55 Comments

1. dan:

“Certainly, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not the old Soviet Union of Stalin’s era, or even that of Leonid Brezhnev.”

True – but what is it? A state run by the institutions of the USSR, minus the Marxism-Leninism, but with different names. Not the First Directorate of the Committe for State Security, but FSB.

Honestly I understand that this theory that Kabud and I constantly harp on is annoying and seems paranoid, especially when he expresses catastrophic things in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. I understand this. But for some reason even people who acknowledge the composition of the government of the Russian Federation fail, in a very bizarre way, to draw the ultimate logical inferences. Why? I don’t understand.

In any case, it is well to remember that it took the Soviet Union a little over a decade to go from Lenin’s announcement of the New Economic Policy to the murder of Kirov and the real onset of Stalin’s Purges. During all that time, Russia was being absolutely gang-raped by war, famine, and the totalitarian evil of which it is the pioneer. It survived on American aid, liquidating the Tsar’s coffers, and – most importantly – the ignorance of the outside world.

And yet USSR became the other superpower not a decade after that.

Surely this is a cautionary tale, even if it does not repeat itself. (Communists do love historical patterns, though.)

Dec 30, 2008 - 11:55 am 2. imani:

In one of the most courageous acts in human history, the Red Army destroyed Nazi Germany – stopping them in Mosocw, beating them in Stalingrad and across the Eastern Front, liberating Auschwitz, and taking Belin – despite unprecedented losses and unimaginable self-sacrifice.

Joe Stalin was their leader.

Dec 30, 2008 - 2:02 pm 3. kabud:

Russians never voted that

until you guys learn that Russian people is our ally and Russian rulers are the enemies of USA AND RUSSIAN PEOPLE

it is not going to work

in the last 90 years regime killed almost every second Russian in Russia

Dec 30, 2008 - 2:49 pm 4. idov:

In the late 50s and early 60s Krushchev did try to bring to light Stalin’s crimes so there was a period academics would have been free to meet and discuss Stalin more or less honestly.

I think this is an unfortunate development for those trying to ferret out facts from the Stalin era. Many of the files were not even opened to a certain extent until after the fall of the Iron Curtain and research is being throttled again.

They also survived too on all the gold mined in the Kolyma and elsewhere in the Gulag where prisoners died liked flies. Myriads were dragged into the torture chambers to get them to cough up whatever gold or other valuables they were hiding at home, and then despatched to the Gulag. Stalin started as a bank robber and his biggest heist was stealing all the gold of Spain after promising to store it for safe keeping during the Civil War there.

Dec 30, 2008 - 3:33 pm 5. DavidN:

Well we can comfort ourselves in two respects. For one thing, Putin’s Russia isn’t the Soviet Union in one particularly obvious way–it’s much smaller. The population of Russia is actually smaller than that of the U.S., and the Russians lack several things that the U.S.S.R. had, including some coastline in the Baltic (now the Baltic Republics) and mineral resources (in Central Asia). They also lost a large segment of their population, especially when Ukraine left.

Secondly, an authoritarian government with no overarching political philosophy, beyond rather vague nationalism, seems to me destined to fail in the long run. It *might* work for a while in Russia, or China (the other big country trying something similar) but we all need to remember what happened the last time China tried something like this. I don’t mean Mao’s regime (for all his faults, and Red China’s, there was an overarching political philosophy, even if it was flawed and a lie). I’m referring to Confucian China up to the end of the 19th Century. The whole thing collapsed amid a culture of corruption and naked self-interest that would have most objective people arguing Blago-whats-his-ass is due a Nobel Peace Prize. I don’t think such an outcome is certain, but it’s more than likely. We’ll see.

Dec 30, 2008 - 3:40 pm 6. ReConUSMC:

Having several Russian younger Friends in this Country studying Economics at UVA .
I have gotten a rare unique insight from 3 very smart young 21 Russian Men into what is really happening in Russia…. it is surprising and quite sad frankly .
In truth they tell me there is no Opp, in Russia what so ever for young smart minds .
All Girls want to Marry Americans to get out of Russia any way they can .
They all three said the Russian economy is dead broke since it total economy is ”tied to Oil ” .
Putin has Nationalized over 171 Major Cos . and none of those Cos are as efficient as they were when they were privately owned . China supplies things Russia made only 10 years ago and those exact products are far more Expensive in Russia than in America they all said . Like Sandles , Shoes , Coats , TV’s .
The problems are worst since they are having to bring Foreigners in very Labor-us jobs(Russians hate) and they export very little and have to import even Crops , Milk , beef , pork and chicken .
DRUGS and Vodka are on the increase as is HIV AIDS .
Putin has also stopped complete Freedom of the Press , TV and Media .
The KGB has increased 2000 % under Putin .
ALL THREE RUSSIA BUT WANT TO MOVE TO AMERICA .

Dec 30, 2008 - 4:25 pm 7. David Thomson:

The long established history of czarist authoritarianism resulted in the Russian masses not only accepting arbitrary rule—but also eagerly embracing it as preferable over more democratic options. Many Russians think government bosses should be kicking their rear ends on a regular basis. In many respects, they are similar to wives who appreciate the beatings of their husband. It’s the way things are supposed to be. This mindset is not going to significantly change anytime in the near future. Human beings are not naturally inclined towards democracy. Seeking out a “great leader” like Vladimir Putin to tell them what to do is instead much easier to bear.

