[Huzington1]

Here are some interesting quotations from Red Comrades concerning Stalin's life style.

"One goes up to the first floor, were white curtains hang over three of the windows. These three windows are Stalin's home. In the tiny hall a long military cloak hangs on a peg beneath a cap. In addition to this hall there are three bedrooms and a dining room. The bedrooms are as simply furnished as those of a respectable, second-class hotel. The eldest son, Jasheka, sleeps at night in the dining room, on a divan which is converted into a bed; the younger sleeps in a tiny recess, a sort of alcove opening out of it. . . . Each month he earns the five hundred roubles, which constitute the meagre maximum salary of the officials of the Communist Party (amounting to between £20 and £25 in English money). . . This frank and brilliant man is . . . a simple man. . . . He does not employ thirty-two secretaries, Like Mr. Lloyd George; he has only one. . . . Stalin systematically gives credit for all progress made to Lenin, whereas the credit has been in very large measure his own". (H. Barbusse: 'Stalin: A New World seen through One Man'; London; 1935; p. vii, viii, 291, 294)."

"It was the same with the dacha at Kuntsevo. . My father lived on the ground floor. He lived in one room and made it do for everything. He slept on the sofa, made up at night as a bed". (S. Alliluyeva: "Letters to a Friend"; London; 1967; p. 28).

"Stalin was no tyrant, no despot. He was a man of principle; he was just, modest and very kindly and considerate towards people, the cadres and his colleagues." (E. Hoxha: 'With Stalin: Memoirs'; Tirana; 1979; p. 14-15).

[jpyy]

The reason why Stalin does not seem as much as a tyrrant like Hitler (I am not trying to say that people should forget about what Hitler did, you should really remeber it so it never should happen again) is because he won the war and history is allways written from the winners viewpoint... Stalin is a man who has atleast 20 million deaths on him actually this number is increasing for every ten years there have already been numbers up to 30 million and more... But the thing is that why does nobody ever talk about what discusting things Stalin...
The English also have so much shit on their shield to but they always seem to manage so well, they started the first concentrations camps in South Africa, they bombed Dresden after the Second World War...
I can't see why anyone could think of Stalin as a good man.

Always remember that History is always written from the winners viewpoint!

[jaakko]

"jpyy",

What you wrote is irrelevant to the topic. There are already enough threads discussing the anti-Stalin slanders. This topic simply deals with the style of living of Stalin, which was quite extraordinary as compared to other world leaders or even small nation leaders.

By the way, I've been reading the book where the quote in the middle of Huzington's post is from. Svetlana Alliluyeva was an anti-communist who defected to CIA. But still she's quite sincere in what comes to the overal life style of Stalin. For example in the book she told that Stalin actually despised the cult of the individual build around him and that he was aware of the intentions of the cult builders. His assumption was later shown true, after his death when the same cult builders (Khruschev etc.) now used the cult as as their political weapon and as a cover (which it was meant to be from the beginning) for their other aims.

[Din]

i must say that this little peice of information has fasinated me.....

and if my memory serves me correctely, wasn't it the USAF that did the worst boming raid on dresden?, yes the british created Concentration camps, but we didn't use them as extensively as hitler did in ww2, by which time the british had finished conquering and saw no need to use them P.S if that all you can throw at the british then we don't have that much shit on our sheild .
However history is not always written in the victors viewpoint look at today's world the Soviet archives are being opened showing what stalin was like (and to a lesser extent his "atrocities") look at Stalin who had one of the bigest, richest countries in the world, and then lived in a fine building as the kremlin and then furnished his rooms like this?
He was Not your bog-standard dictator who only runs the country for money (Robert Mugabe is more of a "Typical" dictator) Ok Stalin killed 20 million people... he killed them? or maybe it was the Nazi's and their guns?? i am not pro stalin nor against him, but i DO like some of his ideas

Always remember that History is always written from the winners viewpoint!

ok so look at it from the Losers point of view and it makes history even more fasinating, that is all that most of the communists/ socialist do on this forum as they (metaphorically speaking) are the losers.

they bombed Dresden after the Second World War...

you mean there was some Dresden left to bomb??
jpyy plz don't bother being so anti stalin you annoy a LOT of people as all they are trying to do is see what the "evil man" was like
*predicts he will get some backlash from Comrade General Kov*

[Krasniy Yastreb]

All I know about Stalin's lifestyle is that his casual flirting and womanisation drove his wife to suicide.

Of course that could be said to be a false story created by the revisionist oppurtunist trots who blah blah blah...

But I'm badly informed on this particualar area so I'll say no more.

[SF note: Trotskyites would say Stalin murdered his wife]

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Stalin is a man who has atleast 20 million deaths on him actually this number is increasing for every ten years there have already been numbers up to 30 million and more...

Lol..and the fact that the numbers flactuate from 1 million to 100 million...should tell you something about what the pople who write them down really know about it.

[Gothmog]

...

Stalin is a man who has atleast 20 million deaths on him actually this number is increasing for every ten years there have already been numbers up to 30 million and more

-Actually the numbers have been decreasing and not increasing, since the opening of Soviet archives. Even Robert Conquest revised down his early estimates. Number of deaths in labor fields is now estimated in 1-2 million instead of the crazy tens of millions of early estimates. Even N. Werth, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, estimates total # of deaths in 15 millions for 1917-53. Michael Ellman, in a more recent work, makes an estimate of 3-3,5 million deaths as result of repression from 1921-53, plus the famine victims, althought it´s difficult to say to what extent the Soviet government was responsible by famine deaths in 1932-33. Anyway, you´re right when you say history is written by the winners....that´s why many crimes commited by "liberal democray" are cleaned....as yourself said.

[Din]

didn't stalin have some sort of crazy way with flirting with women, rolling up little balls of bread and then throwing then at the woman he fancied?


a little obvious and clumsy no wonder his wife killed herslef, mind you a better way to go than trotski

[Nox]

Michael Ellman, in a more recent work, makes an estimate of 3-3,5 million deaths as result of repression from 1921-53, plus the famine victims, althought it´s difficult to say to what extent the Soviet government was responsible by famine deaths in 1932-33. Anyway, you´re right when you say history is written by the winners....that´s why many crimes commited by "liberal democray" are cleaned....as yourself said.

Is this supposed to be a joke? At what point (the number of deaths) does it become important or in your case unimportant that people were murdered? Is it one, ten, hundreds, thousands, millions or any multiple thereof?

If the point of this post is that there may be exaggerated numbers, then I agree. However, if the purpose is to somehow be a Stalin apologist because the numbers are not accurate to the nth degree ... then I laugh at your naivity.

Nox

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

If the point of this post is that there may be exaggerated numbers, then I agree. However, if the purpose is to somehow be a Stalin apologist because the numbers are not accurate to the nth degree ... then I laugh at your naivity.

Oh don't laugh now...

I believe the point of the post was that...yes Stalin is responsible for many deaths....but that by comparison the western "democracies" which accuse Stalin are responsible for far greater numbers of deaths. (hmm...US killed 4 million in 10 years in Vietnam, Laos, Campuchea...)

Also...I believe the other point is that the extent of "responsible" is a little hard to define. People die during times of economic hardship...as the late 20s and early 30s were in the USSR. The same way, millions of people died of economic hardships in the west in the same time frame becasue of the Great Depression (and its proven that there were about 3 million "excess deaths" in the US during the early 30s due to the Great Depression). Who or what is responsible for that???


Furthermore...a point I'd like to make...is that it matters WHO was killed and WHY they were killed. If the British imperialists kill millions of poor people in Inida...I don't think its the same as killing several hudnreds of thousands of Czarist-supporters, fascist sympathizers and general Repugs ( ). In one case...it is not justifiable...in the other it is sometimes necessary and beneficiary

[Gothmog]

Is this supposed to be a joke? At what point (the number of deaths) does it become important or in your case unimportant that people were murdered? Is it one, ten, hundreds, thousands, millions or any multiple thereof?

If the point of this post is that there may be exaggerated numbers, then I agree. However, if the purpose is to somehow be a Stalin apologist because the numbers are not accurate to the nth degree ... then I laugh at your naivity.

Nox

-The main point here is that statistics of mass murder were greatly exaggerated (or underestimated) depending on the political agenda of the historian in charge. The second point is that the methods used by calculate those numbers are subjected to double standard criteria, also depending on the ideology in question. While western scholars consider the devastating famines in China (58-61) and USSR (21-22 and 32-33) as the result of communism (some of those people even argue that those famines are "planned"), those same people forget to consider the even more harmful famines of India (1877-78;1896-1900;1943) as being the result of British colonialism. However, in all those cases the famines were the result of economic mismanagement plus ideological blindness plus environmental disasters. And of course, global numbers make diference. In a few hours you will be arguing with TS about the estimates of US killings in Vietnam and probably will quote lower estimates (close to a few hundred thousands...) and will heavily disagree from his estimates of excesses deaths in the Great Depression (which were calculated by using the same methodology Robert Conquest used to estimate USSR excesses deaths in th 30´s). If you´re interested, I can send you Ellman´s article, in which some of those aspects are discussed in detail.

[Nox]

In a few hours you will be arguing with TS about the estimates of US killings in Vietnam

No I won't.

Nox

[Sapper]

Where Stalin's killings justified? Would he have been able to defend against Nazi Germany if he hadn't been as cruel? Would Russia be the same today without his killings (not in terms of population, but in industry and advancement, etc.)? I doubt it.

I like to say that Stalin "beat the system" through sheer force... there was little skill in it, just the end of a gun.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Would he have been able to defend against Nazi Germany if he hadn't been as cruel?

From what I recall...USSR was able to defend against Nazi Germany. From what I was taught in 5th grade history class...USSR won WW2. Maybe thats just Stalinist propaganda I was fed to in Albania...

In my opinion...and I can back this up with plenty of facts if you'd like (I just don't have time right now)...the USSR would NOT have been able to defend itself if it wasn't for Stalin...and not just Stalin but the entire Party and people who worked and fought as the "Stalinist" principles told them to.

Had someone like Trotsky been in power...than in my opinion the conclusion would have been a German victory.

I like to say that Stalin "beat the system" through sheer force... there was little skill in it, just the end of a gun.

Well that is where you are wrong...and there is plenty to talk about that...but I can't right now. This impression you get about Stalin is clearly tainted by what you have been taught in a bourgeois society about Stalin and communism...but the truth is the approach Stalin took was fundamentaly an ideological struggle within the party and within society itself. It pains me to say this...but Stalin FAILED in his attempt at socialism. This is not because his approach was wrong. His approach was 100% Lenin's approach...but there were mistakes and circumstances along the way which eventually led to defeat. It certainly has nothing to do with Stalin being "brutal" or killing a lot of people...first of becasue it is mostly untrue, and secondly because socialism is not concerned with the fact that if you kill a person you are evil...it matters why it happened and was it justified. I think looking at the explonation of revolution by Marx and Lenin...that revolution is not a "tea party" (to quote Mao)...and what Stalin did was necessary and useful. As communists we cannot simply say that if you kill you are evil and therefore you are not a communist. If the people you are sentancing to death are die-hard fascists who sabotage factories and kill peasants...that is justifiable and necessary under a socialist system.

A lot more on that...soon...(I know the suspense is killing you!)

[Din]

*dies from suspense*
please tell us more