Union. It is so tempting, it is so easy to attribute everything to a single person. Many think that Bukharin, Rykov or Trotsky would produce the same, if not worse regimes. Their egos were just as big, only Stalin was more cunning. Mikkalai 07:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stalin is widely regarded as an embodiment of totalitarianism at the time along with the other two regimes I mentioned. To say it only belongs in Soviet history is like saying Franco's complete authoritarianism only belongs in Spanish history. Trotsky and the others aren't relevant. Trey Stone 10:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this relatively new sentence for the above reasons. One would probably be better off making the same point in the manner it was several weeks ago. Ruy Lopez 01:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but why not try to rewrite the sentence in a way that might be acceptable to everyone? Some people won't stand for the outright removal of that sentence and they're just going to revert it, as you know. So the best way to actually get somewhere is to write compromise versions until finally nobody has any more objections to raise. Everyking 02:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Beneficence

Ford removed the following piece

through a combination of beneficence, tactical retreats

claiming that we don't know the meaning of the word. Even if it is so, this was not the reason of clipping the phrase. The intended sense is pretty clear, and if you are smart in English, please provide another synonym. The meaning was that when Stalin wanted, he could be extremely generous, patronizing and lovable. So, what is the word? Mikkalai 02:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, I thought you were referring to the beneficence of his social welfare programs; if you're looking for a word to describe his personality, "avuncular charm" works pretty well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Aw... thanks. It was not me. I am protecting this phrase for the sole reason that it portrays Stalin in a way different from an operetta villain and cutthroat. And by the way, a good idea would be to ask the author what exactly he meant instead of cut and shred. The context is in-Party struggle. Stalin was skilled manipulator of people. And he was pretty smart, too. I happened to read a discussion on the issue of Russian chauvinism vs. national minority chauvinism. In polemics, he spoke much more reasonably than most of other congress participants. (Unless this impression was mastered by stenographers and censors.) Mikkalai 04:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word ‘beneficence’ has no business in this opening. If ‘totalitarian’ is too biased to use, ‘beneficence’ is off the charts. It is ridiculous to credit Stalin with good will, which is what the word implies. It is also, to use everyone’s favorite term, point-of-view. There may have been patronage, and on some level the socialist ideal may have been practiced in a limited way hardly worth mentioning, and the régime certainly had some support; but the elimination of opposition in particular did not happen because the régime was charitable to the population. The régime killed the opposition, and fed the population a steady diet of false propaganda about the state of the country, and their own lives. Stalin had genuine support, but less for the things he did than for the things he was credited with by his own propaganda machine.

Trey Stone’s alteration of Ruy Lopez’s signature is, in my opinion, a ban-worthy offense; but he is right about the content of this page. The encyclopedia is not required to present falsehoods because a small number believe them, or to deny truths because a small number do not. ‘Totalitarianism’ can be defined, and in fact, it is defined largely by what Stalin himself did. So of course he was a totalitarian. ‘Beneficence’ can be defined, and it is not what Stalin did or encouraged at all. We do not need a synonym. It should be remembered that the bulk of the millions whose deaths Stalin caused were not executed. They died of preventable famine caused by his policies, which were not generous or charitable or socialist. His policies were focused on aggrandizing himself by dragging the Russian empire into the industrial age, to the great neglect of the agricultural base. And the program of deception for internal and external consumption aggravated the famine and increased the deaths, because no one was allowed to tell the truth about the state of the economy. So even the argument that something like social welfare earned Stalin popular support totally defies the facts. Feeding the people was nearly the last thing Stalin was concerned with. And the people who loved him did not love him because he made their lives so good, but because propaganda told them their lives would be even worse without him. Not true, of course, and those who saw through this hated him; but they feared him more, and that was because of the active things he did to destroy the opposition. The most balanced of histories recognize all of these facts. This encyclopedia will look foolish if it creates some self-congratulatory but self-deluded “NPOV” by perpetuating the lies that were exposed in Stalin’s own time, by his own mistreated subjects.

And the idea that we need to emphasize the collective nature of the leadership is uninformed as well. Obviously Stalin needed others to carry out his commands; but the régime was also a textbook example of autocracy. Stalin governed alone even early in his reign, and as his rule progressed, his own personal power increased, so that his every whim was heeded. That is the product of fear in totalitarianism; to defy Stalin was viewed as lethal (as indeed it was), and few would risk it. United, his opponents might have stopped him, but they did not unite because he so effectively nurtured a climate of doubt and suspicion. Of course he had help. But he got his way so effectively and completely that there is no need for us to speak of the Politburo or his other associates. Those colleagues who did not do as he said were all, ultimately, eliminated. Simple fact. I support the neutrality policy, but more important than that is accuracy, and these modifications to the opening in recent days have not been accurate.
— Ford 03:49, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

