Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 4

Archives:

Thru Apr 2003 Thru Jul 2003 Dec 2003 to Nov 2004 Nov 2004 to Jan 2005 Feb 2005 to Jul 2005 Jul 2005 to Aug 2005 Sep 2005 to Dec 2005 Dec 2005 to Apr 2006 May 2006 to Jul 2006 Aug 2006 to Oct 2006 Oct 2006 to Dec 2006 Oct 2006 to Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006 to June 2007

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Opening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits by 82.166.133.142

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

Dear 82.166.133.142,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opening paragraph

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

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

I see many problems with this.

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

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

ruthless is POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beneficence

Ford removed the following piece

through a combination of beneficence, tactical retreats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK so you did have a few things in there that didn't make excuses for why Saddam ruled as a ruthless dictator. I guess I should give you a tad more credit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trey Stone:

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

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

totalitarinism, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think Ruy has a point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be more careful when reverting

Dear ladies and gentlemen and not,

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

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

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

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

Purges

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

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

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

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

Stalin's support for the Kerensky government

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

"Stalin School of Falsification"

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

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

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

Proposed opening

Taking into account the above, and a few points that have not been mentioned, I would suggest the following reorganization:

“... was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. His style of government, known as Stalinism, was the subject of controversy from its earliest beginnings to the present. He reinstituted central planning and collective farming, and placed new emphasis on industrialization. The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but millions of lives were also lost to famine. Stalin created a cult of personality around himself, and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths. A costly victory in World War II (1945) and the subsequent occupation of eastern Europe laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953.”

I believe that this is concise, hits the major points, represents a compromise on what to include, redresses the imbalanced economic picture, and presents facts, not theories. (For example, it does not attempt to explain the famine, but does give the reader an idea of why so many millions of deaths are often (and justly) attributed to him.) I would hope that it would not be rejected out of hand. If it were me alone, I would go much further, but I honestly believe that all of this can be justified under NPOV; and it reads better.
— Ford 02:55, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

If we have "totalitarian" mentioned at least one friggin time in this article then it'd be just peachy. 172 can even mention how his favorite Soviet historians think that making an attempt to deeply and continually involve the state in people's everyday lives is somehow not totalitarian.

Famine is to be removed. There were quite a few famines before stalin and before lenin. The issue requires explanation beyond intro. Instead, millions of deaths must be moved out of dependence of the term "purges". Because of a certain period being called Great Purge, there happens to occur a conflation of the notion of party purges and the political repressions against the rest of (partyless) population, never called "purge". For example, kulaks were not "purged", they were "liquidated as class", etc. So, a sentence smething like this: "...Millions of deaths are attributed to political decisions of Stalin's rule..." must be instead. Mikkalai 03:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would be fine with your proposed sentence, Mikkalai, but I rather doubt it will get past the committee. Your point about the purges versus other forms of killing is well taken, by me at least. But I still think famine must be mentioned; there was an extraordinary (read: notable) death toll from the famine, and given the common (if not universal) attribution of the famine to Stalin’s decisions (and the system of falsification that his terror encouraged), to exclude it would be a significant omission.
— Ford 04:18, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

I agree with Mikkalai's points above. There are some other problems. (1) This is a non-sequitur: "The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but millions of lives were also lost to famine." The contradiction is not too clear. (2) His style of government, known as Stalinism, was the subject of controversy from its earliest beginnings to the present. Controversy among whom? Why is this relevant? How is Stalinism a 'style of government'? Wouldn't it be more apt to describe it as a political and economic system and/or as an ideology? (3) He reinstituted central planning and collective farming, and placed new emphasis on industrialization. I suppose that the term "reinstituted" is used in reference to War Communism? However, this statement ignores the ways in which the system of administrative command that emerged following the drafting of the first Five Year Plan differed from the policies of War Communism. 172 04:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ford seems interested in adding a reference to Stalin's personality cult to the intro. The easiest way of accomplishing this is keeping the intro that has stayed for months (and at that the one that has proved capable of satisfying the contending views of many editors over time) while adding the following to the end: "Rebuked by later generations of Soviet leadership, Stalin's successor as First Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin's crimes, unnecessary use of mass repression, and his personality cult." ¹

¹ Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956 can be read online (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) at [9].
172 04:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion Ford's version is very good. I think we could make some minor improvements to it and put it in the article. Let me pass my comments to the above discussion.

I think the famine should stay, as it can be perceived as a cost of the transformation. Our task is difficult: we should mark some connection between the transformation and the famine, but without conveying any view on the causes of the famine. My attempt is The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but during the course of the transformation millions of lives were lost to famine... (maybe it would be good to mention dekulakization here too, I'm not sure).
I agree with Mikkalai about the purges. Millions of deaths should be associated with the term "mass repression" (which Stalin's policies involved) rather than "purge".
I think 172's note (2) is justfied. Anyway, in my opinion the term "Stalinism" should definitely appear in the intro, either alone or with a few words of description.
BTW the article about Stalinism definitely requires more analysis from the standpoint of political science (including the issue of totalitarianism). Besides, we should work on cohesion between the articles "Joseph Stalin" and "Stalinism" (compare the "Stalin as a theorist" section of the former and the "Stalinism as a political theory" section of the latter).
I agree with 172's note (3), but I think it's just about the word "reinstituted".

Boraczek 10:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the opening Ford put above:

Controversial sounds like a weasel word. Bush is controversial, Clinton is controversial, what important leader is not controversial?
You say millions died from a famine. Where did you pull those numbers from? The first reports of a supposed famine were by Goebbels, and the New York Times reported that his claims were false. Conquest's book, which is the prime source for most subsequent sources, used Nazi sources as well for his information. Also, I may have missed an edit that flew by, but this seems to be something new Ford wants to put into the opening paragraph, pouring gasoline on the flames of the current disputes. Most of the changes I have been making have been regarding what is discussed already, e.g. a purge is mentioned, I explain the motivation for the purge.
- Ruy, if you don't trust the modern scientific works (which you can find here: [10] ), then maybe you will trust the official Soviet statistics from the 1930s? According to the statistics, the population of Ukraine in 1933 alone decreased by 2 million. If there had been no famine, then how come that more than 2 million people disappeared? Boraczek 13:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then there's this sentence "Stalin created a cult of personality around himself, and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths." I've already discussed this before. For one thing if this is to remain at all in some form it must be split into separate sentences. This is the type of sentence that is all too typical of Wikipedia - it tries to compress a cult of personality, elimination of political opposition, skillful manipulation, patronage, not to mention "ruthless" purges which we are further told resulted in millions of deaths. This is just one of those sentences that grabs about six or seven buckets of mud, jams them all into one sentence, and see what sticks. And of course everything is jammed together to be linked - patronage in the USSR is linked to Stalin, a cult of personality is linked to ruthless purges that result in millions of deaths, it's an attempt to make the sum greater than the whole of the parts. I haven't even scratched the surface of what's wrong with this sentence, although I've spoken of it above.

- I can't see anything wrong with that sentence (except the relation between purges and millions of deaths Mikkalai commented on) Boraczek 13:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One thing is this all becomes about Stalin - it's as if if Stalin had died patronage in the USSR would not have been a problem, as if the Central Committee would not have worried about the factionalization of the CPSU (and USSR) in the face of the coming Nazi invasion, as if the Polish nationalists in the Ukraine would not have been dealt with, and so on and so forth. We are talking about history here, not some NBC movie-of-the-week melodrama where all of Russia's problems flow from Stalin - if Stalin had died, someone like Molotov would have taken over, he would have been slightly less popular outside the party, he probably would have concentrated on helping communist parties in Europe more, but aside from minor details, I'm sure not much would have changed. Stalin is given way too much credit or blame here by actions really taken by the Politburo, Central Committee and CPSU. Ruy Lopez 11:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are taking a hypothetical history of the USSR and the party bureaucracy to say that we cannot attribute Stalin's crimes to Stalin. This does not work. As the leader of the Soviet Union he is responsible for what happened during his rule, whether certain "bureaucrats" got out of control or not. And considering you had a chairman after him who repudiated his crimes and never oversaw the kind of mass terror and repression Stalin did, it is clear who bears the most responsibility. I don't object to a mention of CPSU machinations, splits, whatever, so long as they aren't used as a tool to shift blame away from Stalin for Stalinism. J. Parker Stone 23:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: ...melodrama where all of Russia's problems flow from Stalin... This is a really good point. When people like Stalin come up, there are all these users on Wikipedia ready to start personalizing history. This statement earlier was also very well put: This is just one of those sentences that grabs about six or seven buckets of mud, jams them all into one sentence, and see what sticks. We have to be careful not to do this, not to personalize history, not to write any emotional reactions to Stalin in the intro. 172 18:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- The speculation that the same things would have happened if someone else than Stalin ruled does not alter the fact that it was Stalin who ruled and took some actions. We should not attribute neither too much nor too little to Stalin and I don't think Ford's version strays in this aspect. Besides, this is an article on Stalin and not about the Politburo, so we should describe Stalin's role here. Boraczek 13:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems, 172, that you managed to find just enough problems with my proposal to bring it right back to what you wanted, that we tack a statement onto the end. Nice sentence, by the way. “Unnecessary use of mass repression”? Under what circumstances would it have been necessary, do you think? Do you not think ‘crimes’ is more point-of-view than anything I have proposed?

Yes, it would be POV if this were the statement of the narrator voice, but notice the footnote directing the reader to a link to Khrushchev's speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. Thus, this is a reference to the POV of Khrushchev, which is historical fact. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is rather disingenuous to say that it is I who seem interested in adding the reference to the personality cult; rather, many of us do, including you.

I mentioned the fact that you were interested in adding a reference to his cult of personality in the intro. I did not state that you were the only one concerned with this. I think that you are reading more into my comments that I meant to imply. I mean no offense; and I respect what you are trying to accomplish with this article. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the word ‘Stalinism’ — or are we not allowed to link to that either?

If I forgot to link it, that was a mistake. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And that’s a dangling participle; or was it really Khrushchev who was rebuked?

To your points, then: Non-sequitur? We are talking about the economy. I say how it was transformed and “improved”, and I then immediately note in what way that transformation and “improvement” failed.

I disagree with speaking about the economy in terms of "improvement." The point was that the economy was transformed from an agrarian one to an industrial one based on a system of administrative command, and that can be for better or for worse. The point of my initial statement was that if the intro is going to speak of a relationship between the famine in the Ukraine and industrialization, it ought to articulate the relationship more precisely than the sentence that you are proposing. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a perfectly-obvious connection in a textual sense: facts about the economy. Of course, ‘non-sequitur’ is a logical term, and since “logical constructs” are forbidden in the introduction, we cannot spell out the rather simple theory that collectivization, central planning, and industrialization under Stalin’s direction allowed this former peasant society to experience such famine. But if we cannot mention a theory, the only thing we can do is present related facts, which is what I have done.

How can you have a problem with ‘controversy’? You are part of the reason it must be mentioned. Obviously there was controversy among his colleagues and his successors.

Speaking of controversy about Stalinism, we have an article about Stalinism. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And it is controversy about Stalinism that has kept us from mentioning totalitarianism, even as a controversial theory. The statement sets up the rest of the introduction, and the article itself. I would prefer to leave it out, but it is good writing for the commission you have given us. Your preferred opening is not. And ignoring for the moment the feeling of appendage created by your preferred solution, I will ask why Khrushchev alone is to be mentioned as disagreeing with Stalinism. Yes, he was important, but I suggest (which is all I can do in a short summary) that many disagreed with Stalinism, as well as disagreeing about Stalinism, whereas you invoke Khrushchev as an authority — the only person who gets mentioned by name — and then use him as a vehicle for introducing point-of-view conclusions that are not in a direct quote. (I share the point of view, naturally; but your version will be picked apart for ideological reasons, as the history of this paragraph shows.)

Again, as I stated above, since it is invoking Khrushchev, it is not POV. I wouldn't worry about it. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is Stalinism not a style of government? A government in a centrally-planned economy is an economic system, and of course it is a political system as well. ‘Ideology’ hardly covers the actions that we discuss (and should discuss) in the introduction. Stalinism was not just an ideology; it was a practice.

I meant that system of goverment was a better term, that's all. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ‘reinstituted’ is a reference to the fact that the standard features of communist economics had already been introduced following the revolution, and then rolled back by the NEP.

There has never been the application of "communist economics" in the Soviet Union. If you meant "socialist" you also have to consider the extent to which the NEP was not a complete break with socialism. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a more accurate statement, and better represents what happened, since the NEP was itself a change of course, whereas the previous opening suggested that it was the only thing the Bolsheviks had tried. And saying that my version ignores the differences between Stalinism and War Communism is finding fault for no reason. They were similar; they were different. We are producing a short summary, and we cannot go into how they were similar and different. Nor would you want us to.

The differences with War Communism nevertheless make all the difference. It was the first Five Year Plan that truly set up the complicated series of bureaucratic planning arrangements that managed and directed the economy until just 12 years ago. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So in the end, as I feared, you have offered a slew of minor objections which have led you right where you wanted to go: your original idea, to throw a new sentence on the end of a paragraph that you keep claiming to be the product of an age-old consensus.

This article is the seventh site that comes up on a Google search for Joseph Stalin [11] and anyone with an internet connection can edit it. The fact that the intro has proved acceptable for so long on such an article on Wiki says something. Granted it is not prefect, but when dealing with an article such as this one, no paragraph is going to be perfect to everyone on Wikipedia. (Actually, it would be considerably different if I could be the only writer.) But it is good enough at consensus-building, and introducing the subject, for that matter.172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is not very good, and, as we have proven recently, is not consensus-building. Ah, yes, but I suppose you have been editing this page for years, and pat, pat you have seen editors come and go, while this opening stands the test of time. Except that you think it needs the denunciation by Khrushchev. And Ruy wants to justify Stalinism. And Trey insists on ‘totalitarianism’. And none of us can agree on what facts should be included. But other than that....
— Ford 11:14, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

(1) No one can argue with the denunciation by Khrushchev; this is an important, relevant facutal statement. (2) I don't think that Ruy wants to justify Stalinism; I think that he'll be happy so long as users like Trey Stone or Fred Bauder insert their POV. (3) There has been a reason that "totalitarianism" has stayed out of the intro for years; and I'm sure that it'll continue to stay out of the intro. (because of problems with this interpretative model brought to light by more recent academic literature, which I noted in this response to Fred-- BTW, in that edit I meant the 'primitive' nature of the planning bureaucracy, in case you notice that mistake when you take a look at the link. ) 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well that part about Khrushchev is just excellent. I take interest in the part of his "secret speech" where he talked of how Stalin used violence and terror unnecessarily -- that while Lenin had used it to quell instability and defeat the "exploiting classes", Stalin used it after the main problems had been resolved. This would directly challenge the thesis (1 of the 3) of those Sovietologists you mentioned who think that Stalinism was somehow not totalitarian partly because of "conflict between key figures". J. Parker Stone 23:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion (I'm not a native speaker of English, so chances are the sentence I wrote sounds awkward; if so, please correct):

“... was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. His autocratic style of exercising power stamped the contemporary Soviet political system, which is thus known as Stalinism. Stalin created a cult of personality around himself, and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges. He instituted central planning and collective farming, and placed new emphasis on industrialization. The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but during the course of the transformation millions of lives were lost because of famine and repressions. A costly victory in World War II (1945) and the subsequent occupation of Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953.”

Boraczek 20:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second and third sentences will be contested as way too POV. The following is more succinct and factual, mentioning the five year plans, alluding to de-Stalinization, and the end of the NEP:

...was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power. Meanwhile, Stalin eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through tactical retreats, the expansion of social services, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths. A costly victory in World War II (1945) laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953. Future generations of Soviet leadership later rebuked Stalinism; Stalin's successor as First Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev later denounced his 'crimes', unnecessary use of mass repression, and his 'cult of personality'. ¹

¹ Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956 can be read online (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) at [12].
172 23:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with 172's version:

This version ignores the form of Stalin's power and the contemporary political system of the Soviet Union. As Fred Bauder and Ford emphasized and convicingly argued that these aspects should be mentioned, this version does not look like an attempt at reaching consensus, but rather as one's personal version.
The cult of personality is an important and interesting historical phenomenon, which deserves more than listing as one of Khrushchev's accusations.
This version mentions collectivization and industrialization, but does not mention famine and dekulakization. Therefore, it conveys a definitely unbalanced view.
I have to say that the phrase "expansion of social services" is very mysterious. What does it refer to? Besides, I see no reason for removing the word "patronage".
The connection of the word "purges" with "millions of deaths" was questioned by Mikkalai. I and, I think, Ford agreed with Mikkalai. Nobody disagreed. Again, this version seems to ignore what has been said on this talk page.

Boraczek 09:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(1) The above version mentions centralized planning, collectivization, the five-year plans. (2) Actually, the above version contains the most information on his personality cult, mentioning that it was rebuked by his successors while at the same time it is implicitly clear that one was created. (4) I don't know about it being 'unbalanced'. Any one paragraph on the man who did more to mold the features that characterized the Soviet regime and shape the direction of postwar than anyone else is not going to mention a lot of important things. I see, though, that a new intro is in order not entirely based on the old, 'consensus' one. I will propose a new one working famine and the kulkaks into it. (5) The expansion of social services refers to just that-- health, education, housing, recreation, etc. This was a part of co-opting certain segments of the population while repressing others in order to strengthen the regime. Regarding patronage, I agree with a comment made earlier by Ruy Lopez. The sentence favored by you and Ford may seem to some an attempt to slip as much mud as possible into a single sentence. We have to pay attention to NPOV. (6) While the sentence links the 'millions of deaths' to his overall consolidation of power in the 1930s, and not just the purges, I see now that this is unclear. 172 17:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that the old intro is not going to satisfy Ford, Mikkalai, Boraczek, Fred, Ruy, and me at the same time, with people calling for the addition of detail concerning the personality cult, dekulakization, Stalin’s role in shaping the features and attributes of the Soviet system, and the famine. Thus, below I am proposing a new, three-paragraph intro integrating all the points brought up in the current intro and the three proposed so far here on the talk page:

Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, Iósif Vissariónovich Stálin), original name Ioseb Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი, Russian: Иосиф Джугашвили, Iósif Dzhugashvíli; see Other names section) (December 21 [December 9, Old Style], 1879¹–March 5, 1953) was a Bolshevik revolutionary. As general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party from 1922 to his death in 1953, Stalin molded the features that characterized the new Soviet regime and later shaped the direction of Europe following Soviet victory in the Second World War in 1945.

Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power by the end of the 1930s. However, agriculture, which had been exploited to finance the industrialization drive, continued to show poor returns throughout the decade. Collectivization had met widespread resistance not from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of the peasantry against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of causalities.

Stalin eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through providing the population benefits so as to co-opt them into the regime, or through purges. Stalin feared that the ruling Communist Party's factionalism might weaken the Soviet Union in the face of foreign enemies. In December 1934, Stalin set in motion a massive purge of the party known (see Great Purges). A hard-won victory in World War II, made possible in part through the discipline and capacity for production that were the outcome of industrialization, laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953. Future generations of Soviet leadership later rebuked Stalinism; Stalin's successor as First Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev later denounced his 'crimes', unnecessary use of mass repression, and his 'personality cult'.¹

¹ Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956 can be read online (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) at [13].

172 17:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this 3p intro is indeed much better than the old one. Boraczek 15:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please leave a version be and don't change it all the time, it's ridiculous. Some of you have to read what POV means again. You'll never find consensus on this theme if POV isn't just the largest acceptable opinion people and historians have on this matter. I find playing with words like "ruthless" and "totalitarism" so childish, for god's sake, why these things are not happening with Hitler or other leaders? --Kensai 09:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I would have proposed my revised opening here regardless of whether the page were protected, based on the predictable controversy and the reaction to earlier edits; and it was a good deal less radical than your revision, 172. I apologize for always being so negative towards you, but this reworking of yours, while not all bad, is a bit frustrating: you defended the previous opening and resisted point-for-point my reworking, and I honestly do not believe that you gave it due consideration.

I did consider it. Since considering it even further than I had at the time when I wrote my first set of comments in response, I have come to agree that the old intro must be expanded, including a reference to Stalinism and his personality cult. 172 07:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And now, while the discussion on a revision is taking place on this page, you summarily change the opening to a brand-new, never-discussed, profoundly-different and much longer opening. Again, pardon the negativity, but is it just important that you be the primary author of this introduction? I am baffled.

The authorship does not matter to me. (I was not the primary author of the old intro; and the new intro is an attempt to add some of the considerations stated here on the talk page for the past few days.) 172 07:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that you state your openness to input; but why place your proposed opening directly into the article, while we are talking about the opening, especially when you were previously so adamant about retaining the old one almost unchanged?

I posted an explanation of this somewhere else on talk. I guess that it is easy to miss, with this talk page getting so long. I came to realize that a longer, three paragraph intro would be necessary to include everything that everyone wanted mentioned. 172 07:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not apologize for or regret any perceived negativity towards Ruy; any attempt to balance his views with the rest of ours will lead to an article that is biased and inaccurate. He is defending Stalinism; here is the evidence. And he is whitewashing Stalinism; here is the evidence. Imagine my complete bafflement to see that defense of Stalinism in your new opening. No way, no how. We are not going to offer some completely-implausible and completely-unprovable psychological explanation for Stalin’s sociopathic behavior. That is insane. I would go so far as to say that it makes me sick. I also cannot accept any hint that Stalin’s policies helped win World War II. Every serious account I have read suggests just the opposite: Russia would have done far better without his policies, without his flawed command and the terror he instilled, and without his purging or murder of so many of the competent persons who could have contributed to victory.

Anyway, I don’t know what is now supposed to stop any of us from inserting a radical change at any time. I suppose that we would get reverted; and I thought of reverting you just to make the point, but I don’t operate that way. I am rather dismayed by this process, though. It feels to me like you are holding court here, 172, and with this sudden departure from your previous policy the only constant is that you will have the last word. I think you are acting in good faith, so, again, I regret that I am being so negative towards you. But you are not the editor-in-chief, and yet from my perspective you are acting as if you are the only one here with sense enough for the role.
— Ford 06:08, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

This is not my intention. Keep in mind how difficult it is to communicate on these talk pages, especially one getting as long as this one. After all, we're carrying on multiple conversations with multiple users at different times and on random places on this page. There are strong objections (like your objections to Ruy's work or my objections to Trey Strone's adding of 'totalitarian' to the intro) and minor ones, such as the 'beneficence' and 'reinstituted' debates. This definitely can get confusing and overwhelming! BTW, thank you for the positive tone of your latest comments. 172 07:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links

I don't mind a properly attributed short section on how wonderful, wise, and practical Stalinism or rather Marxism-Leninism is, as they would have it, including a short rendition of their view of how well things went during Stalin's rule, but I also want a short section which links to totalitarianism and briefly discusses the characteristics of a totalitarian state. Fred Bauder 18:11, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that'll fly here. You can try it here, though. 172 18:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did a google search for "Stalin" and "totalitarian" or "totalitarianism". It produced 154,000 hits. The top hit [14] I think may be of interest. The first notable thing is the way totalitarianism is used, not as a referent to a way that the life of a state is organized, but as a school of historians, in other words as a concept in historiography. The second notable thing is that there are two groups who see the Soviet state as totalitarian. One is right wing Americans (who I do not consider terribly credible). The other is modern Russian commentators, who I submit are intimately familiar with what life was like.

A similar search substituting Hitler for Stalin produces 202,000 hits. The top hit [15] supports the theme I have suggested that totalitarianism is one of the dominant themes of 20th century history. Fred Bauder 22:08, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is not a well promulgated theme. However, it is inappropriate to slip in theses on modern history that are reasonably contestable into this intro. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. 172 22:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should reduce emphasis on the introduction. Trying to force particular language into it (or trying to keep it out) is productive of edit warring. However, we do need substantial material included in the article which reflects the way Stalin and his system was viewed, both by outside critics and those who lived through it. Fred Bauder 12:42, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Piecewise discussion of intro

I'm afraid if everyone will suggest a version of a complete intro, we are lost. I suggest to discuss items for inclusion one by one, and only then compose the whole text. Mikkalai 17:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We have already discussed all of these items one by one. I suggest that we take a look at the three paragraph intro that I am proposing above (see [16]), which takes into account everything that you are mentioning below. Right now, we're only left capable of proposing complete intros on the talk page because the page is still locked. 172 20:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are my favourite sockpuppet Mikkalai, I would very much like to work with you on this project. Please suggest your first sentence and I let me know on my talk page, and I will respond. One by one discussion, starting at the top of the article is the only way for articles to proceed once there are numerous editors arguing about what should go where and how. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am speaking about this particular case when the article is protected. Right now it is impossible for an average human to track all opinions in the talk page. Also, an intro is a special case, since it condenses the whole long article into several sentences. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that 172 keeps using words like "ruthless", "costly", "co-opt", "unnecessary", "bitter", "massive", "major", etc in his writing shows that he really doesn't understand what NPOV is. His critics have known this ever since he edit-warred over New Imperialism, where he wrote that Wilhelm I was a "moron". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Things to be or not to be mentioned in into

So, let's collect building blocks, quickly figure out undisputable pieces and go teeth'n'claws about the rest.

Current (protected) version

Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, Iósif Vissariónovich Stálin), original name Ioseb Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი, Russian: Иосиф Джугашвили, Iósif Dzhugashvíli; see Other names section) (December 21 [December 9, Old Style], 1879¹–March 5, 1953) was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power. Meanwhile, Stalin eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths. A costly victory in World War II (1945) laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953.

Intro image

Beginning with the image: thumb|Joseph Stalin: It does show a rather jolly little elf. Perhaps something more neutral? Fred Bauder 19:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

"jolly little elf". Yep, it was the appearance. He never showed his anger by screeching his teeth, stomping, throwing things, rolling on the floor. His calm voice and light smile could make a person either Hero of the Soviet Union or food for worms. Lenin was much more vivid and emotional in appearance. Mikkalai 19:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"little": you hit the nail here also. He was not tall, despite the image created by skilled photographers and articsts. Mikkalai 19:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like that image, keep it. Everyking 03:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - Economy transformation - - - -

NEP

low relevancy. Majority of communists agreed it was temporary retreat. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree, but mention it in the context of bringing up what replaced it. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
More important to emphasis the change in athmosphere from one of relative peace to the terror that accompanied collectivization, famine and the institution of slave labor in the Gulag. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with 172. Boraczek 16:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of minor importance, fine to mention or leave out. I’m more with Fred. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Industrialisation

High relevancy. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreee. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Boraczek 16:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Certainly. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Collectivisation

High relevancy. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree. 172
Agreed but needs to be characterized as forced and mention made of the famine and the millions of deaths. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fred. Boraczek 16:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Fred. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- You may link 1932 famine with collectivisation, but not so directly, as if kolkhozes were unproductive. Here is a simple data, from "capitalist" sources: by 1930 50% was collectivised. After Stalin's Dizzy with success of this year in fact de-collectivisation happened, nearly by half. So the reason of drop in productivity not lazy kolkhozes but the unwillingness of non-collectivised peasants to work hard in the conditions of the threat. I don't know how you can write this smoothly in the intro without conveying wrong idea. I suggest again, to mention death toll without itemizing. Mikkalai 01:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - De-collectivisation happened in 1930, but then 1930-1932 was a period of intensive re-collectivisation. Boraczek 10:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Famine

Must be mentioned, with the death toll. A crucial fact of economic transformation and the effects of Stalinism. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
If we mention the economic transformation, no way to omit the famine. Boraczek 10:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - Personal power - - - -

Consolidation

Distinctive feature. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See the way the three paragraph intro proposal approaches this above-- mention in the context of dealing with the Great Purges. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, elimination of all opposing factions, other strong leaders and destruction of the Party and the bureauracy. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
High relevance. Consolidation of personal power should not be confused with stabilizing the regime as such. Boraczek 16:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely — and it must be about Stalin, not Stalin’s sycophantic appointees. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

personality cult

medium. I dislike the idea of slapping cliches into intro. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Mikkalai. Mention in the context of de-Stalinization. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should be mentioned, but it is, in essence, a post-Stalinist euphemism for dictatorship. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
High relevance - describes Stalin's position in the society. Important phenomenon from the sociological, cultural and historical POV. Boraczek 16:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Definitely mention. I disagree with Fred; dictatorships and personality cults are distinct phenomena, though often connected. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

totalitarianism

medium. I dislike the idea of slapping cliches into intro. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not needed in the intro. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If not in the intro, somewhere so it is noticed. It is an important aspect of Stalin's rule, because Stalinism is commonly associated with it. J. Parker Stone 23:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should be present with a link as should certain aspects of the totalitarian system, the institution of slave labor in the Gulag, the Great Purge, Collectivization, and tight control over information. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Possible, but not necessary in the intro. Boraczek 16:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should be mentioned. Hardly a cliché. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Destalinisation

Significant in Soviet history. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mention it toward the end of the intro. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, with the link to Khrushchev's speech. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Possible, but not necessary in the intro. Boraczek 16:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Less important, but fine to mention. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

- - death toll - - - - - -

Significant in Soviet history. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mention along with collectivization and the Great Purges. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, but avoid specific number other than "millions" Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fred. Boraczek 16:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An absolute must. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Mention it, but say only that it is a matter of serious dispute and that it was probably in the millions. Everyking 03:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - external policy - - - -

WWII

Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but without anachronistic references that Stalin did this or that in anticipation. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fred. Boraczek 16:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fred; but they aren’t anachronistic, they are apologetic. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact

Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not as such, mention might be made of occupation of Eastern Europe and establishment of Soviet dominated satellite regimes Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Mikkalai. Boraczek 16:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fred. Greater Russian empire, and should not be treated as the consolidation of an alliance. We can only mention the Warsaw Pact in conjunction with the military occupation of eastern Europe. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Superpower

Not many would disagree wth the fact. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No one can. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We now know this was an illusion, a weak, disorganized and dispirited country that had nuclear weapons with the ability to deliver them but little else. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- very interesting logic. Kicked Hitler's ass, made nukes, and — illusion... US hawks were frighty frogs... Tell it to the Marines! Mikkalai 01:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. Boraczek 16:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do not disagree, but I think, 172, that it is quite possible to do so. — Ford 00:59, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Good work. Thanks for the insights. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we have a negative aspect of Stalin's rule that isn't immediately countered with something else? Like "he purged people [failing to adequately describe the enormity of his repression and central control]... but there was instability" or "Stalinism was bad... but Khrushchev rebuked it." All of these aren't incorrect, it's just Stalinism's crimes aren't mentioned except in a context which dilutes them. This is Trey 08:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I'm not saying edit out references to Khrushchev's opposition or Party factionalization, just to not accompany all "bad Stalinist" references with something else that de-emphasizes it. J. Parker Stone 10:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We need to be realistic rather than romantic about Stalin. He wrecked the country. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Edits by Everyking

Collectivization had met widespread resistance from the kulaks—prosperous peasants—and a bitter struggle followed, contributing to a severe famine that caused possibly millions of casualties

as well by securing the support of much of the population through his social and economic policies

The statement that the resistance came from prosperous peasants is POV, if not simply false. Let me cite Geoffrey Hosking: Nor is there much evidence of systematic conflict between different classes of rural dwellers. What Soviet sources call 'kulak outrages' usually turn out, when one can look more closely at the sources, to have involved more than just the wealthier peasants, and often the whole village. (G. Hosking, The First Socialist Society, Harvard University Press, 1993)
Not only the struggle contributed to the famine. Inefficiency of the Soviet administrative system also played its role.
The statement that Stalin won the support of much of the population thorugh his social and economic policies is too dubious and unclear. Please substantiate this statement.

Boraczek 10:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It says kulaks, and kulaks were prosperous peasants. I didn't change the meaning, I just explained it a little more to put it in social context.
I agree that it shouldn't be blamed entirely on the struggle, but if you look at the differences in the edits, mine is less radical in that regard—it merely says contributed.
That is the exact same thing as what it said before, that business about co-opting people into the regime, but with more straightforward phrasing. Note that I later revised it to say "secured" rather than "won", as I think that gets to the meaning a bit better. Everyking 11:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that using a term "Kulak" here is unfortunate - it has a derogatory connotations, and Russian authorities of that time could class anybody they did not like as "kulak" (whether prosperous or not).--Vlad1 17:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion there are some subtle differences between your version and 172's version, which make the quoted sentences less acceptable to me. For example, co-opting people into the regime (and hence stabilizing the political system) is not exactly the same thing as securing support for a person. One can live in a democratic country and think that democracy is definitely the best political system but dislike the current prime minister and his policy. You are right about the word "contributed", but at the same time you changed the causal relation from "=> struggle, famine, deaths" to "struggle => famine, deaths". Boraczek 12:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some comments in no particular order... (1) I changed the following: ...many other states, particularly in Eastern Europe, later modeled themselves on this political and economic structure (see Stalinism) to ...later shaped the direction of Europe following Soviet victory in the Second World War in 1945. This is the case in East Asia, and later other parts of the Third World, where a number of home-grown, indigenous communist revolutionary movements gained power and generally wielded it independently of USSR. But, of course, in Eastern Europe they came to power given the influence of Soviet power. The wording that I've restored notes the influence of Stalin in the transition to Soviet-style regimes in Eastern Europe. (2) The versions containing the phrases 'co-opting segments of the population into the regime' and 'securing support for' are stating the same things. I understand how the tone of the latter may sounds more favorable; even so, I think that Everyking's change improves my version. It's a lot more readable and in plain English, avoiding the political science jargon. (3) Everyking has a point about some poor and landless peasants. Not all of those who fought against collectivization were in the upper strata of the peasantry; and not all peasants resisted collectivization. 172 06:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Boraczek, if you have strongly object to the 'securing support for' phrase, pleasde go ahead and change it back. Both wordings are acceptable in substance for me. I just favor Everyking's change as a stylistic mark-up. 172 09:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "securing support" version explicitly states that (1) Stalin secured the support of much of the population and (2) he did it thanks to his social and economic policies. In my opinion this statement is too unclear (what kind of support? what social and economic policies?) and disputable (how much of the population really supported Stalin and how much obeyed due to inertia or terror? was the support an effect of economic policies or rather of propaganda and the cult of personality?) to put it in the intro as a fact. Besides, I think the sentence which contains this statement aims at mentioning the methods Stalin used to eliminate the opposition. And the "securing support" version seems to decribe results rather than methods. That is why I prefer the "co-opt" version to the "securing support" version. I will restore the former, as I have no idea how to express it better than 172 did. Anyway, I appreciate Everyking's attempt at making the sentence more straightforward, clearer and stylistically better. And of course, I am open to any new suggestions. Boraczek 14:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stalin of course secured quiescence of the Soviet population through terror and inculcating it with his personality cult; but he also did so through securing the support of many sectors of society through his social and economic policies. He consolidated power carrot and stick; yet, many people are comfortable with mentioning the stick but not the carrot. I can understand this reluctance. Stalin is a repugnant figure; and this is not a pleasant fact for many to acknowledge, especially U.S. Cold Warriors and Eastern Europeans. But acknowledging it is necessary to understand the transformation of Soviet society into a modern, urban, and industrial one under Stalin. The regime made great strives in education and health; and largely eradicated typhus, cholera, and malaria. The regime had a loyal following among tens of millions of party members benefiting from certain economic perks. The evidence comes from Western journalists, Soviet émigrés, and countless written accounts. We do not even have to look at primary sources. No one can deny that much of the elderly population in Russia remains today nostalgic for the Stalin era. We have a photograph of one of these elderly Russians in the article. No one can deny that nostalgia for Soviet times among certain segments of the society allowed a Communist candidate to garner over 40% of the vote in 1996. 172 04:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Still, some of Stalin's policies (e.g. collectivization) met a widepspread resistance and incited a revolt rather than secured the support. So I don't find using a general and all-including category such as "social and economic policies" opportune.

Of course they met widespread resistance; some in Western Ukraine were even resisting Soviet rule into the 1950s. But the wording noted that this allowed him to secure the support of certain segments of the population. 172 22:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terror, personality cult and social transformation were in fact intertwined. If people felt that their standard of living improved and they supported Stalin for that reason, it is because they attributed the improvement to Stalin and his policies. But why did they attribute it to Stalin? It is reasonable to think that propaganda and the personality cult played a relevant role here.

Of course it is reasonable. That's why it is important to mention the role of propaganda along with the improvements in living standards among some sectors of Soviet society. 172 22:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The transformation from improvement of standard of living to political support is by no means automatic. The matter is complicated and that is why I prefer the terms of Stalin's strategies to the terms of results of Stalin's policies. And the transformation of Soviet society is (and should be) mentioned in the article anyway. Boraczek 10:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right. But Everyking's wording does not suggest that it is automatic. Stalin's economic and social policies nevertheless allowed him to co-opt certain segments of the Soviet population and pitted them against those who resisted the regime... I think that the two wordings, though, are saying the same things. Thus, I'm fine with keeping your preferred language. We can just agreee to disagree on this one and move on to other parts of the article. 172 22:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

172's edits

Your recent edits contain one turn of phrase which seem very washed out, for example, " later shaped the direction of Europe following Soviet victory in the Second World War in 1945." This seems to be crafted to avoid mention of installation of Marxist-Leninist regimes with minority support by the Soviet Union following or during belligerent occupation. It also avoids mention of the division of Europe and of the nature of that division, whether or not the phrase iron curtain is to be used.

Re: seems to be crafted to avoid mention of installation... This will not be dignified with a response. 172 00:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have some difficulty in understanding your reasoning here. The traditional view is that Stalin, in addition to a series of annexations (East Prussia, Poland, Western Ukraine), though a series of manipulations (and in the case of East Germany, simple imposition) created puppet regimes in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovia, Romania and Bulgaria which were then maintained in place by force until the late 1980s. This resulted in a division of Europe and closed borders. There is role played in this by agreements with the other allies and a sort of permision was granted in terms of sphere of influence, but that doesn't change the essential nature of what was done. At any rate, "later shaped the direction of Europe" seems almost devoid of any referent. Fred Bauder 13:00, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Another phrasing, "Collectivization had met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of the peasantry against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of casualties, particularly in Ukraine." seems to diverge from the general consensus among mainstream historians that the bulk of the peasantry, rich and poor, resisted collectivisation.

No. Reread my original wording: resulting in a bitter struggle of the peasantry against the authorities. It is a given that the peasantry, of course, is class stratified. My original wording was subsequently changed by another editor. However, it still does not state or leave the impression that opposition to collectivization was determined by class. 172 00:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I must complement you for leaving famine, millions of casualties and special mention of the Ukraine in the article. Fred Bauder 22:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I added it; I did not just 'leave' it in the intro. 172 00:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This sentence, "During the 1930s, he eliminated effective political opposition through a harsh system of internal exile (see Gulag) and executions, as well by securing the support of much of the population through his social and economic policies.", specifically the phrase " by securing the support of much of the population through his social and economic policies" seems without support due to the lack of any reliable way to measure public opinion or political support in a totalitarian state. One might guess this to be the case or support it with anecdotal evidence, but demonstrating that even the urban working class actually supported his policies would be difficult if not impossible using any reference which relied on data. Again, you are to be complemented for not removing the link to Gulag and mention of executions. Fred Bauder 22:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

This would be an issue if we were trying to quantify his support somehow. However, it is certainly no mysterious claim that the Soviets had little trouble co-opting huge segments of the population into the regime. (Keep in mind that the Communists were able to garner over 40% of the electorate in a presidential election in the mid-1990s without control over terror, information, and resources.) 172 00:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, as I said to Boraczek earlier, if the tone of this pharse bothers you so much, change it back to my original wording ('co-opting certain segments of the population into the regime through benefits') before Everyking's changes. However, I prefer Everyking’s changes given that they cut wordiness. 172 00:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

changes

I removed some of the language which spoke as if Stalin ran the USSR singlehandedly.

Stalin was the dictator of the SU and he undoubtedly had the decisive voice in formulating the policy. Besides, this is an article about Stalin, not about the Central Committee, so in my opinion sentences like "the Central Committe eliminated the opposition" have no place in the intro. Boraczek 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rearranged the alleged Ukraine famine sentence. This has been discussed before.

The famine is a historical fact. Wikipedia is not designed for Holodomor deniers, Holocaust deniers and the like. Boraczek 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It says Stalin won politically "through providing certain segments of the population benefits so as to win their support or co-opt them into the regime." Well that's hardly unique, that's how Bush wins politically. I noted how there was nothing special about this.

This is not an article about the general theory of government. Boraczek 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I gave some context to the Khrushchev fight with what he called the Anti-Party Group. Ruy Lopez 00:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That "context" was irrelevant (all the more so in the intro). Boraczek 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a bit more to the lead section; if my edits are perceived as being in any way problematic, please revert them or edit them ruthlessly. I wanted it to say a bit more about Stalin's gaining power and consolidating it. Everyking 16:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Josif Stalin IS one of the three worst criminals in the history of mankind, the other two being Hitler and Mao. Mao killed 38 million human beings, Stalin at least 25 million and Hitler at least 20 million. The figures are there on the CIA website. It is unacceptable to show Stalin and Mao as politicians on Wikipedia website when Hitler is depicted as a monster. All of them were equally monsters and the personal cult communism was no differenct from nazism in essence.

You need to be aware that most former eastern bloc countries banned the use and display of the five-pointed red star and the hammer and sickle symbols of communism alongside the swastika and some local fascist sysmbols, because they know from personal experience that the horrors of stalinism were no less than that of nazism. The hungarian law banning all these is the XLV. (45th) law of 1993, titled "Az önkényuralmi jelképek használatát tiltó törvény" and it has been upheld in constitutional court.

If you fail to mention the very criminality of Stalin and Mao in the very header of their wiki articles, then you are looking for an edit war, period. We, the people of ex-soviet bloc countries are personally insulted when anglo-saxons pet "Uncle Joe" as the kind old leader. Be glad he did not rule you (you may not have been born then with 10% probability because your father would get executed or die in the Gulags beforehand, no kidding). Acknowledge our sufferings by stating the truth: Stalin was one of the three worst criminals in the history of mankind, period.

Regards: Tamas Feher from Hungary (etomcat@freemail.hu)

Did you say it's on the CIA's website? Well, say no more...seriously, we can't describe Stalin that way. We have a Neutral point of view policy. Your view should be represented in the article, but it should not control the article. Everyking 19:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are Stalin apologets. Where is placed the mention of Katyin massacre, where several thousands of polish POVs were shot by NKVD upon Stalin's personal order? We hugarians are very close brothers of the polish people historically, so I find the lack of proper and emphasized mention of Katyin very painful. Stalin's crimes against Poland are amongst the most outrageous in written history. There is no excuse to the Molotov-Rippentropp pact. Make no mistake that was the Hitler-Stalin pact.

I really wish Stalin ruled you, not us. You are like Rumsfeld, who met Saddam during mid-1980s and praised him as a good ally in the anti-Khomeini Iran war. When will you realize that Putyin's current rule is an analog of Stalin's, characterized by extreme disregard for law, anti-semitism (most notably the early 50's doctor trials vs. 2004's Khodorkovski-Yukos) and imperialism (brutal military actions in the Caucasian Mountains both times and desire to the rule neighbours). Thus, by not mentioning Stalins criminality in unambigious terms, you hold the english-speaking world blind to Putyin's methods and you contribute to a "new Uncle Joe" sentiment, which will inevitable put the world and the poor Russian race in great danger. A repetition of history for those who refuse to learn about the past.

Stalin started his reign with a few million dead, by reversing Lenin's post-civil-war "new economic policy" of limited private agriculture thus leading to big famine.

The entire WWII in Europe would be over in 6-9 months had Stalin failed to entirely decapitate the soviet army's elite in 1937-39, this is clearly written in vol. 2. of soviet published seven-volume "The history of the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945". You are plain stupid to praise Stalin for a "hard earned victory in WWII".

So powerful was the fear of Stalin's evil power, that even us hungarians, who previously fought three revolutions and independence wars in the last 300 years, did not dare to raise again until autumn 1956 to free ourselves from stalinism. Anglo-saxons betrayed us big time then, shame on the Free World.

In churches renovated after WWII (big destruction in Hungary) the face of the Satan (as defeated by arch-angel Michael) is always of Josif Stalin's on wall paintings. People were shot for painting that.

Regards: Tamas Feher.

Although this article is distorted and downplays Stalin's crimes, it is nevertheless inappropriate to accuse others of being "Stalin apologists". Your language should address the content of the article, not the character of other editors. I have unblocked you, 172 who blocked you has played a role in crafting this article and ought not to have blocked you, at least not for a week. Fred Bauder 01:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I blocked that anon for trolling and personal attacks. What he said to you crossed the line in a patently obvious manner. There's no reason to accept to tolerate that kind of abuse. 172 20:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't bother me if he's allowed to edit, but it does look like he wanted to vent some rage against somebody. Compared to Rumsfeld! That cuts deep. Everyking 20:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172 it is inappropriate for you to block an editor from Eastern Europe, a victim of communist totalitarianism because they raise objections to historical revisionism and whitewashing of Stalin's crimes. Fred Bauder 00:38, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, I blocked this editor for making personal attacks and obviously intending to cause a disruption; and I will block him again if I see him unblocked... As for "historical revisionism," I am tired about hearing this from you and will not hesitate to report you again. My family lived in Lodz before 1939. One of the few survivors of the Holocaust fled to the Stalinist USSR, where she was later killed. You are in no position to lecture me about whitewashing Stalin's crimes. My family likely suffered to a far greater extent under German and Russian totalitarianism than the anon's. But unlike the anon, I attempt to leave my political baggage behind when I write and honor encyclopedic standards. 172 09:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As an American academic and an experienced Wikipedia editor you are able to play the game better I suppose, but Tamas Feher is a new editor and we need to take that into consideration. When someone who is familiar with Soviet totalitarianism encounters our articles they are dismayed. Please consider applying Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rather than using it in an inappropriate way to remove well referenced information which you find disagreeable. The result of revisionist editing is an article which seems surreal to those familiar with life under Soviet domination. Fred Bauder 13:53, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to spew that candard of "revisionist editing" in reference to me, I'll likely request arbitration against you. Please stop it before this gets unnessarily ugly and distracting. 172 22:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion regarding blocking of 195.70.48.242 is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:172.27s_block_of_195.70.48.242

Material removed from introduction

This material was placed in the introduction but then removed:

"He was its dictator from 1922 until his death, when he achieved total control, and was responsible for millions of deaths. Real and imagined opponents of his rule in the Soviet Union, as well as numerous of peoples from countries occupied by Stalin, were persecuted, deported and killed. He played a key role in the outbreak of World War II, with his attacks on countries such as Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and was the main architecht behind the Gulag slave labourer and concentration camp system, in which at least 7 million people were systematically killed. Some estimates that Stalin killed more than 50 million people. Stalin is seen as one the most important totalitarian despots of all time."

Ok, while in substance it is correct, it contains some serious errors. First, Stalin was able to gain effective control over the politboro only during the 1930s, not in 1922, although he did play a leading role after Lenin's death. His key role in the outbreak of World War is rather complicated and probably doesn't belong in an introduction in the way that a link to dictator or totalitarian does. It is true that a muted rendition of his crimes is already in the introduction. Fred Bauder 00:38, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also he was far from being the main or even first architect of gulag. Mikkalai 01:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also even this "muted rendition" IMO an attempt to concentrate blame on a single person. He rose to power in very good habitat for him. I bet Trotsky would be even worse, if you recall his command of Red Army, of railways (VIKZhel) (what, no article yet?!!!), of Labor army... Under Trotsky the whole state woild have been a huge militarized gulag. You are too fixated on Stalin. All of them were of the same dictator mold. Mikkalai 01:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The kind of monstrous regime Trotsky and his allies would have imposed is highly speculative, but certainly projecting his history into an imaginary future is a very grim exercise. Fred Bauder 01:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

The error I found amusing was that he achieved total control upon his death. (BTW: put "withered arm" next to Man of Steel, someone. Esp if its cause be known.) Kwantus 18:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Some things to note about Stalin

1., Many and most photos of Stalin are either heavily doctored or even fake. He was known to aviod photographers because his face was ugly from heavy pitting and canker. He had a number of better-looking doubles (stand-ins) to serve in PR opportunities. He used to stand on high/remote pedestrals when must appear in public to avoid close scrunity.

2., It is a commonly held opinion in Eastern Europe (I think it is a fact) that Josif Dsugasvili was an ordinary highwayman by profession before he joined the revolutionaries. He used to rob trains with a grops of outlaws, forcing people to stand and deliver.

3., Isn't it strange the Stalin Wikipedia article does not include the word dictator / dictatorship (or anything that starts with dict*) at all according to IE's search? Political correctness should not run amok, especially considering this is english language Wikipedia and US people know very little about foreign relations and history by school education, so it is easy to indoctrinate them by "kind ol' Uncle Joe" babble. Or do you think only ancient roman leaders can be called a "dictator" per definitionem? Most of Stalin's actions were clearly outside the realm of politics (which means debate and negotiations vs. headshot) so calling him a politician is an offense to leaders who spent their entire life serving their nation and all of its citizens in accordance with the people's will.

4., Did Stalin murder his wife? Has this issue been settled conclusively?

5., Hungarian people depicted while expressing their most sincere sentiments towards dead Stalin by toppling and decorating his giant statue in Budapest during the 1956 revolution: "http://www.sulinet.hu/eletestudomany/archiv/2000/0042/forr/1319-2..jpg"

Regards: Tamas Feher from Hungary "etomcat@freemail.hu"

Stalin was a tyrant and dictator, murderer and despot !!!

Why you, the authors of the article, avoid to call Stalin dictator and murderer ??? I consider this article written with velvet gloves. Does someone have the interest to present to the Western World an improved image of Stalin, instead the one of the greatest tyrant of XX century ? I consider the introduction, who presents Stalin as a dictator and initiator of the Gulag, much better than the present one. You, authors of the Stalin article please be reasonable and correct this article.

Some historians

I propose to avoid using the words "some historians" in the article. This reservation can be added to virtually every article's statement. Therefore, I would propose to rephrase the sentence: "Regarding the larger issue of collective security , some historians that one reason that Stalin decided to abandon the doctrine was the shaping by French and British entry into the Munich Agreement and the subsequent failure to prevent German occupation of Czechoslovakia..." to remove the obvious typo there, get rid of "some historians" and mention the existence of the another (revisionist) point of view (without disclosing the details). I can provide a refernce for the latter.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This troubling sentence illustrates yet another problem of going into various widescale historian analyses' on these "larger question" issues like the causes of World War II and the overall reasons collective security did not work -- there are a hundreds of historians with hundreds of different views on these larger analyses. For example, to delve into a few, some think Stalin wanted to destroy the Polish state, backed by Stalin's own quote on the matter by the way. Some think Stalin wanted make "western capitalists" (with which he oddly lumped Hitler) battle it out amongst themselves. Some even think he wanted an eventual Soviet takeover of Europe.

This is why such broader debate/analyses should be avoided, especially in very specific sections such as that describing a 1939 Treaty.

And if one includes such broad event historian analyses, you certainly can't nuke "some historians" out of that quote. In fact, it might just be one or two on that particular point.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:"In fact, it might just be one or two on that particular point". Definitely, not just be one or two. Let's try to count:

Edward Hallett Carr^[1]
Max Beloff^[2]
Roberts. ^[3]
Derek Watson^[4]
P. A. Reynolds^[5]
Donald Lammers^[6] directly states:
Those who criticize British policy on the grounds of its affinity for fascism and its aversion to communism will find reinforcement in Osborne's boldly stated views and their somewhat muted echoes, which reveal that many members of the diplomatic service accepted the need for appeasement at least partly for ideological reasons. Of those who did, a substantial number (in this very limited sample) had had direct experience of life in fascist Italy (Osborne, Perth, Ingram, Grey, Nichols, Jebb); many of them were compara- tively young - it was certainly not only 'decayed serving men' who believed that the appeasement policy best suited the country's needs. Their reasoning was mainly negative. They did not so much prefer fascism to communism as they preferred to seek practical solutions in the short run which would harmonize with their longer views. Military weakness, some unappeased feelings of guilt, and, at least until March 1939, a lingering hope that fascism might respond favourably to concessions, made it seem worthwhile to avoid a decisive step in the direction of Soviet Russia, whose long- range hostility to the West was never in doubt
Frank McDonough^[7] states:
In spite of all various attempts to build up a picture of Stalin cold-bloodedly plotting Nazi-Soviet pact, the whole argument is extremely unconvincing. It depends on assumption that the Soviet Union entered negotiations with Britain and France for an alliance under false pretences. It seems much more likely, and more in accordance with the diplomatic evidence, that if Britain and France for had sought a straightforward military alliance, and had agreed the details later, then this agreement could have been signed quickly in the weeks after the Germans attack Prague. It was British delay and Polish intransigence that were the most significant reasons for failure. Atyer all, the Soviets made a definite offer of an alliance in April 1939. It was a full four months before the talks broke down

Should I continue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Let's try to count:"

->Snarky. As an initial matter, let's try to count those that actually claim what you claim they do. I checked out that old 1992 Roberts source at 57-8:
Result: Whiff. Actually, much worse. Roberts himself (1992) obliterates your point of taking out the "some historians" from any such global historian analysis with a few clicks of the keyboard.
->In fact, Roberts 1992 states that there are three schools of thought on the issue: "Watt identified three schools of thought among Western historians as to when Moscow initiated the negotiations which culminated in the Nazi-Soviet pact." One of them, the "Potemkin View", viewed the actions at Munich part of such "appeasement" to lead to the pact.
->Quite differently, in the "Stalin hypoetheis", Roberts 1992 specifically goes on to state that "NUMEROUS WRITERS" actually viewed Stalin's speeches against "Western appeasement" were actually a signal to Berlin that it wanted to do business (not that Roberts agrees): "Numerous writers have interpreted Stalin's attack on Western appeasement policies in a speech to the XVIII party congress in March 1939 as a signal to Berlin that Moscow was ready to do business with it."

Re: "Donald Lammers[23] directly states:"

->Literally not a single shred of support for the sentence in the paragraph you quoted. I actually re-read it three times thinking I'd somehow missed how Western appeasement at Munich had caused the Soviets to abandon their collective security policy -- despite that humorously they negotiated with the UK & France up to TWO DAYS BEFORE THE M-R PACT (I can't even believe I'm in a debate about this silliness) -- but it wasn't there in the block quote you provided.

Re: "Frank McDonough"

->Not only does this block text in no way support your point, it even further obliterates it by stating that Stalin actually entered into the UK-France talks for an alliance against Germany in good faith -- ONE YEAR AFTER Munich.

This is the point when dealing with such wide event historian analyses, like the causes of World War II or the failure of the collective security policy -- you get disparate historians saying disparate things. (And more oddly here, none of them supporting your point).

This is why such things should be avoided, especially in the section of a Joseph Stalin article dealing very specifically with the negotiations in the entry of a 1939 Treaty. Rather, the actual Treaty and negotiations themselves should be the focus.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: In fact, the more I look at that sentence and the lack of support for it by your own sources, the more I think it should be dumped altogether. Not only does it lack support, but the entire point is rather illogical as Stalin was negotiating with Britain and France (and there's no indication he was faking his desire to do a collective security deal -- rather, Roberts thinks he was sincere in his negotiations) literally up to the weeks and days before the M-R Pact -- one year beyond Munich and many months after the events that followed.

I frankly hadn't even thought through how illogical the entire notion of its claim would be, such that the complete lack of supporting material isn't surprising.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should understand that our major problem is misunderstanding of the other's position. As you probably noticed, sometimes I am not sufficiently clear (partly because I am not a native English speaker), but I rarely do mistakes in my conclusions. Let me explain the problem as I see it.
To my opinion, the problem is in the definitions we use. I used the word "appeasement" from the very beginning that, according to my understanding it encompasses the whole european policy of the UK and, in lesser extent, France during late 30th. (Remember, I wrote above:"I would replace "some historians" with "majority", "annexation of Czechoslovakia" with "appeasement" policy...") You argued that the term is vague (your words:"silly using such a generalized word", although, to my opinion this insulting tone seems unacceptable during the discussion between reasonable men) and proposed to go back to annexation of Czechoslovakia instead. As a result, to my understanding, you implicitly concluded that nothing else happened that could affect the Stalin's behaviour considerably before or during the triple alliance negotiations. With this concept in mind, you tried to find direct statements on the connection between Munich and MRP in the sources I provided and, naturally, found nothing (becides, probably Beloff's, who, off the top of my head, stated that explicitly).
However, let me remind you, that I never stated that Munich, anexation of Sudetes and subsequent invasion of Czechoslovakia was the only reason for MRP. My only mistake was that I didn't resist you concretisation (that, to my opinion, was a primitivisation). In other words, we come back to the straw man fallacy, although in that concrete case I don't blame you in that. It was my mistake to agree with such a primitivisation.
So if we come back to the appeasement, or, more precisely, to the inconsistent policy of the UK/France, their reluctance to initiate any decisive actions against Germany and their hidden hostility towards the USSR (that, frankly, had some ground), then we can re-examine the sources I provided (along with some others): 1 Edward Hallett Carr^[8] fully support the Western power's responsibility for MRP. 2 Max Beloff^[9] states that the UK/France behaviour during invasion of Czechoslovakia dispelled the last belief in the collective security. 3 I agree that Roberts in the article I cited didn't blame the UK/France policy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from it was that the USSR's behaviour during triple negotiations was sincere.

4 However, Derek Watson^[10] directly states that the UK policy in 1939 was a direct continuation of the "appeasement":

"In spite of the clear failure of the Munich agreement, as demonstrated by Hitler's occupation of the Czech lands in March 1939, to Soviet politicians there was little evidence of any reappraisal of British or French policy.6 Nor were there major changes in the personnel responsible. In May 1939 the British cabinet was still divided on the question of an alliance with the Soviet Union, and Halifax, the foreign secretary, did not want a mutual assistance pact."

5 A.J.P. Taylor^[11] states:

"If British diplomacy seriously aspired to alliance with Soviet Russia in 1939, then the negotiations towards this end were the most incompetent transactions since Lord North lost the American colonies ..."

6 P. A. Reynolds^[12] states:"In April 1939 it appeared to the Soviet Government that she was likely soon to be attacked by Hitler, with or without the connivance or assistance of the Western Powers. She could meet this danger with one of two alternative policies : she might conclude some sort of agreement with the Western Powers against Hitler, but this would only be of value if she were assured of effective military support in case of any threat by Hitler to what she considered her vital interests; or she might come to some arrangement with Hitler at best destroying, at worst postponing, any threat to herself, provided that relations between the Western Powers and Germany had reached such a point that the possibility of their co-operation could safely be excluded (for the threat of such an agreement might have been just what was needed to bring Britain and France in on Hitler's side)." He continued:"As late as 4 August Molotov maintained a forthright demeanour to Schulenburg and was strongly critical of German policy; Schulenburg concluded: " From M's whole attitude it was evident that the Soviet Government was in fact more prepared for improvement in German-Soviet relations, but that the old mistrust of Germany persists. My overall impression is that the Soviet Government is at present determined to sign with England and France if they fulfill all Soviet wishes." If the several impressions of these two able German officials were correct, what were the factors that in the first weeks of August brought Stalin down on the side of those favourng a detente with Germany and opposed to an alliance with the West? Contributory factors may have been first, the delay in arrival of the Anglo-French Military Mission (agreed to on 25 July, arrived in Moscow on 11 August), none of whose members approached in status Marshal Voroshilov, who headed the Russian delegation, and, secondly, the departure of Mr. Strang on 7 August, owing to an alleged great accumulation of work in London, without final agreement having been reached on the definition of indirect aggression. The decisive factor favourable to the Germans, however, would seem to have been Ribbentrop's offer to visit Moscow: in the Soviet Government's official reply Molotov formally stated that " the dispatch of such a distinguished public figure and statesman emphasised the earnestness of the intentions of the German Government," and Schulenburg for the first time had the impression that the negotiations might succeed. The decisive factors against the Western Powers would appear to have been the revelations afforded by the military discussions, first, the shock of the Western Powers' military weakness, and secondly their inability to reply to Voroshilov's enquiry on the 14th whether Russian troops would be permitted to pass across Polish territory. Even after Schulenburg's communication of the 15th announcing the Ribbentrop offer, Molotov used every weapon in his diplomatic armoury to delay the visit as long as possible in face of great German urgency; and on the 19th, in response to a pressing telegram from Ribbentrop pointing out that conditions on the Polish frontier were so intolerable that hostilities might break out any day, Molotov would only acknow? ledge the importance of the proposed trip, but would not fix a date even approximately, nor would he discuss the non-aggression pact (of which Ribbentrop had sent a draft) until the economic agreement was " signed and proclaimed and put into effect." But postponement of a decision was no longer possible." Once again, the Soviets seriously aimed for a pact, but the UK didn't. 7 I think, that Donald Lammers'^[13] quote also directly confirms the thesis about the role of Western hostility to the Communist USSR in the triple alliance's failure. 8 Frank McDonough^[14] directly blames British policy in the negotiation's failure. 9 Haslam^[15] supports the same idea. 10 And, Sir Winston Churchill in his famous book (Part II, chapter 2) states the same, namely, that had Chamberlain accept Stalin's proposal in April 1939, the overall course if history would be different.
My conclusion:
"If we return back to the "appeasement" term (with necessary explanations), then all problems disappear. It was the UK/France policy that lead to the Nazi-Soviet rapprochement, and majority of historinas agree upon that."
In connection to that, could you please answer my question: how many reliable sources state the reverse, namely that the real Stalin's intentions were to launch expansion west, so he from the very beginning wasn't inclined to sign any pacts with the UK/France or not to fulfill his obligations? (I know few western sources on that account + some post-Soviet revisionist writers.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I believe you should understand that our major problem is misunderstanding of the other's position."

->I honestly do, but you've got simply a massive problem: Even your own source before, Geoffrey Roberts (1992), explicitly goes through the "Three Schools Of Thought" on the matter (discussed above), with only one school of thought on the matter (the "Potemkin") even mildly approximating the sentence.
->Based on this along, forget everything else, how could we possibly delete the "some historian" tag? Why is this still even being debated? (in fact, there are way more than even three, but with the issue now dead, it's not worth going into).

Re: "we can re-examine the sources I provided (along with some others)",

->As we go through this, you seem to have a bigger problem: Forget all or most historians (that was already blown apart), as you post the quotes from supposed supporters of this threry, it's starting to look like none of them actually support this view, though maybe famous left-wing historian EH Carr does (haven't read that text).

In fact, with the "some historians" delete argument now thoroughly dead, not only do these sources in no way state that "western appeasement" of Hitler (Munich, et al.) caused Stalin to enter a pact with Hitler (and why would they, this point being silly after he was actually negotiating with UF/France up to the last second), but they seem to be some kind of odd Talk Page attack on the UK generally (not that I really care about that):

--A.J.P. Taylor-> Zero Support. Implies that the British didn't take the A-F-USSR negotiations seriously -- an entirely different issue.
--Frank McDonough" -> Absolutely zero support. In fact, he claims that delay and intransigence in negotiations caused the A-F-USSR talks to fail.
--Donald Lammers' ->Not only no support for the original point, but Lammers even further kills your point by stating that Stalin's engagement of the UK-France was in good faith up to the last second.
--"However, Derek Watson directly states that the UK policy in 1939 was a direct continuation of the "appeasement": -> This statement is bizarre given that the quote that follows says nothing of the sort. It states that the UK Cabinet was divided on whether it wanted an alliance with the Soviets. And that they never took responsibility for the Czech annexation.

Forget the "some historians" deletion, given the revelation of the "sources", that sentence probably has to be deleted because it doesn't have support.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, could you please describe in few words your point of view on the reasons of the triple alliance failure. And, after that, could you please give the references to the appropriate sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually in the article. With sources. The negotiations broke down over the Soviet army in Poland/Romania point. No one disputes this point because this is actually what happened.

As for any historian analyses of potential larger reasons effecting the mindset and political positions of the parties on a large scale which might have had some underlying effects that potentially later manifested themselves as part of the failure, going back to Chamberlain's election, various cabinet members' positions on Germany, the Bolsheviks, etc; Stalin's statements about wanting to destroy the Polish state, the Russian War with Poland, the Molotov/Litinov viewpoints regarding the effectiveness of military alliances, Munich, Lenin, Versailles, Napolean and probably the Big Bang, there are literally thousands.

Which of these I believe, or you believe, isn't the point. This isn't the place for it.

As a reality check, tis is a Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin, and more specifically, the section of Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin addressing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, with mentions of Stalin's concurrent negotiations with (later) allies.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, do I understand you correct that to your opinion the British/French refusal to accept Stalin's request was the real reason for the negotiations' failure?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Army in Poland/Romania point was the sticking point on the breakdown for Aug 21, which is what the article states. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is dramatically superficial POV. You mix political and military talks. The political talks reached their peak in July and then run into the numerous obstacles. The military negotiations started later, the members of military delegations may have been experts in their fields, but they were not front-ranking military personages of the seniority of Voroshilov. Whilst the French negotiators had been instructed that an agreement was urgent, the British had been told to proceed slowly until there was a political settlement. Therefore, the military part of the negotiations was doomed. The Polish question was just an excuse to break the talks.
Therefore, even from your primitive positions you are wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is zero "dramatically superficial" about it. In fact, it's about as substantive as it gets. It's what actually occurred. No one even disputes that it occurred. Re: "The Polish question was just an excuse to break the talks", that's an interesting opinion but I'm frankly becoming less enthralled with debating these opinions on a Wikipedia Talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I understand correct that you proposed the edit war?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Did I understand correct that you proposed the edit war? -> I have no idea to what this could even possibly be referring. Which is becoming a recurring theme.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The concrete theme is your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
It is hard to establish a reasonable dialog with you. The only reason the edit war hadn't started yet is my policy to discuss significant changes before they are done. However, the discussion with you is veeeeery hard...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue and honestly, just look at this topic:

. You wanted the "some historians" clause to be dropped from the sentence that the M-R Pact resulted from "Western Appeasement" at Muninch, et al.
. Problematically, your top source (Roberts 1992) alone specifically stated that there were "three schools of thought" on the issue, with only one of them even mildly relating to this argument.
. Even worse, forget all historians, every block quote you've provided from your selected historians on these larger issues analyses simply didn't even state this claim, with many citing entirely different (some even contradictory) reasons and facts.
. You then switched to asking my opinion on what caused the A-F-USSR talks to break down -- a separate issue than the sentence by the way . I stated that the specific sticking point was the Soviet Army in Poland and Romania point that caused the breakdown, which the sources cite. And no one disagrees with. And that I don't think my opinion is important on the matter.
. You called this fact "dramatically superficial", and then proceeded to give your own opinion that "The Polish question was just an excuse to break the talks"
. When I stated that I didn't want to debate each others' opinions, you oddly attacked me with "The concrete theme is your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy" and "the discussion with you is veeeeery hard"

Maybe you need to take a step back from this topic for a while. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, you have to read my arguments again, and I will do the same. I am in exactly the same situation: to me, some of your arguments lack any logical connection. Good night (or morning).
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is fair to say that Stalin tried to reshape the world, not just a particular country. The Soviet Union was made up of over a dozen countries, and Stalin forced many people from their ancestral homes to new and strange lands. He pushed whole nations/races around to suit his ideas. Meishern (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

^ Edward Hallett Carr From Munich to Moscow, I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3–17. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
^ Max Beloff The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia. vol. II, I936-41. Oxford University Press, 1949. p. 166, 211.
^ Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78
^ Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722. Stable URL: [17]
^ P. A. Reynolds The Nazi-Soviet Pact, April 1939-June 1941 The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 28, No. 70 (Nov., 1949), pp. 232-243
^ Donald Lammers Fascism, Communism, and the Foreign Office, 1937-39 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1971), pp. 66-86
^ Frank McDonough. Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War Published by Manchester University Press, 1998. ISBN 071904832X p.85
^ Edward Hallett Carr From Munich to Moscow, I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3–17. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
^ Max Beloff The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia. vol. II, I936-41. Oxford University Press, 1949. p. 166, 211.
^ Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722. Stable URL: [18]
^ A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London, 1962), pp. 229, 231.
^ P. A. Reynolds The Nazi-Soviet Pact, April 1939-June 1941 The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 28, No. 70 (Nov., 1949), pp. 232-243
^ Donald Lammers Fascism, Communism, and the Foreign Office, 1937-39 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1971), pp. 66-86
^ Frank McDonough. Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War Published by Manchester University Press, 1998. ISBN 071904832X p.85
^ Jonathan Haslam The Soviet Union and the Threat from the East, 1933-41: Moscow, Tokyo, and the Prelude to the Pacific War 1992 ISBN 0822911671.

[1] Edward Hallett Carr From Munich to Moscow, I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3–17. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

[2] Max Beloff The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia. vol. II, I936-41. Oxford University Press, 1949. p. 166, 211.

[roberts-3] Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78

[4] Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722. Stable URL: [17]

[5] P. A. Reynolds The Nazi-Soviet Pact, April 1939-June 1941 The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 28, No. 70 (Nov., 1949), pp. 232-243

[6] Donald Lammers Fascism, Communism, and the Foreign Office, 1937-39 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1971), pp. 66-86

[7] Frank McDonough. Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War Published by Manchester University Press, 1998. ISBN 071904832X p.85

[8] Edward Hallett Carr From Munich to Moscow, I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3–17. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

[9] Max Beloff The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia. vol. II, I936-41. Oxford University Press, 1949. p. 166, 211.

[10] Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722. Stable URL: [18]

[11] A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London, 1962), pp. 229, 231.

[12] P. A. Reynolds The Nazi-Soviet Pact, April 1939-June 1941 The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 28, No. 70 (Nov., 1949), pp. 232-243

[13] Donald Lammers Fascism, Communism, and the Foreign Office, 1937-39 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1971), pp. 66-86

[14] Frank McDonough. Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War Published by Manchester University Press, 1998. ISBN 071904832X p.85

[15] Jonathan Haslam The Soviet Union and the Threat from the East, 1933-41: Moscow, Tokyo, and the Prelude to the Pacific War 1992 ISBN 0822911671.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]