Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 11

The Commissar Vanishes
Anyone ever had a critical look at these two?

"Before": []

"After": []

Firstly, I noticed that the pattern on the water isn't the same on those pictures although the first picture is a bit brighter. The pattern should be the same if it's the same picture. To me it's obvious it isn't. Even the "after" picture looks more authentic. Finally, the modified picture is larger than the original one.

To sum up, those pictures "prove" nothing. Maybe they made two pictures? One with Stalin alone, and the other together with the officer.

Please do only publish clear facts! I suggest a removal of the picture at least until has been cleared up. To me it looks just like one of those Hearst/Hitler anti-Stalin fabricated propaganda pictures/facts. Who would gain most of the removal of the officer? Fascists or Stalin? What would Stalin gain out of it anyway? Don't state it as a fact if you can't prove it. Thanks.


 * The 'officer' in question is none other than Nikolai Yezhov, aka the 'Blackberry', head of the NKVD from 1936 to 1938, who presided over the worst excesses of the Great Terror. He was eventually replaced by Beria and executed in 1940.  It had been standard Soviet practice for many years to airbrush 'enemies of the people' out of history (Lev Trotsky was a particular victim of this process) in every possible sense.  We could hardly have Comrade Stalin walking beside a 'non-person'.  Hence the edited photograph.  White Guard 23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * not only that, the bridge to the left of Stalin's hat also vanishes. --74.134.98.79 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the validity of this particular image, but the points people are making are not good ones. For example, if you look closely, the bridge is in fact there in both images. One is just more washed out from the brightness. The non-matching brightness levels of the pictures are likely a result from scanning the images at two different settings (also explaining the difference in size). It's definitely not a second picture, either. The pose of all the people remains identical. I can't vouch for the authenticity of these images, but this sort of erasure was very common under Stalin Matthewcc 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

...initiated the Great Purge
It is in the introduction, without sources (i presume, it is considered common knowledge that evil Stalin initiated the Great Purge, but I doubt that verifiable sources include "common knowledge"). The history of that turbulent period is much too complicated to allow such a blunt statement, not to mention many sources contradicting it (for example, Yuri Zhukov's "Иной Сталин" ("Other Stalin"). With respect, Ko Soi. Also, I would like to note that, unfortunately, while giving Stalin a mandatory kick for military purges in 1937-1938 (btw, the replacement commanders came from the same generation as the replaced - thus claims that the replaced were somehow more experienced or better suited for modern war is baseless), the article does not mention the military purges of 1930, initiated by Tuhachevsky, which were probably more harmful to the RKKA, as many prominent military theoritists, including Svechin (for example, Vadim Kozhinov "Великая Война России" ("The Great War of Russia") were repressed - they had far too much education - and Tuhachevsky, the great proponent of mobile warfare, beaten by POLAND in his only foreign war, Tuhachevsky, who gased revolting peasants, wanted the Genshtabists out of the way so his star may finally shine. With respect, Ko Soi.

Purges and deportations
I'm not sure that it's undisputed in what context the murder of Sergei Kirov should be seen. I remember reading and even watching a documentary displaying a totally different version than the one currently standing in the article. As the article now is written Sergei Kirov was close to Stalin and after the murder by someone else Stalin got afraid and this was one of the reasons for the purge. However, the other version is that Sergei Kirov was very popular in the party and in a secrete vote the party even wanted him to take over the position at the time held by Stalin. Stalin manipulated the voting to his own favour, but from then own he knew that a silent majority wanted to have him replaced, even though he didn't know exactly who had voted for himself and who had voted for Kirov. Stalin's solution was to kill Kirov. By doing so he had got rid of the direct threat of Kirov. Also, he had a legitimate reason (to find and kill Kirov's murderers) to root out opposition against himself in the party. I've not changed the version of the article, because I don't have the necessary sources so that I can give references, but I think that both versions should be listed. Smallchanges 11:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research
Regardless, it appears that around 8 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 4 million from famine) are attributable to the Soviet government, with a number of books suggesting a figure of between 15 to 20 million.

This is deliberately original research because the author in concern did not make such calculations. It will therefore be removed.

Cultural depictions of Joseph Stalin
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ... Good name. I've just moved Rasputin in the media to a similar name. `'mikkanarxi 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversals of Jacob Peters
I reversed both unjustified (unsummarized) recent reversals of contribs of user:Jacob Peters without even bothering to look into the actual text in detail. Such reversals are absolutely inadmissible and will be removed on sight.. I dont' see any discussion whether this Peters guy a nasty troll or what, so that he must be reverted on sight. If his edits are wrong, I dont see it described.

On the other hand, I see Peters didn't write edit summaries either. I left him a message in the talk page. `'mikkanarxi 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Help:Reverting Art LaPella 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Propaganda, Lies, Distortions
There is an excess of CIA-inspired propaganda on this page. There is no evidence that Stalin himself operated the cult of personality. Evidence from the archives published by J.Arch Getty and Robert J.Thurston also also casts doubt that the purges were initiated and operated by Stalin himself as opposed to regional NKVD units. The claim that Stalin weakened the country's defense with the purge of the officers is incorrect as archival research shows that a small 15% minority of the relevant cadres were affected; most of these were even reinstated after 1939. The claim that famine resulted from the imaginary confiscation of grain is also false. Archival research published by Stephen Wheatcroft and RW Davies shows that total collections in 1932 about 4 million tons lower than in the two previous years. There is also evidence on the "Holodomor" page which quotes Stalin as having been gravely concerned with the precarious situation in the countryside. He replied to an inquiry: "We will do everything required. Inform sieze of necessary help. State a figure."

Furthermore, there is a serious negligence of the miraculous economic and social advances made during Stalin. Industrial growth,medical care, education, cultural identity, urbanization were all made possible because of Stalin. Infant mortality plunged from aboug 175/1000 in 1926 to around 47/1000 in 1956. Life epxectancy which was about 35 years before the revolution expanded to about 67 years in 1956. The inclusion of a fringe viewpoint that "Russia would have expanded regardless of Stalin" is unsubstantiated. Comparing levels of growth of the 1920s to the 1930s shows that Stalin's policies alone contributed to massive expansion during the 1930s.

In regard to the death toll, this is also rife with errors and propagandistic POV nonesense. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is not a serious historian or scholar and his viewpoint does not take precedence over professional demographers like Frank Lorimer, Barbara Anderson, and Eric Silver who correctly estimated demographic losses to be in the range of 4-5 million. The attempted discredting of the archival material which show the true figures is reprehensible. Almost every scholar of Russian history acknowledges the declassified archival documents to be reliable. These include Stephen Wheatcroft, J.Arch Getty, V.Popov, V.Zemskov, Gregory Freeze, Ronald Grigor Suny, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and countless others.

To start with a laundry list of errors, 800 thousand people were not executed under Stalin. Rather, around 770 thousand received death sentences but not all of them were executed. Historian A.Dugin reported in the late 1980s that in 1921-1953, about 642,000 people were executed for political crimes.

The claim that 1.7 million died in the GULAG is also unsubstantiated. Archival reports put forth by V.Popov, V.Zemskov, and J.Arch Getty in English language have shown that around 1 million died in the GULAG in 1934-53. Of these 1 million, it should be taken into perspective that the majority of these occurred in 1941-45 when the government couldn't have done a thing to prevent them.

The claim that 389,000 kulaks perished during resettlement is also inaccurate. Their deaths occurred years after they were resettled. They died from standard illnesses that the rest of the population died from.

Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete

This is absolutely false. This is not the view of most scholars. Stephen Wheatcroft distinctly refuted claims that the archival data are somehow incomplete or unreliable.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf

'''The Soviet repressive system was complex and required records and a record-keeping system to operate. The managers of the Gulag, labour colony and special exile empires needed a set of accounting data to plan their work. The special police and judicial authorities needed to keep records. The central party leadership also required periodic reports from the secret police/Ministry of Internal Affairs on developments in the Gulag, labour colonies and special exile areas, and on the policing and mass repression operations. In their time these official records were kept in the appropriate secret archives of the NKVD and the party leadership. These secret accounting materials should not be confused with the non-secret propaganda materials that were published at the time.'''

'''When the ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) lost control of the labour cmaps (ITL) during the Khrushchev period, the labour camp archives were transferred to the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF) or TsGAOR as it was known then. When Conquest refers to as "the Zemskov figures" are some of the summary data from these archives, which Russian historian V.N. Zemskov was able to publish from the late 1980s. These represent a few figures from amongst the thousands of Gulag accounting data which are now freely available for examination in fond 9401 of GARF. The fondy contain conjunctural reports on Gulag work, supply reports concerning Gulag requests to have the government increase average personal food rations and the size of the Gulag contingent on food rations, health reports, and general accounting reports. '''

'''Western historians who consider that all these data were falsified 60 years ago, and then held in secret to be produced in order to disinform them, appear to be suffering from an exaggeration of their own importance. When Gulag officials were pleading for more supplies they had no incentive to underestimate the number of prisoners. When Gulag officials were planning production they needed to know the real number of prisoners. The health departments needed to know how many were dying. When MVD leaders were briefing Stalin in their top security 'Osobye papki' reports they had good reason to avoid the charge of misleading him. When two different generations of MVD officials were briefing Khrushchev on the iniquities of their predecessors, in their top security reports, Kruglov in 1954 and Shvernik in 1963, they similarly had more to lose than gain by falsifying the figures.'''

since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.''

This is also completely false. The figures on ethnic deportations and their deaths can be located in works by N.Bugai and by Polian. It was found that 85-90% of ethnic successfully were transferred to Central Asia and in around 1948 or so, the Tatar settlers in Central Asia produced more birth than deaths. Polian's work can be found here:

http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/

''others believe the number to be considerably higher. Russian writer Vadim Erlikman[13], for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.''

This is the opinion of one single author that should not take precedence over the conesensus of the majority of scholars of Russian and Soviet history. Vadim Erlikman's claim that 5 million died in the Gulag is completely unsubstantiated. Neither are the claims of 1.5 million executions of 1.7 million deaths in deportations substantiated.

What explanation is there that Erlikman's work takes precedence over the conesensus over the majority of scholars of Russian history? A fringe view should be treated as such.

These numbers are by no means the full story of deaths attributable to the regime however, since at least another 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine must be added.

This is also a gross exaggeration. There is no evidence to corrobarate that 6 to 8 million died from famine. Demographic reports have concluded that excluding Kazakhstan for which there was not any appropriate record keeping, there were 2.3 million excess deaths broke down as:

Ukraine: 1,544,840 Lower Volga: 167,671 Central Volga: 107,085 North Caucuses: 305,285

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Ronald Grigor Suny stated in "The Soviet Experiment" that there were 4 to 5 million deaths from famine.

In 1990, Stephen Wheatcroft wrote in Soviet Studies

''Concering the scale of the famine in 1932/33, we now have much better information on its chronology and regional coverage amongst the civilian registered population. The level of excess mortality registered by the civilian population was in the order of 3 to 4 million. If we correct this for the non-civilian and non-registered population, the scale of excess mortality might well reach 4 to 5 million, which is somewhat larger than I had earlier supposed, but which is still much lower than figures claimed by Conquest and Rosefielde and by Roy Medvedev.''

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf

Returning Soviet soldiers who had surrendered were viewed with suspicion and some were killed[19] compared with 3.5 million Soviet POW that died in German camps.

This has been refuted by Igor Pykhalov and the Russian archives. While a small minority of about 10-15% of traitors collaborated with the occupiers were punished but were released after six years, the vast majority of repatriated soldiers were either returned home or rejoined the army.

Jacob Peters


 * All of you know a hundred times more about Stalin than I do, but I'll judge credibility based on one tiny detail: "imaginary confiscation of grain". When I was a child living in Chicago, we lived next to a Cossack family that had escaped starvation in the Ukraine. I don't think I need to repeat what I remember of that story to people who already know. Art LaPella 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not address the issue. The famine did not result from the confiscation of grain. It resulted from two consecutive poor harvests in 1931 and 1932. Taken from "Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-33" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies:

Jacob Peters


 * But you agree the confiscation/collection wasn't imaginary. Art LaPella 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are imaginary in the sense described by right wing historians who baselessly claim that the famine was caused by grain collections.Jacob Peters


 * "the imaginary confiscation..." I have to wonder if the rest of the statement is true in a similar sense. Art LaPella 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

''This is absolutely false. This is not the view of most scholars. Stephen Wheatcroft distinctly refuted claims that the archival data are somehow incomplete or unreliable. - Jacob Peters''

That doesn't matter. It's the view of some scholars that the data are incomplete, and that is all that is necessary for the inclusion of the statement on Wiki.