All what you say is correct, but to leave only "ruthless" in the intro is yet another bias. This term is as applicable to Stalin as to tornado. Stalin was no more ruthless than Napoleon (praised univocally); Stalin had more tools at hand. After some thought, I'd leave only a pure fact: elimination of opposition, cutting out the whole "through..." part. At the same time, gulag, personality cult and purges are notable t be in intro, only without any attempts to make logical connections, which are doomed to be incomplete in a terse text of the intro. Mikkalai 04:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

‘Purge’ does not mean “kill”; it means “remove”. ‘Ruthless’ does not mean “cruel”; it means “dispassionate” or “without mercy” (like a tornado, as it happens; and I, for one, do not praise Napoleon at all). ‘Ruthless purges’ implies that Stalin removed individuals from party and society without particular mercy. At best, the phrase hints at the mass murder, but does not state it directly, nor does it signify that Stalin relished the murders — merely that he was not especially upset about them. If you want to say that “Stalin eliminated political opposition through a combination of skilled manipulation of people and ruthless purges”, I would be fine with it. ‘Skilled manipulation’ is your formula, and it is accurate and neutral.

If you don’t feel confident in your use of English, then I wonder that you have so forcefully defended 172’s edit (it was 172 who added the word ‘beneficence’ twice). 172 either does not know the meaning of ‘beneficence’, or is enthusiastically pro-Stalin, or was trying to be neutral and went far overboard. In any of these cases, I felt justified in changing the language without consulting 172 or anyone else. Leaving that statement in the encyclopedia for more than a minute risks discrediting it. I know the English language fairly well; and the best interpretation of 172’s formula is that Stalin was a good-hearted individual who was capable of setting aside his good-heartedness to act dispassionately when necessary. That won’t fly, not remotely.
— Ford 12:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

172 is one of those kinds of people who'll say, "Well I don't support the fact that X -insert Marxist-leaning dictator here- butchered a bunch of people, but..." and then does the exact opposite on any undemocratic regime friendly to the U.S., shrouding everything in "historical perspective" when it's really just "making wikipedia into 172-defined history." For example, with Rios Montt's brutally indiscriminate tactics against Guatemalan campesinos in guerrilla areas, we get the full picture of torture, assassination, and murder, as we should. With Saddam Hussein, who employed similarly sick tactics for different reasons, we get "internal coup prevention" and "stabilization" (all well and good) without a single mention of the sort of techniques used by his police. 172 seems to think that if he's somewhat receptive to someone's ideology their misdeeds must be minimized or wholly omitted under the guise of "relevance" and "NPOV". This is Trey 08:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I am one of the users adding the reference to the millions of lives lost in Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1930s. I can provide a plethora of other examples. I have added to the Saddam article: "Domestic repression inside Iraq grew worse, and Saddam's sons, Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein, became increasingly powerful and carried out a private reign of terror." Also: "Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found spies and conspirators within the Ba'ath Party and read out the names of members who he thought could oppose him. These members were labeled 'disloyal' and were removed from the room one by one to face a firing squad." I have gotten into conflicts on the Saddam article with users ostensibly opposed to the Bush administration's war polices over the addition of content concerning casualties caused by the UN and U.S. sanctions that I felt was off topic; see the archives of the talk page. By resorting to ad hominems, you are making it clear that the only tactic that you have at your disposal to win this debate is mudslinging, as opposed to a coherent set of arguments backed up by real evidence. 172 17:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to the above charges. However, I will note that I did not write that particular intro. Rather, I was restoring one that was left standing for quite a long time because it was generally more acceptable than the POV commentary left in its place. In its context the word 'beneficence' refers to his bestowing beneficence on his political supporters through, e.g., promotions or the provision of social services in his consolidation of power. (Note that the sentence pertains to his consolidation of power in the 1930s.) However, I will change the wording given the feedback above suggesting that it is confusing to some readers. 172 21:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It frustrates me that a user like Trey Stone is discrediting the attempt to make this opening even a reasonable representation of what happened in Stalin’s life. Ruy Lopez goes the other way, insisting that one of the most autocratic rulers in recent history be enveloped (and excused) in a collective leadership, and offering hollow defenses for what took place. Are we to believe — are our readers to believe — that Stalin anticipated that he would face the Nazi invasion in the 1920s, and did nothing from then until the war but develop Russia’s defenses? Two questions for Ruy: Would Russia not have been far better defended if Stalin had not purged so many capable persons in government, army, and society? Serious historians seem to believe so. And did the invasion by Germany not take Stalin largely by surprise, ten or fifteen years after he had supposedly begun preparations for it? Again, serious historians seem to believe so. He thought he had coopted Hitler like he had coopted so many in Russia itself.

