Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text:  Yep. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nitpicking. Easily fixable.Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  opening paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think I fit into "not." That's cool though. Chun Il-shek 03:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be more careful when reverting 

message: " 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)
replies: text: He was executed later, see his article. Mikkalai 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Purges 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Stalin's support for the Kerensky government 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Stalin School of Falsification" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: I like that image, keep it. Everyking 03:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Thanks for the insights. 172 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Things to be or not to be mentioned in into 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

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

message: ==== NEP ====
*low relevancy. Majority of communists agreed it was temporary retreat. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  - - Economy transformation - - - - 

message: *low relevancy. Majority of communists agreed it was temporary retreat. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NEP]] 

message: *High relevancy. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrialisation 

message: *High relevancy. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectivisation 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Famine 

message: ==== Consolidation ====
*Distinctive feature. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  - -  Personal power  - - - - 

message: *Distinctive feature. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation 

message: *medium. I dislike the idea of slapping cliches into intro. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[personality cult]] 

message: *medium. I dislike the idea of slapping cliches into intro. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[totalitarianism]] 

message: *Significant in Soviet history. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Destalinisation]] 

message: *Significant in Soviet history. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  - - death toll  - - - - - - 

message: ==== WWII ====
*Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  - - external policy  - - - - 

message: *Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWII]] 

message: *Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Warsaw Pact]] 

message: *Not many would disagree wth the fact.  Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superpower 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by Everyking 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  172's edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Material removed from introduction