Joseph Stalin Encapsulated (Locked Due to Excessive Stupidity)
Offline Let's get this out of the way up front - my opinions about Stalin:
Stalin was one of the the most effective leaders any country has ever had. He was instrumental in turning Russia into the Soviet juggernaut that, for a time, was equaled only by the United States in international power and influence, he was a key figure in removing a power structure from his country that had held terrible sway for centuries and had largely reduced it to squalor, he was able to do the most important thing (re: leave the biggest decisions in the hands of his generals) when it came time for the key initiatives to be played-out on the Eastern Front in WWII and managed his country's war economy so effectively that even after the Germans had made their deepest penetrations into Soviet holdings, the production of T-34s was such that the Soviet tanks outnumbered German Panzer IVs and Panthers by odds of 3 to 1 even in the darkest days of the war.
Stalin's rule was brutal, egotistical and, in many places, outright disgusting. I find it notable, however, how very 'pro-Soviet' and 'pro-Stalin' most of the Soviet public remained, even in the shadow of their dictator. He was VERY GOOD at what he did, and even better at making people see this fact.
So, that being said:
Stalin, almost unquestionably, did not himself buy into superstition - including the notion of an all-powerful Abrahamic God. He did not respect the divine right of Nicholas II (who would be Russia's last tsar), did not believe in (and did much to discredit) the psychic and healing powers of Grigori Rasputin and, while he was in power, mercilessly prosecuted organized religion.
Stalin was a nihilist, and 'collectivism' became his own religion. Even if the word 'God' never touched his lips, Stalin very much saw himself as a divine force amidst so much rabble.
The first benchmark for Stalin's rise to power came following his expulsion from school, where he read the works of Vladimir Lenin - inspiring him to become a revolutionary. Stalin's revolutionary activities, including the organization of strikes and making public speeches, fairly quickly lead him to the acquaintanceship - and then undying loyalty - of Simon Ter-Petrossian (the infamous 'Kamo'), a violent psychopath whom would prove a key piece of Stalin's early network as his personal monster and guard dog.
The first really major (and sadistic) play that Stalin would make involved very careful manipulation of an arson (which he was likely part of) at a Batumi oil refinery. After the fire, workers expected to be compensated with bonus pay for their assistance in putting out the flames. The refinery management refused, suspecting the arson. This allowed Stalin to easily persuade the works into striking, and the strike spiralled into clashes with the Cossacks. After a series of arrests were made, some enterprising workers attempted to break their friends out of jail - and thirteen were killed in the ensuing struggle. This was precisely the result Stalin had wanted:
He lofted photos of the dead, hailing them as matryrs, which ingnited passions.
Stalin was arrested and exiled to Siberia for three years, the secret police finally catching-up with him. This was a fateful mistake - while in Siberia, Stalin learned even more about the revolutionist movement, including the fact that there were two 'parties' involved, and one of those parties was the Leninist 'Bolsheviks'. Stalin immediately became a Bolshevik himself, and having only spent ten days of a 3-year sentence in exile, snuck back into the heart of Russia.
The war between Japan and Russia broke-out, leaving Russia in fiscal ruin and straining it's base of military forces loyal to the tsar. Restlessness swept across the country, and Stalin's exploits in fuelling the fire of the general malcontent finally brought him to the attention of Lenin.
The unrest culminated in the killing of 200 demonstrators by Cossacks at a mass demonstration. This sparked the first Russian Revolition, which created all of the conditions and reforms necessary for the second Russian Revolution (or October Revolution) in which the tsars were overthrown (Stalin spent the interim period with a gang and his personal goon, Kamo, robbing banks in order to aquire the holy trinity of notoriety, talent and money).
Following the revolution and ensuing civil war, and after Lenin's death (which prompted Stalin to make a very religious pledge to his dead former mentor and leader), Stalin used what can only be described as absolute cunning in order to politically defeat his fellow contenders for the leadership of the nation. He put himself on the majority side of every battle, slowly whittling down his opponents one by one, until he stood as the prime mover of Russia.
After the Great Purge, with the secret service being escalated into a position of terrifying reach, Stalin emerged the absolute ruler of the new Soviet Union.
