Talk:Joseph Stalin

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9

Comrade Miyamoto

The subsection "Stalin and changes in Soviet society" -> "Culture and religion" currently includes this statement:

"It is widely believed that the video game icon Mario was made to look like Stalin, to promote communism".

Someone with editing rights might want to do something about this. (PROTIP: Try deleting it.)

I've put the tag on there. I'll give someone a chance to come up with a reference. If no one does in the next few days I'll delete it. --C33 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps widely is an overstatement, but there are similarities. Whether they are intentional or not is not clear, but much like the mushroom and hallucenogens assertion they exist. I'm not an expert in citations so i dont know of a method of citing general opinion, but I've seen mentions of this idea for several years in the mass media and the internet. A google search will show plenty of "references".

Racists on Wikipedia

Recently two Wikipedians censored an external link (Joseph Stalin: An emerging view) containing comments and views of Black scholars and intellectuals on the issues discussed here. One would expect such behavior from the Grand Wizards of the Ku Klax Klan and not from members of the Wikipedia community. LCF 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks (WP:NPA). The link wasn't removed because of race issues, it was removed because it was non-notable.

• It is an irrelevant link. It has very little to do with Stalin and the logical rigor of it is as flimsy as the photoshopping job in the "enhanced reality" portrait. It adds nothing to this article and reflects a very poor understanding of the literature on both Stalin and U.S. race relations in the 1930s. I don't feel the need to address the accusation of being a "racist" because I find the link useless. I think you've noticed that I've tried to take out every link to your goofy web page which didn't enhance an article on here, and it has nothing to do with anything related to race. --Fastfission 22:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're welcome to peruse my Slavery article and others to see the extent of Fastfission's duplicity. Then look at his on-web publications to see an article devoted to Henry Goddard and only mildly critical of his eugenics program or an article mentioning Harry Truman, member of the Ku Klax Klan, not critical of him at all, as Fastfission is enamored by power in general and by nuclear power in particular. However, this warped individual is an administrator on Wikipedia and I have been around long enough to know that to fight against a member of this group of nabobs is an uphill struggle.
• Fastfission, filled with hate and lusting for revenge spent the last two days erasing my links and contributions to Wikipedia. He is welcome to erase the rest. At this point our ways have to part, as the turpitude of this “administrator” makes me nauseated. In parting, I recovered the yesterday's entry which his fellow administrator deleted, as it is equally true about Fastfission as it was about his sidekick. Here it is:
• The link in question opens with the quote by the Indian Ambassador Shri Menon, in Fastfission's perverted opinion a non-white thus not a notable person. The next quote is by Black Harvard scholar W.E.B. DuBois, in racist Fastfission's judgment again a non-white, not notable person. The following passage is about Paul Robeson, a Black singer who is quoted that he left the bar because a stenographer refused to take down a memo, saying “I never take dictation from a nigger.” What follows are Paul Robeson's comments on minority issues in Stalin's Soviet Union, in Fastfission's profoundly biased, racist opinion again not-significant, not notable. LCF 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Admiring Harry Truman, for instance, doesn't make a person "warped" or unqualified as an administrator; it makes him normal. As foreigners here may be unaware, Harry Truman had enough admirers to elect him as President. Art LaPella 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and remind you that in order for something to be cited on Wikipedia, it needs to be verifaible and published by a reputable source. Self published websites do not meet that criteria. Also, on a personal note, you might find that people will listen to your arguments if you drop the vitriolic invective and don't cry racism at the first sign of disagreement. --C33 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the only contribution Truman made to the KKK was to pay them (It hink it was) 10 dollars as an initial membership fee. WHen he found out the extent of the KKK's goals, he severed connections with them. He never went to a meeting. He also was a big supporter of civil rights. So please, actually do research instead of picking one thing out of dozens, exaggerating it, stating it as fact, and then calling it racism. Phoenix Song 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing Stalin to Joseph

Why is Stalin changed to Joseph? It is common to use the last name when talking about persons. In his youth, before he took the name Stalin, would it not be better to use his last name then? Personally I think this is confusing and would prefer Stalin to be used in the whole article. Ultramarine 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It need not be confusing; there were already some mentions of his pet name "Soso", and they still stand. The edit, as it said, was according to context. Someone in his early years is usually referred to by his first name, colloquially. When talking about young Mark from the Smith family attending school, one says "Mark (not "Smith") did very well in his class today". I don't think there's a problem with applying this use in a written form. Actually I picked up this idea from Peter Thielst, who wrote a biography of Søren Kierkegaard. He distinguishes between the child and student, which he consistently names "Søren" in the first part of his book, and the philosopher and publicist, always "Kierkegaard" in the second. Stalin can in my view be approached in the same way. He wasn't "Stalin" when he had not yet chosen that "revolutionary" name. Also there should be no problem with the retrospective use. You wouldn't say "Pavel was a banker in 1980 in Prague. In that time, being a banker in the Czech Republic was a hard thing". No, at the time it was Czechoslovakia, and that's what counts for the situation described. In fact, there have never been "Stalin's friends from childhood". That's today's perspective. Nethency 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia article that uses the persons first name? Or any Stalin biography that uses his first name? Ultramarine 12:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed more contextual (and even less contextual) first name uses in Wikipedia articles. Try Søren Kierkegaard, Vladimir Lenin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Adolf Hitler, Karol Wojtyla, Indira Gandhi, George Michael, John Lennon. Occasionally or a bit more frequently their first names (or the ones of people in their environment) are mentioned. I think no one takes notice of it. (No, I haven't read any Stalin biography yet.) Nethency 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While the Adolf Hitler article uses his first name in his youth, the Indira Gandhi article does not. Looking outside Wikipedia, Encarta uses Stalin also young: [1]. However, at least one of the biographies uses his first name as young (and later changes to "Koba" before "Stalin").[2]Ultramarine 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe you don't mind a compromise. :-)Nethency 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

His Height

Ive edited the sentence saying his height was only 5 foot 2 inches. It is clear from photographic evidence that he was at least 5'5". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.56.81 (talk • contribs)

Do you have some links or references? (Because Stalin was known to wear boots with built-in heels, so a photo is not the best proof...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was known to wear boots with built-in heels? Never heard of it. Stalin's height was 174 cm, which is around 5'8". While from my 187 cm he seems a midget, he was actually a man of medium height.Ko Soi IX 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, his police card, present in this very article, indicates 174cm. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bounty Expired!

The 6 month bounty placed on this article has failed to deliver the conditions for improvement. :( Bad showing guys --Steve Latinner 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The 20,000,000 death figure

I'm not a Stalin-apologetic, but this number is too large and should not be displayed at the beginning of the article (it gives the reader the false view that this was the correct number), at least a range should be specified Seektrue 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC profile of Stalin gives: "the death and suffering of tens of millions"[3]. The article itself [4] puts the lowest estimate at 10 million. I think a range of 10 million to 20 million would be more appropriate than the current 4 million to 20 million. Beck 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the BBC article consists of NPOV they have descriptions similar to one of the most blood-thirsty tryrants in history. Since the 4 million is the least known number, it will persuade the reader to know where the difficulties occur when estimating the number of victims. Seektrue 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A range of 10 to 20 or 4 to 20 million sounds like a lot of guessing is going on.

Sounds like a lot of fairy tale horse shit to me.

-G

The figure 4 million is way too low to be accurate.

Historian Robert Conquest, who is, as you may know, one of the premier scholars on the subject of Stalin, (especially regarding the Great Purges), illustrates the point in his book, The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Therein, Conquest revisits the figures he estimated based on "thirty-odd sources" when he wrote the original The Great Terror some years before (I don't happen to have a copy of that, so I cant quote directly from there, though it really doesn't matter.) Conquest quotes thusly:

1. Arrests, 1937 - 1938 about 7 million 2. Executed about 1 million 3. Died in camps about 2 million 4. In prison, late 1938 about 1 million 5. In camps, late 1938 (assuming 5 million in camp at the end of 1936) about 8 million

I also included, from much Soviet and other testimony, that not more than 10 percent of those then in camps survived.

Those were his figures given before Glastonost and his "Reassessment". In his updated book, with citations from the new sources released between 1987 and 1989, Conquest goes on to say that

1. Arrests. [Figures] provided for the Kursk province imply a total of about 8 million for the USSR as a whole....

2. Executed: ...Figures from Irktusk imply over 1.5 million....

3. Died in camps, 1937 and 1938: ...[The 2 million figure] would include those executed in camps, who do not figure in the execution estimate above...

4. In prison, late 1938: 1 million... These last are now confirmed by Soviet accounts.

5. In camps, late 1938: ...I should be inclined to reduce the 8 million at the end of 1938 to 7 million, or even a little less.

The Great Terror was only peripherally concerned with the total casualties of the Stalin epoch. But it reckoned the dead as no fewer than 20 million. This figure is now given in the USSR.

The evidence, in short, provides that even an estimate of 10 million is quite short. Therefore, the 20 million dead number isn't an exaggeration; it's a highly viable figure based on dozens of sources, both official and unnofficial, including sources released under Glastnost. The figure was even used by the Soviets themselves before the USSR collapsed. Therefore, to say 20 million isn't to overestimate... and anything less than 10 (and perhaps anything less than 15) is certainly an understatement.

Doctors plot

From what I remember reading a while ago, the doctors plot was quite a prominent event of the final years of his life (some Jewish doctors were accused of collaborating for the "enemy" in trying to kill Stalin, which made him mad and lash out against Jews, or otherwise it was his excuse to do so). However the article itself has no mention of it in the article at all!--Konstable 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this event as well. If you can find a reference for it, go ahead and put it in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, during his campaign against Trotsky (i.e., most of his life since 1924), Stalin made a wide use of antisemitism. Regards,

Max.

--Well, great! Monarchists writing articles about Stalin. Bias? Anyway, it wouldn't be too unlikely if people plotted against Stalin. There are theories that he was murdered. I don't think one should just dimiss the "Doctors Plot" as paranoia. Every year new information is "uncovered". Authors who want to make quick careers make some quick rumour-based research on some dictator, easy work as nobody defends supposed tyrants. It's hard to tell facts from disinformation nowadays. The whole Stalin thing should be re-investigated. IlyaZ 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To Max. That's right, Stalin hated jews. That's why he never purged Kaganovich nor Litvinov (real name:Meir Henoch Mojszewicz Wallach-Finkelstein) and had no problem with many soviet polititians having jewish wives, notably, V.Molotov. C'mon, stop it with the vintage cold war era bullcrap, it's obsolete now. Ko Soi IX 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikapedia entry on Molotov's wife, Polina Zhemchuzhina:

'In January, 1948, Zhemchuzhina was arrested for treason, sharing the fate of the Jewish wives of a number of other Soviet politicians: Mikhail Kalinin, A. Poskryobyshev, Semyon Budyonny, Grigoriy Kulik. On December 29, 1949, she was sentenced to 5 years of exile in Kustanai Oblast, Kazakhstan.'

Perhaps Stalin did not have a problem with them, but the Jewish wives of Soviet politicians definitely had problems with Stalin.

Well, they were arrested for treason, not for being Jewish, so there is no anti-semitism present. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, who knows whether the motive behind their arrests was anti-semitic? Many were falsely accused of treason to Stalin's own ends. 3dom 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well duh Jewish wives had problems with Stalin. Stalin campaigned against Trotsky, who was Jewish. Put two and two together people. I bet Stalin had problems with the Jewish people too.

Son captured in WWII

I have seen sources that suggest there's a little more to Stalin's refusal to exchange his son Yakov than this article is suggesting. The Germans offered to swap him for Friedrich Paulus, the Field-Marshal who surrendered at Stalingrad. Stalin considered the request and refused, stating that a lieutenant wasn't worth a general. Later on, he was asked why he refused, and he said that as leader of the Soviet Union, he couldn't make an unequal exchange because if he did, everyone would come to him asking that their sons be exchanged. Having done it for his own son, he would not be in a position to refuse.

This paints Stalin's decision in a much different light, and given that he also denied his other son Vasily special treatment on numerous occasions, is consistent with what we know of Stalin.Jsc1973 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vasily became a general at the age of 27, so he was infavor with his father. Stalin outsmarted himself with capture of his other son, since he signed into law that any soldier captured by the Germans is a traitor and should be shot. In this case, the only way for his son was to commit suicide or face a death squad, which he did a few years later in the german camp. This set a good example for the Russian people. Stalin sacrficed his son for the general good of the Party. Genius to the end he was.

Delirium. No such law existed.--Nixer 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

-- It's clear you're biased when you're talking about "sacraficing his son for the general good of the Party". You've got a twisted view of reality. In what way is it the general good of the Party? It was no multi-party system. I thought most people said that Stalin was a one-man dictator. What does he care about the party then? Stalin did what was right for a man in his position. I wouldn't exchange field-marshal Paulus for anyone. That's just. IlyaZ 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---Thou a dictator, he still had to follow certain rules. He ruled the country by fear and he was good at delivering pain, yet there were various camps within the government which opposed him ex. Bukharin and later Beria. Once decree was passed that all captured or deserters are to be shot and their families persecuted, he was in a position to either show weakness to save his son or set an example for the entire country, that even he, Stalin, will not trade his own son, who in his eyes was a traitor since he got himself captured. Clever marketing move. I suggest that you read this book: "Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives" by Edvard Radzinsky. A long read but truly fascinating depiction of Stalin.

You're saying delirium. There was no such decree. From those who escaped from German prison, about 1% were shot, 5-10% sent to a camp and all others were sent to the front.--Nixer 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read "Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives" by Edvard Radzinsky and it will be clear that Stalin had no mercy for soldiers who deserted, were taken prisoners, or those who refused to fight and retreated. Stalin wanted an all out offensive war and he skillfully used fear to motivate soldiers.

You said that there was an order to shot anyone who surrendered to Germans. Please give the number of this mysterious order and give a citation. Otherwise please stop sreading lies.--Nixer 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the book and find out for yourself.

Well, my great grandfather was captured by the Germans in 1941, but luckily managed to escape across the front line. The authorities knew about him being captured, but after mandatory interogation he was reinstated in the RKKA and fought until of the end of the war and died of natural causes in the late 1980s. And this is no exception. Before you tell me about original research, I'll add that out of 1 836 562 Soviet prisoners that returned home about a million were reinstated in the RKKA, over 600 thousand were demobilized from army and sent to the factories, while 339 thousand men (out of them 233 400 former military) were sent to NKVD labor camps (source:Krivosheev, http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_08.html). I would like to mention that over a million of former soviet citizens fought in the german army, many of which had been captured early in the war and than had a choice of either serving the fritz or starving to death/dying from cholera/typhoid/getting executed. Their betrayal could not go unpunished, however, most of them got off pretty easily, as they were given small senteces and many were pardoned for good behavior - USSR desperately needed workers, while forced labor camps were quite limited to what they could produce. Basically, as Nixer said, please stop embaracing yourself. I recomend that you read Yuri Zhukov's "Other Stalin" (Inoi Stalin) and Vadim Kozhinov's "Great War of Russia" (Velikaya Voina Rossii). Ko Soi IX 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

--"By Stalin's paranoid law, any soldier captured by the Germans as a POW -- not simply collaborators, but any POW -- was a potential traitor. And the penalty for treason was death." http://www.capitalcentury.com/1945.html Hero27 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the word "paranoid", and replace "was a potential" with "could sometimes be a", and you get Ko Soi's version exactly. --85.166.203.198 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth?

I don't know where to begin but this artcile is flawed to say the least, from absurd death tolls proved to be lies by official Russian archives to the ignoring of glaring facts that would erase the western view that Stalin was a mass murdering dictator.

Anyone interested in looking over a few examples of what I'm talking about can check these links here, I am not so good with wikipedia and editing so I'm not going to attempt any major editing on this site yet. :(

• Stalin's struggle for Democracy
• Massive amount of information, neatly organized
• Specifics on death tolls

(Sissok Nagazi 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." A million deaths-or any lesser number-is, as anyone with any moral sense understands, a million tragedies. Stalin-like Ivan Grozny-may be admired by some in contemporary Russia as a 'strong leader.' The truth is he was a murdering gangster, the sponsor of such reptilian human beings as Yezhov and Beria, whose negligence allowed the Nazi onslaught on Russia. My dearest wish is that the Russian people-all Russian people-will one day understand that Bolshevism was a conspiracy that came close to destroying a great nation. Do not look for greatness where there is only depravity and decay. White Guard 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is good to remember that many of the Soviet archives are still secret. Also it's commonly known that the Soviet government was a master in propaganda, especially altering facts and hiding evidence. That's why one shoudn't take official Soviet archives as the only and real truth. Soviet union was on the winning side in the Second world war and had almost fifty years of time to cover up all Stalin's horrifying acts. The fact is that Josif Stalin murdered more people than Adolf Hilter. Please, make that fact clear on this page.

USSR leadership after Stalin's death was not interested in hiding facts about repressions. Just the opposite: some facts were fabricated with political purposes during Khrushchov's era.--Nixer 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The fact is that Josif Stalin murdered more people than Adolf Hilter" - there is no real evidence that supports your claim. With respect, Kosoi.

It's pretty funny that Sissok thinks that a website claiming a reduction in the number of deaths in the gulag somehow vindicates Stalin. Me, I'll stick with my grandmother's stories of escaping Lithuania after her husband was shot by GPU agents, those of my friend's grandparents, who were both imprisoned in Siberia, and of course A. Solzhenitsyn's masterful work (no doubt so easily dismissed as 'fabrication' by revisionists like him, because "Soviet archives" don't account for every worker left to die on the logging roads). 66.237.172.226

Suggestion: "Stalin in the arts" leaf article

Content of this section looks as a good candidate for leaf article Stalin in the arts or Stalin in popular culture. This would keep the main article smaller and more focused. There's even category for such articles: Category:In popular culture. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The main article is far too long. --C33 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Stalin meet Hitler?

I read that Stalin could have met Hitler in October of 1939 or 1940. has any detail emerged over the years showing this to be true?

Of course, no.--Nixer 20:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But they're probably having quiet conversations in hell ... just kidding (I don't believe in no such thing). —Barbatus 20:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some say vienna 1909 but I don't believe that either, they didn't exactly go in the same circles, maybe they bumped into each other in a coffee shop or something. Seektrue 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This Book: Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives by Edvard Radzinsky; implies that they met. Hence my question: are there any additional documents to prove this claim.

I'd say something like this, If they met, then Molotov surely would have known. Something as big as that won't go past him, and he didn't mention it anywhere in memoirs. What exactly does the book say? Seektrue 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Molotov has a tendency of not telling the entire truth. I read his memoirs and he lied on a number of occassions. When asked if there was a secret clause to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact he denied. There was a secret clause. Meeting between the two men was too important and top secret, so Molotov would never admit to knowing about it. The Book which I mentioned before states that Stalin was absent from Kremlin in October for a few days while at the same time there was a top secret, heavily guarded, delegation train at the train station in Lvov. Author speculates that Hitler and Stalin met on that train. Yet if any documents ever existed of that meeting they are either destroyed by Stalin or in top secret archives.

Hmmm ... Wouldn't Germans mentioned such an event somewhere? Surely not all archives were captured by the Soviets, something would have leaked in the West long ago. No?—Barbatus 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

These are wild fantasies and conspiracy theories. In short it is delirium. Anyway Stalin did not need meet Hitler for any purpose.--Nixer 21:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one can speculate, however, your rebuttal lacks clear proof. What I am asking here is proof. We can neither accept nor rule out that the two met; hence, without proper documentation we can not jump to premature conclusions.

Do you give a proof that there is no small green dwarfs that rule the governments? It is nonsence and was not in Stalin's interest to meet Hitler.--Nixer 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to prove that they never met, but for the purposes of the article, the burden of proof would be on the contention that they did meet. --C33 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WWII Section

Can we please look at removing this horrible paragraph from the WWII section:

"Until the last moment, Stalin had sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces, even after the attack commenced. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [14] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [15] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion. Stalin ignored much intelligence warning of a German attack.[17]"

This paragraph contains three main elements:

• A blurb about how Stalin avoided defensive preparations and why. I moved this info into another paragraph that deals more directly with the war itself two paragraphs later. It is stated far more clearly and makes more sense within the flow and context of the article there.
• A description of an Uncited and most likely unfounded myth, that is disproved by the following cited sentences. The Stalin article is already far too long, why does it need to bring up and refute ridiculous myths. There are myths about Stalin's jewish origins and his homosexuality too, do we need to add those to the article? The whole "myth" section only serves to detract from the factual accuracy of the article.
• Terrible English grammar.