Dec 30, 2008 - 4:35 pm 8. ReConUSMC:

David Thomson WROTE :
The long established history of czarist authoritarianism resulted in the Russian masses not only accepting arbitrary rule—but also eagerly embracing it as preferable over more democratic options. Many Russians think government bosses should be kicking their rear ends on a regular basis. In many respects, they are similar to wives who appreciate the beatings of their husband. It’s the way things are supposed to be. This mindset is not going to significantly change anytime in the near future. Human beings are not naturally inclined towards democracy. Seeking out a “great leader” like Vladimir Putin to tell them what to do is instead much easier to bear.
________________________________________________________
David Thompson … The Former 21 Eastern European Countries for 60 plus years Lived in complete Living Hell behind the Iron Curtain . Today those Countries Love total Freedom and many of them are thriving Nations .No one in East Germany wants back behind the Wall of Fear and Russian control ever again after seeing West Germany .
Several former Eastern Block Nations have a fair tax system (12% TAXES ) and No Capital gains taxes .
Even a caged Bird rarley returns to his cage once he knows freedom .quote . The Art of War ,
As for Women liking a Ass Kicking is moronic based on what Moslem women tell us they hate it and want very much to be free .
You hear Moslems don’t care about freedom from the left yet 3 Billion Moslems are Free in 17 Countries in Asia .

Dec 30, 2008 - 5:31 pm 9. penny:

Russia is a failed culture and state. There are no excuses left. The sympathetic and fawning Russophile liberals in the west for decades have wasted our time dwelling on the pathos of Russian history as if so much bad stuff happens to non-complicit people. They aren’t victims, folks. Without their petro-dollar luck their trajectory would be straight down into a Zimbabwe with Ice.

It’s beyond human decency that Stalin would garner such ratings. He was #1 before they stopped the tv poll last time out of embarrassment.

The Russians made a pact with Putin. He still has high approval ratings no matter what the smarmy thug has done in front of their eyes. Perhaps if Russians got out of bed one morning for a change and thought about their kid’s future, took a risk and declined being cared for like zoo animals they would finally get a civil society.

One of their own, a Russian journalist, exposes their hubris and moral bankruptcy:

“They want tranquility. They, in their majority, do not want the truth, democracy, a free life for themselves and for their children… They want for things to be good (f)or them right now.”

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/12/grigory_pasko_staying_pozitiv_in_the_new_year.htm

Dec 30, 2008 - 5:37 pm 10. Scott:

Yes and it was Soso who destroyed the command of the Armed Forces in the late 1930s,and who ignored his intelligence officers who told him the VERY date when Germany would commence its invasion.Some leader indeed…

Dec 30, 2008 - 6:04 pm 11. Saltherring:

imani:

Yes, the Soviet army did defeat Hitler’s armies, but at what price to the people of eastern Europe, who (after the war) suffered and bore the grinding poverty and oppression of Soviet dominance for 45 years. And Joe Stalin their leader?….hardly….the average Red Army soldier fought for his family, comerades and homeland….and from the fear of what Stalin’s NKVD would do to him if he deserted.

Dec 30, 2008 - 6:36 pm 12. swingin:

joe stalin virtually started ww2 by granting hitler a free eastern border. he then divided poland with hitler – the very invasion that violated the english/french security agreement with poland. then stalin invaded the baltic states while hitler conquered western europe and crushed its armies. stalin invaded finland, and handed hitler updated demands including other parts of eastern europe – the same demands stalin made at yalta with the allies.

but no one said anything about stalin.

about hitler’s invasion of USSR, ask yourself: how did the invincible german army suddenly decide to attack russia, with no winter coats, inadequate fuel, and an invasion force comprised significantly of romanians and bulgarian and other non-german allies? these were racially-superior nazis, after all.

especially with napoleon’s example – isn’t that an odd decision for a warlord who had made peace with stalin only 2 years earlier and had just conquered all europe?

stalin attacked finland in the dead of winter, in weather that was -39c at times. the red army barely prevailed, and in fact settled for a stalemate. hitler is said to have decided to attack finland because of red army’s failure to take such a small country.

but perhaps stalin’s attack was intended to create the impression that his army was weak, even in winter?

could it be that stalin’s role in the second world war was more complicated than conventional history has made of it?

but then western history records almost nothing (until recently) of what went on in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at all. so little, in fact, that you may not even notice it at all. isn’t that interesting?

Dec 30, 2008 - 7:44 pm 13. George Clarke:

The anti-war crowd criticized Bush for sacrificing 4000 brave American soldiers in Iraq over the course of four years. What a Butcher! Consider that on Jan. 12, 1945 as Hitler was lauching his last gasp across the Flank of Patton creating the Bulge that gave that Battle its name, Stalin launched 3,000,000 troops against half that amount of Germans in a front that stretched from the Baltic to Hungary. By the time Hitler killed himself at the end of April a Million Russians were dead with the wounded running at the usual ratio. The Germans fighting to defend their women, not so effectively, lost not quite so many.