This was a tough one to encapsulate. The Russian revolution and revolutionaries were very complex, and unlike (say) Hitler's rise to power, Stalin's was far less certain. There were many contenders that very realistically 'could have' taken the country's reigns at the end - Stalin just happened to have been the one who wound-up with them (largely because he was not only intelligent, but extremely dangerous and violent). Stalin's Credo is also not the same kind of article that, say, Mein Kampf is, in that it's not an introspective journal. Stalin intended for it to reflect positively on himself (and had a very good grasp of how to do that), and it's riddled with thoughts the man wanted people to think of him - not what his actual thoughts were.
In any case, once again, we don't see Darwinism as the vehicle here. Certainly, Stalin was opposed to organized religion and made no time in his life for superstition - but he was deeply religious regarding his self-image and the power of communism. His actual deeds were fueled by his ambitions, eagerness for bloodshed and his use of violent people as his favored tools.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Excellent stuff again Kevin.
A famaliar theme in both Hitler and Stalin is a savage lust for power at any cost.In neither cases does on esee atheism being a mjor contributing factor. In fact,I'm sure if Hitler had gone around procaiming atheism,he would have lost support.Instead,he went speaking in churches to get it. As had been said countless times and will still,they did not kill because of atheism.
Now moustaches,those are different.Those will make you kill.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
*sniffle*
beautiful...
feels like im reading a future autobiography of myself...
and i dig the russian mail order bride ads
What Would Kharn Do?
One thing you might want to mention if you write up any more brief bios of Stalin -
The estimated 8 - 11 million Ukrainians that he starved to death when he was collectivizing the farms in the early 1930s.
You wrote:
"I find it notable, however, how very 'pro-Soviet' and 'pro-Stalin' most of the Soviet public remained, even in the shadow of their dictator. He was VERY GOOD at what he did, and even better at making people see this fact."
He sure was good at what he did all right, I'll give you that. Good at killing more innocent people than just about anyone in history. It's amazing how many pro-Stalin people you are left with when you kill off all your opposition, isn't it?
Your post seems much too generous to this genocidal sociopath for my liking. Anything of a positive nature Stalin may have accomplished in his life is completely and totally overwhelmed by the mountain of dead bodies he stood upon to do it.
WWSD - What Would Scooby Doo?
Careful Joey, its that line of thinking that would have condemned Volkswagon to oblivion a long time ago, because of its links to Hitler
What Would Kharn Do?
I'm linking Stalin to the actions and programs he undertook which directly resulted in the death of millions. He deliberately starved the Ukrainian farmers because they were resisting giving up their family farmlands to the collectives.
Read more about it here:
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/Ukraine_famine.htm
I fail to see how your analogy applies.
WWSD - What Would Scooby Doo?
Looks like that link is broken. Here another one:
http://www.ukrainiangenocide.com/dkeyfigures.html
WWSD - What Would Scooby Doo?
Im just saying just the good and the bad by their own merit.
I mentioned that he was a nihilist and a sociopath, I believe. Note that the Soviet Union didn't erupt in an uproar after Stalin committed the afore-mentioned atrocity, and that - for a very long time - people simply turned a blind eye to it and the aftermath. Stalin isn't the sole agent for blame here; when he cut-off the food supply to the Ukrainians, nobody really gave a shit. Why? They were of a different culture / ethnicity. What's better, then - scapegoating Stalin (who used the disgusting climate to his advantage) or recognizing the more ugly truth behind the matter? And yes, you're correct - from a political standpoint, it is an excellent tactic to encompass the defeat of your opposition. Stalin always did this to the fullest extent possible (culminating in assassinations, the afore-mentioned mass starvation / genocide, historical 'erasure, etc). No, Stalin was not a particularly admirable fellow.
But he was a damn good leader.
If you don't like my post because it's 'too generous' to a manipulative bank-robbing revolutionary, that's your problem. Aside what I labeled as my personal opinion, it's historical fact (unlike your bald-faced accusation that he murdered more people than anyone else, which is laughably false. Compared to Nicholas II, the tsar he helped to overthrow, Stalin was a saint.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
More accurate to say a "talented" leader, "good" he was not, when summed up.
Cool OP Kevin, thanks for all your posting Friend ....
Atheism Books.
I don't think "good" or "talented" is the right term here. Effective, maybe, ruthless, definitely.
Kevin, please post a link to where I can read about the millions of people who died as a direct result of the actions of tsar Nicholas II as opposed to Stalin. I must have missed that part of Russian history in my studies. We can exclude the World Wars, because Russia would have been drawn into both of those conflicts no matter who was in charge at the time.
I concede that Stalin isn't THE worst mass murderer in history, but he did pretty damn "good". I don't think many people would feel claiming Stalin one of the worst mass murderers in history is "laughable".
I find your admiration of Stalin puzzling and I it makes me wonder if you think Hitler was a "good" leader.
WWSD - What Would Scooby Doo?
Look in Stalin was a good leader for the communist regim, that doesn't mean he was a good person, or that his actions were good, but hat his leadership was good, that he effectively leaded the communist regim to complete power over Russia, and even though he was massacring people, many supported him, although he may not be remembered fondly, he was in the end a good leader for the Communist government. Now as for tsar Nicholas II being worse that Stalin in the terms of genocide, I don't think so, everything I have ever learned abou t Nicholas II was that he was pretty much an ineffective leader, he had bloody sunday, in which something like 200,000 protestors were killed, and although he did suppress dissendents it was nothing like what Stalin did. Nicholas more or less caused WWI by mobilizing the russian army, which in doing so, Germany and Hungary-austria mobilzied their armies and declared war on Russia, which Russia more or less lost because even though it had a massive army, it couldn't properly equip them, no mobilized them effecitively. Stalin is probably one of the worst mass murders in history, the exact amount of deaths caused by Stalins regim is pretty much unknown it has been estimated between the low 4 million to a high of 60 million. The most recent figures around 15 - 30 million. This include the famine of 1932-33 between 6 - 8 million, 1.5 million executed for various crimes, 5 million in the gulags, 1.7 million due to deportations (out of 7 million deported) and of coures POWs and German civilians about 1 million. Although the numbers can be much higher because it wasn't exactly like he detailed the murder of every citizen, many may have died during investigative custody, and it is doubtful the true numbers will ever be known. But it is much higher than that tsar Nicholas II ever killed.
Well, that's a matter of personal opinion.
Every death caused asa result of the revolution can be attributed to Nicholas II, for starters, given that the tsar's abysmal rule enabled the revolutionariesto begin with. Then we have the death of every person as a result of the Japan / Russian war (which was NOT somehow 'just going to happen' - feel free to look into the causes yourself. Nicholas loved war; it entertained him. He excercized ZERO attempts to diffuse the conflict before it began using diplomacy). Then we have the abritrarily large number of people that died as a result of the atrocious living conditions and economic ruin Russia experienced while under tsarist rule, however many millions of people were shot by Cossacks over the years for not being compliant, the millions who died from improper medical care because superstition was encouraged to be a part of the medical industry and science was looked upon with disdain...
The list goes on. Tsarist Russia was not the picture-esque kingdom of wonder that Disney would have you believe.
Most rulers in ancient society did far 'better' in this area than Stalin could ever hope to reach.
I think you've read this with some preconcieved notion. I do not 'admire' Stalin (in fact, I just finished saying that he was not an 'admirable' man); in my opinion, was very good at managing resources and winning favor. You must've missed the parts of the encapsulation where I referred to his egomania, nihilism, sociopathic behavior and sadism.
Hitler was a completely different man altogether. Go ahead and read my encapsulation of him if you'd to discuss him.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
latincanuk - Yes, I agree we are just running in circles over the definition of "good". That being said, I guess I just don't see how any leader that kills so many of the people under his leadership can really be considered that effective no matter the regime. Even looking at it in the most cynical way possible, isn't that a waste of the country's resources? Wouldn't a more effective leader be able to find a way to use these people to strengthen his regime? Even forced labor camps would seem to viable alternative to wiping out millions.
Didn't Germany declare war on France before it declared war on Russia?
WWSD - What Would Scooby Doo?
No. Russia and France were allies as were Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia sided with Serbia which drew German support to A-H. France didn't declare war until it was already underway between Germany/A-H and Russia.
<----------- WWI buff.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Unless I got lost somewhere they're still talking about Stalin and WW2. In which case yes, Germany went to war with France on September 1,1939, and Russia on June 21,1941.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
It does get muddled when their discussion spans Nicholas II's complicity in Russian peasant troubles stemming from WWI through to Stalin's purges and mobilization in WWII.
However...
By that token, though, a case could be made that all of the deaths in WWI & II could be laid at the feet of Genghis Khan, given the effect the Golden Horde had on a)solidifying european nationalism ahead of it, and in the formative effect it had upon Russia.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Could we not also lay the Soviet dead in WW2 to Stalin's account since the military purges of '37-'38 gutted the Soviet officer corps of its best and brightest?
I think that Stalin was an awful leader who nearly destroyed his country. The Soviet Union survived the German onslaught only by the narrowest of margins due to Stalin's ineptitude. More luck than skill when you look closely.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
More than just luck - a lot had to do with the sheer size of the Soviet Union, and of course the greatest Russian General - General Winter. Seriously, one of the best quotes I ever seen said that Hitler was defeated by a cmbination of British courage, American manufacturing and Russian blood - I read somewhere that only 1 in 5 males of military age in Russia survived until the end of the war.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Russia always had one of the best tactics.....if done correctly, which is allow the enemy to come in the summer time (which Hitler did and so did Napolean and various other invaders) and just fight/retreat, and sorch the area before leaving, eventually circle back and cut off any reinforcements, and let the cold cold winter kill of the poor invaders that came in with summer clothing.
On another point, what I mean by good in the terms of Stalin, is that he was good leader in the sense that he got Russians to believe into this mythology, allow him to kill of farmers (because of different ethnic backgrounds) Purge russia, and instill a form of national pride even though he put them through hell, and that said, he was worshipped as a god in the end (until the de-stalinazation). I mean seriously he was a good leader, in that sense, i never said he was a good person or that his tactics where good, but he was a good leader for the communist regim.
Then again, large drops in the population are usually good for those who do survive. Lots more resources to go around... unless, of course, you're setting up a communist regime...
Lots of "ifs and buts"
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
And this, of course, shows why the waters are so muddy with regards to how many people Stalin 'killed'. Stalin himself hardly killed anyone - again, he manipulated other people into doing that for him, using the current political climate.
Stalin did not 'nearly destroy' his country. He brought it to a booming roar from an economic depression of severe proportions. The Soviet Union won by no 'narrow margin' at all. Germany never stood a chance. Regardless of how far in they penetrated, they could not access the Russian manufacturing infrastructure, and winter was far too close. The Soviet war machine was simply better managed than the German one. Hitler demanded logistical impossibilities and developed impressive but ineffective 'super weapons', while Stalin let his generals run the show and used the tried, tested and true, superior strategy of superior numbers of good-quality assets. The T-34 was the best tank of the war, not because it was a super-weapon, but because it was an excellent vehicle that was so cheap and easy to produce.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Can we please NOT repeat history ?....
yeah, that is loaded question .... but an important one .... my RUM tells me !
Atheism Books.
Did these killings happen on Stalin's watch at the helm of the Soviet Union? Was Stalin the head of state of the nation which executed these killings? Was Stalin aware of the effect that his policies were having on the people? If the asnwer to these questions is "yes" (which it is) then Stalin may as well have pulled the trigger in every single killing himself. The state exists for the well being of its citizens, not vice versa. Stalin did not serve the interests of Soviet citizens effectively since dead is not better than alive.
Not so, the goals of the economic Five-year Plans were missed time after time due to inept management at the highest levels of government. Hitler declaring war on the Soviet Union is the action that stoked the fires of the Soviet economy. If the history of the Soviet Union teaches any lesson at all, it is that centrally planned economies because they are not responsive to changes in economic conditions.
It was victory by quite a narrow margin. Operation Barbarossa was postponed for one month due to Italian incompetence in Greece and the Balkans. Hitler felt obligated to bail out his erstwhile ally by borrowing forces earmarked for Barabrossa. This meant delaying Barbarossa by more than a full month of excellent campaigning weather. This time would easily have allowed the probable capture of both Moscow and Leningrad, perhaps even isolated Archangel (the northern all weather Lend-Lease port) and caused a disillusioned military and political establishment to depose Stalin and sue for a separate peace.
Eventually, yes. But remember that it was largely American Shermans and halftracks which blunted the German onslaught during the first half of 1942.
Not so. Stalin viciously purged his officer corps of the best and brightest soldiers in 1937-38. Remember Tukhachevsky? The German invasion found junior officers commanding formations for which they had neither the experience or training to command. It wasn't unusual to find colonels commanding divisions; majors in regiments; captains in battalions. Further, the commisar system greatly inhibited the tactical flexibility of formations to adapt to the rapidly developing situation. Stalin gutted his army mercilessy practically the night before he had to call upon it to make tits greatest scarafices for the country. That's not leadership, that's partisanship and paranoia.
Arguable. For my money, ton per ton, the best tank in the world from 1943 until about 1955 was the German Pzkw V, commonly known as the Panther. Again that point is debatable.
Don't forget that the Soviets produced some pretty unremarkable behemoths and white elephants as well. The KV series tanks come to mind. Not to mention the light tanks (BT-series, I think, the T-26) against which Tukhachevsky argued on relying so heavily upon to the exclusion of medium tanks.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
I would say, by and large, wars are not won by leadership, only lost. Leadership can provide the spark that stirs the common man to refuse to give in, but in the end it is the common man upon whose shoulders success rests. The Soviet Union survived not because of Stalin's brilliance, but Hitler's errors, and the willingness of the Soviet people to bleed, kill, and die for their homes when the critical moment came.
And it is that last, the willingness and resolution of the men and women 'in the shit', as it were, to endure and refuse to be defeated, which has won wars, even if battles are lost, from today all the way back as far as Thermopylae, and beyond.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The Panther was the best tank to come out of WWII, but if the goal is to win a war, the T34 would be the way to go.... and yes, the Soviets had their own series of white elephants too, with meglomaniacs like Stalin and Hitler, who viewed their tanks as an extension of their penis, it's no surprise we had King Tigers and the like from both sides...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
True that!
Unfortunately, Plato seems to have it when he says, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
It amazes me that someone would post pro-Stalin nonsense and not be crucified. Kevin Brown probably thinks Charles Manson was a great leader too. But what else can you expect from someone who plays with dolls in the bathtub. I suspect that this fruit will be on MSNBC Lockup soon for killing his parents or something.
Did IQs drop sharply while I was away? Since when is acknowledging that someone was good at a particular task equate to support of the task? I think anthrax is great at killing people, but I'm not pro-anthrax.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
What would wonderful GOOD and talented Carl briefly say ?,
Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot , 3 mins .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Atheism Books.
two keys to victory, logistics and morale.
"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.
Well, fine then. I'll put it more bluntly than Hamby:
You're fucking retarded, and have no business opening your mouth here unless it's to let us all know how sorry you are for being such a dick.
As for the latter half of your statement:
Some butterly I made him out to be.
"Gulag and the Archipaeligo"... oh fuck, you're not some dumbass high school social studies teacher, are you?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
When I said not "good" but "talented", I should have said, talented stupid dick fuck ass hole juggernaut embarrassment to humanity. Want to now debate what STUPID is, anyone ? I hate Stalin , as love knows all fury ..... EeRrrrrrrr
((( love bullets on stupidity ....
Build lots of massive LOVE BOMBS. Beer, peanuts, candy, music, love letters .... etc, Drop them every where by parachute .... Why not ?
Love is the only answer .....
Atheism Books.
Seriously these forums lately have become grounds of ignorant people that spout off ignorant things, so far Kevin I have yet to see you try to make Stalin a saint, other than the facts and your opinion that he was a good leader for communist regim, i haven't see you say all that postive stuff about stalin, just the facts. Hell I said that he was a good leader for the communist regim, however that doesn't mean he was a good person, or that his tactics where good or that his policies where good for the people of Russia, mainly it was all good for the communist regim, which was in the long run BAD for Russia. How the hell do people act so damn ignorant and twist the whole thing around....is this another Paisley fellow??? Mods.....really can we get some control over these types of topics when people start to get WAY WAY WAY off topic or spouting something as bluntly absured? I mean freedome and speech and all but in a debate you just can't start getting off topic like that.
Your wish is my duty.
Kaab, you've been warned about internet flame high school drama in another thread. I don't intend to warn you in every thread. If you've got something to debate, debate it. Name calling is a fast track to trollville or a ban. Can you play nice?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Kevin said, right off, Stalin was a "juggernaut" ..... We are just getting into a ligustic debate over words, like "G O O D". Easy folks .... sheezzzz . YEAH , Stalin , fuck you ! Let's move on ..... from that shit ..... of allowing anyone to be , "good" (capable) , of being a juggernaut
NO MORE of that, Please .... And what is in that messed up mind, of president "B U S H " and his patriots? .....
Atheism Books.
Kaab,
I've been looking over the threads, and I've noticed something. The only threads that involve name-calling right now all have you in the middle of them. Let's make something clear. Kevin doesn't have the power to delete posts, and I'm the only mod on right now. Nobody deleted one of your posts. If you made a mistake, or had a glitch, that's too bad, but nobody's deleting your posts. I also did not edit your gulag statement.
I'm going to ask you this exactly one time. Are you trying to get banned, or are you going to cut the crap and act like an adult?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, I think maybe the venting is good. ??? It's honest, and we can help with that affliction we all share .....
Atheism Books.
The thing is, Kaab, I haven't been at it all day insulting the homosexual community, insinuating that people are gay, mischaracterizing arguments, etc. I called you a retard because that's exactly how you've acted - like you lack basic brain function. You post in here with whatever preconcieved notions, and a very gentle suggestion that you re-read the OP you met with hostility. It's hard to deal with Mr. Nice Guy when you slam the door in his face.
I did not intentionally mispell "Gulag Archipaeligo", either. That was an honest piece of error on my part. And yes, they most certainly DO use it as material in high school - it's part of what I did a report on in grade 12. I don't know more than the author, certainly; I'd bet I know a tad more than you from the sound of things, and this is all rather besides the point. You accused me of promoting and romancing Stalin, which is absurd. Having respect for something is far different from thinking it's wonderful (...and now I sound like a broken record, reiterating things both myself and Hamby already said).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I AM glad you are here and pissed off Kaab. Let's channel our anger to good use .... LOUD can be good ....
Atheism Books.
You must have problems with short term memory. I pm'd you to apologize for flaming you and for responding with hostility ( See thread "Ending the Divisions" ) and your response to my gesture can be read in post # 19 of that thread.
In any case, this argument is over in the public forums. If there's more to say, keep it to PMs or exchange phone numbers or something.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Considering the Orwellian (in the absolute, purest sense) nature of the Soviet state under Lenin and even more under Stalin, where criticism of The Leader or The Party could literally cost you and your family their lives, one would expect high approval ratings. Indeed, open opposition would be an act of lunacy or suicide.
So it was; you were as likely to find Tsarists, Mensheviks or Trotskyites in the USSR by the 1930s as Zoroastrians in the palaces of the Umayyad Caliphate.
Which is why Enemies of the People (singular and groups) had to be regularly manufactured in order to keep the "Revolution" going. Hence purges, show trials, forced mass-relocation and killing of ethnic populations, etc.
Come to think of it, Stalin's achievement in this area pales in comparison to that of the Roman Catholic Church, which enjoyed near-universal approval in Europe for centuries among all levels of society and across many different languages and cultures.
Of course, there was the little matter that openly saying where Rome could stick it would bring you agonizing death and the trivial fact that the Church controlled education and the media... but hey, why quibble?
The Popes were VERY GOOD at what they did, and even better at making people see this fact.
Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)
One word, Lysenko.
Dude... use your dictionary:
approve: 1.to speak or think favorably of; pronounce or consider agreeable or good; judge favorably:
effective: 1.adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result:
If I am effective at killing people, it means I am adequate to the purpose. I intend to kill people, and I do kill people. I am effective. If you don't approve of killing people, then I am still effective at killing them.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
is that there are way better people on this earth worth talking about than Joseph Stalin. There are incredible people, doing incredible things, and animals for that matter, whose lives will probably never have even a footnote in some offhand remark in a local paper written about them who are a thousand times the person that Joseph Stalin was. I have met them, I have traveled from Texas to Alaska all the way through Canada to Labrador and all the way south to Tierra del Fuego. I regret that I will probably never get out of the new world, but the people I have met, the mothers pulling fish out of nets in the Rio Negro, the fathers enduring horrendous cold to hunt, the small town politicians in Columbia risking life and limb and death and their family's deaths to speak out against corruption and drug abuse...fuck Stalin, he is a piece of crap not worth talking about.
As far as I know, this isn't a history forum. you are blabbering about Stalin for no reason. what if I came on here and made a thread about Nathan Bedford Forrest being the greatest Confederate leader of the civil war? Why don't we start discussing which inner city gang is the toughest? who cares? I sure as hell don't. I don't think Stalin and Hitler are worth a single breath and I regret getting on here and mentioning them.
You're right, kaab. There's definitely no point in trying to learn from the past, or to understand what kind of things made Stalin into the man he was. I mean, hell! If we ignore all the bad people in our society, surely nobody will ever be bad again, and we'll never have a need to recognize a potential despot before he actually gets to power.
All Right! Everyone in a line, please!!!
Heads in the sand on three...
1...
2...
3...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism