I've never heard of "tankies" until just now. Thanks, Internet. But I remember my partner telling me about being on a trip to one of the Stans and seeing taxi drivers with Stalin iconography in their hacks. I kind of got that; not that I sympathized with it, but I can understand yearning for the old days, some sort of nostalgic nationalism for a system you grew up in, for a world that made sense before the 90s came along and changed everything. But the idea that a bunch of decades later, people are willing embrace this nonsense and even sign their names to books about it blows my mind. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the coffee room of the English department where Grover Furr teaches and listen to what his colleagues say about him. "Furr? He's really good on Chaucer. Just don't get him started on Stalin." (Also, dude got his BA at McGill, so I feel a touch of WTF about that....) Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- This page is courtesy the Facebook group, where tankies appear to be this season's libertarian-of-the-day. Never let it be said the FB doesn't help the wiki! Much of it is User:(S L) ranting on the FB at the tankies who showed up - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Russian Civilisation
- I can go through the free stuff over a long period of time (so I don't burn out) but I'm not touching the shit you have to buy from them. 17:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
NKVD National operations
This section is a little confusing and needs some background. First question: what happened, exactly, besides a bunch of people dying? What was the "The Polish Operation," where did it happen and when? Second question: what is the difference between "111,901 Poles" and "85,000 ... ethnically Polish." Who were the other 26k people? Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to Snyder's book, the rest were just suspected Polish. 23:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Onto your first question, it happened throughout all of Russia (hence the national operations). And it wasn't just "a bunch of people dying", it was deliberate executions of ethnic Poles. The original order (NKVD Order 00485) was explicitly targeting Polish spies, but was interperated by the NKVD as all Polish individuals. http://www.memo.ru/history/POLAcy/00485ART.htm 23:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is this a bit clearer? It was a straight-up ethnic cleansing in practice - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Russian levels of support for Stalin
- The funniest part of that poll is most individuals said they wouldn't want to live in a country run by Stalin :v http://carnegieendowment.org/files/stalin_puzzle.pdf 23:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- The undisputable fact that most Russians see nothing in Stalin resembling the oger the West wants him to be, especially the older generation, exposes the Western narrative as the umpteen US propaganda stunt for internal consumption of its post-WW2 political block.220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
E. H. Carr
Category:Pissed at us
"Stalin" or "Stalinism"?
- It's apologetics for everything Stalin actually did, not just "Stalinism" itself, a rather more nebulous thing. The apologetics are very focused on the man and his actions - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any strong reason to retitle the article - but that's mainly because I prefer the aesthetics of "Stalin apologetics" over "Stalinism apologetics" (the former sounds better to me). That doesn't mean, though, that the article can't have a focus on people who may agree that Stalin was a horrible dictator, but... [insert apologetics, possibly involving the defeat of Hitler].
- Appealing to the defeat of Nazi Germany is of course a form of post hoc apologetics, because Stalin certainly didn't do all his horrible shit to be able to face Hitler (mainly because Stalin had already begun his murderous antics way before anyone had ever heard of Herr Hitler, and when Hitler came to power in 1933, Stalinism was already well-established, as was its terrible human rights record [yes, I know this is a somewhat anachronistic concept, but still]).
- I've actually heard Niall Ferguson using a similar argument in his apologetics for the British Empire, arguing that the British Empire heroically spent itself to keep the world free from authoritarianism/totalitarianism in two world wars - completely ignoring that:
- A) This was not the reason the British Empire was created.
- B) The intention behind British intervention was not to run down the Empire, but to defend it.
- C) The British were not always "gracious in retreat" from empire (the Mau Mau rebellion, the reluctance to give up India, the Suez War to name but a few examples), and were forced to give up their empire.
- ScepticWombat (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
just wondering if you lot use wheatcroft, davies, thurston, getty, Fitzpatrick etc? modern, dominant, post cold war historians on the period who had access to the soviet archives? using 'red holocaust' from 2009 - an extremely polemical work - without uncritically getting into the debate about the various estimates and just citing the statement in that book verbatim is a little uncritical, don't you think? Stalin 'apologists' use these and more and don't need to use Furr and Tottle.
I don't agree with their conclusions for reasons related to political philosophy, and am not a Stalinist myself, but one has to be honest here and deal with the actual state of debate and evidence, which is just not the same as in the holocaust. We do categorically not have evidence for a designed famine out of nowhere and indeed the arguments that try to bend stuff that way typically involve dubious standards of 'intent' where anything that happens in a country must be due to conscious government policy.
Moreover, it's just intellectually dishonest, or more charitably, ignorant, to accuse anyone who questions cold war common sense in the west - the victorious party - as being akin to a holocaust denier, and this is indeed a tactic anyone can use who questions any controversial topic that becomes received wisdom in a political culture. The sin of holocaust denialists isn't questioning, it's how they argue - no engagement with the evidence or indeed the modern academic record and state of debate, unjustifiable double standards and an inability to debate in good faith. The figures I've listed above are not Stalinists by any stretch of the imagination - they're liberals...but by the rubric you seem to use, they should be associated with the likes of David Irving.
I would look, surprisingly, at the Wikipedia talk page - hardly a haven of Stalinists - on pages about the Holodomor, Great Purges, Stalin himself etc and look at some of the debates on there for a little taster.
I'm an enthusiast for Russian history in general from the Kiev Rus' to the USSR. Just wanted to pop in and drop a few points, but also to say hi! :) — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk 00:28, 15 June 2015
- What would you call a complete lack of government intervention in a massive famine, despite having means to do so? I'd call that "intentional neglect", let alone if it's exacerbated by extracting food from famine stricken areas. To that extent the Holodomor was just as intentional as the Great Bengal Famine of 1943, the famine during the Great Leap Forward or the Irish Potato Famine. If Stalin had the ability to create such gargantuan white elephant projects as the White Sea–Baltic Canal at staggering human costs, it's rather odd to claim that the ability to alleviate a massive famine in the Ukraine was either beyond the abilities of Stalin's regime or that the regime and Stalin simply missed what was happening. The attempts to whitewash Stalin's record using "he didn't know" or "he didn't really mean to"-styles arguments are as reprehensible as Hitler-apologetics, not to mention that the arguments are strikingly similar.
- The quibbling about degrees of intent and comparisons between the Holocaust and Holodomor is like comparing intentionally running someone over with a lorry, pushing someone into the path of a lorry, and deliberately neglecting to warn or help someone avoid being run over by a lorry. The victim is just as dead in either scenario and the degree of culpability is not gargantuan.
- Anyway, if you have some concrete complaints, please list them, rather than this vague "you're just so unfair"-stuff and contextless namedropping. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)