Talk:Joseph Stalin

Stalin and socialism
, Stalin was a socialist. Why you keep removing the link in the see also bit?--120.158.37.237 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stalin was a Communist and, more to the point, an opportunistic authoritarian bastard. 23:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would've undone the edit. My reasoning would be that it simply doesn't fit here. The other links in See also are a link directly related to Stalin and Stalin's contemporary authoritarian characters. 23:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Whitwashing
Please, do not whitewash the page. The user that made those edits made a few others that were almost universally reverted. GeeJayK (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think pointing out that there is a difference between communists in general and being a tankie is "whitewashing." — Oxyaena Harass  18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was the only change that user did in this article. I do think, however, that you read the rest of them. Look, Oxy. I know you're trying to be more civil since you came back, and guess what, you were doing fine. But just reverting stuff because you don't like it without discussion is not the way to go. GeeJayK (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the specific change you've mentioned, but unless you prove that the the left can't be racist and homophobic and that Stalin wasn't actually a commie, well, I find hard to sustain those changes. 18:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying either. To be fair the line is a crass one and I can see why someone who's a communist and also not a tankie (like me) would get annoyed at the implicit insinuation present in the line. — Oxyaena Harass  18:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, your point is? GeeJayK (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove the line, it adds nothing of substance other than cheap dunk points and doesn't contribute much if anything to the article. — Oxyaena Harass  18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll let the first edit, on the "racism" topic and remove the others in the "Homophobia" and "atheism" sections. Is that ok to you? GeeJayK (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh he also edited the homophobia and atheism sections? I didn't see those lines. Stalin was most definitely a homophobe. Yeah that's whitewahsing, and I'd appreciate removing the line from the racism section. Thank you, and I apologize for my kneejerk editing. — Oxyaena Harass  18:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Article is too biased
Stalin made many mistakes, but there's too much western propaganda here. You can't really compare him with Hitler. Many intelectuals proved that propagandists like Robert Conquest were wrong and many of the worst "crimes" didn't exist, like the Holodomor. Some others, like his "purges" weren't really as bad as people think, and actually saved the Russian Revolution. if it wasn't for Stalin you would be speaking German now. This article needs a more neutral tone. Even a bourgeois historian like Arch Getty acknowledges that Stalin didn't kill 100 trillions like people in the west say. Seriously you can't compare him with Hitler, he did lots of good things too You guys can check Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend by the great Italian historian Domenico Losurdo if you want an actual unbiased biography that shows the good sides of Stalin.
 * Welcome to the tankie zone, population: this talk page. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I read Losurdo's excuse of a book (not everything, but a considerable part of it). He's so ignorant that he believed Kerensky was a fucking Menshevik. According to him, since there were also concentration camps for Japanese people in US during the World War II the Gulag was just a zeitgeist. Of course, he doesn't mention that while 120 thousand Japanese people were imprisioned in US during the WWII (a terrible crime btw) more than 700 thousand died in the Gulag, with millions more being arrested. Yes, there's a difference of degree here and he doesn't care. He also says something similar about Katyn massacre. He doesn't deny it like Grover Furr, but he say it wasn't that bad because the Americans also conducted massacres during the Korean War.
 * ​It's also funny how he quotes right-wing authors to prove that his unbiased. Problem is, even his selection of conservative historians, like is bad, ironically ignoring better ​academic anti-communists authors, like Richard Pipes, Robert Gellately and Robert Service. Losurdo is a hack and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that he's a reliable source. I agree that Conquest is not a very good source too due to  though. GeeJayK (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Anti-communist propaganda
This article contains some of the most awful Anti-communist canards one can think of. My apologies, but Robert Conquest and Stephen Kotkin are not acceptable sources, they had pro-Capitalist interests, promoted and supported by Capitalist governments, and so on. Even many other Anti-communist historians such as Arch Getty accept that those two were doing nothing but creating propaganda with little sources at all.

Stalin was not a dictator, even the CIA - the Secret Police of one of the most brutal Capitalist Empires in all of history - admits he was not a dictator. He was elected four times, via secret ballot, with a selection of candidates to vote for, and so on. He even attempted to resign from his post three times! What sort of comic-book super villian (as you people portray him) would, firstly, attempt to resign a few times, but be rejected and prevented all those times!?

Stalin was not an Anti-semite. He had many Jewish people in government posts, such as Lazar Kaganovich, and he even particularly protected Jewish people. In his own words:

The Ukrainian famine in the 1930s was not a genocide. It did certainly happen, and that was very unfortunate, but there is not any particular proof that it was directly the results of "Stalin's order" or something such as that which you people would claim, it was the result of, among other factors, environmental conditions, as well as, to a lesser extent, resistance from the petite-bourgeoisie. There have been famines in Tsarist Russia? Was the Tsar "Hitler" as you claim? How come whenever a famine happens in a Socialist state, it's always called by you Capitalists a "genocide" despite there only ever being one or two famines ever in those Socialist states, then never one again. Furth, there will also food shortages in Russia and Kazakhstan. If we are going by these intellectually dishonest methods, then Stalin must have also been genociding the Russians and Kazakhs as well, this is a crude fiction.

Most other claims are similarly baseless. This is a total misportray of an otherwise great thinker and revolutionary, who turned a semi-feudal backwater into a modern superpower, who liberated Europe from the Nazis, and who serves as an inspiration to people globally in the fight against Imperialism and opression.

Sources: Soviet Democracy "Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership" Fraud, famine, and fascism The industrialisation of Soviet Russia


 * At least be kind enough to sign your fucking screeds. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "What kind of comic book supervillain would resign three times?!" The type of comic book supervillain that recognizes they are indispensable to the continued functioning of an organization and know how to leverage that fact? Alduintinvaak 01:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, Stalin, if going by his past actions and works, understood that the role of society is based upon systems and collectives, hence why he said "The masses drive history" or something to that effect. He understood the need for collective leadership of action. I suggest you read his book, the Foundations of Leninism where he explains this further. Wisconcom (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Stalin's worldview wasn't bad, read the book he wrote about his worldview!" is not the impenetrable and genius rebuttal you think it is. I swear, none of you tankie types can rebut a point with rhetoric, it's always "read this theory/book" or "watch this video" because you're banking off of the fact that no one will actually care enough to sit through 45 minutes of Stalinist propaganda just to refute ONE point. This is dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)