The first element is dealt with more properly later in the article, and the second two elements do nothing but lower the quality of the article. The whole paragraph adds nothing to the article and only makes it longer and harder to read. I've removed it twice only to have it added back. What does everyone else think? Can those of you that want this paragraph back in at least explain what it adds to the article? --C33 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The version you quoted includes my own grammar corrections. Is there anything else wrong with grammar? Art LaPella 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Art, thanks for the reply. Here's what I see: The first sentence is a run-on, and it also doesn't make any sense. Why would he avoid a defensive posture to avoid provoking an attack "even after the attack commenced?" It seems like two disparate thoughts cobbled together into an self-contradictory whole. The second sentence contains no obvious grammatical errors, but contains weasel words and an uncited, controversial claim. As for the third sentence, I know its ok to start a sentence with a conjunction ("And...") in modern English usage, but in this case it makes that sentence choppy and awkward. It also doesn't fit the context of attempting to undo the previous sentence. For proper effect, it should start with "However," or "But." --C33 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I watch this page because it attracts foreigners and my native language is English, so I'll restrict myself to that. I don't see how the first sentence is a run-on sentence. I parse it as "Stalin had sought" with several clauses attached. If it's cobbled together, I'm the cobbler - before my edit it ended with a sentence fragment, like this: "forces. Even after the attack commenced." How would you say it? I don't think it's self-contradictory; I think it claims that even after Hitler had invaded, there were a few days when Stalin was afraid to provoke him any further, hoping the attack was some kind of misunderstanding or something. Skipping to the third sentence as I explained, I don't think it can be described as undoing the previous sentence, because that sentence already said it was a myth. But I agree it's better without the word "And...", so I'm removing it. Art LaPella 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would state it exactly as it is already stated later in the article:

Even though Stalin received intelligence warnings of a German attack[17], he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. --C33 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a grammatical sentence, and it's easier to follow. But it achieves that flow by omitting "Until the last moment" and "even after the attack commenced". I leave it to others to decide if that factual change is OK. Art LaPella 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There were a few days after the attack when Stalin was afraid of provoking Hitler any further. Really? This seems a little bit like saying that the hunter did not struggle in case he provoked the lion into eating him any further. Could you please tell me what form Stalin's inaction took? I would also be grateful for a reference. Thanks White Guard 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All of you should Read John Erickson he spells it out, Stalin did not want a german attack to come under cover of an alleged Soviet attack and that the Germans were only protecting them selves. He did not want the Germans to have the ability to say we just responded to a Soviet attack, much like they had done with Poland. AND the Red Army would have been a very skilled force by 1942 the Molotov line would have been completed lots of upgrades would have hapened and more imporantly more many more officers would have been trained. The Red army was still developing during 1941 but it was not ready and Stalin knew this. BUT this was only untill it was confirmed that war had started then Stalin demanded counter attacks. Here is a big problem which all of you dont understand first it took Stalin about 6-9 houers to understand that this was real and not just one German General that had gone crazy. Secondly Yes Stalin didnt allow any defences to be built except ofcurse the molotov line so the soldiers had no dug outs no anti tank ditches and so on. And what is more important he did not allow anyone to fight back so the soldiers just stod where they were and died without fireing a shot. And airplans were blown up on the ground because they were not allowed to take off. And During a large part of 1941 german air planes had been flying over the Soviet Union takeing pictures of where everything was located and Stalin did not allow them to be shot down because he feard that this might give the germans an excuse to attack. All of this changes when he ordered the counter attack some 6-9 houers later but then it was already to late there was no longer a front line to defend. Bluechipser 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhu ... unfortunately, Mr. Erickson got it all wrong, as the rest of his colleagues in the West (or most of 'em, anyway). The latest sorry example: June 1941: Hitler and Stalin by J. Lukacs. I am not sure what it is exactly, an agnorant ignorance, or an ignorant arrogance? —Barbatus 05:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Erickson's Barbarossa June 1941: Who was Attacking Whom? is a piece of arrant naivety or ignorance of newly available materials. Stalin's Folly by Constantine Pleshakov takes advantage of newer Russian historiography.Constanz - Talk 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is truly amazing how even an honest and decent person like Rodric Braithwaite, whose Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War has just been published, could fall victim of such credulity. How in the world, for example, removing of the barrier of buffer states could have made the USSR more secure? How western historians, especially those who call themselves "serious," could believe mendacious "memoirs" by Zhukov? And how a historian of the Second World War can claim to be serious without being able to read Russian? —Barbatus 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to look into this a little further, and Stalin's mental paralysis-if that is what it was-lasted no more than a couple of hours. It's complete nonsense to say that Russian soldiers were not allowed to fight back; Stalin simply wanted them to avoid entering German territory. White Guard 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no mental "paralysis" During june it came much later read Simon Sebag Montefiore; Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, he just wanted to make sure it was a real attack so that he wouldnt be tricked into war as he saw it or just one german general that had gone crazy. And no john did not get it all wrong. The only one ignorant here is you Stalin did not want the world to think that he had attacked Germany and Germany was just defending itself against Soviet aggression and that is why he did not allow any defensive measurements to be taken by the soldiers Bluechipser 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you addressing these remarks to me? I have read The Court of the Red Tsar, and a lot more besides. My observations about 'mental paraylsis' were drawn from that particular book, and was simply a shorthand way of describing Stalin's initial inability to digest the intelligence he was receiving from the west. I urge you to be very careful about accusations of ignorance: your own spelling and grammer is atrocious, as is your second-hand understanding of Russian history and simple logic. White Guard 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no comment on history, but the next time you say "your own spelling and grammer is atrocious", I suggest you doublecheck both the spelling and the grammar of that very phrase. Art LaPella 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Touché-too much of a hurry; too much bad temper. White Guard 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So is there any chance we can come to a consensus on what should be done about the orginal paragraph? --C33 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your own amended wording seems fine to me. You might add a word or two about Stalin's initial reluctance to believe that the attack in the west had been sanctioned by Hitler. White Guard 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll re-word including a note that Stalin initially hesitated to make sure the German attack wasn't the work a rogue general, citing Montefiore as a reference. Any objections? --C33 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. White Guard 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence "The Soviet Red Army put up fierce resistance during the war's early stages, but they were plagued by an ineffective defense doctrine against the better-equipped, well-trained and experienced German forces." I think is not fully undisputed. There are several reasons why the "fierce resistance" can be questioned. Firstly, as I've read previously the fighting moral among non-russian soldiers, like Ukrainians, was not so high, since they sometimes saw the Germans as a sort of liberators. Only when the Soviet soldiers understood how badly the German side was treating their PoWs and the general population did the non-Russian Soviet soldiers' fighting moral improve. Secondly, other sources claim that Stalin's previous purges of their soldiers had weakened the whole army. In short this part should be rewritten, but I wanted to discuss it before making any changes. Smallchanges 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you spell L'viv like a kliati moskali, it is not Lvov, Kyiv is not spelled Kiev and Kharkiv is not Kharkov. And of course why would the Ukrainians fight hard for a country that tried to wipe them from the face of the earth. You moskali make me sick. The death of the soviet union was the will of the Ukrainian people! Слава Україна! Slava Ukrayina! Mykola Roscha 4:32 (CST) November 15, 2006

The text has been rewritten and everything is cited. This is the new version

Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack.[5]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy and Simon Sebag Montefiore have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion.

Beenhj 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That he had also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack is actually a pure speculation by some western historians, who have to (wish to) make up a collage of different, contradicitous fact. Well, to speak of stalin fearing to mobilise etc -- Stalin's Red army outnumbered German invasion army in almost every respect. The trouble is - and the historians have to cope with the contradicition - that he had been preparing for war. According to analysis by many Russian historians and some Germans like Werner Maser or Joachim Hoffmann, this was indeed not obvious defensive preparation[s]. Soviet superiority in the number of tanks was especially remarkable, and as long as tank quality is concerned, we can say that they were roughly equal to German models as well. Overy looked into archives, but unfortunately not deep enough. Or, perhaps, for some reason preferred not to do so.Constanz - Talk 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Beenhj, thank you for using the talk page. I understand you think that paragraph adds value to the article, but I don't believe you are reading the whole section. Please look two paragraphs below the paragraph you insist on re-adding. I'll quote them both here to make the comparison easier:

Here is what you have been adding:

"Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack.[6]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy and Simon Sebag Montefiore have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion."

Please compare that to what is already in the article two paragraphs later:

"Even though Stalin received intelligence warnings of a German attack[21], he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. In the initial hours after the German attack commenced, Stalin hesitated, wanting to ensure that the German attack was sanctioned by Hitler, rather than the unauthorized action of a rogue general.[25]"

The only content difference is that the latter paragraph doesn't contain the UNCITED myth and explains why Stalin hesitated. If you want to include your version, you need to remove the existing paragraph, as well as provide a citation for the original "myth". Stylistically, I believe the existing paragraph is more concise, provides more information as it explains why Stalin appeared to hesitate, and fits within the flow of the article better in its current location, but I realize that is opinion. If you insist on adding content, PLEASE make sure that it isn't repeating content that already exists in the article. It's a blight on the article to have both in there. This article concerns one of the most prominent figures of the 20th century and deserves better treatment than to have information repeated every other paragraph. --C33 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces is a miscomprehension or a deliberate falsification (by some historians, I mean, not user here). 1) Stalin's army outnumbered Hitler's, so he can't have 'refused to prepare for the war'. 2) Out of those preparations, hardly anything could be regarded as usual defensive methods. Constanz - Talk 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as that particular sentence is uncited, I don't see a problem removing it. But right now it serves as a sort of counter point to justify Stalin's apparent lack of response to a perceived German threat. I suspect simply removing it will cast Stalin in a very negative light, which will lead to edit wars with the pro-Stalin faction here. How do you suggest rephrasing that section? --C33 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thing is that -based on my reading- I'd claim Stalin had excluded the possibility of fighting a war on his own territory and had himself been preparing a strike against the enemy. He didn't believe the German attack, for at the time it seemed a step strategically doomed to fail (which it was, contrary to story-tellers' opinion, which suggests that Hitler almost won this war). But unfortunatly, the interpretation to which I subscribe myself, remains unknown (unaccepted) to the western public. So may-be writing simply that the Red Army troops at the border were not ready for defensive operations. Different opinions should be mentioned - there are really many of those, so an edit-war could naturally follow.Constanz - Talk 14:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the duplicate paragraphs described above, I've waited a few days before editing, and I haven't seen any responses here, so I'll assume no one has a problem with me removing one of them. I'll leave the re-wording of the "defensive preparation" to Constanz.... --C33 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

Why does the first paragraph say that he was effective dictator from 1922 on? He was a leading Soviet figure from 1922 on, with arguably great behind-the-scenes influence, but he didn't really consolidate what could be called a meaningful personal dictatorship until the mid-1920s, and he wasn't unchallenged sole ruler until at least 1928. AnonMoos 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to say mid-1920s, but someone changed it recently. I think it would be more correct to change it back to mid-1920s. --C33 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just changed it to 1928, probably the best date, coinciding with the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan. White Guard 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dictator" Tag in First Paragraph

So its clear that some think the dictator tag is POV and doesn't belong, while others think it does belong.

I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a dictator, but I think it would be more appropriate to do so later in the article. I think that the first, introductory paragraph should be constrained to a simple, concise biographical statement and refrain from opinions or value judgements. I'm not disputing the fact that he was, in fact, a dictator, but its a somewhat controversial term that requires a value judgement. I think it should be stated later in the article and not in the introduction. --C33 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; as you wish. But where does this end? Should the same principle be extended to Hitler and Mussolini? If Stalin is not described as a dictator by what logic can we use such a description in relation to Hitler. This seems to me to be a loophole for historical revisionism, whether of a Communist or Facist variety. The opening paragraph is careful to date Stalin's dictatorship from 1928, a point at which he had overcome all opposition within the party. It is a simple statement of a factual position, not, at least in my estimation, POV. White Guard 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at a few other articles on Wikipedia, and Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are all listed as dictators in their opening paragraph, while Pinochet (of all people) is not. It seems like leaving it in would be consistent with other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects. So I guess I'll grudgingly withdraw my opposition to the "dictator" tag. --C33 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Along with some other users I have been fighting a rearguard action against attempts at Nazi-style revisionism on the Adolf Hitler page. If Stalin is lost what price Hitler? White Guard 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he in fact was a dictator a if every article in wikipedia about leaders might state they are dictators. That doesn't mean that they are. Many people don't believe stalin to be a dictator, it is a POV statement that should be reverted. He wasn't the de facto leader, de facto means "in practice" and not by the law, Stalin was leader by law!Kiske 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was NOT leader by law; his only official position was General Secretary of the Communist Party. The official leader of the Soviet State was the President, latterly Kalinin. Stalin used his position in the Communist Party to build up unparalleled power, and by 1928 was dictator in every meaningful sense of the term. Your revisionist POV is in danger of rewriting history; for if this is allowed to prevail the same twisted logic would have to be applied to Hitler-who had far greater 'democratic' credentials than Stalin-and every other dictator. White Guard 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "dictator" should be labelled only those leaders who had extraordinary powers or positions such as "Extraordinary President", "Fuehrer", "Chairman of Provisional Military/Extraordinary Comittee" or so. Stalin did not have extraordinary powers. He had power only because of his authority/prestige.--Nixer 05:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No; he had extraordinary powers because of his position within the Communist Party. His appointment General Secretary enabled him to build up a power base far greater than any of his main contendors. Stalin's source of absolute power may have been the bureaucracy; but it was just as significant as any titular or state authority. White Guard 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Any president of modern president republic has much more formal power than Stalin had. In fact the late leaders of the Soviet Union also had the same powers (i.e. Brezhnev, Andropov). Gorbachev seeing that the position of General Secretary is not enough to protect him during the planned reform introduced the President of the USSR title, which made him invulnerable.--Nixer 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it hardly made him invulnerable, did it? White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact it made him invulnerabe in constitutional frame. That's why there a coup occured later. If he remained Gensec, the coup most likely would be avoided, because a General Secretary can be made retired by simple majority at any time.--Nixer 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is Stalin used a relatively humble position to accumulate an enormous resevoir of power, which he used to ruthless effect. In considering any political question we have to look beyond appearances. We might say that the Soviet Union of Stalin's time was unique, in that party and state were effectively interchangeable. In 'becoming' the party, so to speak, Stalin also became the state. Otherwise his rise over far more talented and charismatic figures becomes inexplicable. White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not unique situation when a state is ruled or controlled by another entity such as church, party, order or company. The fact is this situation does not automatically imply dictatorship. Even if the government is actually controlled by a person who does not hold governmential position (such as mafia leader, favorite of a monarch, church autority), we do not call this person "dictator".--Nixer 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to judge all of these issues in terms of concrete political practice. I am not talking in the abstract, but of the actual conduct of affairs in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Anyway, this deserves a whole separate section, which I now intend to write. White Guard 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The dictator tag isn't POV. 'Dictator' is not, strictly speaking, a term of abuse, but a recognised politico-historical term for an authoritarian or autocratic ruler who exerts personal power over the state. Some rulers may be called 'dictators' as a term of abuse when they are not, strictly speaking, dictators, but as applied to Stalin the term is accurate. If I remember my etymological history, the term dates back to ancient Rome, where a dictator (equivalent to the Greek 'tyrant', another word that has changed its meaning) was an extraordinary magistrate elected to take absolute control of the state during times of national crisis. It's a technical term. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And did Stalin ever had extraordinary powers (except WWII period)?--Nixer 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

December 21st

Stalin's "Official Birthday" was December 21st. I think that should be listed in his article. (it is also my birthday ;)). Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)John LoGiudice 9/30/06Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalin as Dictator

I've had a debate with one or two people recently about the correctness-and desirability- of labeling Stalin as a 'Dictator'. Perhaps it would be best if I try to clarify the position, in the hope that some people at least might be convinced.

If we go back to the very early days of Bolshevism we can see that Lenin was eager to establish a political model based on action, not on debate and dissent. After the second congress of the RSDP in 1903, and the split in the party, Trotsky was one of the first to recognize the implications of the new concept of 'democratic centralism', always much more centralist than democratic. It would set in train, he maintained, a process whereby the party was substituted for the people, the central committee for the party, a small politburo for the central committee and eventually a single man for the politburo. After the Revolution all of these tendencies were confirmed, freedom reducing in ever diminishing circles. Actions against counter-revolutionaries became actions against fellow socialists and then actions against dissent within the Bolshevik party itself. By 1924 Trotsky-once again-was showing remarkable prescience, predicting what he called 'the gravedigger of the Party of the Revolution.';

The dialectics of history have already hooked him and will raise him up. He is needed by all of them, by the tired radicals, by the bureaucrats, by the nepmen, by the kulaks, by the upstarts, by all the sneaks that are crawling out of the upturned soil of the revolution...He speaks their language, and knows how to lead them. Stalin will become the dictator of the USSR.

Why Stalin? Why not, in a country where the party was the state and the state the party; for in 1922 Stalin, it might be said, 'became' the party. As a political tactician, moreover, his skills were superb. In taking the post of General Secretary in 1922 he acquired huge poweres of bureaucratic patronage, which he used with ruthless effect. Control of the Secretariat and the Orgburu-when combined with notions of democratic centralism-meant by the late 1920s to criticise Stalin was, at one and the same time, to criticise the party line, a cardinal sin. Throughout the 1920s he used his position to outwit and outmaneuver all of his main political rivals. With the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan in 1928 his position within the party-and the cult of personality that flowed from this position-gave him far greater authority than even Lenin had enjoyed in his lifetime. Elsewhere in Europe at the time only Mussolini might be said to rival his position; but there were distinct limits on Il Duce's powers-not least of which was the existence of rival centres of authority; there were very few on Stalin's. So, I can only echo Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, who in his A History of Russia says quite simply "...Stalin's rivals failed to heed Lenin's late forebodings, and, before too long, Stalin's Party machine rolled over all opponents. The complete personal dictatorship which began in 1928 was to last until the dictator's death in 1953." (New York, 1993, p. 493).

It seems a pity that I have to defend this position; but I cannot in all conscience exclude Stalin from the dictator category: for to do so would allow Hitler, Mussolini and all the others out of the bag as well. Stalin's power may have been bureaucratic rather than charismatic-party rather than state based; but it was no less real for all that. White Guard 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If Stalin declared dictator then why not Lenin? Why not Kerensky? Even Oliver Cromwell who had special paragraph in constitution protecting supreme power for him for all his life is not labelled dictator in Wikipedia.--Nixer 12:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not Lenin, Kerensky, or Cromwell? They may or may not merit the label themselves, but unfortunately whether they do or not has no bearing whatsoever onw whether or not Stalin is justifiably a dictator. If you're disturbed about Oliver Cromwell not being labelled a dictator, I suggest you take it to the relevant talk page. siafu 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at this article, it appears that there is some kind of standard practive to avoid the use of dictator, to leaders of revolutionary socialist states which differenciates it from the types of political systems we find in fascist dictatorship. I think this is because with the latter, its an explicit part of its political ideology, while in the latter its a question of actual practice, distortion of the intentions of ideology (marxism, which is democratic), and thus a question of POV, howeveer factual tand accurate the actual state of affairs is. So there might be a point to the other side stated a need to use more NPOV language with employing such labels against dictatorial leaders such as those mentioned, who rule in socieites that prurport to be a democracy. This includes the US. http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001946 For an expliacation of this question, take a look at the following site, which is an excerpt from the book, "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization"--"Is Stalin A Dictator?" by Sidney and Beatrice Webb: http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm It concludes that unlike the others who would be called dictators correctly that... "At this point it is necessary to observe that, although Stalin is, by the constitution, not in the least a dictator, having no power of command, and although he appears to be free from any desire to act as a dictator, and does not do so, he may be thought to have become irremovable from his position of supreme leadership of the Party, and therefore of the government. Why is this? We find the answer in the deliberate exploitation by the governing junta of the emotion of hero-worship, of the traditional reverence of the Russian people for a personal autocrat." Giovanni33 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Giovanni; a number of interesting points. Actually both Lenin and Mussolini, to take the most obvious example, have a lot in common, both in their personal biographies, and in their approach to politics. Neither man set out to be a 'dictator' in the classical sense; but that is what they became, despite their obvious diferences in politics and style. Now you say that Marxism, if I have understood you correctly, is inherently 'democratic', unlike Fascism. But Marxism does not exist in an ideal or Platonic sense, but as a concrete political practice. In adapting it to Russian conditions Lenin devised the notion of 'democratic centralism', which, beyond a certain point silences all debate, just as effectively as any right-wing ideology. When this is combined with the kind of bureaucratic power accumulated by Stalin, the forms of dictatorship that emerge are almost Asiatic in their intensity, in contrast, say, with Mussolini's Italy. Just imagine trying to deduce Soviet society from the 'democratic' Stalin constitution of 1936, and then contrast that with the actual practice, the actual forms of the Russian state.

The Webbs? Their understanding of Soviet Russia-and Stalin-was always abysmal; and at this remove of time-and in view of what we now know about life in Stalin's Russia-their observations must be considered as ludicrously inexact. Read again what they have written. They are saying the cult of Stalin is the work of the 'governing junta'-whoever they might be-seemingly carried out without the protagonist's consent or approval. Why has Stalin, one has to ask, been signaled out for this treatment, and not, say, Kalinin, who, after all, was the official head of state? In the end its a question of raw power, no more than that. The Webbs represent a tendency amongst western intellectuals of the time to excuse any crime-including the Moscow trials and the Purges-, on the false assumption that the Stalin was the wave of the future, the best hope for 'progressive' forces in Europe. For an alternative view you might consult George Orwell, who wrote;

You are led into similar absurdities if you make Stalin respnsible for our present condition and the future that appears to lie before us, and at the same time insist that his policies must be supported. The motives of those English intellectuals who support the Russian dictatorship are, I think, different from what they publically admit, but it is logical to condone tyranny and massacre if one assumes that progress is inevitable. If each epoch is as a matter of course better than the last, then any crime any folly that pushes the historical process forward can be justified

In every meaningful sense Stalin has to be considered a dicatator, having all the power to command. That was the nature of the whole Soviet system. White Guard 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant was Stalin factually dictator or not. It can be argued that Cromwell was even more typical dictator. But if you incert this in his article, you will be reverted as "POV". I also tried to incert this in article about Lenin and was reverted as "vandalism". In fact the only difference between Stalin and Cromwell and Lenin is that Stalin often was labelled "dictator" in westerm media, and other two - not.--Nixer 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not fully understand the point you are trying to make in your first sentence. Everything I have written is, I believe, 'relevant' to the point under consideration. Anyway, I had a look at the Cromwell page and there is indeed a reference to him as a possible dictator in the introduction. Objectivly he can fit into this category, because his power was ultimately based on the army rather than on legitimate constitutional forms. The difference between Cromwell and modern dicators is that he looked to find some parliamentary underpinnings to the Revolution settlement; only when this failed did he turn to dictatorship, though neither he nor his contemporaries would have thought in these terms. Lenin was also a dictator, though with him the process was much more subtle and invidious, depending on his authority within the Bolshevik party. It might be best to see him as belonging to a 'dictatorial collective.' Might I suggest that if you intend to describe any historical figure as a 'dictator' that you lay out clear reasons for doing so on the talk page; then it's up to others to refute your argument by examples. White Guard 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote not to use the term at all because is has no clear definition and a person may be labelled dictator by author depending on his political views. Other option is to limit the usage only to those figures who had special paragraph in constitution/law which gave him personally extraordinary powers or his powers officially extended for his life (i.e. Turkmenbashi, Hitler, Cromwell will be dictators, Stalin, Lukashenko, Kerensky, Lenin - not).--Nixer 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a vote. Stalin was by any reasonable standard a dictator. The "for life" bit is not a requirement remeber Julius Caesar declared himself dictator for life rather than just dictator. Aditionaly we often hear news reports of dictators being overthrown.Geni 11:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I only tried to establish common standard on labelling people dictator. And if you read better, I proposed name dictator people who had their powers for life or had special powers given them personallly by the law.--Nixer 11:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Historicaly neither have been required. Giving yourself sepecial powers by law is generaly regarded as too obvious these days. Starlin is harldy unique in holding something that might not be de jure the top position in order to avoid elections and the like.Geni 11:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any better proposal? I agree one can be something like dictator even without special law or special powers. But in that case the desision is entirely depends on the views of the author. Stalin did not avoid elections and the same position was held later by other people who generally not considered dictators. You say, givinng yourself special powers is regarded too obvious. But you can find a number of leaders presently ruling and from not so distant past that have/had such special powers.--Nixer 11:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

a proposal? Yes we state that he was a dictator and leave it at that.Geni 11:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant the general proposal for naming people dictator. Why Stalin should be labelled dictator and Cromwell - not?--Nixer 11:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the false dilemma logical fallacy.Geni 13:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The popular opinion that Stalin was a dictator was based on the lack of knowledge about the nature of the Soviet system and now is outdated. The only timeline when he had almost all the power to command was the period of the WW2. --Nekto 12:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

largely irrelivant by that defintion there has never been a dictator.Geni 13:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me assure you that my assessment of Stalin is not based on 'popular opinion' but on considered intellectual and political analysis of the evolution of the Soviet state from the mid 1920s onwards. By the 1930s the cult of Stalin reached an almost Nero-like intensity, and his powers in both state and party were unparalleled. Nixer, you seem to have a 'thing' about Cromwell for some reason; might I suggest that you take your concerns to the relevant page? White Guard 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Newly declassified archives do not support the teory of "Stalin's dictature". Particulary I reffer to works of Russian historian Y.Zhukov who intensivelly works in archives. Probably this new information does not reached the West yet. The personality cult has nothing to do with dictatorship. For example there as well was the cult of Trotsky and it didn't save him. Stalin's powers has it's own limits --Nekto 05:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

unlimited powers would break some fairly fundimental laws of physics.Geni 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea there was a cult of Trotsky in the Soviet Union anytime after 1923. Some examples would be nice. Anyway, additional research on Stalin, especially that based upon recently discovered documents, will always be welcome; but I doubt if it will tell us much more than we already know. All the information we have about the rise of Stalin already provides ample insight into the way power was accumulated and used. I assume you are Russian? Have you read Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin-The Court of the Red Tsar? Can Zhukov really be about to tell us much more than we know from this and other work of the same kind? But I think I should also make clear, as another user has already indicated, that the term 'dictator' is not intended as an insult, but solely as a politically accurate description. Julius Ceaser was a dictator; so too was Josef StalinWhite Guard 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. There was not cult of Trotsky anymore after Lenin death although Gatchina was called Trotsk until 1929. It's just an example - cults were not that unique things in Russia, it's part of culture (even today some too loyal functionaries and slavish people tried to make cult of Putin). Cities in masse were renamed not only after Stalin. Not only his monuments were erected etc. I see no explicit connection between cult and dictature. I haven't read Montefiore. His book is translated into Russian and I took a brief look at it in a bookstore. I maybe wrong but I got the imression that the book is not that serious - more like a belletristic. --Nekto 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very well-researched and written by a British specialist on Russian history. It's also different from 'normal' biographies, in that it looks in highly detailed way, almost in an interior sense, at the political evolution of Stalin. It is also, at least in my view, objective rather than hostile. Please read it. I would be very interested in a Russian perspective on the book. White Guard

I don't want to get into this debate much, but I am indeed surprised that anyone would dispute that Stalin was a dictator (where you state that in the article is another matter). That he never held the highest office in the state is of no consequence (Mussolini didn't either, except in Salo, where his dictating days were numbered). But a communist state along Stalin's model didn't work that way anyway - the General Secretary was the highest, practically unassailable authority, superseding anything else (and Stalin with his god-like status even more so). In contrast to what some have written, it wasn't that easy to depose the GS. In order to even get to a vote, you had to form a conspiracy as an open attempt would be "building of a faction". If such a move failed, those involved were traitors, if they succeeded the deposed Gs would have to vote for his own dismissal. It happened this way with Krushev, and in Eastern Germany with Ulbricht and with Honnecker. Finally, some may think that dictators cannot come from a left-wing movement, but such considerations would be substantially POV, wouldn't it? Certainly the claim that Marxism was inherently democratic is highly dubious, in as much as democracy is seen as opposed to dictatorship. Who actually coined the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the plunge! I, of course, agree with all you have written. The point about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which, in my estimation, has never been properly defined, is very well made. Now just imagine a country with a weak proletariat ruled by a party whose defining logic is 'democratic centralism'-once the decision is made, in other words, no more debate. For the proletrariat you have the party; for the party you have the bureaucracy; for the bureaucracy you have the bureaucrat. In other words the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the party is the dictatorship of the apparatus is the dictatorship of Stalin. White Guard 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, WG. But my main point was: we cannot soberly claim that dictatorship contradicts the essence of Marxism when Marx himself advocated the "Dicatorship of the Proletariat". Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know this issue was ongoing but now since we are talking about Marxism and the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," I must beg to differ with the points being made. The Marxian concept of democracy is that it is a form of dictatorship, hence dictatorship in the normal sense does not apply to Marx's concept of CLASS dictatorship. For Marx all States were indicative of a class dictatorship. This trancends any particular form of kind of government--dictatorship or democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariant only means that the workers, as a class, interests will be dictate fundamental decsions in this class's interests, as opposed to the capitalits interests, and that the latter's ability to seize state power and utilize it for its own purposes will be suppressed. For Marx, "winning the battle of democracy," was the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletarian (or Socialism). So when looking at the question of an individual and a leader within a State, this Marxian concept does not apply. Its completely different.Giovanni33 05:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the theory, Giovanni, but what's the practice? In Russia the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' became, virtually from the ouset, the dictatorship of the party and then the dictatorship of one man. I do not believe that Marx would ever have conceived of a situation where socialists were being shot and sent to concentration camps by their fellow socialists. But that's what happened in Russia. If you would like to continue this discussion it might be wise, for the sake of clarity, to begin a new heading. White Guard 05:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your all arguments are inrelated with my statements. I do not argue whether Stalin was dictator. I only argue that this is a matter of POV. In fact in Wikipedia "dictators" labelled only those who labelled so by Western media, while when you try to label so another person (who also is definitely dictator by any definition) would be quickly reverted. You say "go to the other talk pages", but users of those talk pages would also say "go to Stalin' talk and dont argue here, we think labelling somebody dictator is POV". I already expressed that I also think we should not use this word until it is self-definition of the person. Please dont make me breakong WP:Point rule trying to illustrate my point of view by reducing to absurdum.--Nixer 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, it is simple: Every case must be argued on its own merit. You want to label Cromwell a dictator (I think you are right in this) - then go to the Cromwell article and make your case. You want to argue something about Stalin - do it here and make your case, based on actual arguments. But please don't do a "I do not argue whether Stalin was dictator" argument, as either you are not arguing this (which means our discussion is moot) or you argue this (which means you have to stick to your point and make a case). And no, the matter is not a question of POV, at least not in Stalin's case. There maybe be some cases bordering on dictatorship but Stalin is definitely not one of them. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First I do not want label Cromwell as dictator and you well know that is impossible to label Cromwell "dictator" in English wikipedia. Fact is also that it is uncommon to name revolutionairs "dictators", even if they executed dictatorial powers after the revolution. And Stalin was a revolutionair. Anyway, Cromwell is much more "dictator" than Stalin any way. Saying any pertson "dictator" is definitely POV unless is is officially declared or the person counted themself as dictator. It is not an encyclopedic language.--Nixer 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1. No, I do not not know full well that is impossible to label Cromwell "dictator" in English wikipedia. As far as I can remember I have not visited that page yet. There certainly is no Wiki-rule prohibiting that, nor a content reason. So if regular editors there do not allow it, that is a problem and should be tackled ... but not on the Stalin talk page. So any complaints about what Cromwell was, please post it over there.

2. Why should it be uncommon to call a dictator who came to power by a revolution a dictator? It might be widespread, but I don't share this craze about revolutions (a politics teacher of a friend once argued in class that Hitler's rise in 1933 was no revolution because it did not lead to something good but to something bad. Quite a ridiculous argument!). That liking for revolutions is certainly no basis for WP articles, as it would be POV.

3. Stalin however was no revolutionary leader anyway! He was hardly involved in 1917, later served as Lenin's enforcer and was elevated to the heights of party bureaucracy, from which he accumulated unlimited powers.

4. So what you are saying is that there should be no appearances of the word "dictator" in WP, except in the case of Roman dictators (which bore that title but are something completely different anyway)? Is that what you want? So out with Hitler, Mussolini etc.? That would at least be a consistent view. But I doubt that you will find much support for it.

5. That all doesn't mean that we should say dictator at every corner. There are a whole lot of words we can use for Stalin but we cannot simply hide the fact that he was a dictator. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1. In fact all the persons labelled the same way as they called by western media. You cannot change anything: if you do so, it will come a new user and will change what is not consistent with popular POV.

2. If you count labelling some event "revolution" POV, then you should also consider labelling (or not labelling) people "dictator" also POV. Popular opinion is that dictatorship is something bad. Even if you dont agree, it is very charged term.

3. Stalin indeed was a revolutionary leader. His revolutionary carrier startwed long before the october revolution, he was imprisoned for revolutionary activities and he became one of the leaders of the new power just after the revolution, even if he did not organize the upspring itself.

4. We can use the term in the three cases:

• For Roman dictators.
• For those people who were officially proclaimed or declared themselves "dictators" (see examples in dictator).
• In other cases with citation, i.e. "historian XXX considers that this person to be dictator given his authority, cult of personality, amount of power concentrated etc".--

Nixer 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The fact that (allegedly) "all the persons labelled the same way as they called by western media" doesn't concern me in the least bit. The media might be right or wrong, either to harsh with some or to lenient with others. We don't have ABWTWMSPOV ("anything but what the Western media says") but NPOV.

2. I did not say any such thing. Revolution is not a POV term in my book (the teacher, with whom I disagree, used it that way). Whether dictatorship has a bad reputation also is of secondary importance. If someone is a dicator we will use that term. NPOV only forbids us to say he was "an evil dictator".

3. Even if Stalin were a revolutionary leader (in a very limited sense he was), he also was a dictator later.

4. About your three cases:

• No problem about the Romans.
• Very few people used Dictator as a title. Or if you mean all the people mentioned over at that article, then Stalin is among them.
• Stalin certainly fits your third case.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you start labelling "dictator" any person who even does not have this title, would you label "dictator" Augustus (who was not dictator officially) or Rasputin?
• If you agree that the third case applicable to Stalin - that's no problem. We can use this word, but with a citation. Using this word without citation is clear POV.--Nixer 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in modern political discourse to describe leaders who exercise power without, it might be said, limit of law or of time. Neither Hitler, nor Mussolini, nor Franco, nor Stalin, nor Mao nor Pol Pot ever defined themselves as 'dictator', or were so defined by the constitutional law of their respective countries, where this existed. There are many references to Stalin as a dictator, just as there are to Hitler. It is a well-established and accurate descriptive term, whose usage is outlined in the page you highlighted above. And, incidentally, it does appear on the Cromwell page as a possible description, as I have already said. White Guard 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Commissar Vanishes

Anyone ever had a critical look at these two?

"Before": [[7]]

"After": [[8]]

Firstly, I noticed that the pattern on the water isn't the same on those pictures although the first picture is a bit brighter. The pattern should be the same if it's the same picture. To me it's obvious it isn't. Even the "after" picture looks more authentic. Finally, the modified picture is larger than the original one.

To sum up, those pictures "prove" nothing. Maybe they made two pictures? One with Stalin alone, and the other together with the officer.

Please do only publish clear facts! I suggest a removal of the picture at least until has been cleared up. To me it looks just like one of those Hearst/Hitler anti-Stalin fabricated propaganda pictures/facts. Who would gain most of the removal of the officer? Fascists or Stalin? What would Stalin gain out of it anyway? Don't state it as a fact if you can't prove it. Thanks.

The 'officer' in question is none other than Nikolai Yezhov, aka the 'Blackberry', head of the NKVD from 1936 to 1938, who presided over the worst excesses of the Great Terror. He was eventually replaced by Beria and executed in 1940. It had been standard Soviet practice for many years to airbrush 'enemies of the people' out of history (Lev Trotsky was a particular victim of this process) in every possible sense. We could hardly have Comrade Stalin walking beside a 'non-person'. Hence the edited photograph. White Guard 23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

...initiated the Great Purge

It is in the introduction, without sources (i presume, it is considered common knowledge that evil Stalin initiated the Great Purge, but I doubt that verifiable sources include "common knowledge"). The history of that turbulent period is much too complicated to allow such a blunt statement, not to mention many sources contradicting it (for example, Yuri Zhukov's "Иной Сталин" ("Other Stalin"). With respect, Ko Soi. Also, I would like to note that, unfortunately, while giving Stalin a mandatory kick for military purges in 1937-1938 (btw, the replacement commanders came from the same generation as the replaced - thus claims that the replaced were somehow more experienced or better suited for modern war is baseless), the article does not mention the military purges of 1930, initiated by Tuhachevsky, which were probably more harmful to the RKKA, as many prominent military theoritists, including Svechin (for example, Vadim Kozhinov "Великая Война России" ("The Great War of Russia") were repressed - they had far too much education - and Tuhachevsky, the great proponent of mobile warfare, beaten by POLAND in his only foreign war, Tuhachevsky, who gased revolting peasants, wanted the Genshtabists out of the way so his star may finally shine. With respect, Ko Soi.

Purges and deportations

I'm not sure that it's undisputed in what context the murder of Sergei Kirov should be seen. I remember reading and even watching a documentary displaying a totally different version than the one currently standing in the article. As the article now is written Sergei Kirov was close to Stalin and after the murder by someone else Stalin got afraid and this was one of the reasons for the purge. However, the other version is that Sergei Kirov was very popular in the party and in a secrete vote the party even wanted him to take over the position at the time held by Stalin. Stalin manipulated the voting to his own favour, but from then own he knew that a silent majority wanted to have him replaced, even though he didn't know exactly who had voted for himself and who had voted for Kirov. Stalin's solution was to kill Kirov. By doing so he had got rid of the direct threat of Kirov. Also, he had a legitimate reason (to find and kill Kirov's murderers) to root out opposition against himself in the party. I've not changed the version of the article, because I don't have the necessary sources so that I can give references, but I think that both versions should be listed. Smallchanges 11:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Regardless, it appears that around 8 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 4 million from famine) are attributable to the Soviet government, with a number of books suggesting a figure of between 15 to 20 million.

This is deliberately original research because the author in concern did not make such calculations. It will therefore be removed.

Cultural depictions of Joseph Stalin

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

... Good name. I've just moved Rasputin in the media to a similar name. `'mikkanarxi 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversals of Jacob Peters

I reversed both unjustified (unsummarized) recent reversals of contribs of user:Jacob Peters without even bothering to look into the actual text in detail. Such reversals are absolutely inadmissible and will be removed on sight.. I dont' see any discussion whether this Peters guy a nasty troll or what, so that he must be reverted on sight. If his edits are wrong, I dont see it described.

On the other hand, I see Peters didn't write edit summaries either. I left him a message in the talk page. `'mikkanarxi 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Help:Reverting#Explain reverts Art LaPella 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Propaganda, Lies, Distortions

There is an excess of CIA-inspired propaganda on this page. There is no evidence that Stalin himself operated the cult of personality. Evidence from the archives published by J.Arch Getty and Robert J.Thurston also also casts doubt that the purges were initiated and operated by Stalin himself as opposed to regional NKVD units. The claim that Stalin weakened the country's defense with the purge of the officers is incorrect as archival research shows that a small 15% minority of the relevant cadres were affected; most of these were even reinstated after 1939. The claim that famine resulted from the imaginary confiscation of grain is also false. Archival research published by Stephen Wheatcroft and RW Davies shows that total collections in 1932 about 4 million tons lower than in the two previous years. There is also evidence on the "Holodomor" page which quotes Stalin as having been gravely concerned with the precarious situation in the countryside. He replied to an inquiry: "We will do everything required. Inform sieze of necessary help. State a figure."

Furthermore, there is a serious negligence of the miraculous economic and social advances made during Stalin. Industrial growth,medical care, education, cultural identity, urbanization were all made possible because of Stalin. Infant mortality plunged from aboug 175/1000 in 1926 to around 47/1000 in 1956. Life epxectancy which was about 35 years before the revolution expanded to about 67 years in 1956. The inclusion of a fringe viewpoint that "Russia would have expanded regardless of Stalin" is unsubstantiated. Comparing levels of growth of the 1920s to the 1930s shows that Stalin's policies alone contributed to massive expansion during the 1930s.

In regard to the death toll, this is also rife with errors and propagandistic POV nonesense. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is not a serious historian or scholar and his viewpoint does not take precedence over professional demographers like Frank Lorimer, Barbara Anderson, and Eric Silver who correctly estimated demographic losses to be in the range of 4-5 million. The attempted discredting of the archival material which show the true figures is reprehensible. Almost every scholar of Russian history acknowledges the declassified archival documents to be reliable. These include Stephen Wheatcroft, J.Arch Getty, V.Popov, V.Zemskov, Gregory Freeze, Ronald Grigor Suny, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and countless others.

To start with a laundry list of errors, 800 thousand people were not executed under Stalin. Rather, around 770 thousand received death sentences but not all of them were executed. Historian A.Dugin reported in the late 1980s that in 1921-1953, about 642,000 people were executed for political crimes.

The claim that 1.7 million died in the GULAG is also unsubstantiated. Archival reports put forth by V.Popov, V.Zemskov, and J.Arch Getty in English language have shown that around 1 million died in the GULAG in 1934-53. Of these 1 million, it should be taken into perspective that the majority of these occurred in 1941-45 when the government couldn't have done a thing to prevent them.

The claim that 389,000 kulaks perished during resettlement is also inaccurate. Their deaths occurred years after they were resettled. They died from standard illnesses that the rest of the population died from.

Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete

This is absolutely false. This is not the view of most scholars. Stephen Wheatcroft distinctly refuted claims that the archival data are somehow incomplete or unreliable.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf

The Soviet repressive system was complex and required records and a record-keeping system to operate. The managers of the Gulag, labour colony and special exile empires needed a set of accounting data to plan their work. The special police and judicial authorities needed to keep records. The central party leadership also required periodic reports from the secret police/Ministry of Internal Affairs on developments in the Gulag, labour colonies and special exile areas, and on the policing and mass repression operations. In their time these official records were kept in the appropriate secret archives of the NKVD and the party leadership. These secret accounting materials should not be confused with the non-secret propaganda materials that were published at the time.

When the ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) lost control of the labour cmaps (ITL) during the Khrushchev period, the labour camp archives were transferred to the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF) or TsGAOR as it was known then. When Conquest refers to as "the Zemskov figures" are some of the summary data from these archives, which Russian historian V.N. Zemskov was able to publish from the late 1980s. These represent a few figures from amongst the thousands of Gulag accounting data which are now freely available for examination in fond 9401 of GARF. The fondy contain conjunctural reports on Gulag work, supply reports concerning Gulag requests to have the government increase average personal food rations and the size of the Gulag contingent on food rations, health reports, and general accounting reports.

Western historians who consider that all these data were falsified 60 years ago, and then held in secret to be produced in order to disinform them, appear to be suffering from an exaggeration of their own importance. When Gulag officials were pleading for more supplies they had no incentive to underestimate the number of prisoners. When Gulag officials were planning production they needed to know the real number of prisoners. The health departments needed to know how many were dying. When MVD leaders were briefing Stalin in their top security 'Osobye papki' reports they had good reason to avoid the charge of misleading him. When two different generations of MVD officials were briefing Khrushchev on the iniquities of their predecessors, in their top security reports, Kruglov in 1954 and Shvernik in 1963, they similarly had more to lose than gain by falsifying the figures.

since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.''

This is also completely false. The figures on ethnic deportations and their deaths can be located in works by N.Bugai and by Polian. It was found that 85-90% of ethnic successfully were transferred to Central Asia and in around 1948 or so, the Tatar settlers in Central Asia produced more birth than deaths. Polian's work can be found here:

http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/

others believe the number to be considerably higher. Russian writer Vadim Erlikman[13], for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

This is the opinion of one single author that should not take precedence over the conesensus of the majority of scholars of Russian and Soviet history. Vadim Erlikman's claim that 5 million died in the Gulag is completely unsubstantiated. Neither are the claims of 1.5 million executions of 1.7 million deaths in deportations substantiated.

What explanation is there that Erlikman's work takes precedence over the conesensus over the majority of scholars of Russian history? A fringe view should be treated as such.

These numbers are by no means the full story of deaths attributable to the regime however, since at least another 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine must be added.

This is also a gross exaggeration. There is no evidence to corrobarate that 6 to 8 million died from famine. Demographic reports have concluded that excluding Kazakhstan for which there was not any appropriate record keeping, there were 2.3 million excess deaths broke down as:

Ukraine: 1,544,840 Lower Volga: 167,671 Central Volga: 107,085 North Caucuses: 305,285

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Ronald Grigor Suny stated in "The Soviet Experiment" that there were 4 to 5 million deaths from famine.

In 1990, Stephen Wheatcroft wrote in Soviet Studies

Concering the scale of the famine in 1932/33, we now have much better information on its chronology and regional coverage amongst the civilian registered population. The level of excess mortality registered by the civilian population was in the order of 3 to 4 million. If we correct this for the non-civilian and non-registered population, the scale of excess mortality might well reach 4 to 5 million, which is somewhat larger than I had earlier supposed, but which is still much lower than figures claimed by Conquest and Rosefielde and by Roy Medvedev.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf

Returning Soviet soldiers who had surrendered were viewed with suspicion and some were killed[19] compared with 3.5 million Soviet POW that died in German camps.

This has been refuted by Igor Pykhalov and the Russian archives. While a small minority of about 10-15% of traitors collaborated with the occupiers were punished but were released after six years, the vast majority of repatriated soldiers were either returned home or rejoined the army.

Jacob Peters

All of you know a hundred times more about Stalin than I do, but I'll judge credibility based on one tiny detail: "imaginary confiscation of grain". When I was a child living in Chicago, we lived next to a Cossack family that had escaped starvation in the Ukraine. I don't think I need to repeat what I remember of that story to people who already know. Art LaPella 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not address the issue. The famine did not result from the confiscation of grain. It resulted from two consecutive poor harvests in 1931 and 1932. Taken from "Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-33" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies:

USSR Grain production and collections, 1930-33 (million tons)

Year	Production	Collections	Remainder	Collections as % of production
1930	73-77	22.1	51-55	30.2-28.7
1931	57-65	22.8	34-43	40-35.1
1932	55-60	18.5	36.5-41.5	33.6-30.8
1933	70-77	22.7	47.3-54.3	32.4-29.5

Jacob Peters

But you agree the confiscation/collection wasn't imaginary. Art LaPella 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are imaginary in the sense described by right wing historians who baselessly claim that the famine was caused by grain collections.Jacob Peters

"the imaginary confiscation..." I have to wonder if the rest of the statement is true in a similar sense. Art LaPella 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely false. This is not the view of most scholars. Stephen Wheatcroft distinctly refuted claims that the archival data are somehow incomplete or unreliable. - Jacob Peters

That doesn't matter. It's the view of some scholars that the data are incomplete, and that is all that is necessary for the inclusion of the statement on Wiki.

Furthermore, what Wheatcroft argued was that the GULAG data were reliable. Wheatcroft did not address himself to the many other categories of Soviet victims, such as the German victims of resettlement and forced labour after the war. And Wheatcroft himself also acknowledged, IIRC, that the data from labour camps and resettlement programs were incomplete. And then there are the victims of Stalin's harsh scorched earth policies, and other policies such as his refusal to allow civilians to evacuate Stalingrad when it was under siege. The GULAG victims and victims of recorded executions are therefore, only a subset of Soviet victims and not the entire story by a long shot.

Also, what you need to understand is that there are a plethora of editors on Wiki who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours. It took me many weeks of debate to negotiate that section as it stands, you can be assured that if you begin to edit it to reflect your own view you are only going to start another edit war with all the people who think Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in history.

The section as it stands in fact covers all sides of the debate - it explains that scholars disagree, that some put the death toll at only 4 million and others at 50 million. And it tentatively suggests a compromise figure of 15 to 17 million, including famine victims. I had to fight very hard for those figures, because most editors wanted a figure of 20-30 million. Gatoclass 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It's the view of some scholars that the data are incomplete, and that is all that is necessary for the inclusion of the statement on Wiki.

Of course it matters. It is falsely stated that is generally agreed that the data are incomplete when in fact most post-1991 scholarly work in regard to the Stalin era have incessantly cited archival data, believing them to be accurate. This can be found in general histories of Russia by Ronald Grigor Suny and Gregory Freeze.

Wheatcroft did not address himself to the many other categories of Soviet victims, such as the German victims of resettlement and forced labour after the war.

Wheatcroft discusses population transfers in this article:

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-German_Soviet.pdf

There were not any victims of population transfers. There were 225,000 Crimeans transferred to Central Asia in 1944. Of these, 193,000 were located in their appropriate settlements in October 1946. Population loss occurred not due to action taken by the Soviet government but because of deteriorated economic conditions brought by war started by Germans. Whereas there were 183,000 Crimean Tatars transferred to Central Asia in 1944, their population actually exploded to 191,000 in Kazakhstan and 444,000 in Uzbekistan according to the 1959 census. The circumstances show that any and all population loss among them occurred due to the war imposed by the Germans.

Morever, Stefan Karner shows that there were close to 518,000 deaths of POWs from various countries in USSR. But this had nothing to do with the Soviets' actions but everything to do with the economic deterioration endured by USSR due to destructive war. When the POWs were registered in the facilities, it was found that over 90% of them survived. Those that died fell to ordinary illnesses that everyone dies from.

[quote]And Wheatcroft himself also acknowledged, IIRC, that the data from labour camps and resettlement programs were incomplete. [/quote]

If you are talking about the kulak settlers, this is incorrect. It is documented in the archives that there were 1.8 million deported kulaks in 1930-31 of which 400,000 died due to famine in 1933 and from ordinary illnesses that everyone at the time endured. Needless to say, these people were not killed but died ordinary deaths. The Soviet archives actually document measures by the Soviet government taken to ensure that the kulaks were receptive to proper care in the settlements.

And then there are the victims of Stalin's harsh scorched earth policies, and other policies such as his refusal to allow civilians to evacuate Stalingrad when it was under siege.

This is easily refuted by the fact that it was Germany that invaded USSR. Stalin's scorched earth policies actually helped to ensure that the Germans would not be able to loot the people's property. Plus, Stalin alone did not direct military affairs as this was left to the people's commissariat of defense.

The GULAG victims and victims of recorded executions are therefore, only a subset of Soviet victims and not the entire story by a long shot.

The insinuation that Stalin was responsible by the war is baseless and is common knowledge that it was Germany which started the war. If you are going to cite the cliche of the purges of military officers, this has been discredited:

1937: 4,474 officers arrested; 11,104 officers discharged; 15,578 total

1938: 12,750 officers arrested and discharged

1939: 357 officers discharged and arrested

Reinstatements occurred in the same span. In 1937, 4544 of those discharged for political reasons or arrested were returned to their posts; in 1938, this was 4089 and in 1939, this was 152. This leaves 8785 out of 19,900 unaccounted for. 6.9% of all infantry officers in the ranks as of 1936-37 had been dismissed but not reinstated by May 1940; the figure for officers active in 1938-39 was 2.3%. Source: "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia", Robert J. Thurston

Also, what you need to understand is that there are a plethora of editors on Wiki who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours.

This is meaningless. Their views have been thoroughly discredited since 1989. But it is sad to see Wikipedia to be dominated by right-wing zealots who censor the facts.

The section as it stands in fact covers all sides of the debate - it explains that scholars disagree, that some put the death toll at only 4 million and others at 50 million.

This section is blatantly skewed to favour those with inflated, unsubstantiated estimates. It accomodates Solzhenitsyn's deranged 60 million death toll while saying nothing about Frank Lorimer's 4-5 million death toll in the 1930s. As it stands, the likes of Applebaum, Erlikman, Conquest, and others belong to a fringe. Their views are not shared by the majority of scholars.

And it tentatively suggests a compromise figure of 15 to 17 million, including famine victims.

The famine figures are also criminally overestimated. Russian archives for Ukraine, North Caucuses, and Volga show an excess of 2.2 million deaths. Ronald Grigor Suny in his history about USSR stated 4 to 5 million overall died from famine while Wheatcroft in this article favoured a similar figure. In 1981, he stated that 3-4 million died in famine. Boris Urlanis in 1974 estimated 2.7 million deaths, Barbara Anderson and Eric Silver in 1985 estimated 2-3 million deaths.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf Jacob Peters

With all due respect, I'm really not interested in re-opening this debate. Most if not all the points you raise have already been debated exhaustively on these pages. Rather than start the process all over again, I suggest you take the time to read the archive of this talk page going back over the last few months. I think you will probably find the response to most of your arguments there. If there are still some points you'd like to raise then that you feel have not been adequately dealt with, I'm prepared to listen to what you have to say. Gatoclass 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect in the suggestion that my points have been exhaustively refuted. Please don't dodge my points by referring me to outdated, irrelevant discussion like some burreaucrat. The purpose of this section is to discuss. As it stands, I have been correct on each and every single point. Jacob Peters

Why do you try to tell that there was no cult of personality, and everything was just a lie of the CIA? I've read an encyclopedia from the '60s (not an American one, it was written in the Eastern block) which is full of pro-Soviet propaganda and POV, and even they write about Stalin's mistakes, and that he showed a bad example to the communists with his cult of personality. --V. Szabolcs 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Introduction

was the de facto leader and dictator of the Soviet Union from about 1928 to his death in 1953.

It is a deranged right-wing POV to call Stalin a dictator. He had always been amongst the main leaders of the Bolshevik Party which in 1917 was the most popular party manifested by their share in the Congress of Soviets. He was part of the Central Committee even before the 1905 Revolution and was one of the five original members of the Politbureau. He indisputably had the support of the majority of the party in the 1920s. Since the party represented the workers and peasants, the majority of the population in turn supported Stalin. Opinion polls show that the majority of Russians have stated that Stalin did more good than harm for the country.

Between 1934 and 1953 that position was, nominally, just one of several Central Committee Secretaries, but his leadership was universally acknowledged.

Stalin became prime minister in 1941 and was in this position until 1953. He was officially the leader of the government. Previously, Molotov had been premier.

Although many still defend Stalin's record, in the West Stalin's name has become popularly synonymous with the crimes of mass murder he is alleged to have committed and with tyranny.

This immediately implies the connotation that Stalin was an evil man and therefore those that support him are automatically on the defensive. This section needs to be cleansed of these deranged right wing POVs.

Jacob Peters

This explains a lot of what we've seen on Wikipedia these days. Stalin is a dictator = POV. Stalin was a mass murderer = POV. Sure, why not. --Sugarcaddy 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion which fails to represent a neutral point of view. Stalin was amongst dozens of leaders of the Communist Party SU and led the council of people's commissars in 1941-53. To call Stalin a "mass murderer" is an allegation not supported by a judgement in a court of law. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy for the reason that is to be upheld. Jacob Peters

Stalin was in every objective sense of the term was a dictator, and is so described by a huge variety of reliable academic sources, both Western and Russian; he is also included in the Wikipedia List of dictators. I have argued this point, with detailed examples, in the above discussion, and I will continue to argue and defend this point against this kind of revisionsim, 'deranged and right-wing', as I am. The representation in the Congress of Soviets for the Bolsheviks was deliberately manipulated to compensate for their poor showing in the vote for the Constituent Assembly, where they achieved only 24% of the popular vote. The Assembly, the first democratic gathering in Russian history, was, of course, immediately dissolved. Throughout the 1920s Stalin manipulated the post of General Secretary to place his own nominees in all of the important party positions, which by 1928 gave him a stranglehold of the whole apparatus. The party represented the workers and peasants? Well, it's a point of view, certainly, though the workers and peasants had by 1928 nobody else to represent them. And Comrade Stalin 'represented' a great many of the peasants off to his concentration camps after 1928. Opinion polls in Stalin's Russia? About as much use, I would have though, as plebiscites in Hitler's Germany. Jacob, I don't think you would recognise a neutral POV if it jumped up and slapped you in the face. It's obvious to me that you have an 'agenda', just as there are others with a similar agenda on the Hitler page. A sad state of affairsWhite Guard 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You fail to make a single convincing argument. With an ideological name user id, little of what you can say can be taken with credibility and anything you say is bound to be ridden with some ridiculous POV.

The familiar "if you don't agree with me, you're a revisionist" argument has gotten stale. Understand that there are differing viewpoints in history. Having a disagreement does not make one a "revisionist" but only someone with a different opinion.

You are completely incorrect about the Congress of Soviets which was by far the most democratic system of government there has been in the world. The Congress of Soviets preceded the Constituent Assembly. Out of 650 elected delegates, 390 were Bolsheviks and another 100 were Left Socialist Revolutionaries. On behalf of the Soviets, the Bolsheviks seized power with total legitimacy. The Constituent Assembly was a vastly inferior parliamentary form of government which deprived workers, peasants, and soldiers from input. The claim that the Bolsheviks performed poorly in the Constituent Assembly is unsubstantiated. As historian Evan Mawdsley explains, the SRs joined the Provisional Government coalition in May 1917 and became identified with it. Constantly outbit by the Bolsheviks, the SR PArty lost its influence among workers and soldiers. When the Assembly was closed, it was a symptom of SR weakeness. The SR Party lacked the local following to physically defend the Assembly building and there was no support from the rest of Russia. The rump SR Party lacked a working majority: they had lost the Left SR delegates and the Ukrainian SRs did not attend. Even without Lenin the Assembly would have fallen on its own weight.

The myths about Stalin packing in the Party with his supporters is a total myth which has been refuted by J.Arch Getty. In fact, Stalin always had the support of the party against Trotsky and later Bukharin because his path was understood to be calm and rational. It is a fact that in the 1920s the vast majority of the Party had supported Stalin.

The claim that Stalin sent peasants to "concentration camps" is a distortion and factual error. It is incendiary that you attempt to compare an anti-racist Stalin to the Nazis. Kulaks were not sent to concentration camps of any kind but were rather transferred to special settlements where they were placed in other sectors of the economy such as timber. Soviet archives document the great lengths the Soviet government took in order to ensure the safety of these people.

The comparison of opinion polls in Russia to plebiscites in the Third Reich is puzzling. If you're suggestion is that Russia is akin to Nazi Germany, then that is bogus.Jacob Peters

I'm finished with this, and with Wikipedia, distorted and corrupted by people like you, little better than the Nazis who appear from time to time on the Adolf Hitler page. My nom de guerre was chosen with care, because it almost invariably milseads people like you into betraying all of their political and ideological perversity. Anyway, your ignorance of Russian history is more than matched by your ignorance of Russian culture. I am a great admirer of Mikhail Bulgakov, arguably one of the greatest Russian novelists of the last century. I leave that for those with sufficient wit to understand. The Day of the Turbins is now over. White Guard 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't let the odd ignoramus with no appreciation of history put you off Wikipedia for good White Guard. Even if you do there are 1000's more sane people that won't let revisionist rubbish to stand. Stalin not thought of as a dictator in Russia? Get a grip. Lenin maybe. There was a very famous saying in Russia during and after WWII. "We had to choose between two dictators. We chose the one that spoke Russian." --LiamE 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It's for the first time I hear that very famous saying. And I'm Russian. Were it comes from? --Nekto 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Most recently a Russian collegue a few weeks back, though I was aware of the saying before that. He's from a place " a couple of hundred miles from Moscow " in his own words. Was very famous an exageration? As I understand it, it is a corruption of some of Trotsky's writing about the problems in Ethopia at the time, where he talked of the proletariat making the choice between two dictators. --LiamE 08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that the phrase must be a sort of joke. Hardly it comes from ww2, most likely it appered in perestroyka time. --Nekto 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

... the Bolshevik Party which in 1917 was the most popular party manifested by their share in the Congress of Soviets ... is indeed an example of a extreme "deranged Bolshevik POV". The Bolsheviks never were a popular party, the very a small but highly organized group that managed to gain a majority in a single vote of the Russian Socialdemocratic party, in which they were a minority by far. Then they gained power by a coup, defended it in a violent civil war, used it to install a totaliatarian dictatorship, which included military aggression, persecution of dissidents and the death of millions. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but somewhat shocking to see somebody trying to prove that Stalin wasn't a dictator. Calling Stalin a dictator is not "deranged right-wing POV", it is a pretty adequate description of one of history's most brutal tyrants. This has been more than adequately proven in hundreds of works. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

POV rants are not permissable. Unless you have constructive, mature discussion, please refrain from contributing to this section. Calling an immensely popular government leader like Stalin a dictator is a blatant violation of NPOV policy. There is no basis to the claim that Stalin was a dictator. All of the amateurish points above have been thoroughly discredited. I request to have this page unblocked.Jacob Peters

I stopped trying to be nice to these (Personal attack removed) on wikipedia a long time ago. I thought I'd seen it all with the liberals trying to hide the facts about gun control politicians, but now I have found a (Personal attack removed) trying to defend one of the most brutal dictators of all time.Jacob Peters, you are one (Personal attack removed).Saltforkgunman 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I used Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I have also concluded that Mr. Peters is knowingly in error, but Wikipedia policy asks us to try to direct our comments to his actions rather than focusing on him as a person. Art LaPella 03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be fooled, folks. This Jacob Peters character is obviously Borat using an alias to kid you all. Those who are interested will find his picture and his official site here {http://www.borat.tv]. Yes, indeed, Jacob Borat, Stalin does indeed have big khram. Clio the Muse 01:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, crap.I thought personal attacks were in order.If Jacob Peters is a joke, I don't find it funny.Saltforkgunman 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank with you, I don't find 'it' funny either; but he's still a joke. Clio the Muse 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but somewhat shocking to see somebody trying to prove that Stalin wasn't a dictator.

Sorry, but this is false. Stalin had always been a leading member of the Bolshevik Party which in summer of 1917 was the most popular political group in Russia. Stalin was one of seven original members of the Politbureau. Whereas the vast majority of the Bolsheviks joined only during and after 1917, Stalin had been with the Social Democratic Party since before the 20th century. In additon, Stalin was a delegate to earlier party congresses.

Besides, it is a flagrant violation of NPOV policy to call someone a dictator. The reason for this is because according to the POV of others, Stalin was not a dicatator. According to the POV of a deranged anti-communist fringe, Stalin was a dictator. "Wikipedia's list of dictators" is not a valid argument as Wikipedia is not exactly an valid source. The section for one slanders some of the greatest leaders of 20th century.

The evidence shows that the legislative process in the USSR was carried out collectively by the Supreme Soviet:

ARTICLE 30. The highest organ of state authority of the U.S.S.R. is the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

it is a pretty adequate description of one of history's most brutal tyrants.

Calling a man a brutal tyrant even though he invaded not a single country is a pretty deranged POV. The evidence shows that Stalin was Russia's best leader since Peter I.

This has been more than adequately proven in hundreds of works.

No, it has not. "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-33" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies does not at all portray a country dominated a single man. This book documents extensive communication and sometimes conflict between regional and central branches of leadership.

Jacob Peters

(removed sexist offesive personal attack, and ca. 100 words)

• ...Bolshevik Party which in summer of 1917 was the most popular political group in Russia... - blatantly false, debunked above.

• Besides, it is a flagrant violation of NPOV policy to call someone a dictator. The reason for this is because according to the POV of others, Stalin was not a dicatator. - Utterly ridiculous, and contrary to WP:NPOV. By this logic, wikipedia could never assert anything that had been denied by a single crackpot.

• According to the POV of a deranged anti-communist fringe, Stalin was a dictator. If by "deranged anti-communist fringe" you mean "vast majority of historians, not to mention the Russian people", then sure.

• ...even though he invaded not a single country... That would be aside from Germany and Finland, right?

You need to get your facts straight; if you're going to advocate an extreme minority view, you should at least do so using a factual basis. siafu 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Um... Germany? How so? --Nekto 08:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty well detailed in Vistula-Oder Offensive, ending with the Red Army capturing Berlin. I was sure they still taught WWII in school? siafu 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Western Allies also invaded Germany, although we did a better job of respecting local politics after Hitler was gone. Finland and 1939 East Poland are better examples of siafu's point. Art LaPella 17:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

blatantly false, debunked above.

That is incorrect as the Bolsheviks formed the majority in the Congress of Soviets when it convened on 7 November 1917. Out of 649 delegates, there were 390 Bolsheviks.

Quoted from above: The representation in the Congress of Soviets for the Bolsheviks was deliberately manipulated to compensate for their poor showing in the vote for the Constituent Assembly, where they achieved only 24% of the popular vote. Pretty easy read there.

By this logic, wikipedia could never assert anything that had been denied by a single crackpot.

This is not the view shared by most historians. In works by the premier scholars of Soviet history such as E.H Carr, RW Davies, and Stephen Wheatcroft, the word dictator is not to be found when discussing Stalin.

E.H. Carr, it should be mentioned, is also the historian who published The Twenty Years' Crisis, which very much favored appeasement towards Hitler and the nazi regime. He is generally considered to have completely misread Hitler, Stalin, and all the dictators that came under his study. About his work, Arnold Toynbee wrote: "It leaves you in a moral vacuum and at a political dead point." In short, he is not a reliable or unbiased source on Stalin.

Both R. W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft are experts on economic history, and not directly relevant to Stalin. In particular, the fact that they don't use the word "dictator" is not exactly significant: do they portray as the saint you would have us believe him to be? Not so much.

If by "deranged anti-communist fringe" you mean "vast majority of historians, not to mention the Russian people", then sure.

You have no way of measuring "vast majority of historians". In fact, most texts describe Stalin as "Soviet leader" which is a neutral term.

I have no way of measuring? It's called reading. Apparently you seem to assert that the rest of the world has no way of knowing reality ("deranged" I believe is your word of choice), but you yourself have the proper gauge. Right.

Opinon polls show that Russians overwhelmingly are positive of Stalin's legacy despite all the anti-Stalin propaganda they've been bombarded first with Khrushchev then with Gorbachev and then with quislings like Yeltsin.

Opinion polls from when? I suppose you have a cite for that? It would seem unlikely, as this is simply nonsense.

That would be aside from Germany and Finland, right?

There was not an invasion of Germany as it was Germany that unleashed Operation Barbarossa. Neither was there an invasion of Finland. It was a mere border clash like the ones with Japan in Siberia in 1938-39. Neither was there an invasion of "East Poland" which was actually West Ukraine and West Byelorussia stolen by the Polish in 1921. By Sept 17, 1939 when Ukrainian and Byelorussian units moved in to liberate their land, the cowardly Polish militarist regime had fled to Romania. Neither was there an invasion of the Baltic states as they had legally permitted the deployment of Red Army forces. Jacob Peters

You have a rather funny definition of invasion, not to mention an extremely revisionist view of the Winter War. It was not a "border clash", it was an aggressive invasion by a much stronger power hoping to conquer a weaker one. Moreover, the definition of "invasion" is the aggressive movement of troops into a foreign country; a "counter-invasion" like the Red Army's invasion of Germany is still and invasion. This is all, of course, rather irrespective of the fact that whether or not Stalin actually invaded another country (though he clearly did) has anything to do with whether or not he is a dictator, something you have yet to demonstrate. It seems rather clear, however, that reality is not something that you're likely to allow to interfere with your POV, so unless the song and dance changes I don't think I'll be following this any further. siafu 04:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a rather funny definition of invasion, not to mention an extremely revisionist view of the Winter War. It was not a "border clash", it was an aggressive invasion by a much stronger power hoping to conquer a weaker one. Moreover, the definition of "invasion" is the aggressive movement of troops into a foreign country; a "counter-invasion" like the Red Army's invasion of Germany is still and invasion. This is all, of course, rather irrespective of the fact that whether or not Stalin actually invaded another country (though he clearly did) has anything to do with whether or not he is a dictator, something you have yet to demonstrate. It seems rather clear, however, that reality is not something that you're likely to allow to interfere with your POV, so unless the song and dance changes I don't think I'll be following this any further.

The term "revisionist" is completely a matter of perspective. If you were to propagate this slanderous rubbish in USSR, you would be considered some insane revisionist. Your perspective comes from the corporate press and think tanks whereas my perspective comes from progressive literature as shown in the Bolshaia Soviet Encyclopedia. The facts show that Finland at the incitement of the British essentially provoked the border clash. Furthermore, Finland became a separate country due to the extortionist Brest-Litovsk treaty that set forth Russian provinces to become colonies of Germany in the Mitteleuropa outline. Before 1918, there was never a separate Finland. What is called Finland was part of the Swedish Empire from 1150-1809 and later a part of Russia until 1918. During "Winter War", Finland was sent at least 350 aircraft, 1,500 cannons, over 6,000 machine guns, up to 100 thousand rifles, 650,000 handgrenades, 2,500,000 shells, 160,000,000 cartridges and much more by England, France, and Sweden.

It has been demonstrated numerous works by Stephen Wheatcroft and RW Davies in their histories of the Soviet economy that Stalin was far from a dicatator and that the structure of Soviet administration throughout its existence often involved conflict between central and regional branches as well as a high degree of autonomy for local districts. Jacob Peters

There is something you have all misunderstood and misinterpreted. While it is true that Stalin has been labeled a dictator by the almost entire population of the world it does not mean it is something objective. Our job as wikipedians and followers of the wikipedia NPOV policy is to report history as it happened. Dictator is a very subjective term, it is not objective...no where is there an outline as to what a dictator is nor is it a title given to someone s that of prime minister or president. It is not something that has been formally stated. Around the world people have labeled Stalin a dictator true...but they are not objective labels, Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union...the de facto leader if you will, but he was not appointed dictator of the Soviet Union! Never! That title is simply inexistent. To Mr. White Guard, with whom I have already had this discussion previously, I ask please to set aside the political biases and concentrate on what I am trying to get through...Stalin might well in fact be a dictator by certain standards and opinions, but it is not a universally acknowledged fact...understand? It is not something that was implemented by law, it is simply something that certain people from certain political ideologies have chosen to label Stalin as...Whether Stalin was a dictator or not is not something I am here to argue, the point is plain and simple...To Label Stalin as a dictator on this webpage is to commit a violation of the rules of Wikipedia as horrible as that which the people that defend such label to stand claim the censorship of information was in the USSR...to please, understand, that labeling Stalin as a dictator is giving him a characteristic that is based entirely on judgment and opinion, not a universal truth (such Angela Merkel being the chancellor of Germany) but merely something that has been placed with a certain political bias...STALIN MIGHT HAVE IN FACT BEEN A DICTATOR; BUT SAYING THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS IS NOT SOMETHING WITH ENOUGH BASIS OR SUPPORT TO KEEP IT ON THIS PAGE...UNLESS OF COURSE SOMEONE FINDS THAT HE WAS MADE A FORMAL DICTATOR AT SOME POINT IN HIS CAREER...PLEASEEEEE...FORGET THE BIAS AND UNDERSTAND MY POINT! Kiske 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

His rule was mostly based on his authority rather than formal powers.--Nixer 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling stalin "de facto dictator" is right wing bias? So following your the logic calling Hitler and Mussolini dictators is left wing bias? Also Encyclopædia Britannica is then also biased http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9379422 ? Staberinde 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes i read that article and it seems to be extremely POVed. It is clear POV that the Stalin's reforms led to death of many million as says the encyclopedia. There are many incorrectnesses in the article. For example, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not during WWII, saying "Stalin attacked Finland" is also incorrect because it was the country - the USSR who attacked. We do not say in encyclopedia "Bush attacked Iraq", we say "USA under leadership of Bush attacked Iraq". "He allied Russia" is also incorrect since it was USSR, not Russia. Saying that Stalin was paranoid is also POV since paranoia is a medical desease and no medic determined this diagnosis Stalin to suffer from. This article is not like any encyclopedy article. This is extremely incorrect and POVed.--Nixer 12:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't read that article through but now looks like its problematical indeed. Still, is calling Hitler and Mussolini dictators also bias? Staberinde 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is less POV since Hitler was official "Fuehrer of Germany". But it would be fine for me if it said that he was "Fuehrer of Germany" rather than dictator. Anyone will conclude himself that it is equal to dictator. By the way, in Marxist view personal dictatorship is impossible. Any regime is a dictatorship of a class or social group even if it is formal dictatorship of one person (he anyway acts for the benefit of the class that supports him).--Nixer 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But we are not here to present the Marxist view nor are we saying that dictator was his title or rank.--Eupator 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Mussolini and Hitler are dictators is also biased. I am not biased in the left wing, I am simply exposing a very simple point...a point I do not understand why right wing biased people keep ignoring...READ THE ABOVE! Kiske 15:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your concerns are legitimate (that is the question if any given leader should be described by anything else (pronoun) other than the official title in the lead) but you're making the word dictator sound more ambiguous than it actually is. I would suggest we take this into a simple vote or an rfc.--Eupator 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A vote sounds legitimate...but I am afraid the right wing candidates will monopolize the voting...does the name "White Guard" ring a bell?Kiske 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we do not need voting here. Let's simply stick with the rules.--Nixer 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, what does it mean "in Western view" ? Do Georgians or say Ukrainians consider Stalin something other than a dictator? Perhaps North Koreans might disagree but can you seriously claim that most people of the former USSR (including the overwhelming majority of ethnic Russians) don't consider Stalin to have been a dictator?--Eupator 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a survey. An RfC might be an overkill. --Lysy^talk 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was a member of the Politbureau which collectively set forth the policy of the Communist Party. Indeed, Stalin had been of the original members of the Politbureau. Moreover, Stalin had been part of the Central Committee since 1907 which was the highest body of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Keep in mind that 95% of Bolsheviks in November 1917 had joined the party only during previous months of 1917. Those with an equal degree of power with Stalin in the Politbureau included Molotov, Kalinin, Zhdanov, Voroshilov, Beria, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, and others. Between 1941-1953, Stalin was head of government as chairman of Council if People's Commissars having succeeded Molotov. Policy was then carried out by the Council of People's Commissars and the Deputy of Soviets. Stalin was in no way a dictator. He was not above the law. He was in fact one of the greatest, most beneficial leaders the Russia has seen since Peter. Jacob Peters

You are all missing the point! Whether or not he was a dictator is not what really matters here! What matters is the fact that because he was never formally given the "title" of dictator giving him such a title is giving a trait he was never actually given, which is, whether you like it or not, providing POV information. Stalin may have been a dictator, and it may be true that 99.9% of the world's population including the majority of former Soviet Citizens think and believe he might be a dictator...but providing him with that title is being POV...it is not an absolute truth! (Like Vicente Fox being the president of Mexico or Angela Merkel being Chancellor of Germany) it is a trait. It is like saying that George W. Bush is am imperialist or a conqueror or an aggressor...the facts are that he is an conqueror and an imperialist, but because he has not been awarded such a title formally, it would be POV to write "George W. Bush, president of the US and conqueror or invader of Iraq", even though it might be true because I am giving him a trait based on judgment, not on accuracy or solid facts...what is a dictator? Where do we define dictator? Where does a dictator begin or end? What are the limits? There is nothing in the world, no paper or anything that specifies this, so there is not way we can award him such a title in an accurate encyclopedia, even though in the end he might very well be a dictator...understand? Understand?! We are not debating his evilness or how democratic he was! We are debating the fact that the man has been called something he was never formally turned into and solely based on judgment. It is like saying (in another context) that a pornographic actress is a pervert of that David Lynch might be deranged because of his films or that a certain actor might be a bad actor or that James Joyce is a great writer...they are not traits that have been formally given (even though they might be true) to these people and should therefore not be placed on their page, in the initial part. Maybe in the later part of the article there could be a section talking about how good some people consider this writer (or how Stalin is considered by many to be a dictator)...Please, this is the last time I am going to try to convince you of this...If you don't understand...you are mentally retarded and I will be forced to create an editing war and change Dictator every chance I get in this encyclopedia...I am only sticking to wikipedian policies and doing what I should be doing...you are the ones that are wrong! Kiske 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly Kiske, stop makeing personal attacks. Also Kiske only raises case of Stalin(maybe its connected with the fact that he is communist?[9]) but if it is POV to call Stalin dictator then article List of dictators should be deleted completely and also word "dictator" should be removed from introductions of many other articles, for example Benito Mussolini, Józef Piłsudski, Saddam Hussein etc. So its not only about Stalin, it is about quite many articles, so RfC would be fine in my opinion. Staberinde 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not only raising the case of Stalin...and the fact that I am a communist has nothing to do with it! If dictator appears in several articles we should, because they are subjective adjectives, delete that article and delete the word dictator from all other introductions and article... Kiske 13:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand all the fuss that is being made about the labelling of Stalin as a dictator. I think if we had asked the man himself if he were a dictator, he probably would have laughed and would not have cared one way or the other - as long as everybody did as he ordered. If by "dictator" we mean a political leader who is able to dictate the policies of a dictatorship, Stalin certainly qualifies. He could create laws and policies, or choose to ignore them, on his own authority. To all those who feel that the term dictator is in itself derogatory: please mind the concept of the "benevolent dictator". At least theoretically, being a dictator is not necessarily a bad thing. It is all the harsh oppression and brutal violence against the opposition that makes it bad. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, we should all be able to agree that Stalin was in fact a dictator, and most of us (like his successor Khrushchev did in On the Personality Cult and its Consequences) would also agree that he was in fact a malevolent dictator. I will give Stalin one thing though, that is that I don't believe he was in it for his own personal gain. He probably did think he was acting in the best interest of the Soviet Union, but of course he wilfully ignored (and acted against) the interests of the people under his rule. By the way, placing "state" above "people" is a defining characteristic of fascism, not so much of communism. Was Stalin a fascist? All the militarism, nationalism and personality worship are other indicators. I would like to see more of that debate reflected in this Wikipedia article. I believe at least a few scholars have written about it. Olav L 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Khrushchev never labelled Stalin dictator because personal dictatorship is impossible in Marxist doctrine. He only critisized "cult of personality".

Look, whoever you are, please read the WP article I referred to. Khrushchev may have stopped short of actually calling Stalin a dictator, but he talked about his "despotic character" and everything else, the persecutions etc. And of course personal dicatorship cannot exist in Marxism - that is exactly why he was eventually viewed as such a traitor to the cause. Olav L 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No I meant personal dictatorship is impossible in Marxism. Marxist doctrine states that there in no personal dictatorship in the world. Each political regime protects interests of certain class. In monachy it is landowners and aristocracy. In principate and domenate it is slave-owners. In fascism it is small and military industrial bourgeoisie, decsassified elements and other reactionary forces, etc. It is not dictatorship of a fuehrer. It is dictatorship of reactionary bourgeoisie.--Nixer 23:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I must have misread that remark, then. Thanks for explaining but allow me to remain sceptical ;-) Olav L 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The fuss is about one simple thing. Stalinists, Nazis, and other marginals are not alowed into editing Encyclopaedia Britannica, but they are allowed to edit Wiki. And so they do.//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. Thanks for the reminder. Olav L 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The insinuation that Communists for who you use the pejorative "Stalinist" are political "marginals" is outrageous as is the comparison of them to Nazis. Communist parties have long been part of the mainstream in the bourgeois parliamentary system. They received between 20 to 35% of the vote throughout the post-war period in France, Italy, and Finland. Today, they still poll about 6.5 million votes in Japan and 2.5 million in France and Italy. Communists currently serve in the governments of a diverse array of countries ranging from India to Syria to South Africa. Jacob Peters

Communists may not be marginals, but Stalinists are. If you can't see the difference, it's your problem. Most respectable communists I know, and most that you mentioned, would spit on Stalin's grave and would certainly not try to find excuses for all the excesses of his rule. Olav L 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion Stalin was an evil dictator, only Hitler was worse. However saying so in the introduction is POV, and in fact takes away from the impact of the article since it is better to trust the reader to make up his or her own mind. Steve Dufour 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact the blaming of Stalin was triggered by the current political situation in 1950s. If Khrushchev did not need and ideological phraseology to defeat his opponent Beria in power struggle, you would never think Stanin was so bad.--Nixer 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly expressed. That includes opinions that Stalin was a dictator, a great leader, and a tragic figure. I don't think that can all be worked into the introduction, however. Fred Bauder 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate Stalin! I also worked for the overthrow of the Soviet Union and the end of communism! However using the word dictator in the opening paragraph adds nothing to the article. It is enough to say that he was the leader of the USSR and tell what he did. Steve Dufour 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, NPOV requires fair representation of what is a generally held point of view, but perhaps not in the first paragraph. Fred Bauder 04:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. However just telling people what Stalin did is much more damning (and informative) than giving him the label of "dictator". It might even be said that it's people like Stalin and Hitler who give the word "dictator" a bad name. There have been hundreds of dictators in the world and most of them were not so evil as those two. Steve Dufour 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalin gives bad name to whatever group we place him: leader, communist, georgian etc. Dictator is a good and short word for non-monarch undemocratic leaders and in my opinion its not POV.--Staberinde 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC.

Folks, this should be an EZ dispute to solve!

You simply mention how he is viewed as a dictator (or synonym) by group x and viewed as a liberator (or synonym) by group y. This would adhere to NPOV. So who is going to make this edit? An please stop, those of you who appear to be doing some bad faith-ing and POV-pushing. C.m.jones

You are makeing the same mistake that other posters who consider dicator to be POV are doing. Liberator and dictator are not contradicting each other. Liberator is opposite do invader/occupier. Dicator is opposite to democratic leader(which stalin clearly wasn't). Dictator can be positive ruler("benevolent dictator"). For example Julius Caesar is considered to be positive leader by many, from modern times Józef Piłsudski is is held in high regard by most of the Polish public, also many greeks think that Ioannis Metaxas was good leader.--Staberinde 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Existance of good dictators does not make the term neutral especialyy in the case where the person reject the opinion that he is dictator.--Nixer 19:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I support calling stalin a dicator. Per Staberinde and others, it is an academic NPOV term used for Stalin by many academic sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be in stalemate as some people are sure that useing term dictator is POV-pushing and others think that its completely accurate. RfC didn't solve the dispute, so I think that WP:POLL should be made about useing term "dictator" in this article, or anyone has better idea?--Staberinde 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can quote reliable historians who use a different term in preference to dictator, then we have something to discuss. - Merzbow 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that Stalin should be called dictator but some other users(Nixer, Kiske etc) have opposite view--Staberinde 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeida is not a democracy or an opinion poll presenting the average personal opinons of the editors. It is an encyclopedia based on verifiable and reliable sources. If a majority of editors voted in support for the flat Earth theory, then Wikipedia would still, in accordance with its policy, ignore that poll in favor of the views found in reliable sources.Ultramarine 14:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing archive sources.

User Lysy and User:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude recently removed from the article links to a reliable archival source related to deportations, i.e. the State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss. They placed links several BBC articles instead, which clearly do not meet the WP:RS criteria as well as neutrality policy. I tried to revert these edits, but had been blocked by a POV sysop.

My version: Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. Over 1.5 million people were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations. During the deportations of Crimean Tatars and other minorities from Crimea during the World War II, the property of the deported was mostly shipped to the new place of living with other property bought by the state. Each deported family was given a loan of about 50000 roubles for 7 years without charge for interest to startup in the new place State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss (International Committee for Crimea)Resolution of State Defence Committee №5859ss, May 14, 1944, Moscow, Kremlin [Russian State Archive of Social-Political History, ф.644, оп.1, д.252, л.142-144].

Their version: Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. Over 1.5 million people were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations. Deportees were forced to leave their property behind, many died or were executed on their way to deportation destinations. Those who survived were forced to work for free in the labour camps. Many of the deportees died of hunger or other deadly conditions. [10]

-- Nixer 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, there is little if any basis above. There is no evidence that the deportees were executed. The assertion that the transferred population were placed in labour camps is completely false. They were merely transferred to Central Asia where they were to lead a normal life with the rest of the population. The archives presented by N.Bugai found that out of 225 thousand deported Crimeans, 194 thousand or 86% were found in their settlements in Central Asia in October 1946. Out of 93 thousand relocated Kalmyks, 87% were found in their settlements. Out of 92 thousand Turks, 92% were found. Out of 68 thousand Karachai, 88% were found. Out of 37 thousand Balkars, 89% were found. Those that died did not endure anything different from the rest of the Soviet population. Indeed, by around 1948 when the USSR started to recover, the death rate and birth rate for the Crimeans drastically dropped and increased respectively.

Furthermore, Alexander Statiev documents that over 10% of the Crimean Tatar population served in German units. Therefore, it was not fabricated that Crimeans collaborated with the Germans the way your POV injected paragraph insinuates.

Many of the deportees died of hunger or other deadly conditions.

The facts show that the overwhelming majority successfull made the trip to Central Asia. While some did die of poor conditions, keep in mind that the rest of the Soviet population endured the exact same in 1944-45. Overall, the population of USSR fell by well over 20 million between 1939-45.

Jacob Peters

As there are no objections in two weeks, it would be better probably to return the version with souces back.--Nixer 11:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I see more sources are needed indeed [11].//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting archival sources.--Nixer 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may suggest - let's keep both sources. One gives 1.5 million, another 3.3 million - fine, let's say between 1.5 million (source1) to 3.3 million (source2), and so on. Problem solve, revert war ended.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The archival source does not say anything about numbers. It is just official order how the deportation should conduct. The 1,5 million figure is from the pre edit-war part of the subarticle.--Nixer 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's way you are deleting sources how it was in reality? //Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right Piotrus, and Hungarian Jews were supposed to go to farming camps etc. There are plenty of Nazi propaganda saying "how it was supposed to happen". Problem is it was not how it happened. Same lame denial can be seen here.//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in Nazi Germay they were supposed to go to death. Please stop inserting your propaganda and deleting archival souces. You will not succeed.--Nixer 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are typically not acceptable for an Encyclopedia. I have substantial doubt as to the reliability of documents produced by the USSR at that time, unless they are substantiated by Reliable Sources. Documents produced by the USSR at that time have been demonstrated to be innacurate. Additionally, Primary Source documents can be used only to make purely descriptive claims. I do not support their inclusion. JBKramer 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How an official order can be unreliable?--Nixer 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Orders written down in the USSR were not always the orders carried out. JBKramer 18:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not the excuse to remove the order from the relevant section. Seeng this order one can conclude what did Stalin ordered (which is important in an article about Stalin). We of course can add that some people contest that the deportations were conducted preciesly according the order.--Nixer 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question with no ill-will intended, and not as a personal attack, I swear? Are you a Stalinist? The questions you are asking appear to either be incredibly naieve or that of a believer. JBKramer 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Documents produced by the USSR at that time have been demonstrated to be innacurate.

There is a huge difference between previously classified archival documents and material officially disseminated to the public. You have failed to identify a motive as to why archival material would be falsified.

Jacob Peters

I need not identify a motive in this case. It falls apon the individual who wishes to include primary sources to find reliable secondary sources that support their assertions. JBKramer 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, its not article about deportations, its article about Stalin and we only need to give short overview of deportations not detailed explanation. So that how crimean tatars should had been deported officially is quite irrelevat as this article is not place for describing how one certain nation was deported. About 18 or so nations were deported, there is no reason why we should give so much attention to crimean tatars(or any other ethnic group).--Staberinde 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The document is not only related to Crimean Tatars.--Nixer 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Its mainly related only to crimean tatars. Practically all second paragraph should be deleted as it goes into details of deportations of certain nations, that clearly doesn't belong to the article which should be short overview.--Staberinde 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete other points of wiev saing the article is too long. If you want it to be short, please treat all POVs equally.--Nixer 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I treat all POVs equally, here is the paragraph i deleted: Declassified Soviet documents appear to state that the property of the deported Crimean Tatars and other minorities from Crimea during the World War II should be shipped to the new place and each deported family should be given a loan of about 5000 roubles for 7 years without charge for interest to start up in the new place . J. Otto Pohl found that deportees were actually forced to leave their belongings behind, their property was confiscated and they have never received any compensation for it and that the loans did not exist. Along with the deportation of Crimea Tatars, the Soviet government issued an order to deport Crimean Greeks, Armenians and Bulgarians . Crimean Greeks were rounded up by the NKVD and put on overcrowded unhygienic trains for deportation; they lost their homes, their livestock, and most of their moveable property. Deportees were exiled to special settlements, where conditions weren't significantly different from the Gulag. Its quite clear that both points of view were treated equally in deletion[12].--Staberinde 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what left after the deletion? One point of view was deleted completely while the other remained in the article.--Nixer 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion was based not on POVs but on the fact that about 20 nations were deported and to the article which is meant to be short overview doesn't belong descriptions of separate deportations. In this article needs to be only general information not small details(both POVs were equal in front of deletion). Btw, i would say that paragraph what I deleted could be also called anti-Stalin. But what do you expect, its the deportations, they are generally one of the most condemmned of Stalin's actions.--Staberinde 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

History or Historiography?

This is a very fine line we are treading here. Are we arguing history or historiography? It is impossible (IMO) to seperate the two and come out with a complete understanding of an issue. For example, historian Eric Hobsbawm discusses ad length Soviet Communism, and in his work "The Age of Catastrophe," he mentions that "The years of 1942-45 were the only time when Stalin paused his terror." even though he is a believer in communism himself. The difficulty with history is facts and figures don't necessarily refelct the actuality of a situation. The historiography of the first world war is immense and leaves more than a few with divided opinions. Fritz Fischer can be drawn upon here, as he has been accused by several historians that he used citations as actual fact or took them out of context (Ritter, Jarausch on Fischer's thesis "Germany's War Aims in the First World War"). Thus not all citations are unequivocal in history. Another point is that it doesn't give the necessary scope to the issue. To touch upon the first world war again, the July crisis is listed as a simple, linear series of events that triggered the war. It focuses on what can be seen internally than externally. It disregards what can be seen as facts and possibilities (that Germany egged Austria-Hungary for war, that Bethmann-Hollweg took a calculated risk in war, that isolationism influenced German reactions to the arms race)

This is why I think it is important to attempt to come up with as close to a synthesis as possible regarding history, or cite what can be generally agreed upon by historians. In this case at the very least Stalin would be classified as Totalitarian. Merriam-Webster dictionary cites historiography as "the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods." [13]Therefore, although scholarly historiography can be seen as a point of view, it poses theses based on historical reference and attempts to factualize the less concrete examples of history. It is the problem that history is not always unequivocal, that we need to find organized and scholarly correlations between events, statistics, peoples etc.

Further, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of Encyclopedia is: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" [14] thus isn't the point of an encyclopedia, in the context of history, to try and grasp all historiographical perspectives? Some see the interwar years as an attempt to stablilize europe. Others see it as "Thirty-One Years' War." Should we not give examples of both? Both which could be factually true in different contexts? Could this not extend to historical figures as well?

I'm just throwing ideas out there. 64.231.65.246 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See also

I can't edit the page right now, but someone should add Anti-Stalinist left in the "See also" section. Thanks !--Inbloom2 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

Britannica says Stalin was paranoid. Shell we add this into the article with a link to Britannica?--Nixer 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

likely vandalism or error

The article says Stalin attended Tilfis theological seminary, that is correct; However the article describes the school as a jesuit institute. Tilfis theological seminary is not Roman Catholic, it isa eastern orthodox; therfore the school is not Jesuit.

Historical Dispution

There are many things that historians argue over, but to tell the truth, no one can really be sure of anything in the past. And so long as there are still be around to argue theories and reject others, we will never be able to come to a universal conclusion on some issues. This may be one, because one cannot truly be sure of anything about a historical figure unless they have written a bibliography. Any information can be biased or incorrect, so unless you feel very strongly about something there shouldn't really be much arguement here. Maybe the small things, like with the jesuit school, but any major arguements are probably biased based on the person and not the facts. One cannot deny that even the facts you know by heart can be twisted to your own bias. So anything that greatly challenges this article should not be mentioned, unless of course you have the undying urge to state it to the world. That's all I have to say. Oye vey, now I'm probably going to get hammered by all the historical freaks out there. >_<

How does "Stalin" translate into "Man of Steel"?

Well?

-G— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs) 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Man of Steel" does not appear in the article, though reading it or searching for "steel" may be illuminating. - BanyanTree 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for no help what so ever.

-G

POV "Number of Victims"

Number of victims

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range as high as 60 million.

This is untrue. They did not rely largely upon "anecdotal evidence". This is only what Solzhenitsyn did in order to dessiminate propganda. Other researchers like Frank Lorimer and Anderson & Silver in Slavic Review studied the Soviet census and concluded that there were 4 to 5 million deaths in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. It is a violation of NPOV policy to give emphasis to completely partisan commentators like Solzhenitsyn while neglecting the POV of professional demographers like Lorimer. http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1946/population.pdf

For example, the archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences)

This is factually incorrect. The archives record 800,000 death sentences. Other historians like A.Dugin said that of these, 640,000 were executed between 1921-1953.

under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation

This again is factually incorrect. Every work that has presented the Soviet archives showed that there were 1 million deaths in the GULAG.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf

Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete, since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.

This is a misrepresentation. Stephen Wheatcroft had in fact refuted the claims made by Robert Conquest that these data were incomplete and unreliable. The assertion that ethnic deportations were crelessly recorded is yet another factually incorrect statement. The archives presented by Polyan show a precise figure of deportees. Wheatcroft wrote this about the archives:

"Western hirostians who consider that all these data were falsified 60 years ago, and then held in secret to be produced in order to disinform them, appear to be suffering from an exaggeration of their own importance. When Gulag officials were pleading for more supplies they had no inecentive to underestimate the number of prisoners. When Gulag officials were planning they needed to know the real number of prisoners. Their health departments needed to know how many were dying. When MVD leaders were briefing Stalin in their top security "Obsobye papki" reports they had good reason to avoid the charge of misleading him. When two different generations of MVD officials were briefing Khrushchev on the iniquities of their predecessors, in their top security reports, Kruglov in 1954 and Shvernik in 1963, they similarly had more to lose than to gain by falifying the figures."

Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

This is just the opinion of a single author. It is a violation of NPOV to give this much emphasis to one single person. It is not explained how he substantiates these allegations. His estimates of the executions and GULAG deaths are 2 to 5 times too high.

Some have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine.

The archives show that 2 million died in Ukraine, North Caucusus, and the Lower Volga. There is nothing to substantiate this claim that 6 to 8 million died from famine. Stephen Wheatcroft estimated 4 million dead in the famine:

Concerning the scale of the famine in 1932/33, we now have much better information on its chronology and regional coverage amongst the civilian registered population. The level of excess mortality regitered by the civilian population was in the order of 3 to 4 million. If we correct this for the non-civilian and non-registered population, the scale of excess mortality might well reach 4 to 5 million.

But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

This represents ignorance about Soviet history. When the famine took place, collectivization had already ended. 70% of all households in grain-producing regions were in collective farms by January 1932. Historians such as Stephen Wheatcroft and Mark Tauger have in fact argued that famine was caused by inevitable natural disasters:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime.Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims.

This is a manifestation of original research. Never has an author put forth these estimations. Erlikman never discusses famine in his book.

Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.

Wheatcroft extensively discredited Conquest's claim that 12 million died in the Gulag. To call him a "pioneering researcher" is a violation of NPOV policy.

Jacob Peters

Your eye-watering attempt to justify all varieties of Stalin's butchery by replacing sources you don't like with those you do is not the way to go. Drop the original research and add what's left as a counter-point to the existing sourced text. - Merzbow 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Show a single instance where there was an attempt to justify this "butchery". Errors and other misinformation have been thoroughly elaborated above. It is an insult to academia to cite a commentator like Solzhenitsyn but to neglect the work of a professional demographer like Frank Lorimer. It is a lie to say that before the archives were opened scholars relied on anecdotal evidence. Frank Lorimer and others used painstaking calculations to reach their total of 4.8 million excess deaths between 1926-39.

It is also dishonest to say that scholars find the data represented in the declassified archives to be incomplete. As Wheatcroft showed in his refutation of Conquest's work, this is absolutley not the case and he dilligently explains why there would not have been attempts to maniupulate them. These archival figures have been accepted as reliable by the majority of scholars and are present in most post-1991 works on Russian history including those by Ronald Grigor Suny, Gregory Freeze, and others. The fact is that the archives show total excess deaths from famine and repression at about 4 to 5 million instead of this unsubstantiated gibberish of "15 to 17 million". Furthermore, it is a manifestation of original research to link Vadim Erlikman's work with famine as his book NEVER discusses famine. There also is not any material to substantiate why the archives are incomplete.

Wheatcroft's number has not been accepted "by the majority of scholars". See for example the Black Book of Communism or A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.Ultramarine 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Or this study showing 10 million deaths during just 10 years of his regime: [15]Ultramarine 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed in "Black Book of Communism" that famine resulted from grain collections even though the total amount of grains collected in 1932 was far lower than in 1931 or 1933. In the scholarly community, this work has been receptive to a high degree of criticism. Plus, an ideological driven attack against another ideology is not exactly a NPOV source. Another biased source is Yakovlev who was a distinctly anti-Soviet politician. A politician like he is not a scholar. Yakovlev claims that 35 million were killed yet he does not substantiate these claims.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Chapter%20for%20Roter%20Holocaust%20book%20b.pdf

Much of Rosefielde's claims have similarly been discredited. He lied that the 1937 census showed only 156 to 158 million even though it in fact showed 162 million. His work has also not gone without criticism. There was extensive refutation of his work by Wheatcroft.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Comments_KEP_CNQ.pdf

This page misrepresents the discourse that has gone on about Soviet history. It is a lie to say that scholars relied mostly on anecdotal evidence. Frank Lorimer in 1944 and Anderson & Silver in Slavic Review in the 1980s put forth painstaking calculations that concluded 4 to 5 million excess deaths in the 1930s. Anecdotal evidence was only employed by polemicists like Solzhenitsyn and Conquest. It is also a lie to say that 800,000 were executed under Stalin. The historian A.Dugin in fact concluded that in the period 1921-53, 640,000 or so were executed. It is also a lie to state that 1.7 million died in the GULAG. The data put forth by Zemskov, Popov, Getty, and Wheatcroft show that fatalities in the GULAG amounted to 1 million. It is also a lie to say that 380,000 kulaks perished during resettlement. In fact, the majority of them died from famine in 1933 and years after having been relocated. Only a small minority actually died during the actual process of resettlement in 1930-31. It is also a total lie to say that scholars find the archival data to be incomplete. Stephen Wheatcroft and others have extensively explained why there would not be attempts to minimize the data. The fact Wheatcroft and others disagree specifically means that there is not a view held by a majority of scholars alleging the figures are incomplete. In fact, most recent works on Russia published since 1991 actually employ archival figures without disputing their reliability e.g Ronald Grigor Suny, Gregory Freeze and others. It is also a lie to state that deportations were "carelessly recorded" by the Soviet government. Pavel Polyan derives material from the archives thoroughly showing the policies of deportation: http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/

for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

In no way is it explained just how he substantiates his claim that deaths in the GULAG were 5 times higher than what the archives record. His figures are not shared by a wide portion of the scholarly community.

Some have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine .

This is not the estimate that scholars have reached. Wheatcroft wrote that 3 to 4 million died and with some adjustments, the death toll "might well reach 4 to 5 million". http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf

Ronald Grigor Suny in his history of the USSR wrote that 4 to 5 million died. The 6 to 8 million estimate is a considerable overestimate.

But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

That is incorrect and displays ignorance about discourse on the issue. Historians like Wheatcroft, Davies, and Tauger have in fact debated that famine resulted from natural disasters and drought contrary to claims by Conquest and others that it was "man-made".

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime.Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims.

This is a manifestation of original research. Nowhere has a scholar put forth these estimates. Certainly Erlikman specifically does not discuss famine in his book. It is also not agreed that 4 million are attributed to repression. Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov in 1993 wrote that 2.3 million are attributable to repression. Wheatcroft wrote that 4 to 5 million died from famine.[16] The minimum figure is more in the neighborhood of 6 million.

I have given several sources by scholars giving other numbers than Wheatcroft. It it not the purpose of Wikipedia to decide who is right, only to report all views. Convince all scholars that your view is right, then you can state that it is the only corret one in Wikipedka.Ultramarine 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You state that Wikipedia is supposed to represent all views even though it has been elaborated numerous times that pre-archival section represents exclusively polemicists like Solzhenitsyn. There is the false claim that pre-archive writers relied only on anecdotal evidence. A polemicist like Solzhenitsyn is given space but professional demographers Lorimer, Anderson, and Silver are not. It is a blatant manifestation of original research and hence a breach in Wikipedia's policies with the passage "adding 6 million famine deaths to Erlikman's figures gives...". It is not elaborated why Erlikman is given special emphasis whereas others are omitted. Nor is it elaborated why his estimate of 5 million dead in labour camps is five times higher than the archival documents. It is false to claim that scholars generally agree that the archival materials are incomplete. There is an exaggerated insinuation that there is some sort of conesensus that the archival materials are flawed. This clearly is not the case as shown in countless works since 1991 pertaining to Russia. While the POV of those finding the archival materials incomplete is shown, the POV of those that feel them to be reliable e.g Wheatcroft are not.

There is the false, unsourced assertion that 1.7 million died in the GULAG. Every archival source published about it shows 1 million deaths. Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov in 1993 put deaths attributable to repression at around 2.5 million. You cite the dubious source of A.Yakovlev whose claim that 20 to 25 million were killed by Stalin is entirely unsourced. "The Black Book of Communism" similarly fails to substantiate its claims of 20 million killed. Its claim of 5 million dead in Ukraine from famine fails to conform to findings by archival researchers like Kulchitsky, Wheatcroft, and others.

All the sources I gave above have looked at the archival data and other sources. Why should the murderers document all of their crimes? Again, convince that academic community that you are right, then you can state that your view is the only correct one.Ultramarine 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the famine, your own favorite scholar Wheatcroft states 6 million deaths.[17] Ultramarine 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to give a single plausable argument. You behave more like a bot than as a serious contributor to discussion. Your attempts to maximize the scale of deaths in the GULAG and in famine comes across as extremely partisan. That you cite the debunked "Black Book of Communism" brings even more suspicion to your motives. Unless there can be proof of these "murders", anything else is guesswork and speculation. The fact is that the scholarly community has accepted the archival figures to be reliable contrary to the unsubstantiated editorializing in this article. You have additionally failed to respond each and every point above.

You are also lying about what Wheatcroft said about famine. He distinctly said the following:

The level of excess mortrality registered by the civilian population was in the order of 3 to 4 million. If we correct this for the non-civilian and non-registered population, the scale of mortality might well reach 4 to 5 million.[18]

Wheatcroft changed his mind in his later work, see the study above. Again, you should not try to convince me, but all academic scholars. When you have than that, come back. Until then all views should be presented as per NPOV.Ultramarine 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. As the study above shows, he had actually changed his mind from 3-4 million o 4-5 million. In the study you speak of, he put a figure of 4.6 million which conforms to the earlier 4 to 5 million estimate. The estimate of the book review you put forth is contradicted by another review showing "they estimate 4 to 6 million deaths" You said that all views should be represented even though you are intent on suppressing material that distinctly shows lower estimates. [19]

The book from 2004 is his latest view, not the paper from 1990. In the book he states that the best estimate of the number of famine deaths in 1932-1933 is 5.5 to 6.5 millions (p. 401).[20]Ultramarine 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. A second hand source does not qualify as a proper citation. Whereas I am using a direct source that is verifiable you are using a questionable summary from another author. On page 412, Wheatcroft wrote the following: "The number of excess deaths in 1932-33 (plus the excess deaths in Kazakhstan, which began a year earlier, and the deaths in the OGPU system) therefore amounted to some 4.6 million (2.9 + 0.3 + 1.4 million)

Eh, your are citing a document on a personal webpage. Either the document is fabricated or is violating copyright regarding the 1990 article. In either case, a dubious source. If you look at p. 401 of the 2004 book you will find that the best estimate is 6 million deaths.Ultramarine 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is yet another study from 2005 by Michael Ellman: "It should be noted that it would be a mistake simply to add this figure to the Davies & Wheatcroft estimate of 5.7 million famine deaths to arrive at a figure of 5.7 + 3=8.7 million ‘victims of famine and repression’. This would involve double counting the excess deaths in the OGPU system (approximately 300,000 according to Davies & Wheatcroft). Taking account of this, and also of the repression of non-peasants in this period, an estimate of ‘about eight and a half million’ victims of famine and repression in 1930 – 33 seems the best currently available."[21]Ultramarine 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, that "personal webpage" you are trying to dismiss is cited in the current version of the article. Let's not be hypocritical. "Soviet Studies" is not a dubious source but is in fact a major scholarly journal on the study of the USSR. If you look at page p.412 of Wheatcroft's book, he says that excess deaths amounted to 4.6 million. If anything, you are citing an amateur website that is a copyright violation of Europe-Asia Studies on the website of some deranged right-wing Zionist polemicist Paul Bogdanor who dessiminates the sort of propaganda suitable for political satire. This website distinctly says[22] : Welcome to the personal website of Paul Bogdanor

I can equally well cite "The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931 – 1934" EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, 823 – 841" Let's see. You insist that the only correct view which is accepted by all in academia is the one presented in an article from 1990. I have presented several recent scholarly articles and books (including one much more recent by the same author):

• The Black Book of Communism (1999) [23]
• Documented homicides and excess deaths: new insights into the scale of killing in the USSR during the 1930s. Rosefielde S. Communist Post-Communist Stud. (1997) Sep;30(3):321-31.[24]
• The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia volume 5. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. (2004) R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft.[25]
• A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia (2004) [26]
• "The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931 – 1934" EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, 823 – 841Michael Ellman[27]

Soviet archives were declassified in the late 1980s. Viktor Zemskov first presented figures on the Gulag in 1989 and were later published in articles by Getty, Wheatcroft, and others. Your attempt to show material published in 1990 as obsolete is unsuccessful.

"The Black Book of Communism" puts forth false claims about the famine as Mark Tauger has proved. It has no credibility.

You show work by Rosefielde which has extensively been challenged by Wheatcroft since the 1980s. Rosefielde lost credibility when the 1937 census showed 162 million population compared to his insistence that there were 156 or 157 million.

You show a book review of the work by Wheatcroft and Davies that merely summarizes what they've written. It is not a reliable source because of its failure to elaborate on their estimates.

Alexander Yakovlev was not a scholar. He was just a politician turned anti-Soviet quisling for Yeltsyn and the IMF. He claims 20-25 million were killed by Stalin but he fails to substantiate these claims in the form of documents.

All of these scholarly works have used the archives. Yakovlev is the person who has had the best access to all archives, many of which are still closed to other scholars. This means his statements cannot be verified until Putin opens them, but it is still a significant view published by Yale University Press. Rosefeld's workd is from 1997. You can read the for yourself the current view of Wheatcroft in the book, no need to read the book review. The same number by Wheatcroft is quoted by Ellman. Regarding the books, read the many positive reviews in the links above. But again, your opinions here on Wikpedia is not interesting. Publish in academic works like the above persons have, convince all scholars, and came back. Until then, all views should be presented, not only those from selected articles from the early 90s that support one view.Ultramarine 07:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Again, Yakovlev was not a scholar. He was just a staunchly anti-Soviet politician who baselessly claims in his book that Stalin killed 20 to 25 million people. He fails to verify these claims. Neither did he have the closest access to the archives as Zemskov and Popov circa 1989 and 1990 published material from archival sources that had just been declassified. Yakovlev fails to use these sources. Your sources "Black Book of Communism,Yakovlev,Pipes,and Rosefielde are just so laughably partisan that your input can't be taken seriously. Historians are supposed to examine and analyze why things occur. Your sources tell often fabricated and baseless tales of "5 million killed in Ukraine famine".

2.The relevant archives are not closed as you falsely insinuate. An extensive amount of archival concerning the demographics of the early 1930s, labour camps, deportees, and death sentences are available and have been published by numerous scholars since 1989 e.g Zemskov,Dugin,Polyan,Bugai,Kulchitsky, and others.

3. You make the lame attempt to try and dodge the discussion with this burreaucratic game of, "Go publish material and then convince us."

Again, your opinions here on Wikpedia is not interesting. Yes, that is Wikipedia policy. Publish in academic works like the above persons have, convince all scholars, and came back. Until then, all views should be presented, not only those from selected articles from the early 90s that support one view.Ultramarine 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Errors and POV Bias

known by his adopted name, Joseph Stalin (alternatively transliterated Josef Stalin), was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union from about 1928 until his death in 1953.

This is not only false but is also a manifestation of POV. In 1929, Alexei Rykov who was one of Stalin's rivals was still the prime minister. Bukharin and others remained in the Communist leadership until 1937-38. It is more appropriate to say he became de facto leader starting in 1939. However, as chairman of council of people's commissars in 1941, he was in a position of genuine leadership. Stalin had always been a high ranking leader of the Communist party which was the most popular group in Russia in late 1917. He became part of the Central Committee in 1907 and in 1919 became one of 6 or 7 original members of the Politbureau which became the highest decision-making body of the party. Stalin had always been one of the primary leaders of the party. Whereas 95% of Bolsheviks in 1918 had joined only in 1917, Stalin was around since 1898.

Stalin held the title of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922-1953) — a position originally without significant influence but which, through Stalin's ascendancy, became that of de facto party leader.

Even more significant is that Stalin was a member of the Politbureau since 1919 which was the highest decision-making body of the party. Stalin was one of several leading figures in the SU including Molotov, Kaganovich, Zhdanov, Beria, Vyshinsky, and others in the Politbureau.

Confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities under his orders contributed to a famine between 1932 and 1934, especially in the key agricultural regions of the Soviet Union, Ukraine (see Holodomor), Kazakhstan and North Caucasus that resulted in millions of deaths. Many peasants resisted collectivization and grain confiscations, but were repressed, most notably well-off peasants deemed "kulaks.

This is absolutely false. Scholars have found that the famine resulted not because of famine but because of the disastrous harvests of 1931 and 1932. It was found that natural disasters, rust, smut, and other factors caused for this significant decline in production. It is a fact that grain collections in 1932 were only 18 million tons compared to 22 million tons in 1931 and 1933. This can be found in works by Stephen Wheatcroft, Robert Davies, and Mark Tauger.

He turned the Soviet political police, the Cheka (later, the GPU and OGPU), into an arm of state-sanctioned murder

Ideologically-motivated editorializing like this above is not permissable in an encyclopedia. It would be equivalent to saying Truman, Kennedy, and Eisenhower turned the CIA into an arm of state-sanctioned murder.

No segment of society was left untouched during the purges.

This is the most ridiculous statement yet and is completely unsourced. Scholars have found that the purges primarily affected members of the party, burreaucracy, and upper echelons of the economy like factory managers. For example, some 80% of the Supreme Soviet was executed and the Hungarian, Polish, Finnish exiled communist parties were nearly wiped out. Targetting the minister of such and such branch does not necessarily mean that society as a whole was affected.

The controversial Black Book of Communism and other sources document that all grains were taken from areas that did not meet targets, including the next year's seed grain. It also claims that peasants were forced to remain in the starving areas, sales of train tickets were stopped, and the State Political Directorate set up barriers to prevent people from leaving the starving areas.

What the "Black of Communism" omits is that 60 million people were fed by the state's rationing system. More than 20 or so Politbreau and Sovnarkom decrees allocated food aid to famine stricken areas. This can be found in works by S.Wheatcroft, R.Davies, and Mark Tauger. Refer to the "Holodomor" page for an extensive description of what caused the famine. As is shown, grain collections had little to nothing to do with the famine.

Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations.

Not only were they cited as the official reasons, but they were the reasons in reality. Alexander Statiev found that 10% of Crimean Tatars served in German batallions. There was an anti-Soviet insurgency as well as disproportionately massive desertions amongst the Chechens.

Statiev wrote: "Collaboration with the invaders in Crimea spread wider than in any of the republics in the North Caucasus; in total, 20,000 persons enlisted in Tatar batallions and self-defense units."

Conscription to the Red Army and the wartime labor draft provoked an uprising in the mountain districts of Chechnya in October-November 1941. Police, with the use of air force among other means, suppressed about 800 rebels, but a small-scale insurgency continued.

When the authorities attempted to conscript Chechens into the army in the spring of 1942, the police reported that "all the male population fled to the mountains". Out of 14,000 Chechens liable for conscription, only 4395 were enlisted, and of those 2365 deserted. The government, despite all its efforts, could conscript only 17500 Checnes during the war, but many of them deserted. At one point, the number of deserters and draft-evaders among the recruits reached 13,000 men. From Nov. 1941 to June 1943, the 141st NKVD Security Regiment deployed in Chechnya killed 973 and captured 1167 bandits and arrested 1413 insurgents.

In all, 1966 guerillas and bandits were killed and 10269 were arrested

Therefore, it is not a fabrication that there was a degree of collaboration and treason amongst the deported groups. The view presented in the article is not shared by scholars.

Returning Soviet soldiers who had surrendered were viewed with suspicion and some were killed

This absurd allegation is refuted by historian Igor Pyhalov. Many of you seem to be oblivious to the name Andrey Vlasov.

http://www.thewalls.ru/truth/plen.htm

Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China, though receptive to minimal Soviet support

More like no Soviet support. Stalin had disavowed the Chinese Communists when he signed a friendship treaty with Chiang. The CCP thereafter became suspicious of Soviet intentions.

Your views are certainly minority views not held by pre-eminent historians. You may represent them in the article, emphasizing that they are minority views. You may not state them as facts. For example, here are quotes from lauded historian Alan Bullock's book "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" (p. 259-260):

"Since the middle peasants, according to the official view, had already turned to the collectives, the time had come to deal finally with the kulaks, 'the accursed enemy of the collective farm movement.' On December 27 Stalin, in an address to Marxist students on the agrarian problem, in effect condemned to deportation and death several million men, women, and children with the dread formula:

'We have gone over from a policy of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulak to a policy of liquidating the kulak as a class. To take the offensive against the kulaks means to deal the kulak class such a blow that it will no longer rise to its feet. That's what we Bolsheviks call an offensive.'"

On the deportations of the people who you tar as German collaborators (p. 903):

"After the brief German occupation of the Caucasus was over... the entire population of five of the small highland peoples of the North Caucasus, as well as the Crimean Tatars - more than a million souls - (were deported) without notice or any opportunity to take their possessions. There were certainly collaborators among these peoples, but most of those had fled with the Germans. The majority of those left were old folk, women, and children; their men were away fighting at the front, where the Chechens and Ingushes alone produced thirty-six Heroes of the Soviet Union. Over 100,000 NKVD troops were employed to uproot these peoples."

On Stalin's murderous brutality toward returning soldiers, which you claim didn't happen (p. 905-906):

"The huge number of Russian troops taken prisoner in the first eighteen months of the war convinced Stalin that many of them must have been traitors who had deserted at the first opportunity. Any soldier who had been a prisoner was henceforth suspect... All such, whether generals, officers, or ordinary soldiers, were sent to special concentration camps where the NKVD investigated them... Twenty percent were sentenced to death or twenty-five years in camps; only 15 to 20 percent were allowed to return to their homes. The remainder were condemned to shorter sentences (five to ten years), to exile in Siberia, and forced labor - or were killed or died on the way home."

I could give you dozens of similar quotes from this book and from many other books that back up the scholarly consensus views on Stalin - from eminent professors and historians, not amateurs writing on Marxist web sites.

- Merzbow 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On the deportations of the people who you tar as German collaborators

Please spare us of this bullshit. It is an established fact that 10% of the entire Crimean Tatar population collaborated with the Germans. By subtracting children, elderly, and women ineligible for combat, perhaps half of all Crimean men must have collaborated with the Germans. This can distinctly be found by a scholarly article published by Alexander Statiev: http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/kritika/v006/6.2statiev.html

without notice or any opportunity to take their possessions.

Absolutely false. a) The special settlers will be allowed to take with them personal items, clothing, household objects, dishes and utensils, and up to 500 kilograms of food per family.

http://www.iccrimea.org/surgun/sovietdecree5859ss.html

On Stalin's murderous brutality toward returning soldiers, which you claim didn't happen

Which did not happen on the scale that you suggest. The historian I.Pyhalov mostly refutes all the nonesensical propaganda that you've disseminated.

Let's sum up. From repatriated soldiers released during war, less than 10% had undergone reprisals. After the war - this was less than 15 %. And the majority "subjected to repression" quite deserved them. There were also victims innocently, but this was an exception to the rules.

Moreover, those subjected to repression were eventually released. http://www.thewalls.ru/truth/plen.htm

Your views are certainly minority views not held by pre-eminent historians. You may represent them in the article, emphasizing that they are minority views. You may not state them as facts.

Sorry, but you are not qualified to decide what view is held by a certain percentage of people. There is no way to measure that. The comparison of Hitler to an anti-racist and anti-capitalist Stalin in the title of your book is especially incendiary and cannot be taken into serious consideration. Plus, the works you have cited do not focus on any particular subject rendering them useless compared to scholarly articles that focus on a particular subject.

We have gone over from a policy of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulak to a policy of liquidating the kulak as a class. To take the offensive against the kulaks means to deal the kulak class such a blow that it will no longer rise to its feet.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding represented about this. The elimination of the kulaks as a class did not involve violence. 1.8 million of them were merely deported and put in other sectors of the economy such as timber. It was actually found that hundreds of thousands of them migrated i.e ran away when they reached their settlements. There is a total lack of evidence that there was an intent for these people to die. The whole purpose for their transfer was for them to work in other sectors of the economy. As as is shown by the archives, more people ran away than died. http://www.thewalls.ru/truth/kulak.htm

"Sorry, but you are not qualified to decide what view is held by a certain percentage of people. There is no way to measure that." And there you are wrong. We are not deciding what view is held by a 'certain percentage of people'. We are deciding what view is most widely help by pre-eminent scholars in the field, a much easier task. Alan Bullock is one of most widely-lauded, holding positions at Oxford and elsewhere for many years.

Bluntly, your sources are garbage. What degrees do they have? What prestigious universities do they hold professorships at? Please read up on Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source. I see what appears to be a Marxist apologetic web site in Russian (thewalls.ru), and one in English (marxists.org). The icccrimea.org letter is a primary source, and we are not allowed to analyze primary sources in Wikipedia articles - this is against the policy on original research. The only marginally reliable source you quote is the Statiev article, but the excerpt readable on the link does not seem to contradict anything in my Bullock quote. If the full article presents a differing conclusion, you may quote Statiev's opinion right next to Bullock's in the article. Go ahead. - Merzbow 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your talk page comments. - Merzbow 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Bullock is one of most widely-lauded, holding positions at Oxford and elsewhere for many years.

That is your opinion. You insistence on citing him is a manifestation of bias and a breach of NPOV policies. You insist on citing him only because he makes unsubstantiated, slanderous attacks against Stalin. What you call "Marxist apologetic" is the truth to some historians and what you regard as the "truth" is slanderous, fabricated garbage to others.

Bluntly, your sources are garbage.

It'd be nice if you would actually familiarize yourself with these sources. It is not up to you decide what site is "Marxist apologetic" as that constitutes a violation of NPOV policy. The fact is that Marxists.org derives material from Marxist writers and scholars who wrote about the Soviet Union like Frank Lorimer who published a demographic study for the League of Nations in circa 1946. It is frankly laughable for you to call Lorimer a "Marxist apologetic" as he was one of the most respected scholars in concern to Soviet demographics.[28] Your misplaced prejudice exposes your ridiculous POV antics.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1946/population.pdf

In regard to Igor Pykhalov, he is a historian from St.Petersburg who published works in Russia's scholarly Specnaz Rossi journal. http://www.specnaz.ru/archive/10_2001/7.htm

The icccrimea.org letter is a primary source, and we are not allowed to analyze primary sources in Wikipedia articles - this is against the policy on original research.

Your attempt at creating arbitrary loopholes is truly ridiculous. The document speaks for itself and the Crimean website leaves for the reader to decipher what it says. It is not a manifestation of original research to quote text from a website that conducted separate research. In fact, the propagandistic Library of Congress web site is the original source of the document: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html

The only marginally reliable source you quote is the Statiev article, but the excerpt readable on the link does not seem to contradict anything in my Bullock quote. If the full article presents a differing conclusion, you may quote Statiev's opinion right next to Bullock's in the article

You persist with your ignorance as to what is being discussed. Statiev's work is paraphrased in previous versions of the article that you are intent on obstructing. Frankly your anti-Soviet propaganda is just so disgustingly biased and one-sided that the version you endorse makes a mockery out of history which is supposed to be objective and full of critical thinking.

There are two more sources that can be salvaged from that original change (among the reams of throwaway material like I outlined above, and pure POV garbage like the sentence calling Fuchs a 'hero'). Regarding the material sourced from the Harrison book - you directly reproduce entire paragraphs from it without indicating that it's a quote (p. 188); this is borderline plagiarism. I added a short summary of it back in. Plus we shouldn't overwhelm this article with tables, this is about Stalin, there are entire sub-articles devoted to topics like Soviet industrialization. I also added a summary of the Davies&Wheatcroft view on collectivization and famine, along with a Bullock quote on the same.

Regarding icccrimea.org, again please read policy. Primary sources do not 'speak for themselves' on Wikipedia. You must quote a secondary source. I won't even respond to your laughable attack on Bullock. You can continue to believe what you want, but quotes from books written by eminent professors like Bullock are reliable, but references from Marxist websites, and websites in general (in history articles), are not. If you can't find a view stated in a book by a professor or in an article in a scholarly journal (in English or with a translation), that's a sign that particular view is not notable. - Merzbow 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And some of your recent statements above are bordering on personal attacks. - Merzbow 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

but references from Marxist websites

You still fail to understand. The material from the Marxist website is a PDF format of a demographic study by Frank Lorimer for the League of Nations. All scholars agree that it is a reliable source. [29]

A study from 1946 is not very interesting considering all the research and new data available after that time.

Ultramarine 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The methods of this study have been employed by most scholars on Soviet demography. This study is certainly superior to anecdotes written by Solzhenitsyn who was not trained in history and therefre unqualified to speak on the subject. Yet, his claim of "60 million dead" takes precedence over serious scholarly studies.

First, random PDFs hosted on amateur websites do not count as reliable sources, there is no guarantee they haven't been altered. You need to cite the original book or scholarly journal. Plus you contradict yourself... you praise all the new research supposedly being done with new data, but then praise this piece of research dating back to 1946. Anyways, if you can properly cite this publication, and if the author and publisher counts as a reliable source, then sure, it can be quoted in the article as one author's opinion, and it should be made clear it's from 1946 (an important fact in an area of history changing as quickly as this).

And the fact that the article still needs improvement in regards to proper sourcing does not give you carte blanche to insert more unreliable sources. By making one giant edit with a couple good sources, many bad sources, and plain nonsense (like the Fuchs sentence), you put the burden on everyone else to spent hours of our own time laboriously sifting the good from the bad. Even if you want to disagree with everything I've said so far, please just consider the suggestion to make controversial edits in small pieces over a number of days, watching for reactions on the talk page, instead of trying to force them in one giant lump. - Merzbow 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "random PDF" but is a copy of a scholarly demographic study for the Leage of Nations. You dismiss Marxists.org even though this web site is cited in hundreds of articles in this encyclopedia. Marxists.org is by far the most reliable source for studies on Marxist philosopers and authors. Marxists.org does not publish its own editorials or stories but instead displays free of charge vital writings by Marx, Engels, Lenin and by authors who wrote about Soviet Russia e.g Frank Lorimer.

Marxists.org is a web site, not a well-known book publisher or a scholarly journal. I have no way of verifying anything they reproduce is accurate. That's why citations need to be of a book or journal publication. If this 1946 study is as important as you say, you should be able to cite a scholarly journal or book from SOME year that published it. - Merzbow 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Marxists.org is cited in hundreds of articles in this encyclopedia. It has proved to be a reliable source.

Dictator

If you say Stalin is a dictator, then why not to say George W. Bush is war criminal?--Nixer 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Because this isn't an article about George W. Bush. --C33 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus of historians fifty years after his death consider him one, Wikipedia will too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus of bougeous historians, yes? You do exclude any Sovit souces. What would you get if you used only anti-American sources in the George Bush article?--Nixer 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But we do not just ignore them! The historical community does not. But still the consensus remains the same. And bourgeois (sic)? I guess we should take into account Stalin's history books when writing about the 5th century too? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of not using the term dictator in the introduction to the article. The reason is that it's hard to present two sides to an argument in the limited space available in the introduction. Maybe we could not mention the term "dictator" there, but include a discussion of it later? Of course, this would require that we get some solid historical sources that disagree with the term "dictator" to cite. Heimstern Läufer 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable solution. I think some of the editors have lost track of the fact Wikipedia doesn't need to determine which view is correct. It merely needs to state that multiple views exist, or to couch it in Nixer's terms: both the bourgeois and proletariat view should be mentioned (and cited). Don't mention the term in the intro, then later in the article cite a reasonable source that describes him as a dictator (or that he wielded dictatorial powers). Then its a simple matter of maintaining NPOV by saying that other historians argued that he was not a dictator--and cite a reputable source that claims he was not a dictator. --C33 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on placing it in the intro either. It must be covered somewhere but not necessarily there. However, the arguments made by Nixer have to be rejected utterly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no law establishing absolutist rule for Stalin. He was just one of dozens of leaders of the Communist Party in the Politbureau. Such flagrant POV slander are not permitted in an encyclopedia:

First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow-citizens, and not even over the members of the Party to which he belongs. He has not even the extensive power which the Congress of the United States has temporarily conferred upon President Roosevelt, or that which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. So far as grade or dignity is concerned, Stalin is in no sense the highest official in the USSR, or even in the Communist Party. He is not, and has never been, President of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Union Congress of Soviets-a place long held by Sverdlov and now by Kalinin, who is commonly treated as the President of the USSR.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm

You are all missing the point! Whether or not he was a dictator is not what really matters here! What matters is the fact that because he was never formally given the "title" of dictator giving him such a title is giving a trait he was never actually given, which is, whether you like it or not, providing POV information. Stalin may have been a dictator, and it may be true that 99.9% of the world's population including the majority of former Soviet Citizens think and believe he might be a dictator...but providing him with that title is being POV...it is not an absolute truth! (Like Felipe Calderon being the president of Mexico or Angela Merkel being Chancellor of Germany) it is a trait. It is like saying that George W. Bush is am imperialist or a conqueror a war criminal, a murderer or an aggressor...the facts are that he is an conqueror and an imperialist, but because he has not been awarded such a title formally, it would be POV to write "George W. Bush, president of the US and conqueror or invader of Iraq", even though it might be true because I am giving him a trait based on judgment, not on accuracy or solid facts...what is a dictator? Where do we define dictator? Where does a dictator begin or end? What are the limits? There is nothing in the world, no paper or anything that specifies this, so there is not way we can award him such a title in an accurate encyclopedia, even though in the end he might very well be a dictator...understand? Understand?! We are not debating his evilness or how democratic he was! We are debating the fact that the man has been called something he was never formally turned into and solely based on judgment. It is like saying (in another context) that a pornographic actress is a pervert of that David Lynch might be deranged because of his films or that Nicholas Cage is a bad actor or that James Joyce is a great writer...they are not traits that have been formally given (even though they might be true) to these people and should therefore not be placed on their page, in the initial part. Maybe in the later part of the article there could be a section talking about how good some people consider this writer (or how Stalin is considered by many to be a dictator)...Please, this is the last time I am going to try to convince you of this...If you don't understand...you are mentally retarded and I will be forced to create an editing war and change Dictator every chance I get in this encyclopedia...I am only sticking to wikipedian policies and doing what I should be doing...you are the ones that are wrong! Kiske 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion on the the matter, which is, in fact, irrelevant. What does matter is that reliable sources have different interpretations whether or not he was a dictator, and all of them should be presented to maintain NPOV. --C33 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom is that nobody on the anti-dictator side here has presented ANY quotes from reliable historians that argue against calling Stalin a dictator. All the prominent historians I've read call him such (and I'd be willing to present the quotes), so that's the consensus view. If you want to dethrone the consensus view, policy demands that you actually back up your changes with evidence. - Merzbow 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I could care less what the right wing bias might say about stalin, I can present millions of quotes from before the fall of the eastern block that do not refer to stalin as a dictator, I can find quotes on anything!, there are quotes on everything, but that doesn't mean that they are right! And to C33, my opinion is not irrelevant, if you fascist bias simply blinds your thoughts on a clear and simple issue, that is your problem... It doesn't matter if every person in the world calls Stalin a dictator, because it implies a certain qualification to his reign we cannot, if we choose to follow the NPOV say he was a dictator. The articles on Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro do not say they are dictators, so we shouldn't either. This is my last word on the matter, this has previously been discussed and we reached an agreement... Stalin being labeled as a dictator in this article will not stand as long as I live!... If you fail to understand the points, that is your problem, but what I explained above and you refused to accept is very clear, very simple... you are all simply too biased to understand it! Kiske 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If this revert war goes on much longer, I'm going to request full protection for this page until disputes are over. Kiske: statements like "Stalin being labeled as a dictator in this article will not stand as long as I live!" are going to get you nowhere. If you're unwilling to compromise, especially given that there are many reliable sources that have a different opinion than yours, then there's nothing we can do for you. You also need to stop assuming bad faith for those who oppose you. Heimstern Läufer 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with C33's proposal. I even think that the opposite view is not necessary (athough would be useful). We can say that such and such historians think Stalin was dictator, but not in the intro. This will be neutral I think. We of course can also note that he was never called dictator in the USSR before the perestroika, even by Khrushchev. My Lessier Encyclopedia of 1960 says much about how wrong was Stalin, how much damage made cult of personality, but never calls him dictator. It says that his merits were recognized by Soviet government, he was awarded decorations, orders etc which made him to think much of himself.--Nixer 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my last word on the matter, this has previously been discussed and we reached an agreement...Kiske your lieing is pathetic, there has been no clear agreement about calling Stalin dictator or not in this discussion page, there have been only stalemates but no agreement.--Staberinde 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Staberinde.... never insult me again first of all. I do apologize, you are right, there was no clear agreement... but that doesn't mean that the article should remain as labeling the man as a dictator. I am not going to compromise if the counter argument, the argument that I stand for is also exposed!... calling stalin a dictator is not objective, if you want me to compromise, we should then write something like this: "Stalin was the de facto leader and in right wing, capitalist view, dictator of the USSR. It should also be noted that he is not globally considered to be a dictator and the notion of him being a dictator in the Soviet Union only emerged when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power; but there are still many people that do not consider him a dictator." If something like this is not done, then the article will remain biased, and I will not have that... why don't you fight for the Saddam Hussein article to say he was also a dictator? There is nothing wrong with not saying that he was a dictator, this is not after all, a formal trait, but something based on western perspectives and nothing more... Kiske 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We should indeed try to reflect multiple points of view: The western view of him as a dictator is one of them. If there are other substantial points of view that say he was not (and I believe there are), we must include them as well. All of this is too much for the introduction of the article, which is why I suggest moving the "dictator" issue out of the intro. Meanwhile, as the revert warring just keeps going, I have requested full protection for this article. Let's work on a compromise, please. Heimstern Läufer 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Heimstern, I like your way of thinking, and I do apologize, but I am frustrated by the fact that no one understands my points, they are simply to biased to even consider Stalin not being a dictator, or at least not mentioning it. And I am willing to work on a compromise for this article, something that will satisfy us all...and there are many different views on stalin, the two major ones are yours and mine... 1.- He was a dictator. 2.- He wasn't... but again, whether he was a dictator or not doesn't really matter, what matters is that calling him a dictator is biased because it is not something that is universally aknowledged or a trait that is objective... it is something based on judgement, just as if I were to say on Miguel de Cervantes Article that the Quixote is an excellent book... it is an excellent book, but saying that is giving a trait it doesn't really have formally. Understand? Kiske 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to have any valid points until you present data to support your view. It's as simple as that. Once again, where are your quotes from professors who argue that Stalin is not a dictator? In English, please, so we can verify them. - Merzbow 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And to show my good faith, if you can produce at least one such quote, then I'll support keeping that term out of the intro. - Merzbow 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, what are you saying? you think you are doing me a favor? It is not up to you what happens to the article... who made you judge? Good faith?! What are you talking about? Since when does good faith have anything to do with this article... nothing! I do have many sources that don't exactley negate him being a dictator but simply portray him as leader of the soviet union. And why do you need them by a professor? Why would that be more reliable than one by a historian who is not a professor? I don't have any in English, I only have them in German, Russian and Spanish, which come from Cuba, the GDR and the USSR, and they are all from before 1980. Would a translation be sufficient? Kiske 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can only quote people living under pre-1980 Communist dictatorships as sources for the claim that their leader was not a dictator? You can't be serious. - Merzbow 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I put an RFC for this article up at WP:RFC/HIST. We need a wider consensus on this issue one way or another or the revert wars will continue forever. - Merzbow 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The USSR was not pro-Stalinist after the death of Stalin, so the Soviet point of view of this period may be considered more or less neutral. And of course there is not any scientific work that explicitely state that Stalin was not dictator (just as there is no work that states Jeorge W. Bush is not a monkey). This question was simply out of discussion. As I already pointed out, the idea of personal ddictatorshp to exist ever in any country is incompatible with Marxism. And he was never called dictator before the perestroika.--Nixer 09:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not dictatorship is theoretically incompatible with Marxism isn't relevant. Almost all modern-day communists I've met tell me that Stalin wasn't a true Marxist anyways. Whether or not Marxism/communism is even possible to implement as envisioned by its proponents I'll leave for another forum. - Merzbow 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. I already said that Mrxists do not view anybody as dictator, even Hitler. Personal dictatorship is impossible in Marxism and so no person in the world is dictator. It may be dictatorship of a class, but not of a person.--Nixer 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

responding to RFC

Stalin is widely portrayed in popular accounts in the west as a dictator(Britannica,MSN Encarta,Columbia Encyclopedia,PBS,BBC,CNN). if he is similarly dealt with by professional historians, then it shld be easy to substantiate with a similar list.

assuming that this is done, it is upto those who think that he shld not be referred to as a dictator to compile similar lists to demonstrate that that view is held by significant minority (or more). if this can't be done, then WP can retain the "dictator" tag. if it can be done, then the dictator tag is qualified as controversial.

WP is not the place for original research, and much of the discussion (eg. disc. regarding what are necessary and sufficient conditions for dictatorship, comparisons to other dictators), i think, is attempting to synthesize published arguments to advance the position that he is or is not a D., such original determinations, of course, cannot be used in writing WP articles. Doldrums 11:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kiske, this is ridiculous. Its not some kind of western right-wing capitalist view that Stalin is dictator. Cold war is over! World situation has radically changed! Current world view is that what is relevant to article. You can't use cold war time sources to describe how Stalin is viewed in Eastern-Europe at the moment same way as you cant use Nazi-Germany sources to describe how Hitler is viewed in modern Germany.

why don't you fight for the Saddam Hussein article to say he was also a dictator?, blah blah, why dont you fight at Mussolini's page to remove dictator from introduction?--Staberinde 12:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Staberinde. What would Kiske think of the wording: "Many historians describe him as a dictator, but die-hard Stalinists and apologists for his regime reject this label"? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One question. How the result of the Cold War is relevant to wether Stalin dictator or not? Cold War ended much after his death. Or it is "Wow, we winned so we right!"?--Nixer 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One difference is that now those who dare to criticze Stalin are not murdered.Ultramarine 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How this is relevant to the end of the Cold War which happened 40 years after the death of Stalin?--Nixer 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any current reliable sources stating that Stalin was not a dictator? Not counting personal webpages and microscopic Stalinist parties, but souces like respected scholars? Ultramarine 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the BBC is laughable considering how ridiculous of a propaganda outlet it is for western imperialism. It'd be no different than citing Radio Moscow in a biography about Churchill or Truman. Various entries in Russia's prominent Hronos encyclopedia lack the term "dictator":

From the end of the 1930s he became the Russian statesman and military leader of the Russian people during Great Domestic war.

Stalin (1878-1953), politician, Hero of Socialist Work (1939), Hero of Soviet Union (1945), Marshal of Soviet Union (1943), Generalissimo of Soviet Union (1945).

http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/stalin.html

and here's a start on the list of works by professional historians that also refer to Stalin as a dictator, all previewable on Google book search -

• Joseph Stalin, By Robert D. Warth (professor emeritus U. Kentucky)
• Stalin: an unknown portrait, By Miklós Kun (Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest)
• Stalin: A New History edited By Sarah Davies, James R. Harris, see chapter Stalin as dictator, by Oleg V. Khlevniuk (State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow)
• Life and Death Under Stalin: Kalinin Province, 1945–1953 By Kees Boterbloem (Nipissing University, Ontario, Canada)
• The Stalin Years: The Soviet Union 1929-1953 By Evan Mawdsley ( University of Glasgow)

Doldrums 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And super-historian Alan Bullock's work, "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" (already quoted in the article), also explicitly refers to him as a dictator. - Merzbow

Stalin is considered a dictator by modern historians. Of course this view is biased, but, as this is the most widely accepted view, it must be included and supported in the article.--RedMC 05:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody says it should not be included. But as it is biased, we shell attribute the POV to the souced to maintain neutrality in Wikipedia.--Nixer 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been given above.Ultramarine 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The likes of Merzbow and Ultramarine are right-wing propagandists who have an agenda to push. This is exposed by their use of the laughably partisan "Black Book of Communism". The various sources used by Hronos proves that Stalin was not a dictator. http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/stalin.html

Scholarly sources by professional historians that do not call Stalin a dictator include works by E.H Carr, R.W Davies, and Stephen Wheatcroft.

Additionally, on Proquest Database, there are 4876 results for "Stalin Soviet Leader". For "Stalin Soviet Dictator" there are only 3260 results by comparison. The characterization of Stalin as a dictator is false for the reason that no law gave him supreme authority and the fact that he was prime minister from 1941-53.

Again, Wikipedia NPOV states that all views should be presented. It is not the place to state to determine which scholarly view is the correct one. Convince all scholars that you are right. Then we can exclude the views you do not like. Lets have a look at this Google scholar serach: [30]. Here are academic work with titles like "Stalin as Leader, 1937-1953. From Dictator to Despot", "Proletarian Dictator in a Peasant Land: Stalin as Ruler", "Dictators and Disciples. From Caesar to Stalin", Ultramarine 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, a quote from you favorite scholars Wheatcroft and Davies: "Stalin was a dictator, and bore more responsibility for the famine than any other individual" [31]Ultramarine 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? This is a page for disputes in regard to facts and perspective. You blatantly contradict yourself with your reiteration of Wikipedia's policies even though you completely violate them with your vandalism at the "Holodomor" page and your violation of NPOV policy with the vandalism of smearing Stalin as a dictator. The propaganda outlets your ilk incessantly cites contains the following: Rumours are circulatng in Moscow that Joseph Stalin, the long-time leader of the Soviet Union, is near death. It said the Soviet leader, who came to power in 1928, had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage on Wednesday night.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/5/newsid_2710000/2710127.stm

See my earlier sources above, including your own favorite scholars. Regarding BBC: One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century.'[32]Ultramarine 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Two things occur to me. First, the argument over whether and where Stalin is called a "dictator" seems overblown. Secondly, there should be no arugment over whether Stalin was indeed an autocrat and despot. Using or not using the word dictator just should not be such a big deal. That's my 2 cents. Wbroun 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- A dictator is an autocratic ruler with ultimate authority over all branches of government. History records that Stalin answered to no one, not the Communist Party, not the Supreme Soviet, not the Politburo. No one successfully called him to account during his lifetime, because they couldn't. The issue of Stalin's place in the Soviet constitution is something else entirely; he was, de facto, a dictator who exercised absolute power over the Soviet Union (to a degree that no one before him or after did). It seems fairly obvious to call him a dictator using that definition. Haikupoet 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think for something to appear at top of the article it should at least be discussed in the article itself? So I suggest those who want to call him a dictator first make a new section that provides arguments (and counter-arguments) that he was a dictator. You can call it "Life under Stalin", "Stalin's rule", or "Evaluation". Once that section is complete we can all look at both sides of the issue and determine if the evidence is strong enough to warrant calling him a dictator in the first paragraph of the article. Any takers? --Taxico 14:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea, but first, we need some solid sources from those who argue against the term "dictator". Doldrums's comment is right on: we have sources for him being considered a dictator. Now we need sources for the other side if we're going to have a section that discusses the disagreements over whether or not he was a dictator. And sources from communist countries pre-1980 aren't really going to work, I think. We need something to demonstrate that scholars still hold this point of view, even after the fall of these regimes. Heimstern Läufer 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How the fall of the communism is relevant to whether Stallin was a dictator?--Nixer 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources from a time when you were imprisoned if you criticzed the state are not reliable sources.Ultramarine 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want Wikipedia reflecting only your view, than you can of course reject all Soviet souces.--Nixer 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to use reliable sources. Praise for Stalin from a time and place when writing otherwise meant imprisonment or worse are not reliable soruces.Ultramarine 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. If Wikipedia is afraid to call a dictator like Stalin a dictator, then it's worthless as an encyclopedia. Vidor 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are few, if any sources in English, that might explicitly state that Stalin wasn't a dictator, I own many sources that speak of him as "leader of the soviet union" which would not place him as a dictator but would not argue that he was not one. It is the same as if we needed a source to claim that George Bush is not a monkey, so you can't expect us to provide you with sources in English, from current times which it is explicitly said that Stalin is not a dictator. There was a citation in russian above which in fact described Stalin as a leader and not as a dictator, so please as a matter a fact consider this source, do not dismiss it because it is in Russian. The bottom line is that we need to reach an agreement right away or we are going to be battling this for ever. Ultramarine, get your facts strait, you were not sent to prison if you critized the state after the death of Stalin... it wasn't that severe... I know because I was born and raised in the GDR, and believe me that many people criticized the country and not all of them were in prision... if that were true, everyone in Eastern Europe would have been in prison, so get your facts strait... besides, same thing happens in the US today doesn't it? If you critize the country about the invasion of iraq or publicly demonstrate against Bush you are sent to prison... So let's say that I write an article saying that Bush is a dictator... because peopole are imprisoned in the US for criticizing the state then no sources from the US about Bush not being a dictator as completely unreliable, so in fact good luck proving he isn't a dictator! That's what we are faced with!... Where in wikipedia does it say that sources prior to the fall of the USSR are not reliable? You claim you need sources, well I have more than enough sources, but you people discredit them. Oh and Vidor, the only thing that is worthless around here is the comment you just provided! Kiske 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need sources explicitely stating something. There are numerous sources that call Stalin a dictator - which sources state that he is not a dictator. Note that leader and dictator are not mutually exclusive (if you don't believe this, try Hitler). I gues there are no sources stating that Bush is not a monkey, but a) which sources (serious not fun websites) claim that he is, and b) human and monkey are mutually exclusive, hence because we know Bush to be human we know that he's not a monkey. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's really nothing more to discuss until the anti-dictator side steps up to provide their sources (with translation). - Merzbow 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While I translate the needed sources, here I have sources that say Stalin wasn't a dictator. http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm - An article logicaly explaining why Stalin wasn't a dictator. Kiske 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can write anything on a webpage. Please give a reliable source, like a published scholarly book or article or at least the official view of a prominent organization. See also Wikipedia:NPOV

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."Ultramarine 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case... my own sources from the GDR and the USSR, which are scholarly books. But I must translate because apparently, the people judging this are unable to read any language apart from english.Kiske 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can read German if that's necessary. But I still don't think anyone's going to be convinced by sources from the DDR. You say they are not likely to biased, but not many westerners are likely to believe that (unless perhaps you can show that the scholarly community still regards these works as reliable). Heimstern Läufer 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember the SED part anthem: "aus Leninischem Geist wächst von Stalin geschweißt die Partei, die Partei, die Partei". The difference between GDR and USSR is only a linguistical one, apart from the USSR becoming more reformist under Gorbachev, while Honnecker's GDR remained as it had always been. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue needs to be clarified at higher level: can Wikipedia use sources from the USSR or represet only "winner's" side.--Nixer 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is: Are sources from a time when critique could get the author killed or imprisoned reliable sources? Ultramarine 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Are those sources reliable in which anybody can publish any lies and will not get punished for it?--Nixer 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not how peer-review and academic publishing works. Please read those articles.Ultramarine 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Britannica reliable source which claims that Stalin was paranoid? And souces in the USSR also were peer-reviewed.--Nixer 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Britannica is not as reliable as peer-reviewed papers or academic books. Again, sources from a time when critique could get the author killed or imprisoned are not reliable sources.Ultramarine 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine... have you ever lived in a system other than a capitalist one? Have you ever spoken to people who have lived in a system other than a capitalist one? You are grossly exaggerating everything... people were and are not killed if you critized the government, as I said before, if that were true, everyone in the GDR would have been imprisoned or killed, so please start making those remarks, because they are simply untrue... second your crusade for capitalism and democracy is fair, I respect it, but you can't prevent us from exposing a significant view that opposes your own "democratic ones"... there is a significant amount of people in the world who do not believe Stalin to be a dictator, a significant amount!... you know that, we all know that, the right wing censors in this webpage simply choose to ignore that and demand citations with very specific limitations when there is no need. And please Ultramarine, just stop writing about how people "were killed" if they spoke out against the government because it is a lie. Kiske 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow personal opinions or personal experiences (anyone can claim anything) as sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. All claims should be verifiable using reliable sources. If you have reliable sources, I will consider them. Now regarding GDR and the stasi, from a review of the book Stasi The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police [www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html]:

"To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union's KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal's figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi's case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests."

"Like a giant octopus, the Stasi's tentacles probed every aspect of life. Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants. Without exception, one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo), the People's Police. In turn, the police officer was the Stasi's man. If a relative or friend came to stay overnight, it was reported. Schools, universities, and hospitals were infiltrated from top to bottom. German academe was shocked to learn that Heinrich Fink, professor of theology and vice chancellor at East Berlin's Humboldt University, had been a Stasi informer since 1968. After Fink's Stasi connections came to light, he was summarily fired. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, writers, actors, and sports figures were co-opted by Stasi officers, as were waiters and hotel personnel. Tapping about 100,000 telephone lines in West Germany and West Berlin around the clock was the job of 2,000 officers."

" Between 1963 and 1989, West Germany paid DM5 billion (nearly US$3 billion) to the communist regime for the release of 34,000 political prisoners."

"Sauer said he believed the final figure of all political prosecutions would be somewhere around 300,000. In every case, the Stasi was involved either in the initial arrest or in pretrial interrogations during which "confessions" were usually extracted by physical or psychological torture, particularly between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s." In reporting about one executioner who shot more than twenty persons to death, the Berlin newspaper Bildzeitung said that a total of 170 civilians had been executed in East Germany. However, Franco Werkenthin, the Berlin official investigating DDR crimes, said he had documented at least three hundred executions. He declined to say how many were for political offenses, because he had not yet submitted his report to parliament. "But it was substantial," he told me. The true number of executions may never be known because no complete record of death sentences meted out by civil courts could be found. Other death sentences were handed down by military courts, and many records of those are also missing. In addition, German historian Günther Buch believes that about two hundred members of the Stasi itself were executed for various crimes, including attempts to escape to the West."

"Engaging in "propaganda hostile to the state" was another punishable offense. In one such case, a young man was arrested and prosecuted for saying that it was not necessary to station tanks at the border and for referring to border fortifications as "nonsense." During his trial, he "admitted" to owning a television set on which he watched West German programs and later told friends what he saw. One of those "friends" had denounced him to the Stasi. The judge considered the accused's actions especially egregious and sentenced him to a year and a half at hard labor."

"A nineteen-year-old who had placed a sign in an apartment window reading "When justice is turned into injustice, resistance becomes an obligation!" was rewarded with twenty-two months in the penitentiary."

"The East German party chiefs were not content to rely only on the Stasi's millions of informers to ferret out antistate sentiments. Leaving nothing to chance, they created a law that made the failure to denounce fellow citizens a crime punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. One man was sentenced to twenty-three months for failing to report that a friend of his was preparing to escape to the West."Ultramarine 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the punishments for speaking against the government didn't exist, they did exist, but it's not anything like you implied in previous comments and it is not as severe as this right wing article suggests it was. It was present yes, but it wasn't as bad as you are informing people that it was. You are grossly exagerating everything. And in regards to the US; same case, does the patriot act ring a bell? And besides, we are not discussing this issue, which is again, just like the Stalin issue, completely out of your understanding... you can't judge a country's system and way of life if you have never lived through it or conducted proper reasearch that might indicate that... besides, stop answering me with quotes and aswer like a real person... besides, the book you have quoted smells like right-wing propaganda to me and it is not really a reliable source because it is trying to condemn the system, provide me with something objective... it is not sticking with a NPOV, please 1 informant per 6.6 citizens? Are you out of your mind? I though you were smarter than a person who buys that sort of information... it is not the 1984 universe, so please stop speaking about things that lie above your own knowledge, you have no idea what you are talking about... no matte how many books you have read you will never have an idea of what it was like because you never lived there, like I did; But again these are not the points we are discussing. And why are you bringing my country into this? What does it have to do with the discussion? Besides, stop bringing that point up, its not really a valid one... so just please stop!

The text above, published by an academic publisher, supports my statements. Agian, Wikipedia does not allow personal opinions or personal experiences (anyone can claim anything) as sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. All claims should be verifiable using reliable sources. If you present reliable sources, I will consider them. Ultramarine 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The text above is full of lies and nonsense... what are you talking about? This text supports nothing! Give me the author's name I will have to check this because it is a tremendous lie and supports nothing. It claims that a young manAnd what about the young man was punished for watching WEst German shows in his television... EVERYONE IN EAST GERMANY, or almost everyone watched west German Television, that is why, when television was implemented in the GDR the system that was installed was one which was purposely made compataible with the one in West Germany and not with the ones in the Eastern Block... people in the government where aware of this... The article is complete propagandistic nonsense...and it supports absolutely nothing, it is worthless... The process of collecting the data you need is underway, I am translating what is needed for you to verify it. Kiske 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is link to the book on Amazon: [33]. Please, your personal opinions are not relevant in Wikipedia. This is not a discussion board. If you have anythog sourced, state it, otherwise your claims are uninteresting.Ultramarine 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that someone who criticized the USSR was killed comes across as absurd considering that the likes of Solzhenitsyn were actually had their life saved through vital medical treatment.

"To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history.

First off, East Germany was not totalitarian. It had numerous political parties. This book has therefore lost its credibility.

In 1920s America, thousands of so-called "radicals" were forceably deported to Russia due to the demagogic anti-communist atmosphere of the time.

As usual, Ultramarine has not idea what he's talking about and resorts to arbitrary rules of what constitutes a reliable source whenever his bullshit is called out. The way he cites "Black Book of Communism" is so typical of people of his outlook.

Please sign your comments. I am getting tired of unsourced personal opinions and personal attacks.Ultramarine 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is you again, Jacob Peters, I'd suggest stopping the attacks right now. One more attack and I will bring you and your sockpuppetry up again on AN/I (and I'm pretty sure a community ban will be the outcome). - Merzbow 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, here is the citation for the fact that GDR authoritie decided to install a television system that could be compatible with west Germany, to prove that the statement in the book you provided is erroneous. Because I doubt that you read German I could only provide the citation in the Wikipedia Article Broadcasting In Germany, and the citation is as follows: Broadcast system "When television broadcasting started, the GDR chose to use the Western European B/G transmission system rather than the Eastern European D/K system, in order to keep transmissions compatible with West Germany." Therefore, the fact that someone was condemned before a judge because he was watching West German television is wrong, it simply didn't happen because it was something that was done by the government on purpose. The person who wrote the previous statement is right, there were numerous political parties in East Germany, but they only had control in the parliament... but he is right it wasn't as totalitarian as the book has put it. Here is the quote again from the wikipedia article on the politics of East Germany:

"The other political parties ran under the joint slate of the National Front, controlled by the SED, for elections to the Volkskammer, the East German Parliament. (Elections took place, but were effectively controlled by the SED/state hierarchy, as for example Hans Modrow has noted.) In West Germany, the Communist Party was banned.

Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands (Christian Democratic Union of Germany, CDU), merged with the West-German CDU after reunification Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands (Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany, DBD), merged with the West-German CDU after reunification Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands (Liberal Democratic Party of Germany, LDPD), merged with the West-German FDP after reunification Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (National Democratic Party of Germany, NDPD), merged with the West-German FDP after reunification The Volkskammer also included representatives from the mass organisations like the Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend or FDJ), or the Free German Trade Union Federation. In an attempt to include women in the political life in East Germany, there was even a Democratic Women's Federation of Germany with seats in the Volkskammer.

Non-parliamentary mass organisations which nevertheless played a key role in East German society included the German Gymnastics and Sports Association (Deutscher Turn- und Sportbund or DTSB) and People's Solidarity (Volkssolidarität, an organisation for the elderly). Another society of note (and very popular during the late 1980s) was the Society for German-Soviet Friendship.

On March 18, 1990 the first and only free elections in the history of the GDR were held, producing a government whose major mandate was to negotiate an end to itself and its state."

Here it is Ultramarine, and seriously, you can't quote the black book of communism as a reliable source because it is not objective, and from what we just saw, the book you also brought up isn't either. Kiske 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are doing borderline original research here. If are criticzing an academic book, you should at least preferable use another scholarly source. But I have never stated, and not my quotes either, that there was only one party or that it was impossible to recieve Western TV. Here are some statements from another soruce:

East Germany follows the pattern of the Hungarian, Czechoslovak, and Polish "multiparty" systems in permitting the existence of small parties that accept the leadership of the ruling communist party and are its allies in the construction of socialism. In all cases, the parties merely exist to further the goals of the ruling Marxist-Leninist party and have no opportunity for genuine independent political action. In East Germany, this system is known as the Alliance Policy (Bündnispolitik), and the four parties subordinate to the SED are known as "alliance parties." These are the Christian Democratic Union (Christlich-Demokratische Union--CDU), the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany (Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands--LDPD), the Democratic Peasants' Party of Germany (Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands--DBD), and the National Democratic Party of Germany (National-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands--NDPD) (see Council of Ministers , this ch.; fig. 10.). In 1982 the small parties registered the following memberships: the CDU--125,000; the LDPD--82,000; the DBD-- 103,000; and the NDPD--91,000. In contrast to the one-party system in the Soviet Union, these smaller parties assist the SED in reaching certain key sectors of the community, such as the intelligentsia, businessmen, and manufacturers who are not members of the SED. Their chief function is securing the support of these groups for the aims of the party and the state and integrating into the socialist system citizens who are critical of the SED or who, because of their social and/or political background, cannot secure or achieve membership in the SED. Although represented in the People's Chamber, the alliance parties do not compete with SED delegates for seats or power.

The authorities restrict the influx of Western publications, which are available only to government, party, economic, and educational institutions. Publications from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are freely permitted but rarely purchased. The electronic media are a different matter. Largely because of the central location of West Berlin transmitters, West German radio and television are received in East Germany, except for the southern mountain regions. Intershops carry decoder attachments required for clear reception of color broadcasts. As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit viewing of Western television, not the least because it is a prime source of news and entertainment for the government elite, who are also avid viewers of internationally syndicated United States programs, which are shown with German-language dubbing by West Berlin stations.Television thus promotes awareness of the higher standard of living in West Germany and provides divergent perspectives on world events. Public surveys have shown that East Germans are considerably more familiar with West German politicians than their own leaders. Since the mid-1970s, Western television has become an increasingly important source of news about political and economic conditions in East Germany itself. In late 1971, when Western television journalists were first regularly permitted in East Germany, they gained quick recognition. Some were even approached on the street by East German citizens and asked to do reports on specific issues. The penetration of Western media places a special burden on SED officials. Both the domestic electronic and the printed media continue to practice censorship. Certain kinds of economic, social, and military data are not disseminated, and no statements directly critical of either East German or Soviet leaders are permitted.[34]Ultramarine 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I truly understand your points and for once we are agreeing... I know that the quotes are provided are not entirely scholar or anything close to it, but all the sources I have on the issue are written in German and I am not going to translate them because it will take a lot of time... but once again, this issue is something different... I do not want to disagree anymore. But while I am chosing the adequate sources and before I begin translating I have to ask you if you will in fact take the sources from the DDR, Cuba and the USSR seriously, because if you won't I don't want to spend time translating if it is in vain. Kiske 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell us who the sources are and what books/journals they published in first before doing the translations. That will determine if what they say is notable enough to be translated at all. - Merzbow 07:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kiske, if you want to can post them in German. I can read them and comment on them, so that you will not toil needlessly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here I have the first source. It is a biography of Stalin I purchased in Cuba. It was published in 1973 in Moscow in the foreign language editions, which was destined to be brought to countries were Spanish was spoken. The book was coordinated by the Department of Foreign Languages of the Soviet government and was prepared by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute in Moscow. The book itself never mentions Stalin as a dictator but instead calls him a leader. The first Chapter is called: "The Birth of a Leader". The chapter which expolores him as a person is titled "The Nature of the Leader" and it never labels him as a dictator. The 6th paragraph reads "Stalin turned 50 on December 21 of that glorious year(1929). And he gave himself the best present he could: The Power to serve the people... despite his achievement, success and ability to expand his deeds, he lived in a very simple way..." This is the first source, it doesn't refer to Stalin as a dictator but as a leader, a leader who served the Soviet people. This is one of the views allowed. The second source I will provide is the introduction of a book written by Stalin himself, the biographic introduction (only section of the book not written by Stalin). The title of the book is "Questions of Leninism" and it was published in the USSR in 1941 in Spanish again in the department of foreign languages and the translation is done "according with the las (11th) soviet edition, published by the state's Publisher of Political Literature in 1939." The introduction of the book says: "Joseph (Jose) Vissarionovich Stalin Dzhugashvili, the great leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was born on December 21, 1878..." This is the second source that proves there are sides that do not call him a dictator. I am still searching for more, but this is a beginning. Kiske 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A propaganda book published by the Soviet Government is not a reliable source. And neither is a book published in 1941 by the Soviet State's political department. - Merzbow 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it unreliable? Because you say that it is? You asked me to provide quotes from books and I did... all my sources are like this, you wanted me to provide information books proclaiming that there is a different point of view in regards to Stalin, I have proved to you that this book exists. Why isn't a book published in 1941 unreliable? Because it is published by a nation that doesn't exist. I have provided reliable truth that a new view exists, and given that I have provided this it is your obligation to present both points of view, because the do exist. Kiske 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been said a million times... sources from 25+ years ago from Soviet or Soviet puppet state government sources do not satisfy the minimal standars put forth in WP:RS and WP:V. Here are quotes from those guidelines and policies that establish standards that your sources come nowhere near meeting:

"Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."

"Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred."

"Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it."

"Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject."

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim... Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability)".

And it's not just me who's saying this. We had many people come in from the RFC and the consensus was clearly to keep 'dictator', or to include a pro/con discussion of the merits of 'dictator' only on the condition reliable sources could be found for the con side of the argument. And as of yet, there are no such sources. Whereby we have about half-a-dozen quotes from major, modern historical works on Stalin that reference him as a dictator, clearly establishing a scholarly consensus.

If you still don't agree, and I don't suspect you will, then I think it's time to take this article to mediation, in lieu of getting into another edit war. That's the next step before ArbCom, which I really hope this doesn't come to (since it's an enormous time sink). - Merzbow 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand you point very well and very clearly. You are right, these sources are out dated, but they can be used to represent the fact that at one point, Stalin was not globally considered to be a dictator and that it is only since the collapse of the Eastern Block that he has been labelled as such by everyone, but that there are many sources before the fall that depict him as a leader. If we do that, I will agree with everything. We can say that Stalin was a dictator, but that in past times he was not considered one. that way we ahere to Wikipedia policies and the sources I provided can be used, as wikipedia says, to provide information on the evolution of the topic. Kiske 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources you've put forth are Soviet state publications with no academic credentials, so if you want to source them in the article, it should be with something like "Officially, the Soviet State and some of its allies prior to the fall of the USSR painted Stalin not as a dictator, but as a great leader." You could put this in a section titled "Views of Stalin over time", along with other views. But since this is a non-academic view clearly against scholarly consensus, I still see no reason not to label Stalin a dictator in the intro. - Merzbow 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right Merzbow I'll use my own sources and create a new section in the article titled Views of Stalin over time, in which I will explain that before the fall the Eastern Block and other communist nations didn't portray Stalin as a dictator, but as a leader that served the people. In regards to the dictator label, I konw you have proven to me that a significant majority considers him to be a dictator, but don't you believe that saying it in the introduction turns it into an absolute truth? But nevertheless I agree with you and I will begin to work on that new section Stalin over time... I compromise... but still take the question I posed in the previous sentence seriously, because that is the impression I receive from the introduction of an article. Kiske 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. Also, although it appears that most historians view Stalin as a dictator, I don't have a problem with keeping it out of the introduction and dealing with that term (and the opposing views) later in the article. I think the introduction should be as concise as possible. The sticky details are best addressed at length in the main article. --C33 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is already concise, and this isn't a 'sticky detail', but probably the most important fact about Stalin we need to impart to readers who may go no farther than the introduction. We can add the qualification "(according to modern historians)", with footnotes, to the "de facto leader and dictator" sentence, but that's a far as I'm willing to go. Kiske's sources can be discussed in this new section as agreed above. - Merzbow 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. With that in mind, I would be in favor of at least mentioning that he used his control of the communist party is the vehicle for his dictatorial power. Something along the lines of "according to modern historians, Stalin's control of the communist party made him the de facto leader and dictator of the USSR." What do you think? --C33 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. - Merzbow 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me as well, there is just one little detail. If the intro reads defacto leader and dictator then we get into trouble. If it is going to say dictator then it should only say dictator, not de facto leader and dictator, because this gives a great importance to the fact that he is a dictator, which is something we are not really willing to discuss to openly. If we say that we are giving a trait to his reign, so we should just stick to he was the dictator of the soviet Union. And afterwards I will write the section of Stalin's views over time, in which I will discuss the different perspectives surrounding Stalin through time. But again, if we say de facto leader and dictator then it implies that him being a dictator is a universal truth, and we all know that it is not a universal truth. But I still don't understand Merzbow, why do you not compromise and let the introduction say he was the "de facto leader" instead of adding the dictator clause in the introduction; when it will be something that will be discuss further in the article with something like "Views of Stalin". But again, I am opposed that Stalin be called both a de facto leader and dictator, one or the other, not both.

Kiske 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the 'de facto leader' part. It's redundant anyways, if someone is a dictator then they are by definition a leader. I'll ask for page unprotection. - Merzbow 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me, let's do it. I will get working on the Stalin views over time and will be adding it very soon. I'm very glad we have at last reached a compromise that satisfies everyone. - Kiske 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictator vs. Despot

While I'm no expert, I do believe there is a formal definition of dictator rooted in the latin notion of a magistrate formally invested with the powers of a tyrant. If Stalin was never legally conferred these powers, then he may in fact not have been a dictator. However, I believe there is more than enough evidence from the historical record to regard him as a despot - i.e. a ruler exercising absolute power. Is the term despot or despotic ruler more acceptable? Ronnotel 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but according to the dictionaries I've checked there is no modern-day requirement that the word 'dictator' refer to an absolute ruler with powers specifically conferred to him. Also, in common usage, it seems like the word 'dictator' seems far more prevalent in application to modern-day rulers - 'despot' is used almost exclusively to refer to ancient rulers. - Merzbow 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to that definition there would have been no dictator for 2050 years, since Caesar's death. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I already mentioned earler that Stalin was one of revolutionary leaders and Wikipedia does not generally blame revolutionary leaders as dictators. Compare for example Lenin, Kerensky or Oliver Cromwell (who had a special paragraph in the constitution preserving supreme power for him for all his life). I think all the article should be consistent. I tried to mark Cromwell as dictator but was reverted for "POV". I think there exist sources that claim he was a dictator but you hardly find one that say he wasnt.--Nixer 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing a huge amount about Cromwell, I'd have to agree he seemed like a dictator to me. I'll take a look at that article and will re-add it if necessary. - Merzbow 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So we are back again, with Nixer shouting Cromwell. If the Cromwell page is wrong, that's another issue. Secondly, why should there be an exception for leaders of so-called revolutions? Do they get immunity? Thirdly, why are you talking about "blame"? It is a description and not a blame. And again, why should revolutionary leaders be immune from blame (if it were blame)? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Cromwell page, I see this in the intro: "Cromwell is a very controversial figure in English history—a regicidal dictator to some historians (such as David Hume and Christopher Hill) and a hero of liberty to others (such as Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner.)" So there are reliable sources on both sides of the issue. This is unlike the case with Stalin - the anti-dictator side still has produced nothing. - Merzbow 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannot dictator be at the same time hero of liberty? Do the authors who say Cromwell was hero really argue that he was not dictator? I think there are many authors for whom Stalin is also a hero. And as I already said Marxism cannot agree Stalin to be dictator because of theoretical issues. For example, Soviet Encyclopedia defines dictatorship as unlimited by law power of a class over other classes.--Nixer 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, Soviet sources are not reliable sources since critics were imprisoned and killed.Ultramarine 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are reliable... you cannot discard a source solely because of its origins! So let me understand you points, nothing that comes from a Soviet source is reliable right? You are wrong! And I told you before, the book you used before regarding the imprisonment is grossly exaggerating! Nixer is right, and he is exercising the use of the encyclopedia to demonstrate that Marxist couldn't conceive a dictatorship because of ideological differences, and to illustrate this example he used a marxist source which supports a view that is entertained by marxism. Don't be such a radical! Soviet sources may disagree with your views but it doesn't mean that everything they say is false... and again, last time, people were not killed if they spoke against the state! IF that were true everyone in the eastern block would have been in prison or dead. Apart from that I already provided the sources which do not claim Stalin as a dictator, you can check them in the other section of the talk page... enough said, they are Soviet Sources, but they finally proclaim a view you saw as an impossibility and prove that there are sources who don't see Stalin as a dictator. Besides, the sources you use are entirely biased, unobjective and therefore, as a consequence, completely unreliable! You are telling me the black book of communism is objective and reliable?! Of course not! It is as if you were to use an anti-Nazist book to explain Naxism in an objective manner! wrong. Kiske 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has made yet another baseless statement in regard to people being killed for differing views. At the same time, has cited the widely discredited "Black Book of Communism" which uses a wide variety of obsolete and unverifiable sources.[35] In East Germany, except for the aftermath of the June 1953 revolt, capital punishment was largely avoided. [36]

Alright, look, we can't let an extremely vocal minority mess up this article. According to WP:FRINGE, we should certainly mention what Soviet sources say about the subject, but mainstream history considers Stalin a dictator. TomTheHand 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Google book search has 1348 results for "Stalin Soviet leader" but only 773 for "Stalin Soviet Dictator". People have still yet to put forth an adequate response to the fact that Stalin was the prime minister from 1941-53.

if Stalin killed 20 million, or 50 million, then why is it not in the opening paragraph?

Seriously, oh wow, hitler killed 10 million and it's in HIS opening paragraph, yet when Stalin killed 20-50 million, it's NOT included? Wow you guys are the most biased POS I've seen in my life. Now you guys got 3 days to include this, or that's it. I will Zoola 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoola, regardless of the merits of your argument, please stay civil and avoid profanity. Ronnotel 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Even money our friend Zoola here is another JP sockpuppet/troll. - Merzbow 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect Claim

According to Alan Bullock, "the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931... it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants." Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine (and at the same time exporting grain abroad); he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away, and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response

This is just simply false as is explained on the "Holodomor" page. The credibility of this entire article and Wikipedia has imploded. Tauger, Wheatcroft, Davies and others who've actually done research on the subject have concluded that the 1932 harvest was worse than that of 1931. Moreover, grain collections in 1930-33 stayed at a constant level. Bullock is also incorrect in his claim that exports of grain contributed to the famine. Bullock's claims on the subject are not valid since he did not study the subject but instead derived the work of others presumably Robert Conquest. Research by Davies and Wheatcroft concluded that collections were not excessive and that the 1932 harvest was worse than that of 1931. Bullock is also blatantly wrong about the deaths of 5 million Ukrainians as the declassified archives show that 1.5 million died. [37] [38] [39]

It is not up to Wikipedia to be right or wrong, merely to present the work of others in a digestible form. If a guy has published 5 million deaths and another 1.5 the range should be reported if both works are credible. --LiamE 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are free to add opposing information to the article sourced from other reliable sources that disagree, alongside the Bullock quote. (Haven't I said this 5 times already to you, JP?). Alan Bullock is one of the most highly-qualified historians quoted in the entire article; an Oxford history professor for many years. - Merzbow 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not free to add opposing information as this page is blocked from editing by others. Alan Bullock has not contributed a detailed study in concern to the famine rendering his opinions worthless. Alan Bullock is not more qualified than Robert Davies whose 5-volume "Industrialization of Soviet Russia" is essential.

In his 2004 book, on page 412, in the "Deaths from the famine" section, Davies and Wheatcroft still conclude that 4.6 million died overall in Russia, and admit that the total number of deaths is difficult to estimate. Some historians say 5, some 10, all notable views will be represented in the article. And whether or not you disagree with Bullock's research, the fact he's published books on the subject and held a prestigious professorship, makes his views notable. Just like Davies. This is basic Wikipedia policy. - Merzbow 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Young man?

"Nikolai Yezhov, the young man strolling with Stalin to his left" Yezhov must be around 40 at the time the photo was taken.