Now that’s a real Butcher! Of course the Russians couldn’t retreat because the heavy machine guns were in the hands of the politically correct KGB fellows at their backs. The phrase, “Oh, the Horror” doesn’t quite do the situation justice.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:00 pm 14. jkumpire:

imani,

You are so ignorant of history it is unbelievable. Stalin destroyed the Soviet Army in the 1937 purges, signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis in 1939, and ignored the obvious signs of the German invasion in 1940. In the 30’s he supported the rebuilding of the German military in secret, then proceeded to watch it kick the Communists all over Spain, and then enabled it to kill 45 million+ Soviet citizens.

He then issues stand firm orders that led to mass slaughter of millions of ill-equipped troops. then built an army full of CPSU political officers who led to the slaughter of even millions of more soldiers due to their military stupidity. He sacked commanders like candy, sent whole armies to suicide attacks against the Germans, and basically won the way because of Allied help, and the fact that the Germans had a more incompetent head of state.

He’s as much a hero of the Soviet Union in WW2 as my grand father in America. Please God, help those poor souls who have to live under Putin, and our poster to find reality.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:46 pm 15. coisty@rock.com:

Human beings are not naturally inclined towards democracy.

That’s why the Bush policy towards Iraq was doomed to failure from the start.

Dec 30, 2008 - 9:41 pm 16. ella:

swingin

western history records almost nothing of what went on in the USSR because you (mainly)have two kinds of historians. One kind of them thought that communism is great and they were going with young people in Germany or Holland to demonstrate against western nuclear weapons but did not demonstrate against soviet nuclear weapons. Because, of course, USSR will be using them for peace. And the other kind thought that majority of russians are sitting in gulags or are killed by thousands by commies of KGB. They also thought that all communists are evil and they need to be thought a lesson.
With that radically different views it is no wonder that majority of historians (or journalists) knew nothing about USSR- only what they read in soviet newspapers. Majority of journalists/historians/what-not had “minders” and if you combine that with difficulty of talking with “normal”people, getting research material, closed zones (even near Moscow) and researcher’s own views on what was going on in Soviet Union – then you got your answer why “west” got “almost nothing” on USSR……………even now.

Dec 30, 2008 - 9:58 pm 17. ella:

And swingin.
Stalin’s role in the second world war was perhaps more complicated than conventional history has taught you, but he was a thug, a murderer, and genocidal leader of Russians. And that’s why even if his role in the 2nd world war is more complicated then some are saying he nevertheless would be a thug, a murderer, and an imperialist (an imperialist under red banner, that’s true, but imperialist nonetheless)…….and nothing will change that.

Dec 30, 2008 - 10:08 pm 18. Scott:

I’m trying to figure out this poll..how did Peter the Great,the Empress Elizabeth(his daughter),and Catherine the Great lose out? The choice of Stolypin,however,is perceptive:had he not been undercut by the moron Nicholas II,he would have wiped out the Red leadership,as he had already freed the peasants

Dec 31, 2008 - 12:42 am 19. David Thomson:

“That’s why the Bush policy towards Iraq was doomed to failure from the start.”

That is false. The Bush policy in Iraq, so far, seems to be a great success. You fail to make the proper distinction. Democracy is not impossible—it is simply difficult to achieve. Bush could only offer the Iraqis the opportunity to opt for a democratic government. It is still up to them to make it work.

Dec 31, 2008 - 2:13 am 20. TomF:

Some facts I have picked up along the way.
-The Soviet generals fought each other (using their own soldiers) to see who would get to Berlin first.
-Many of the “brave” soldiers had no choice considering the “friendly” machine guns pointed at their backs.
-Soviet soldiers whose officers surrendered, were sent to Siberia if they made it back home. Loyal “patriot” families would disown their own husbands, sons, and brothers.
-Stalin was poised to attack Germany with in a few days or weeks, when Hitler hit first. The Soviet offensive was not ready for the German offensive.

Dec 31, 2008 - 5:10 am 21. kabud:

friends, don’t be fooled by a false Soviet Union brake up

it was a strategic move to let the West think that kremlin is reformed and not planning to murder Americans in a nuclear war

kremlin always violated arms treaties and is in violation of all the fundamental strategic arms reduction agreements we had with them

We were never able to actually get it inspected

At 1989 they had around 40 000 (forty thousands nukes)

we only have arsenal of about 5,500 warheads to this day

Because we honor our agreements and reduced arsenals

Kremlin kept their control in most of the so called independent states including
Belarus,
Ukraine(where prime minister is their direct agent),
prime minister of Estonia who used to be a communist party instructor and in 2006 organized a very damaging provocation that created tensions between Russians and Estonians

The reasons for the so called break up of USSR were:

1.get western investment exactly the same way Lenin’s NEP policy worked in the 1920s

2.make western territories of soviet influence falsely `independent` , so in a case of a nuclear exchange the most valuable from the kremlin point of view territories will not be attacked by USA

Kremlin never rejected the idea of a surprise attack on USA and is getting ready:

check the news, you will find that they develop strategic weapons , test them, deploy on mobile launchers, submarines

they have extremely intensive military cooperation with China: most of Russian arms export goes to China and most of Chinese arms import is coming from Russia

IN the late 1990s kremlin choose a smart smoke screen tactics: they use so called `islamists` that they were training for decades to attack USA interests

This is the best cover up for kremlin advances because if USA is attacked by shady forces: public here has no idea where to retaliate

There was never a more dangerous moment in USA history then today

Marxist theory teaches that capitalism goes into crisis cyclically and when it hits a real severe crisis – a communist revolution will take place

Well of course who cares about revolution:

this is only a newspeak name for kremlin world domination

They consider economic prosperity to be secondary so all American economic superiority means nothing when adversary has ten time more nuclear weapons
and enormous amounts of biological substance to kill all 300 million Americans

Dec 31, 2008 - 6:05 am 22. swingin:

ella – I think you misunderstood my post or i wrote it badly. Stalin was the butcher of butchers. I recently read Victor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit, in which he argues that Stalin supported Hitler so that he would start another world war (Leninist theory held that world war would be necessary to create the conditions for global communist revolution, as the first world war had created the conditions necessary for such a revolution in europe). Stalin helped the German army to secretly train in the USSR following the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo (well, Lenin & Co. did, but Stalin continued the policy). This is a well-known fact. Why would Stalin allow a mortal enemy to train and develop new weaponry, why would Stalin himself aid the Germans (well before Hitler) who had just crushed the Tsarist Russian army and threaten its very existence (during negotiations prior to Brest-Litovsk) to regain its military might?

Easy: Stalin wanted to stoke and enable German revenge against France and England. He knew Versailles and poverty and political chaos (which Kremlin tried to take advantage of 3 times) would lead to militarization and another world war, which Stalin himself would help orchestrate through his vast intelligence network. Germany would prevail against these states, and then – once Germany had warn its natural resources thin – Russia would roll in behind and conquer Germany, “liberating” Europe and transforming it into a EUSSR under Kremlin control.

When Hitler came on the scene with Mein Kampf – remember Hitler had been in the revolutionary underground among the Communists and other parties struggling for dominance – he was part of the German Worker’s Party, later the National-Socialist German Worker’s Party. Suvorov thinks Hitler was a Communist, though not under Kremlin discipline; personally I don’t. I simply think he was the epitome of Germany’s will to power in conditions following WWI and adorned himself in the available political theories, all of which were messianic and melodramatic in one way or another.

Remember Stalin directing the Communist party in Germany not to vote with the Social Democrats in the elections that brought Hitler to power? Now – why would Stalin do that? If he simply wanted to control Germany via coalition he could have directed the opposite, and then co-opted the cabinet or some other parliamentary scheme, as Lenin had proposed (among other things).

No – he let Hitler win. In fact, he virtually handed Hitler his victory. The Nazis won a maximum 34% of the popular vote (I think). If the Communists and Social Democrats banded together against a common enemy, the Nazis would remain a minority party. So why would Stalin do that? Even if Stalin hated the Social Democrats most of all, he hated them because they frustrated revolution. But then you must ask yourself: how would Hitler *enable* Communist revolution? And it was only a year after Hitler made himself Reichschancellor that he stopped the policy of training the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union.

It is an exotic theory but a very persuasive one. The Soviet relationship with the German army is only one strange thing. What are we to make of the Hitler-Stalin pact that started World War 2? Are we really to believe that Stalin would have been happy to share a border (in Nazi/Soviet Poland) with a Nazi Germany in control of all Western Europe, including possibly England? Would Stalin really have bet that such a monster, who broadcast his opinions and intentions everywhere, would leave the Soviet Union alone (again, is it Stalin who is stupid, or you who are stupid)? And really – when did Stalin, or the USSR, ever stop trying to create global Communist revolution? Stalin had *no interest* in any kind of strategic stasis short of global Communism. The USSR was created for war, subversion, and ultimately revolution.

Anyway – think about them apples.

Dec 31, 2008 - 7:45 am 23. GaryG:

> “We might wonder about its implications; a German move to the extreme Right…”

I just stopped reading the article after that passage… Since when Hitler became the “extrene Right”? He and his henchmen from NSDAP (National Socialist Labour Party aka Nazi) were always on the extreme LEFT.

Dec 31, 2008 - 7:59 am 24. Joe Bison:

1)I think the poll was for most important or
greatest not most popular
2)The poll had online voting. This in my
experience makes for BS multiple voting
among other things.
3)Stalin was from Georgia.
4)I doubt anybody under 30 gives a crap
about anything but materialism.

Dec 31, 2008 - 8:28 am 25. Saltherring:

Fourth and fifth on the list were, of course, Ivan the Terrible and Rasputin.

Dec 31, 2008 - 8:57 am 26. Joe Bison:

By the way all communists are alike. In the
USSR Stalin was just the chief thug. The
others jostling for power were just the same.
While they killed civilians things were okay.
Some became disillusioned when the terror
turned on them.

My great grandfather died in Siberian exile.
My grandfather was badly wounded fighting
the communists in the revolution.

My other grandfather was murdered by the
Nazis.

My wife’s family lost all their property
but fortunately not their lives to Mao
in China.

We know bastards when we see them.

Dec 31, 2008 - 9:00 am 27. ella:

swingin

Stalin cared nothing about Tsarist Russian army, for him and for Lenin they were enemies on par with England or France. And during the first world war and just after it was Lenin who made decisions and not Stalin, so the Stalin “achievements” you are talking about were not his but Lenin’s.

Stalin’s directing the communist party in Germany not to vote with social democrats had nothing to do with (historical) conspiracy theories but everything to do with Trockities and other leftist movement which were hated by “real” communists of Soviet Union. It is something on par with religious wars in Europe- protestants hated catolics more then muslims or jews, same with Soviet Communists and Social Democrats. Stalin didn’t hated social democrats/trade unions because they frustrated revolution he hated them because they wanted revolusion as much as he did but had different views on how to go about it.

Furthermore you are forgetting two things – Stalin was paranoid and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” During the 30s when Hitler come to power in Germany Stalin had “great purge” and was busily killing russians, russian army commanders and some KGB people. He had not time to make convoluted plans. But he also had an ally in Hitler, because Stalin hated social democrats and Hitler hated social democrats. It’s as simple as that.

As for “what are we to make of the pact Ribbentrop-Molotov?” For the moment they had common interests – they both wanted part of Poland (easy to do if they both attack at the same time) and an ally against France and UK. When they had achieved that aim it was natural that the alliance will dissapear – germans wanted lebesraum and russians wanted world-wide revolution.

No need for complicated theories, because, as always, Occam’s razor rules.

Dec 31, 2008 - 10:57 am 28. ella:

btw

The pact Molotov-Ribbentrop started WWII? Are you serious?
Or is it perhaps the fact that Hitler and Soviet Union both attacked Poland when France/UK stood by and did nothing.
Pact Ribbentrop-Molotov might have facilitated the attack but it was not a starting point of WWII.
******
“Would Stalin really have bet that such a monster, who broadcast his opinions and intentions everywhere, would leave the Soviet Union alone (again, is it Stalin who is stupid, or you who are stupid)?”

It seems to me that you are forgetting the fact that Stalin was also a monster. Therefore no, Stalin was not stupid – Stalin was paranoid, a psychopath and a monster.
Monsters, paranoids and psychopaths think……….differently.

Dec 31, 2008 - 11:17 am 29. ella:

@ GaryG

Extreme right is often indistinguishable from extreme right -same methods, same aims couched in different slogans.
As for the name – the rose under any other name is still a rose. Nazis were extreme right even if their name pointed to extreme left.
It is similar to today’s Christian Democrats in many European countries – are they Christians? Really?

Dec 31, 2008 - 11:32 am 30. Sam:

As to Stalin and Putin, let’s remember Marx’s addendum to Hegel’s notion that history often repeats itself : first time as tragedy, next as farce. Unfortunately, a bloody one.

Dec 31, 2008 - 11:50 am 31. GaryG:

To: Ella

With all do respect, right NOT EQUALS left.

In order to distinguish between them, use just one number – average (i.e. effective) tax rate. In other words, one should be able to answer the question -how much wealth belongs to the state, and how much wealth belongs to the people. At the end of the Third Reich the tax rate was topping 80% (just plain vanilla confiscation). The rule of thumb is simple: if a country has effective tax rate >50%, it’s socialism (i.e. left), otherwise it’s capitalism (i.e. right). (Read Lenin’s “State and the Revolution” to have clear undertanding of the subject).

As for the methods used by all extremists in their conquest for power – I agree, they are pretty much the same.

Gary

Dec 31, 2008 - 12:09 pm 32. myth buster:

Even if the Russians still had all their nukes (which they don’t, since their bankruptcy forced them to sell a lot of them for fuel rods), the missiles are leaking fuel and their guidance systems suck. Meanwhile, our Trident II D-5 missiles fly true. If we launch a Trident from one of our Ohio Class SSBNs, every one of its eight independently targeted warheads will score a direct hit against its target within five minutes. So while most of the Russian arsenal won’t even work, our missiles will hit their marks without fail.

Dec 31, 2008 - 8:55 pm 33. ella:

GaryG

I do not need to read Lenin/Marx/Stalin’s writings as I did read them, and I do have quite clear understanding of the subject’s reality.
BTW according to your definition Iran would be a capitalist country and so would Saudi Arabia, but are they really capitalist?

Dec 31, 2008 - 10:23 pm 34. ella:

Majority of historians would not agree with your firm assertion that Nazis were extreme right movement – if that is what you try to tell us.
Also during the end of the Nazi regime Germany was on war economy footing which is quite distinct from economic condition during peace-time.

“While it incorporated elements from both political wings, it formed most of its alliances on the political right…………Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,”
******
Of course if you want to have pet theory …………….

Jan 1, 2009 - 11:14 am 35. ella:

ups, correction
above should read:
majority of historians would not agree that Nazis were extreme left movement. i/o extreme right movement

Jan 1, 2009 - 11:17 am 36. Socrates:

I don’t see anything wrong with how the Russians run their country’s internal affairs. After all, it is their territory, and none of our business.

Jan 1, 2009 - 4:09 pm 37. George Clarke:

Point One: Stalin was not stupid? Stalin thought the Netherlands and Holland were two different countries near each other, and no one had the courage to correct him. He had some dupe tortured to confess at his Show Trial he met a foreign spy at a hotel torn down years before the concocted event. He had the tutor who was supposed to educate him on the meaning of Marxism executed. He was educated in a Seminary, and for book learning had very little. His skill was to read people and he had the will to use that knowledge for extremely artful manipulation. But I think he had to meet people to read them and he never met Hitler, and had a blind side there. He was crafty and lucky but not smart in a learned sort of way.
Point Two: The political spectrum I learned that makes sense is anarchy/libertarianism/weak government on the right. Complete tyranny on the left. Tyranny is not at both ends. The fiction that Hitler was on the right came from Stalin who thought anyone who would promote capitalism like Hitler was further right than he was. But from the the USA’s perspective, Hitler and Stalin were both left of us. To say Hitler was far right — I don’t know what that political spectrum means. See Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

Jan 2, 2009 - 12:35 am 38. David Thomson:

“Hitler and Stalin were both left of us.”

The Nazis are virtually identical to the Communists except that they only allowed “true Aryans” to join the club. That’s the only real difference. The Communists at least claimed to transcend racial and ethnic categories. Americans are often confused on this point because Moscow told its propagandists to constantly charge someone with being “right-wing” if they slightly deviated from the policies of Stalin. This is why even Leon Trotsky was regularly attacked as a reactionary right-winger.

Jan 2, 2009 - 1:38 pm 39. fred:

kabud,

Have you heard of The Andropov Plan? I read about it in Robert Chandler’s “Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, The Global New Left, and Radical Islam.” The Nineties were really the continuation of perestroika and Gorbachev’s intent was to adopt Gramcian cultural Marxism and shelve Leninism. Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, and others realized back in the Sixties that the Soviet Union would never be able to overcome the West and that its economy was failing. By the Seventies they wanted to open up to the West to draw in capital, ideas, and technology in order to survive – in return for the perception they would cultivate among gullible Westerners that the Soviet Union was making some changes and would be a better world citizen.

The “collapse” of the Soviet Union was a carefully managed and staged affair. Behind the scenes the nomenklatura and siloviki still controlled the state and the economy. The Nineties were a sham meant to fool us.

It worked.

Meanwhile, in the West their Gramscian allies were working for a convergence of a new socialist order with the new Russia. The European Union is an important step in that direction.

Russia so far has managed to effectively control critical oil and gas markets that have put the former republics and Western Europe on a short leash.

Jan 2, 2009 - 7:27 pm 40. Michael:

Recently read Whisperers which is a good book on the sad life in Stalin’s Russia. It reminded me to wonder who, sociologically, the Bolsheviks were. Whoever they were, it appears generally they were idealists. The period of the New Economic Policy appeared to go pretty well for Russia. It’s chief economist was Kondratiev, think Kondratiev’s wave. He was shot on Stalin’s orders in 1937 incidentally after writing a touching illustrated children’s story for a daughter from prison camp. There was a Russian joke from the purge period of the NKVD knocking on someone’s door in the middle of the night. The fellow opens the door and laughs, saying “Oh, you made a mistake. The communists live upstairs!”

Jan 2, 2009 - 7:39 pm 41. Michael Averko:

Ronald Radosh’s article is questinably one-sided with at least one inaccurate comment relating to who wrote the words to the current Russian national anthem.

This article provides additional insight of the recent poll on who is the most popular Russian historical figure:

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/31-12-2008/106884-most_popular_russian-0

There’s also the issue of just how accurate that poll is.

The poll can be seen as suggestively indicating that the overwhelming majority of Russians don’t view Stalin as a great or particularly popular figure. Moreover, the admiration for Stalin isn’t exclusive to just some Russians.

Among those admiring Stalin, there’s an attempt to be “balanced” when reviewing his record. This has included the noting of Stalin’s negatives. In any event, in Russia, there appears to be little movement to have such a leader re-emerge in that same manner.

IMO, it’s wrong to highlight Stalin as having played an instruemental role in defeating Nazi Germany. The peoples comprising the USSR should be the ones more credited with that accomplishment. Stalin’s purging of the Red Army officer corps in the 1930s and his refusal to believe his intell. of the oncoming Nazi attack didn’t help the Soviet war effort.

There’s no Stalin holiday or an attempt to initiate one. This contrasts from a newly created holiday in Ukraine:

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/35310

In English language mass media, there’s little if any criticism of this holiday. I wonder what kind of deals might’ve occurred to get this Ukrainian holiday passed in the Rada? Bandera appears to be a regional figure along the lines of Robert E. Lee. There’s reason to question Peltura’s overall popularity in Ukraine as well.

Jan 3, 2009 - 6:52 am 42. Michael Averko:

Pardon the incorrect spelling of Petlura.

Jan 3, 2009 - 6:53 am 43. Michael Averko:

Ronald Radosh could’ve explained why Hitler isn’t as popular in Germany vis-a-vis Stalin’s popularity (limited at that) in Russia.

It relates to the saying of the winners getting preference in the historical accounts.

Another factor has to do with the involved ideologies. In theory, Nazism was/is bigoted unlike Communism.

So that there’s no misunderstanding: all this stated by someone who isn’t positive about Stalin.

Jan 3, 2009 - 6:59 am 44. james:

It was western powers and international bankers that put Communism in Russia and over through the Czar.

Britain industrialised and Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese Navy to attack Russia further weakening the State trying to bring about a revolution in 1905.

For years prior (at least 20) Europe and the US gave sanctuary to Lenin and his goons who were holding international conferences in many European capitals and like Trotsky for example were arrested by Czarist police for trying to set up underground Marxist groups in Russia.

Communism was a Jewish political movement just like Neo-conservatism.

It key philosopher Karl Marx a German Jew, and the “revolution” was financed by Jewish New York banker Jacob Schiff and the majority of the leadership of the
new Soviet government was Jewish.

“Last Days of the Romanovs,” by Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times during the revolution gives us a break down of the first Soviet government.

According to the data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State. . . there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.

http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/jews_and_bolshevism.htm

US OSS report on the revolution revealed that that the majority of the new government came from NYC.

In the post WW2 satellite states governments the majority were Jewish.

As far as Russia is today during the 90’s the western backed Jewish Mafia Oligarchy controlled every aspect of Russia the media, political parties, appointed government officials, drafted laws and laundered the money overseas avoiding billions of dollars of tax and were running the country into the ground.

According to the UN report on Russian 3 million Russian children died due to preventable causes.

The problem they have with Putin and Russsia is not some hyped BS threat it poses but because it chooses not to be an IMF colony.
Russia’s main goal is to improve the economy up from 7% to 22% middle class and increase the Russian birth rate.

The real Trotskyite Communists are the Neocon’s in Washington who want a one world government under the pretext of promoting democracy in Iraq and else where whose fellow brethren control the NGO’s, media, newspapers, dominate academia, major financers of both political parties, government appointees,etc

Jan 3, 2009 - 8:43 am 45. Miles:

Worrying that the Russian people voted Stalin the third most popular figure in Russian history would be, indeed, a true waste of time. If I recall the original numbers, it was ONLY 13% of those polled who gave the Georgian despot that dubious honor; and even that might be more a reflection that Russians (like many Americans) are woefully unaware of history and historical figures and so are hard-pressed to think of someone of relevance to Russian history than that they pant with desire to have the cellars of The Lubyanka again flow with blood.

Jan 3, 2009 - 4:28 pm 46. james:

Didn’t Germany vote for Karl Marx as there 3rd most famous German?

Here in Britain we voted as number 1 greatest Britain genocidal warmonger/criminal Winston Churchill who as Buchannan pointed out got Britain to start WW2 with war guarantee to Poland to intervene on its behalf if Germany invaded who were slaughtering ethnic Germans in Poland given to them after Versailles.

Jan 3, 2009 - 10:59 pm 47. james:

Weren’t the Neocon’s ideological hero Leon Trotsky founder of the Red army and the first if not one of the first mass murderers of the Soviet Union?

Jan 3, 2009 - 11:05 pm 48. tony azevedo:

There is no such thing as ideology fulls! We are all in the hands of the banksters and our future is eternal slavery. Therefore, it is very possible that in the near future communism will be the new alternative to economic slavery.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:35 pm 49. dan:

fred – have you read Anatoly Golitsyn’s “New Lies for Old”? I have Chandler’s book in the mail, but Golitsyn’s was written in 1980 (based on a CIA memorandum he wrote in 1968) and published in 1984, even before Gorbachev took power. You should check it out. Probably “the Andropov Plan” is a second version of the one Golitsyn says was formulated in 1960 as a response to the excesses of Stalin and the destabilizing power struggle that followed thereafter and as a function of the realization that nuclear war was not the best method to global Communist victory – rather subversion was. check it out, I think you’ll like it.

Jan 5, 2009 - 7:23 am 50. Michael Averko:

Ronald Radosh:

Regarding your reference to lenin’s tomb, you didn’t note how it was draped over with the Russian tricolor during the last Victory Day holday. How did lenin fare in this recent poll of historically popular Russians?

****

Re: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32548/russians_would_save_symbols_of_communism/

Be on the lookout for spin that downplays the poll result of how only 5% of Russians support an active return of Soviet symbols.
People who seek to “preserve” symbols can do so in ways different from how some suggest. To underscore this point, in NY, there’s a long running weekly military affairs show on a local radio station. The Jewish host of that show observed how a good number of Nazi regalia collectors are Jews.

During last year’s European football (soccer) tournament, Russian fans overwhelmingly displayed current Russian symbols (the white, blue and red tricolor flag and two headed eagle) over Soviet ones.

Jan 5, 2009 - 8:02 am 51. artfldgr:

hitler was not on the extreme right… hitler was on the extreme left… stalin told his people to put EVERYONE to the right of communism…

Stalin and soviets were INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS

Hitler and the nazis were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS…

the latter wanted a lot more area for its people, the former wanted EVERYTHING..

engels talked about the holocaust of the middle class… and we forget that there were another 6 million non jews killed.

in fact the idea of a jewish identity that is married to the holocaust was an invention of the frankfurt school (rather than their identity being religious or cultural anymore), and its acceptance puts the sufferers of the same ideas at ods with each other, rather than at the people or political system (socialism) that is causing them. just as our socialism is allowing protesters last week to call for large ovens for the jews (florida).

want to see how close they are? (and how by following the same thing, your actually helping stalin and communism, rather than correcting history and de-stalinizing it)

http://www.sovietstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stalin-hitler.jpg

http://www.sovietstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/nazi-soviet-posters.jpg

look a lot alike, no?

by the way, the camps were NOT destroyed after wwii… we gave them to stalin who continued to use them.

“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” — Mikhail Gorbachev

In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, a world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” — Mikhail Gorbachev

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev

“We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” — Nikita Kruschev

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” — V.I. Lenin

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — V.I. Lenin

“…first ascertain exactly the position of the various capitalists, then control them, influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering their credits, and finally they can entirely determine their fate.” — V.I. Lenin

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

Jan 12, 2009 - 2:51 pm 52. artfldgr:

imani,
In one of the most courageous acts in human history, the Red Army destroyed Nazi Germany – stopping them in Mosocw, beating them in Stalingrad and across the Eastern Front, liberating Auschwitz, and taking Belin – despite unprecedented losses and unimaginable self-sacrifice.

Joe Stalin was their leader.

SOVIET RAPES IN BERLIN: UNKNOWN TOTAL

The official figures for Berlin rapes by Soviet troops does exist but has never been published. However, Berlin’s former mayor, Ernst Reuter, said that the figure given him was 90,000. In 1945, Berlin had a population of some 2,700,000 of which about 2,000,000 were women. Many rapes of course were never reported and the figure of 90,000 includes only hospitalized cases and doctors reports. Some 10,000 women in Berlin died as a result of rape. The death rate was thought to have been much higher among the 1.4 million estimated victims in East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania. Doctors were besieged by women seeking information on the best way to commit suicide. A charity institution, orphanage and maternity hospital, ‘Haus Dehlem ‘ was forcibly entered by second line Russian troops and pregnant women and women who had just given birth were repeatedly raped. In the Soviet Zone of Germany nearly 90% of females ages between 10 and 80 were raped in what undoubtedly was the largest case of mass rape in history. This included women expelled from the eastern provinces.

Most German children born in Berlin in 1946 were the result of rape. Women and young girls were forcibly dragged from their homes and raped, the drunken Soviet Mongolian soldiers queuing up to await their turn. For two whole weeks these mass rapes of women continued. Some Jewish women, thinking that their nationality would save them, showed their identity cards to the rapists but none of them could even read. Marshal Zhukov issued orders that any soldier caught in the act of rape after the two week period was up, was to be shot on the spot. Many a Russian soldier met his end this way. Between 1942 and 1945, a total of 2,420 rapes were reported in England, 3,620 in France and more than 11,040 in Germany. No US soldier was ever executed for rape in Germany. As one GI wrote ‘ Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how ‘our boys’ over here conduct themselves’. The only way many German mothers could keep their children from starving was to become a mistress to one of the occupying troops. (It is estimated that around two million German women had undergone an illegal abortion in the three years after the war ended)

they also raped their own women in the camps… and jewish women…

and it wasnt courageous… the GRU and KGB had their own forces… the KGB forces were behind the GRU forces… the troops were conscripted, and if they turned around, the KGB forces killed them.

with that method, you would fight for them too. you either went forward, and killed and did it for them, or they killed or tortured you to death.. (or your family).

Jan 12, 2009 - 2:59 pm 53. artfldgr:

kabud: the reason there was a cold war was because thats what america was doing… when you ahve a crazy brother who attacks the family, you hold em down.. you dont kill em.

we held them down.. they are still, working towrds the end of the west, and world communism.. the chinese said so last week, and gorby has always said it… and putin being a kgb man, well, same with that… Iran calling them soviet in recent weeks should wake you up.

too much to show you…

Jan 12, 2009 - 3:03 pm 54. artfldgr:

ella.. your wrong.. the reason is that they were VERY successful with lukacks and franfurt school in the west…

we still think that the false goodness they gave us, is ours. free love was from lenin, so was no fault divore, and abortion on demand. the list goes on.

and msot dont know the franfurt school… and which ones went to hollyweird to float their agenda in films. (it was pretty easy, either you write to show the communist thing embedded in it, or they back some other project. with 60 tonns of gold, and 45 years of unsold diamonds, they had more than enouhg to do this. ever notice that j jonah jamsson of spiderman is karl marxs fat cat? and that poor spideys cover cant manage to be a capatalist and sell his photos to a competing paper for a lot of money instead of taking waht the fat cat gives him with abuse?

how about the movie ANTZ… where parents laugh at the campiness… but no one is explaining it to the children… who are beng raised on utopian fare and no morality.

how about the move from uplifting art and classical music and art forms, to debasing ones? that is soviet realizm…

i knew we were in trouble when they put a sculpture at rockerfeler center, a spike into the sky with people walking upwards.. yet no one knew its a copy of a famous soviet era piece of art.

we are about to return to feudalism…

thats the CHANGE we are gettign…

capitalism imprisoned the rulers as slaves to the people.

socialism will free the rulers to once again make slave OF the people.

when they refer to peace and more freedom, they are revering to marx no peace till no opposition to socialism/communism and total control, and that THEY will be free again. they are talking to each other, not us.

Jan 12, 2009 - 3:16 pm 55. Sesso:

Great site.

Jan 23, 2009 - 5:17 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: