Stalin did not betray Lenin's ideals

Interesting.... In response to your point that Lenin himself practised violence- "....Lenin is not as peaceful as many thought he is"- I draw reference to the question at hand which is "Stalin did not betray Lenin's ideals". Although Lenin himself may have condoned the use of violence, I feel it is unlikely that violence was an integral part of his core belief set- I'm sure that his "ideal" Russia would not have involved violence at all. Also I'm sure that Lenin would have wanted peace, even if he himself did not achieve it, and that it was Stalin's responsibility to advance Russia towards Lenin's ideals as his successor, in the hope that one day Lenin's ideals, and that of Marx and Engels, could finally be realised. So in that way I don't think Stalin did fulfil Lenin's ideals and plans, as he didn't achieve peace or the gradual decrease in violence (let alone improve the living standards of the Russian people, and make the USSR a true rival to the USA) . And, if as you say Lenin (and Trotsky) wanted to spread revolution to other countries, then Stalin certainly didn't live up to Lenin's ideals. Enforced occupation of Eastern Europe could hardly be called spreading revolution, although it certainly encouraged it later down the line (e.g. Solidarity movement etc.). Arguably Stalin did not want to spread communism for love of the ideology but for reasons of security and paranoia: "Even before the start of World War II in 1939, Stalin"s principle foreign policy objectives were clear, he pursued consistently a geopolitical policy, which sought to quench his relentless desire for security by expanding the Soviet borders outwards, making Russia the dominant power on the Eurasian landmass with buffer states to her West" Source: http://www.e-ir.info... Referring back to the Korean War, Stalin had no need to send any help at all- China sent many thousands of soldiers (1,350,000) and the tension that was caused by it in the west simply wasn't worth the bother- especially to a war damaged nation like USSR in early 1950s. It doesn't matter that Kim Il Sung was "his own man"- Stalin was also his own man too, and chose to send soldiers and get involved in yet another war, and throw millions of roubles down the drain for what? If he didn't want to antagonise the west, then why did he end up antagonising them at all? Many nations (some "Communist", and who would later join the Warsaw Pact) sent medical help and rations, so why would Stalin send 26,000 pairs of filled Russian boots? Furthermore, the first point of Lenin's April Thesis (source: https://www.marxists.org... ) states thus: "1) In our attitude towards the war, which under the new [provisional] government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia"s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to "revolutionary defencism" is permissible." In this way Stalin should have avoided any "...imperialist war..."- such of the occupation of Eastern Europe (although perhaps this can be argued to be protection/defencism from the West(or was this yet another perceived threat from a paranoid and power obsessed man?)). Also, Lenin appears to be against Russia enacting a "...predatory....war..."- something that the political skirmishes with the west could well have resulted in. The afore mentioned espionage conducted by Stalin's agents could certainly be called "predatory" and unprovoked. How about this one- "Stalin increased his own salary as General-Secretary from 225 rubles (until 1935), to 500 rubles in 1935, 1,200 rubles in 1936, 2,000 rubles by the end of the war, and a cool 10,000 rubles by 1947." Source: http://akarlin.com... Whilst Lenin's April Thesis states that: "The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker." Source: https://www.marxists.org... "The highest administrative salaries reached into the 10,000R42;s of rubles, e.g. the director of one Kharkov enterprise in the late 1930R42;s got 22,000 rubles. The chairman and deputy chairman of the Supreme Council got salaries of 25,000 rubles. These figures are 100x the salary of an average worker which was 250 rubles and a minimum industrial wage of 110-115 rubles." "While in the 1920R42;s there were strict limits on managerial salaries as a percentage of workers", in 1929-1934 they were quietly lifted. In the 1920R42;s, the "Party maxim" was 175 rubles compared to average worker salaries of 50 rubles; whereas by 1937 the average manager-worker differential increased to 5:1 (higher than in contemporary Paris, where it was 4:1). This figure doesn"t include unofficial payments in envelopes and huge bonuses for over-fulfillment of the Plan." "In the military, a lieutenant"s salary in 1939 was 625 rubles, compared to a colonel"s 2000 rubles. This was a higher differential than in France, where it was 2,000 francs and 5,000 francs, respectively. Or for that matter far higher than in today"s "oligarchic" Russia, where a lieutenant now gets 50,000 rubles and a colonel 75,000 rubles." Sorry for all the quotes in quick succession, but I think they are valuable in this context. :)