Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 2

message: Following Lenin's death many streets in the strongly socialist (communist?) mining villages in the North East of England were changed to the names of Lenin and other communist leaders. See: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=DH9+6PA&om=1 or Chopwell. Is this worthy of a mention in this article?
*I think that is very interesting, and worth mentioning, especially since England is a western country. Bronks 12:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin in England 

message: Line 72.  I think there is a violation of wiki policy here:  one cannot baselessly assert that " . .it is often argued that Lenin countermanded . ." - is this numerically true?  Statistically?  Was a study made?  Someone is trying to insert what appears to be original research.  It is more correct to say 'who' exactly argues this.  What is empirically known is that Trotskyists and Left Communists argue this.  I tried to add as much and found it reverted by user Butros.  So i have reverted it.  I will revert it again so long as I see that I am following wiki policy on unreferenced opions, etc.
Capone 07:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of State 

message: This article is, in my view, with a bit of work, possibly a candidate for nomination to be featured. The section in which the neutrality is being disputed will need to be rectified, but everything else appears to be there - sources, further reading, etc.
Thoughts? --RevenDS 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still disputed. The many well-documented human rights violations causing the death of millions of people under Lenin's regime should be mentioned. Ultramarine 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we covered this issue months ago. There were massive human rights violations under the regime of every US president before the civil war, as slavery was still in effect. Do we include those in the article of each president before lincoln? of course not, this was already discussed and resolved, as a matter of fact I added the dipsuted tag because of the type of information that you just added. Solidusspriggan 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Featured Article Candidate? 

message: The current edit war being waged by user:Ultramarine was already waged once by him and lost to the majority of reasonable and intelligent editors. In looking though the history one will find this is the exact information that led the wikipedians to include a "totally disputed" tag. Now that the tag has finally been removed Ultramarine has begun adding this non-neutral and non-factual information again in an attempt to undermine the integrity of wikipedia and promote his userpage stated agendas. Furthermore after this most recent round of attacks on the integrity, neutrality, and factual accuracy of this article, and in the inevitable end that has come about leaving his edits omitted, he has now added a "totally disputed" tag to a section that was once determined by all other wikipedians involved as accurate and neutral.
:All my added material has been sourced.Ultramarine 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: Not there 'allies' like this article stats. Very POV! The allies had token forces that barely fought at all. And when they did, they won! (Romanyankee78 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, the red army just defeated the white army! 

message: ::This comment seems a little unfair on Figes: "However, the nature of these so-called "excesses," as well as Lenin's reasons behind their defense, remain unnamed."  It is true that Figes does not state which excesses Bukharin et al were complaining about but this is because Figes has earlier extensively describe the capricious nature of the terror, with little concern that many innocent (by even a Bolshevik definition) people were caught up in the net along with the extensive use of torture.  Given the context of Figes book it is quite reasonable for Figes to feel further details were not needed.  The point that a faction in the Bolshevik party wanted to mitigate the terror and Lenin opposed this remains valid whatever the details.  Hence the responsibility of Lenin is greater than for that of the Bolshevik party as a whole.Dejvid 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not delete your comment (check the history, please) and don't intend to.  It is my hope that you read Figes yourself and then you can judge for yourself whether Figes was being unfair.Dejvid 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't always check the history either...  As to the reviews, remember that review writers hav their agendas too. Figes judges the revolution by how it affected ordinary people but he isn't tendentious about it.  He is also very readable which is why I think you would get something out of it even if you disagree with him.Dejvid 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Figes

message: :Wikipedida policy states that all significant views should be included. Academic books are certainly valid views. Ultramarine 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about reading these books? Ultramarine 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's pretty clear that Kozlovesred has an agenda with this article that has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a scholarly, fact-based, and sternly neutral encyclopedia-type entry. He should be reminded (maybe by an admin?) that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- not a propaganda or apologist platform.J.R. Hercules 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "side". This is not a debate. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. It relates information dryly, matter-of-factly, without agenda or regard to personal feelings. J.R. Hercules 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Pipes is not a historian, he is a very conservative politician." That's nice -- you mind telling us what political offices Richard Pipes has held? Apparently, you're some kind of Lenin apologist; that's not to be tolerated in this article. The only thing that's to be tolerated in this article are 'facts'. If that concept seems alien to you, then I suggest you create your own personal website devoted to making a shrine of Lenin. Don't think you going to be able to do that here.J.R. Hercules 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Mr Hercules. Do you want me to give an example of a political post Richard Pipes has held. How about this: "In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security Council holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs under President Ronald Reagan". Read the Pipes article! Bronks.
Judging by your form of argumentation, Hercules, I would be willing to bet that you haven't quite reached your twenties yet, but this is an assumption on my part. But what I don't assume is this: Anybody with any bit of political and philosophical knowledge whatsoever knows that "facts" can look different with different perspectives, and perspectives can look different with different "facts." Don't believe me? What was done with the Pipes quote that I had to supply Lenin's full utterance to? If I sound abrasive to you, then I apologize. Keep in mind that I don't mean to offend. This doesn't accomplish anything. Kozlovesred 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Bronk's point can be substantiated with the dishonest use of that Lenin quote.  Fortunately, however, Ultramarine provided the material whereby one can see what Lenin was at least trying to say. Kozlovesred 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Pipes quote

message: The article states that he's sometimes known as Nikolai in the Western press, but it doesn't explain where that name comes from.  Does anybody know? --Delirium 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikolai 

message: I can see that Marxists have been having a field day with this article. Don't worry - it will be fixed soon enough - no white washing, no apoligas, just objective view of the murderous repressive dictator that Lenin was. PMA 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not many on here have been - Lenin lead the regime - he must be held to account for its crimes - to pretend that he did not direct his government's policies or had no involement in them is at best naeive and at worst moronic and preposterous. PMA 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you can say i am an anti-communist hysteric than i can tell you to keep your obvious Marxism off here too then. Few of you are interested in NPOV - you want *M*POV - your discussions of the "vast right wing army" on each other's talk pages make it rather obvious.  PMA 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article 

message: I've only been to Russia twice (2001 & 2003), so I hope there will be some russian wikipedians that can, either agree or dissagree with what I say...
Images of Lenin statues that were torn down after the fall of the USSR are mostly from eastern europe, not from Russia. In Poland, Balticum, Hungary, etc... most statues were torn down. But in Russia iteslf, most of the Lenin statues remain standing. Although not to the extrime as it was before, with statues in every street corner.
In Russia today, Lenin is not condisdered a "bad guy". He is seen as a historical figure and an important statesman. Bronks 12:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statues... Lenin in Russia today

message: I am going to go over the changes I made to this page here. Many of the minutae are of course very debateable. However what seems obvious to me is that the primary intent of the current article is hagiography. No serious criticisms are presented (and there are many, which I will source) which are not immediately dismissed; on the other hand, much positive information is presented uncritically. Imagine if someone did this with the Mussolini article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia representing both sides of view, it is not supposed to be "anti-fascist" or "anti-communist" or subscribe to any Marxist, Fascist or any other tropes.
Your contention that this article is a hagiography of Lenin stems from your own anti-communist ideology. I've read Pipes myself. He is hardly an honest historicial source. He, and his son, are dishonest intellectual scoundrels with rabid anti-communist agendas. With them, the facts are made to fit the theory, not vice versa. Kozlovesred 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: an overwhelming number voted for the Bolsheviks in the elections for the constituant, true.  It does not follow that they supported its suppression.  Indeed in ten days that shook the world it states that in some factories bolshevik delegates to the soviets were recalled in the wake of the supression tho acording to Read it was because of those killed when troops fired on a pro-Constituant demonstration.Dejvid 09:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a historical fact that the revolution occured in the middle of WWI.  It is an interpretation of those facts that the Bolshevik terror was a response to those conditions. 
Then what conditions was it a response to? Kozlovesred 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing Alternate Viewpoints, Sourcing Claims, and Lies of Omission

message: How about changing the current Ilich to Ilyich? Sounds closer to original. --Brand спойт 11:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patronymic transliteration 

message: This page IMO has a heavy bias in favor of Lenin.  I don't think it is helpful, tho, to accuse other editors of bias.  At least no greater bias then all of us have.  This page is typical of Wikipedia in that pages will be edited by those who have a strong interest in a theme and that often means they are fans.  I mean just look at Nicholas II of Russia.  Not a mention of bloody sunday!  In the hagiography stakes this page doesn't come close.  NPOV is a myth and while it may be essential for Wikipedia to survive it is still a myth.  The Leninist editors on this page are simply putting the truth as they see it which for them is quite neutral.  The depressing fact is that to improve this page needs a lot of reading, hard work and persistence.  I say depressing because I'm not sure I've got the stamina.
What I am sure is that anyone who seeks to oppose the bias on this page must keep in mind that Lenin fans are in the main motivated by the highest ideals as was indeed Lenin.  Indeed it is this that scares me about Lenin.  Nicholas did cruel things because he was an idiot who had too much power for his own good.  Lenin caused immense human suffering not in spite of havving a highly moral motivation but because of that motivation.Dejvid 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he believed that the ends justified the ends.  On the face of it is quite rational to take actions that will result in short term evil consequences  if the final outcome is something of such better that it outweighs the suffering.  The problem is that the final outcome is too uncertain for such a balence sheet to be meaningful (not to mention that the evil means tends to shape the final ends).Dejvid 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant to say, of course, "the ends justifies the means".  Can I check what you just wrote.  When you unleash terror it means many innocent people will be executed along with those who are in fact plotting to overthrow the regime.  Taken in isolation that is surely an evil consequence.  A justification would go along the lines that seeing as we are not sure who are real enemies of the revolution then we must accept that we are going to have to spread the net so wide that many innocent people will be killed.  However much you might argue that the deaths of these innocent people was the lesser evil, you surely arn't denying that this was an evil consequence.Dejvid 11:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are two things here.  You asked how come could Lenin have caused immense human suffering despite being motivated by morality.  I gave my answer:  he believed that one could  balance immense human suffering now against greater happiness in the future.  When I used the word evil consequence all I really meant was something that is very undesirable.  I do take the argument further it is true.  To an extent it I believe it is possible to take actions which in isolation are evil but to decide that it is the right thing to do to avoid a greater evil. (eg going to war against Hilter) However there are some acts so extreme that I believe that there can be no justification because even if it seems to us we are avoiding a greater evil it is impossible to know the future while the bad consequence of our act is usually certain. (eg bombing Dresden) That is simply in answer to your question.Dejvid 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you are missing the point.  If we take for granted for moment for Europe to fall under the rule of Hilter is a bad thing then, (assuming we are in the year 1939) what do we do about it.  We can go to war which will lead to the deaths of many young men.  Some societies would regard such heroic sacrifice a good thing but in 1939 this was not the norm in Europe.  Or else we can surrender so avoiding war an submit to Nazi rule.  In this case I would accept the ends justifies the means.  But then a different question.  We are told that to defeat Germany we must bomb her cities with the prime aim to kill civilians.  If the "ends justifies the means" then we must simply decide whether the evil of Nazi victory is greater than the evil of all the women children, non combatant workers and others who will die in the bombing raids.  It has long been a tradition in Europe that a war cannot not be just if certain norms are violated irrespective of the final ends.  There is a good reason for this in that result of victory and defeat is always something than can be only guessed at while the consequence of sending 300 bombers to destroy a German city is easy to predict.  Lenin did not accept that, which is why his actions led to extreme human suffering.  And the good outcome that he hoped for, looking at Russia today did not come about.
Once again, we are looking at a complex historical event in isolation. I can't even begin to describe to you the events going on around Russia at the time, all events which in one way or another influenced the crisis in Russia. Globalization had already begun. And yet you ascribe Russia's sorry state today to one man who died 80 years ago.
And again, the bombing campaign in Germany was not decided in isolation. It's very easy to pinpoint certain acts of destructiveness from our padded posts, but it's more important to remember that Europe was in a state of siege at the time. I take offense to those terror bombings now, but I also wasn't alive during that time. Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hitler of course did evil things because he believe that they were desirable to "purify" the race.  Taking "the ends justifies the means" to its ultimate conclusion is a different kind of madness.
Evil to you and me, but not to him. Those were really his beliefs. Better to ask: how and why did those beliefs come about? 
More, a belief in moral objectivity is also tied in, more often than not, with a belief in free will and a God. I can see this argument going in that direction, but I don't know if I have the stamina to continue! Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Note in none of the above does the argument change if our values change.  I am using one example.  In a different society a different example would be needed but the underlying point would still hold.  
I don't think it would. As I pointed out before, morals change with the times. Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What you are now saying is that Lenin was merely a child of his time.  I don't think this is what you yourself believe but it is the logic of what you wrote. Dejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are people who are alive today who can remember the times when Lenin livved.  There is a difference.Dejvid
I don't understand. There are people around today who can remember the times when Hitler lived. What is the difference? Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For starters many people today believe that Lenin's ideas are still valid today. 
You mean Marxism? If so, what's wrong with that? Kozlovesred 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Either Lenin's ideas are relavant today in which he must me judged by the values of today or else he is a "child of his time" in which he can only be studied for accademic interest like Aristotle.  Which would you prefer?Dejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You won't find anyone advocating slavery on the basis Aristotle thought it a good thing.  Dejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I said IMO because the point being is that this is in my opinion.  If you re-read what I wrote you will see that I was saying the reason this page is not because of the bias of editors like you but because those who I agree with have an selfdefeating assumption that their point of view (that is to say our as I do agree with their view of Lenin) is so obvious that anyone who disagrees with them must be a knave or a fool.Dejvid 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this page is biased

message: Excluded opposing views:
"Historical research, especially after the fall of Communism opened the Communist achieves, has shown many negative aspects of Lenin's regime. From the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calender): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68).  On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63). 
After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.
In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.
During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies  from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation,  Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army  began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121). The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Finally, Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. Foreign relief organizations suspended aid when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths ."
In 1918 Lenin sent out an infamous hanging order. As documented in material available at the Library of Congress :	 	
:11-8-18. Send to Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists: Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take away all of their grain. 4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this. Yours, Lenin. P.S. Use your toughest people for this.
From :
:Otherwise, however, Mr. Pipes's editorial views are fully justified by the evidence. As one would expect, most of the newly released documents from the Soviet archives uncover Lenin's darker side. Three aspects of this in particular stand out. 
:One is Lenin's cruelty, his callous attitude to the helpless victims of his revolution and his calls for terror against its enemies. In one shocking letter of 1922, Lenin urged the Politburo to put down an uprising by the clergy in the textile town of Shuia: The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing . . . the better. One Russian historian has recently estimated that 8,000 priests and laymen were executed as a result of this letter. 
:Another aspect is Lenin's contempt for his closest comrades (although not for Stalin, according to Mr. Pipes). Lev Kamenev was a poor fellow, weak, frightened, intimidated. As for Trotsky, he was in love with the organization, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue." Ultramarine 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. All views should be included, not just those from one side.Ultramarine 23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Incivility/personal attacks are not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really off the topic... but if you changed "Lenin" to "Bush" and changed "October 25" to "September 11", changing a couple of other details as well, you'd get a pretty interesting piece of text, that might in fact be partially correct. However, to give my opinion on this, "The Black Book of Communism" is as trustable as a source as Stalin's propaganda videos or Hitler's "Mein Kampf" are. It's not necessarily a good idea to use clearly biased, highly-POV sources in Wikipedia. It's like quoting Göbbels as a source in the Jewish people article. If Wikipedia was about presenting all, even the most outrageous views, the Muslims article should say that some think all muslims are terrorist, while Jewish people should state the Nazi opinions on jews as under-humans. --HJV 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exellent point! Kitos. Bronks 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: User:Nixer in Talk:Bolshevik, quoting   claims that Lenin's Jewish ancestry is a myth. If he is right, our article must be updated. Any comments? `'mikka (t) 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source Nixer brings, proves nothing. It is but an over-long, over-emotionalized discussion between procommunists and anticommunists and antisemites. I have met a serious source with names ans data, in russian language, clearly showing Lenin's maternal grandparents: he: a jewish doctor who converted to pravoslav, got the state positions he craved, got a personal nobility rank, married a german-nationality woman and so Lenin's mother came into the world. This detail seemed as serious as everything else, but I must check out THEIR sources, if that be possible.
AbuAmir 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lenin was a mixture of many natonalities, and there were some jewish blood in that cocktail too. However, it is definitely wrong to say that Lenin was a Jew. Bronks 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course. By the way, Jews would never admit he was any jew by jewish standards. Although his grandfather was "A Jew That Was", Lenin would be never granted an immigration visa to Israel ;-)
AbuAmir 11:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am specifically not asking to discuss whether Lenin was a Jew. Of course he was not. I am asking whether someone tracking the discussion among modern Russian patriots who claim that Lenin's grandfater Alexander Blank was not Jew. True or false, this discussion (which actually lasts since 1920s) must be mentioned in Wikipedia. Also I am not asking your opinion (it cannot be entered into article, as you know). I am asking about reputable sources. `'mikka (t) 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin's Jewish ancestry 

message: About my recent correction: I was surprized that no one knowns that lenin was known as Nikolai Lenin, and in Soviet union, too. There was even a 1924 edition of 26 books under this name. See eg. . I understand no one is reading Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but  could you at least use google? `'mikka (t) 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikolai Lenin 

message: A separate attempt seems to have been made in about 1918. Two men with a rifle fired at a car containing Lenin.
They were never arrested or identified. (editor: 87.194.4.21) 
:I mentioned this attack in the article on Fritz Platten, feel free to check it out and maybe we could include it somewhere in this articel too. Bronks 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate attempt on Lenin's life