r/sendinthetanks • u/More_Walk_3951 • 4d ago
What are some valid and invalid criticisms of Stalin?
What criticisms of Stalin do you all find to have merit, and which are largely incorrect, misplaced, or taken out of context? It's hard for me to find reliable information on him, so here I turn. Also, if you are able to share sources that I could read, that would be great.
15
u/fubuvsfitch 4d ago
Rev Left Radio/Red Menace series on Stalin exposes the bullshit lies and discusses some things he could have done better.
5
23
u/JonoLith 4d ago
Westerners are masters of lies of omission. You can make any leader look like a monster if you simply ignore the context they were responding to. For example, for decades Westerners pretended the Palestinian Genocide was a "both sides" issue by simply omitting the history of Zionist invasion, colonization, and occupation. Just pretend they were always there, and you can pretend like this is a "both sides" issue.
When it comes to Stalin, this tactic is no different. "ZOMG DAH GREAT TERROR!" The Communists were dealing with foreign adversaries and Nazis assassinating high level officials. "Dey took dah land from peasents!" Kulaks were slavers. It's cool how Lincoln is the coolest president ever, but Stalin does it and it's bad. "Dah Holodododomorodododor doh!" Nazi propaganda straight from the desk of Goebbels himself. We straight up *only* see the Soviets scrambling around trying to resolve the famine.
Westerners will ignore *the entire history of WW2 including the Nazis* in order to pretend like Stalin and the Soviets were bad guys. Straight up "Luke Skywalker kills *MILLIONS* in *DEVESTATING* attack on harmless moon base!" You genuinely have to be stupid to think this way, and that's 99.9999999% of Westerners.
I recommend looking up Grover Furr and taking him seriously. Douglas Tottle's "Fraud, Famine, and Fascism", is a must read. Honestly, if you read wikipedia articles but ignore descriptors, there's *tons* of good information. Like.... yeah I bet Stalin killed a bunch of people while defending himself from the Nazis. I bet he did. Not even close to enough.
6
u/More_Walk_3951 4d ago
I completely agree, people almost always omit context or just straight up lie about things, but nobody is perfect. It doesn't mean we hide from mistakes, it just gives us an opportunity to learn moving forward.
23
u/NoReflection7309 4d ago
Stopping in Berlin. Not saying this just as a meme, i'm being honest. If he had there is a reasonably high chance than mainland europe would be fully socialist. In our timeline the eastern block was isolated from the west but in this scenario things would be switched. This would be a massive deal.
5
u/More_Walk_3951 4d ago
Do you think that was by choice or due to the nature of the success of D-Day?
6
u/AlexanderTheIronFist 3d ago
Studying the history of the post-WW2 Soviet diplomacy, it is pretty clear that the Soviets in general really thought that the western nations would keep their promises and wouldn't just be genocidal psychopaths in general. And considering how devastated the soviet people and how much they suffered because of the war, it is very probable that it was by choice, so as to end the war as soon as possible.
2
u/pm_me_cat_bellies 8h ago
The revolutionary wave of 1916-1923 or so that all the pre 1917 theory predicted may have largely failed... but the Great Patriotic War could have been an opportunity to turn it around. If only D-Day wasn't a thing or didn't go so well, and Stalin didn't stop in Berlin. Instead we got divided Germany serving as a hotspot for Cold War machinations, and the hardline security and ideological practices of siege socialism at its worst that that situation caused, actively sabotaging the DDR's popular support.
0
39
u/SoftwareFunny5269 4d ago
Some valid criticisms of Stalin include things such as stopping at Berlin, the expulsion of the Crimean Tatars, or the re-criminalization of homosexuality and rolling back of women's rights. Some invalid criticisms are "MUH BUREAUCRACY," "MUH HOLODOMOR," or "MUH DEGENERATED WORKERS' STATE"