It should be remembered that the elimination of opposition was an elimination of opposition to Stalin. The Politburo and the bureaucracy took on the shapes they did after Stalin’s opponents were taken out. Collective leadership characterizes matters before the purges began. You can call Beria, Molotov, Kalinin, Yagoda, et cetera, whatever you like, but let us not pretend that they were colleagues of Stalin. They rose because they did what he told them to do, and at the expense of those like Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev who did not. The last three may have been coopted for a time; but they fell because they ultimately opposed Stalin, and their opposition to Stalin’s loyal subordinates was incidental.

I don’t know why, if the “beneficence...” formula is not the product of anyone in the current dispute, no one will accept my compromise: “skillful manipulation, patronage, and ruthless purges”. ‘Patronage’ is a much more common word than ‘clientage’ — and it has the added advantage of actually meaning what you are all trying to convey. And I do not know why 172 in particular is so wedded to this ‘tactical retreats’ phrase.
— Ford (continues below)

I did not add the phrase tactical retreats originally, but I support keeping it in its place in the intro. This phase refers to political shifts such as his outmaneuvering the 'left' and 'right' factions of the Politburo in the late 1920s, the end of the Popular Front with the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact, and the reopening of the churches and the co-opting of Russian nationalism during the war. This is a reference to the brutal swiftness and realism with which Stalin responded to external and internal political change. 172 18:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does that really add much to our discussion of what Stalin did? It was Mikkalai who provided ‘skillful manipulation’ (indirectly), and while I think it covers both patronage and what few tactical retreats Stalin may have made, I am willing to see patronage in there as well.

172, if that was you, please explain your problem with the mention of totalitarianism. Calling Stalin totalitarian may be (may be) point-of-view, but saying that he is considered by many to be a historical example of a totalitarian ruler is not point-of-view. The encyclopedia uses that device all the time. It is not a judgement, but a description of a judgement. And it is far more important information than the trivial fact about the five-year plans. Out of context, the five-years plans sound unforgivably silly. But it is accurate to mention them, at least. It would be equally accurate to mention the most common characterization of Stalin’s rule. If we don’t convey something so obvious about Stalin, what good are we?
— Ford 19:39, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

While saying that Stalinist Russia is thought to be an example of totalitarianism may not be POV, there is no reason to get into such a methodological debate concerning the nature of the Soviet political system in the introduction of a biographical entry about Stalin. For our purposes in this article, we can bring up things like the terror, Great Purges, and the cult of personality without debating political science methodology. 172 17:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(a) I would prefer that you not interrupt my posts. Others may not care, but I do, and as they are my posts, I hope you will honor this. (b) I did not say that you originated the ‘tactical retreats’ phrase, but that you are “wedded” to it, in other words that you are insistent on its usage. I think it fundamentally alters the idea of eliminating political opposition, and is misleading. For the most part, the political opposition was eliminated because it lost the freedom to oppose (or was outright killed), not because it lost its reason to oppose (that is, that Stalin stopped opposing it). Tactical retreat belongs in another thought. But certainly it would be better than reinserting ‘beneficence’ or ‘clientage’. (c) As for methodology, see my comments further down.
— Ford 21:48, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust 172's assertion that Sovietologists from the '60s on somehow made some breakthrough and discovered that Stalinism wasn't so totalitarian after all. He's made such definitive statements in the past that are completely false. Master Trey 09:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I did slip totalitarian in there in a much more concise fashion, but I do think it should be covered more. There were three (possibly Imperial Japan as well, but I'm not so sure -- though they weren't short of fanatics) governments regarded as quintessential examples of totalitarianism during WWII -- Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Stalinist Russia. The USSR's economic development and establishment as a superpower is not justification for the BS whitewashing that's going on here. EDR 10:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO Italy was by no means totalitarian, but the Stalinist Soviet Union could be accurately termed so. Boraczek 10:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" is, as 172 correctly observed, an "ideal type". So are most concepts describing political and social systems, e.g. democracy, bourgeois democracy, socialism, feudalism, etc. One of the advantages of ideal types is that they allow us to classify real objects according to how close they are to particular ideal types. The ideal types of democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism make the division of real political systems into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian systems possible (rather than impossible). It is important to be aware of the difference between the ideal type, which is an abstract concept and by defintion cannot occur in the real world, and real, empirically accessible objects. A real political system cannot exactly correspond to the ideal type of democracy, authoritarianism or totalitarianism. But this is not an obstacle to classify it as democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian.

The term "totalitarianism" is extensively used in political science. And the statement that the Soviet Union under Stalin furnishes a clear example of totalitarian system is widely accepted. Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree that the totalitarian label is of marginal relevance to this article. This article is about Joseph Stalin, not about the political system of the Soviet Union. I don't find it correct to attribute creation of a political system to one person. What I think is worth mentioning is the personality cult rather than the totalitarian character of the political system. Boraczek 09:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I find Ford's comments very astute. As regards Ford's comment It would be equally accurate to mention the most common characterization of Stalin’s rule, I concur, but I think "totalitarianism" is a characterization of the whole political system rather than of Stalin's power. Boraczek 10:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question, Boraczek (and we may still disagree on this point), is where the totalitarianism in Russia came from. During Stalin’s reign, he was certainly the central figure in the political system, and increasingly the only figure of any significance, so if the system was totalitarian while he ruled, then he was responsible for it during that period at least. But was it totalitarian before him? I would say not. Mind you, Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, et cetera were brutal with their opponents, and I am not prepared to canonize them (but neither would I follow the lunacy of the Orthodox church in canonizing Nikolai Romanov in response). But did life under Lenin amount to a total consumption of the individual in society? There was still debate; there was still life outside of the party. If ever there were a tactical retreat, it was the NEP. The signs of totalitarianism (as opposed to mere dictatorship) did not appear until Stalin took over, and the creation of a totalitarian system was certainly completed under Stalin’s direction, at a time when he was removing any opposition (real or imagined) to himself. So if Stalin installed the system, and Stalin’s régime exemplified the system, and the system characterized life in Russia while Stalin ruled, isn’t that an important fact about Stalin?
— Ford 13:19, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I think it has been demonstrated that Wikipedia is unable to handle this material due to point of view editing. I think we should consider deleting it so that we are not presenting false information. Fred Bauder 13:41, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

...Deleting what? The article? The lede? --Golbez 17:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

• If Fred Bauder thinks the article should be deleted, he is free to put a {{vfd}} in place. I can guarantee the result of such a vote, however. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think Fred should feel free to do that, assuming that's what he means. I think anybody ought to revert a VfD header if one is added. Everyking 00:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, I think Fred should feel free to do exactly that if he thinks it's in any way productive...the outcome would be totally predictable, but there's no policy to forbid registered users from adding Vfd headers to articles they feel deserve to be discussed there. A Vfd header should never be reverted unless it has been added in an obvious act of vandalism...besides, a couple dozen keep votes are sending a clear message to whoever thinks an article should be deleted -- Ferkelparade π 00:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Considering Uncle Joe has a fucking Communist ideology named after him that has extensive similarities to totalitarianism, I don't see what the hell is so POV about putting that in the intro. If someone can fit it in more smoothly and concisely that's great. If they're going to remove it I'll keep reverting it. You can't have an article about Stalin without mentioning the term that originated in large part because of his system of government. Trey Stone 22:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" is inherently POV and unacceptable in the intro. It is an "ideal type," and like all ideal types, it does not fully describe Soviet reality. While it was the consensus in U.S. Sovietology in the 1950s and early 1960s, it has fallen out of favor since then, when challenged by a number of Western Russia and Soviet specialists, such as Sheila Fitzpatrick, Stephen Cohen, J. Arch Getty, and Roberta Manning. Since this is just an encyclopedic entry and not an article in an academic journal, this debate does not concern this article and has no place in the intro. 172 23:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Until I see these scholarly breakthrough reports on how full control throughout Soviet society (education, "judiciary", employment, personality cult, media subordination, etc.) does not constitute totalitarianism (Stalinism) I'm keeping it. Given your systematically biased edits on articles like Efraín Ríos Montt and History of the United States (1988-present) I'm not exactly convinced that the classification of Stalinism as totalitarian has "fallen out of favor" since the '60s (I sure missed it if it did) Trey Stone 02:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There have been extensive studies into the subject that have proven that the alleged totalitarianism was a result of the collectivization period, when general instability and party divisions were rampant. To think that some kind of Western-style democracy was plausible at that point in time is absolutely absurd given the historical situation and antagonisms between landless peasants and the upper-class elite. Your edits show absolutely no knowledge of Soviet history and come from an entirely Western point of view. The intro is for historical data, not value judgments on Stalin's excesses. I am not 172 03:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These comments were not made by me but rather a Trey Stone sockpuppet. [1] Impersonating users, sockpuppets, personal attacks, etc. all warrant a block. This has clearly crossed the line into vandalism with no ambiguity left and I have acted accordingly. Combined with your creation of the account User:Raghead-in-Chief, you should be hard-banned along with User:JoeM. ("Raghead" is a racist epithet directed at South Asian or Middle Eastern persons. Wikipedia has a policy against offensive usernames.)172 15:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haha, I love how they gotta specify South Asian. ??? 10:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

full control throughout society - education, "judiciary", employment, personality cult, media subordination...yaa, you have a point there about the United States. Oh...you were talking about the USSR. --yeah I was, you fucking wiseass. So Goddamn Creative 05:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taking a true criticism of the Soviet Union and turning it into a fake criticism of the United States! Fucking genius. J. Parker Stone 08:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whaddid I tell ya. 172 once again proves that he is a pseudo-intellectual Marxist-sympathizing hack. Big-F'N-newsflash. Mr. Stone 03:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what you did Mr. Trey Cool. Good goin. You're gonna get banned for it. Mikkalai 03:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm Dick Nixon and I approve this message. Richard F. Nixon 03:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting the page one more time without responding to anyone on talk will get you blocked and this page protected. 172 15:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) After seeing the use of sockpuppets above, I have already had to block this vandal. 172 16:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't have crossed that detailed explanation (of the historical complexities) out 271. It was so you. El Trey 08:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And always remember that racist obscenities are better than encyclopediac obscenities, such as Stalinophilia. J. Parker Stone

Will all of you please shut the fuck up? Thanks.

Trey Stone:

Stop it with your nonsense-spewing sockpuppets. Keep up with this, and your IP address will be blocked and you will not allowed to edit with any username. 172 16:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whatever you say pro. Shreem Fried Rice 02:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

totalitarinism, etc.

Monkey business aside, we do seem to be unable to present accurate information in this article, see this edit by 172 [2]. With Stalin's regime, together with Hitler's, the premier examples of totalitarianism, a method of goverance which dominated the 20th century, we are unable to maintain a link to the word totalitarianism in the article, due to the activities of a small number of editors who represent no substantial organized political group or academic tradition other than revisionist history. Fred Bauder 17:02, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove the reference to "totalitarianism" from the introduction; and I will continue to do so. My response is to point out Boraczek's response, with which I totally concur. [3]. 9&oldid=8552336172 17:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Fred, have you even read the work of (or even heard of) the scholars whom I cited as having challenged the totalitarian model (for methodological reasons, not political reasons) such as Sheila Fitzpatrick, Stephen Cohen, J. Arch Getty, and Roberta Manning? I doubt that you have done so. When my colleagues and I see such unsubstantiated comments in students, we simply call it b.s.-ing. 172 17:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We do seem to share respect for at least one scholar, Stephen F. Cohen. He does use the word totalitarian, but in quotes, for example on page 31 of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: 'In his description of an omnipotent "single all-embracing organization ," Bukharin foresaw, however idiomatically, the advent of what came to be called the "totalitarian" state." He also anticipated the agonizing question this development was to pose for Marxists. Again on page 362, ' Unlike all too many Marxists, Bukharin recognized that the Nazi order was something new. It represented, he believed, the actualization of the "New Leviathan," the nightmarish potentiality in modern society that he had adumbrated in 1915, the "state of Jack London's The Iron Heel." And as his portrayal of Nazi Germany, its "totalitarian" order, "statism and Caesarism," in 1934-6 seemed to suggest, and as he confided privately, he feared that Stalinist policies and practices since 1929 were leading to a similar development in the Soviet Union.' When he puts totalitarianism in quotes, he's quoting those who do use the word. As he writes about Bukharin's ideas he is outlining the concept, as Bukharin put it, "a militaristic state capitalism".

Good. Then you should be familiar with the broader debate in Russia and Soviet studies between proponents of the 'totalitarian model' (such as Conquest and Brzezinski) and the 'revisionist' scholars (historical revisionism, not Historical revisionism (political)). Here are some cached links (so that the key words are highlighted) making reference to the debate on the 'totalitarian model' and Stephen Cohen that may be able to guide some further research. [4] and [5] are from Johnson's Russia Index. [6] is another example. For the leading works of the scholars working outside the totalitarian model see Stephen F. Cohen, Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917 (1985), J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered (1984), Fitzpatrick, "New Perspectives on Stalinism" (1986), Fitzpatrick, "How the Mice Buried the Cat: Scenes from the Great Purges of 1937 in the Russian Provinces" (1993) The works do not use the 'totalitarian model' because (a) it does not adequately take into account the conflict between opposing groups and key figures that characterized the Soviet Union (Cohen) (b) it does not adequately take into account the primate nature of the Soviet planning bureaucracy (Getty) (c) it does not adequately take into account the extent to which the Soviet authorities lacked complete control of the agency of the masses or the social outcomes of its own plans (Fitzpatrick). 172 02:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

172, here is a challenge: would it be possible for you to be a little more patronizing? Could you make an effort to increase your level of condescension beyond its present level?

Here is another challenge: would you go back to my previous challenge and actually explain what your problem is with stating that Stalin’s rule is often considered to be an example of totalitarianism? Unless you believe that the work of a few scholars is so dazzling that it made any discussion of ‘totalitarianism’ or even use of the word ‘totalitarian’ to be fundamentally ridiculous. But I am still waiting for you to offer us a concise summary of their work so that those of us who do not share your scholarly background (go on, mention your degree; we know you want to, and we will all be so impressed) can understand in what way ‘totalitarian’ is now passé.

This sudden shift in your position to “What Boraczek said.” is bizarre. You and Boraczek have been saying quite different things. Boraczek, in the comment you cite, was specifically rebuking you on the value of ideal types, and on the existence of totalitarianism as a phenomenon, and on its applicability to Stalinist Russia. Did you miss that? You have made an opportunistic alliance with someone who mostly disagrees with you, and claim that it validates what you have been saying. At least I recognize that Boraczek was only giving some of my statements a very limited endorsement. You are obscuring your own previous position because you believe you can catch the tide of the argument and ride it to success. If I were a well-educated academic like you, I could probably drop a Latin phrase that captures the debating device you are employing. But alas, I missed that class. What snide remark would you and your colleagues make about me?

In all earnestness, 172, your attack on Fred was over the line, unwarranted, and hardly a credit to academia. Do you actually have no more intelligent way to counter an argument? BS? I would call that ad hominem. What makes you think that Fred has not read those scholars? Just because he doesn’t swallow everything they say? And if he indeed has not read them (as I have not), why does that invalidate his opinion? Ah, but you must be responding to his charge about revisionist history. Your response for his response. Doesn’t that sound a little like mudslinging?
— Ford 18:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I still have not received an explanation on how full media control, the personality cult, death/gulag for dissenters, the massive purges, forced collectivization, etc. do not constitute a totalitarian state present in people's everyday lives. Even if it is not mentioned in the intro (which is bad enough) the fact that the word "totalitarianism" is not mentioned at all in the article is akin to not mentioning a similar (and true) charge against Nazi Germany, something to which I'm sure 172 would not object. As it is it is historical revisionism pure and simple. E. Rod 02:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your comments in no particular order. First, I disagree with your assertion that Boraczek disagreed with my comments considering the reference to totalitarianism in the intro. Note the following: "I don't find it correct to attribute creation of a political system to one person. What I think is worth mentioning is the personality cult rather than the totalitarian character of the political system." This seems compatible with my stance in favor of mentioning the cult of personality, the millions of lives lost in Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1920s and 1930s, the Great Purges, et al., without getting into a debate on methodology in political science (i.e. the merits of the old totalitarian model) in the intro of a biographical encyclopedia entry. Second, I don't understand why I should have to provide a summary of the work Russia and Soviet specialists who challenge the totalitarian model. My stance is that we do not need to deal with a debate on political science methodology in the intro; so I don't understand how playing out such a debate on the talk page is going to help. (If you are curious about their work, you can find reviews and journal articles dealing with their work in authoritative sites off Wikipedia that you can cite, as opposed to from a pseudonymous Wiki user. Going to JSTOR, Lexis Nexis, or other search engines will almost definitely serve you better than hearing it from me on this page.) Third, concerning the "condescension," since you are a relatively new user, you may not be aware of this, but Fred Bauder and I have not been the best of friends on Wikipedia for the past two years. He has never made a comment directed toward me in good faith, and have always responded to him in kind. (Since I've dealt with him so many times before, I knew what he was trying to imply by bring up "revisionism." Fred Bauder has the habit of likening users who disagree with any of his edits to Holocaust revisionists. For example, here Fred Bauder deliberately conflates Historical revisionism with Historical revisionism (political) in order to make a particularly viscous attack against me that was forcibly removed by the Arbcom election organizers. [7] In turn, I have compared the ways in which he has dealt with conflict with other users and me to McCarthyism.) However, I apologize for not thoroughly explaining the context of my response to Fred. I sincerely hope to avoid dragging other users into this conflict between Fred Bauder and me. 172 18:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I forgot something. Re: Boraczek, in the comment you cite, was specifically rebuking you on the value of ideal types, and on the existence of totalitarianism as a phenomenon, and on its applicability to Stalinist Russia. Did you miss that? No, I did not. I agree wholeheartedly that without heuristic models and ideal-types, we are lost as researchers. I do not even dismiss the relevance of the totalitarian model for Stalinist Russia in some areas of inquiry. But this has nothing to do with my removal of the term "totalitarianism" from the intro. That is not a question of challenging the totalitarian model as a useful tool for researchers, but of the relevance of bringing up a methodological debate in the introduction of this article. 172 18:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your fight with Fred, it is mudslinging nonetheless. Still, had I known the context, I might have been less incensed by it. I appreciate that you want to present an accurate and complete picture of Stalin (and Saddam, and others). I don’t know why you stated that you “totally concur” with Boraczek’s refutation of your argument just because it came, coincidentally, to the same conclusion. (I acknowledge that it was the same conclusion, but only coincidentally.)
— Ford (continues below)

I don't understand what you are talking about. His suggest that he disagrees that this methodological debate is germane to the intro; and that's the reason I removed the "historical example of totalitarianism" line from the intro. How is this a 'refutation of my argument'? I stand by my comments to Fred Bauder directing him to Boraczek's comments. 172 20:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose Boraczek can respond, but Boraczek seems to believe that totalitarianism is a valid description of Stalinist Russia, and that calling something an ideal type does not make it a problematic inclusion in an encyclopedia article, both of which were stated in direct response to you. The only reason the two of you agreed is that Boraczek, for different reasons, also wanted the line left out (because it was more a description of the broader system and less a description of what Stalin himself did). In any case, there has been no mention of methodological debate by anyone but you.
— Ford 21:48, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

But Boraczek is not an object to be bandied between us. Fortunately, it now looks like all of us (except perhaps Ruy) can agree to mention the cult of personality in the introduction. Good; let’s do that.
— Ford (continues below)

Well, if Ruy disagees, let's wait for him to explain his point. We can also wait for Mikkalai's input as well. 172 20:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As an aside, an ideal type as you use it is nothing more than an abstraction or a class, and as such applies to most nouns and possibly all adjectives. You surely will not have us stop using nouns and adjectives. I totally disagree that mentioning totalitarianism in the introduction is bringing up a “methodological debate”. I don’t even know what you are talking about there. The word ‘totalitarian’ is not a tool devised for a metadiscussion on the scholarly exploration of social phenomena. It is a word devised to label a particular social phenomenon. Something happened in Russia and Germany, and we need to talk about it. And perhaps my chronology is off, but it was my understanding that reality in Russia and Germany came first. If the word ‘totalitarian’ was coined to describe this phenomenon, then one person’s version of the totalitarian model does not define the word; the reality in Russia defines it. Or, to put it another way, if one person’s model of totalitarianism does not adequately describe Stalinist Russia, then it is not a good model of totalitarianism in reality. As for why you should summarize the arguments, my point is simple. You claim that the idea of totalitarianism is partly or entirely discredited, and yet you do not say how or why. Cohen and Getty are not here objecting to the word. You are; the burden is on you, and you will say no more than “I have read some good arguments, so let’s not use the word.” If you want to be an exemplary editor (and it seems that you do), you should follow the usual practice of explaining your controversial edits on the talk page. You are not doing that; you are just saying, “Hey, I know some things.”

But forget the word. Why don’t we briefly describe the system? Would somebody please explain to me what is wrong with my characterization of Stalin’s rule as autocracy? As I said, Stalin had help, but perhaps the leading feature of the Stalinist system, to which the cult of personality pointedly contributed, was Stalin’s undisputed command. In Stalin’s own time, he was given all the credit and incomparable deference. His opponents were all eliminated, as well as many who were not his opponents, so that those left behind (or alive) were unwilling or unable to defy him in anything. His underlings deserve condemnation, but Stalin made every decision he was pleased to make, and virtually every one was carried out. What few exceptions there may be to this sweeping statement of mine are minimal compared to most any other ruler who could be named. What made Stalinist Russia so distinctive, from the point of view of its inhabitants? My answer: the pervasive influence of the centralized powers (party, police, bureaucracy, army) in the lives of all individuals, and the pervasive influence of one person (Stalin) in those centralized powers. (Just because Trey likes the word ‘pervasive’ doesn’t make it wrong.) If we fail to recognize this key fact of life under Stalin, we are not giving a good synopsis of his story, which the introduction should do.
— Ford 19:55, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Re: Or, to put it another way, if one person’s model of totalitarianism does not adequately describe Stalinist Russia, then it is not a good model of totalitarianism in reality. It sounds like you are making a plea to have Wikipedia affirm the literature on Stalinist Russia based on the totalitarian model. This is not NPOV; it is not our place to way into the debate on the merits of the classical totalitarian model. Re: Why don’t we briefly describe the system? Here, you are proposing that we develop our own regime typology. We do not do this because this is not our role. If you want to do this, try to submit an article to an academic journal like, say, Comparative Politics. If you want to write in detail about the Stalinist system, we have relevant articles on the History of the Soviet Union and Economy of the Soviet Union, where you can expand the content on the Stalinist economic system of administrative command. In addition, the Soviet Union ariticle will direct you to other related articles where you can discuss Soviet politics under Stalin. 172 20:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see some problems with the use of totalitarianism in this article. In some sense it seems to imply that the Soviet Union was not totalitarian before Stalin or after him, which is not true. However during his period of control there was a more intensive development of the system, to the point that later Soviet leaders, who themselves presided over totalitarian regimes, marked it out for rebuke. Boraczek's response [8] does not seem to support 172's position. As to totalitarianism being an "ideal type" and thus somehow removed from use as a concept I find it hard to imagine any authority for that proposition, and even if there was, there is ample authority characterizing Stalin's regime as totalitarian. NPOV would require some characterization of who is saying one thing or the other, but it seems obvious that the characterization of Stalin's regime as totalitarian belongs in the article, if we are not to appear ridiculous, tiptoeing around an obvious fact. Fred Bauder 21:31, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

172: Where better to discuss the Stalinist system than in the article about Stalin? Am I missing something obvious here? I am not making a plea for the encyclopedia to affirm anyone’s model, merely to present facts. You are the one who keeps trying to frame this debate in terms of models and typology and, of all things, methodology. (Why do you persist in bringing up that word? It does not apply. We are not talking about how we should explore what happened, but about what happened. At the very least, I am not talking methodology — except perhaps on the methods of writing a collaborative encyclopedia article.) I am not calling for a discourse on Stalinism in the introduction. But something about the pervasiveness of his influence would not be out of line (especially when compared to trivia like the five-year plans). Are you disputing his influence as a matter of fact? Stating that his influence only existed if one accepts a particular academic model? I cannot accept that. It sounds to me like you are imagining a political-science debate in which you have been engaged elsewhere (hence your use of ‘models’, ‘typology’, and ‘methodology’). I am treating this like a history project. We cannot avoid making judgements, but I for one am not trying to explain the phenomenon of Stalinism, merely to describe it. I am talking about one or two sentences about the political system named after the subject of the article, and for which he was primarily responsible, and which is the most noteworthy thing about him. “Regime typology”? Nonsense. I have never called for a comparative discussion of Stalinism and anything else. I just think we need to briefly describe Stalinism, since this is an article about Stalin. (And we could skip the description if you didn’t have a problem with labels that might otherwise describe it. But we are forced to do things the hard way because the best available words will all be dismissed by you as “regime typology” or a “methodological debate”.) I fail to see why a brief description of his influence is inappropriate, at least in part because no one has offered even the slightest reason why I should think so. Stalin was a political figure. He had almost-unprecedented political influence. Isn’t that worth mentioning?
— Ford 21:53, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Your Q: Where better to discuss..? A:In Stalinism article. Don't put all eggs in one basket. Mikkalai 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we should refer to Stalinism in the introduction. It is important, and it needs to go up front. But fundamentally, it is Stalinism, so a sentence or two would not be an outrageous diversion.
— Ford 22:18, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Then the last sentence of the article can state that his successors repudiated Stalinism and his cult of personality; but the comment that I've removed from the intro is inappropriate. 172 01:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be more careful when reverting

Dear ladies and gentlemen and not,

When you are going to revert a page, please check the version difference and scroll down to the end of comparison in order to check the whole text, so that you will not kill other edits, irrelevant to conflict. In the middle of edit wars some other innocent editors fix typos and do other useful job, often lost amid the reverts and re-reverts.

Thank you, 17:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I fit into "not." That's cool though. Chun Il-shek 03:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trey, I asked you politely, both on this talk page and on yours not to revert the *whole* article. If you don't stop doing this, I am going to request the discussion of your behavior. Mikkalai 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purges

" Towards the end of the purge, the Politburo felt that the people they delegated tasks to, such as NKVD head Nikolai Yezhov, had been over-zealous, and relieved them of their positions." Um, wasn't Yezhov not just "relieved" but executed? Also, this line seems to blame the excesses of the purge on Yezhov alone. Of course, many historians blame Stalin and argue that Yezhov was sacrificed at the end as the fall guy or, alternatively, gotten rid of because he (literally) knew where the bodies were buried. This section needs to be rewritten and balanced in order to make reference to other explanations for Yezhov's fall. AndyL 21:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was executed later, see his article. Mikkalai 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point is it is odd to mention his dismissal and not his execution. Also, the other points raised remain. AndyL 22:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it can mention later that he was dismissed and later executed, but the important point for this article is his dismissal. 172 01:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stalin's support for the Kerensky government

"Stalin was won over to Lenin's specific position on World War I following the latter's return from exile in April." Perhaps there should be some mention of Stalin's previous position when, as editor of Pravda, he advocated support of the Kerensky provisional government and suppressed Lenin's views? As well, there should be some mention that the April Theses was largely aimed against Stalin's position and it took Stalin some three weeks or so before he resiled his position and came over to support of Lenin's revolutionary position. Dealing with all of this through one line ""Stalin was won over to Lenin's specific position on World War I following the latter's return from exile in April." is more than a little misleading. AndyL 21:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Stalin School of Falsification"

Some mention should be made of the practice under Stalinism of airbrushing individual leaders who had fallen out of favour from old pictures, and allegations that Stalin falsified the history of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet Union in order to support his position and obscure his various changes in line. AndyL 21:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'll try to find some photos. Perhaps there will be some photos online from David King's The Commissar Vanishes online. If I can find some, I'll upload them and mark them as fair use. 172 01:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of Trotsky airbrushed out of a picture in which he was celebrating with Lenin the second anniversary of the October Revolution in Red Square. (See Image:Trotskyout.jpg.) I also uploaded the original photo at Image:Trotskyin.jpg. They don't belong in this article, but perhaps someone will want to put them in the History of the Soviet Union series. 172 01:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)