Furthermore, what Wheatcroft argued was that the GULAG data were reliable. Wheatcroft did not address himself to the many other categories of Soviet victims, such as the German victims of resettlement and forced labour after the war. And Wheatcroft himself also acknowledged, IIRC, that the data from labour camps and resettlement programs were incomplete. And then there are the victims of Stalin's harsh scorched earth policies, and other policies such as his refusal to allow civilians to evacuate Stalingrad when it was under siege. The GULAG victims and victims of recorded executions are therefore, only a subset of Soviet victims and not the entire story by a long shot.

Also, what you need to understand is that there are a plethora of editors on Wiki who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours. It took me many weeks of debate to negotiate that section as it stands, you can be assured that if you begin to edit it to reflect your own view you are only going to start another edit war with all the people who think Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in history.

The section as it stands in fact covers all sides of the debate - it explains that scholars disagree, that some put the death toll at only 4 million and others at 50 million. And it tentatively suggests a compromise figure of 15 to 17 million, including famine victims. I had to fight very hard for those figures, because most editors wanted a figure of 20-30 million. Gatoclass 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

''That doesn't matter. It's the view of some scholars that the data are incomplete, and that is all that is necessary for the inclusion of the statement on Wiki.''

Of course it matters. It is falsely stated that is generally agreed that the data are incomplete when in fact most post-1991 scholarly work in regard to the Stalin era have incessantly cited archival data, believing them to be accurate. This can be found in general histories of Russia by Ronald Grigor Suny and Gregory Freeze.

Wheatcroft did not address himself to the many other categories of Soviet victims, such as the German victims of resettlement and forced labour after the war.

Wheatcroft discusses population transfers in this article:

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-German_Soviet.pdf

There were not any victims of population transfers. There were 225,000 Crimeans transferred to Central Asia in 1944. Of these, 193,000 were located in their appropriate settlements in October 1946. Population loss occurred not due to action taken by the Soviet government but because of deteriorated economic conditions brought by war started by Germans. Whereas there were 183,000 Crimean Tatars transferred to Central Asia in 1944, their population actually exploded to 191,000 in Kazakhstan and 444,000 in Uzbekistan according to the 1959 census. The circumstances show that any and all population loss among them occurred due to the war imposed by the Germans.

Morever, Stefan Karner shows that there were close to 518,000 deaths of POWs from various countries in USSR. But this had nothing to do with the Soviets' actions but everything to do with the economic deterioration endured by USSR due to destructive war. When the POWs were registered in the facilities, it was found that over 90% of them survived. Those that died fell to ordinary illnesses that everyone dies from.

[quote]And Wheatcroft himself also acknowledged, IIRC, that the data from labour camps and resettlement programs were incomplete. [/quote]

If you are talking about the kulak settlers, this is incorrect. It is documented in the archives that there were 1.8 million deported kulaks in 1930-31 of which 400,000 died due to famine in 1933 and from ordinary illnesses that everyone at the time endured. Needless to say, these people were not killed but died ordinary deaths. The Soviet archives actually document measures by the Soviet government taken to ensure that the kulaks were receptive to proper care in the settlements.

And then there are the victims of Stalin's harsh scorched earth policies, and other policies such as his refusal to allow civilians to evacuate Stalingrad when it was under siege.

This is easily refuted by the fact that it was Germany that invaded USSR. Stalin's scorched earth policies actually helped to ensure that the Germans would not be able to loot the people's property. Plus, Stalin alone did not direct military affairs as this was left to the people's commissariat of defense.

The GULAG victims and victims of recorded executions are therefore, only a subset of Soviet victims and not the entire story by a long shot.

The insinuation that Stalin was responsible by the war is baseless and is common knowledge that it was Germany which started the war. If you are going to cite the cliche of the purges of military officers, this has been discredited:

1937: 4,474 officers arrested; 11,104 officers discharged; 15,578 total

1938: 12,750 officers arrested and discharged

1939: 357 officers discharged and arrested

Reinstatements occurred in the same span. In 1937, 4544 of those discharged for political reasons or arrested were returned to their posts; in 1938, this was 4089 and in 1939, this was 152. This leaves 8785 out of 19,900 unaccounted for. 6.9% of all infantry officers in the ranks as of 1936-37 had been dismissed but not reinstated by May 1940; the figure for officers active in 1938-39 was 2.3%. Source: "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia", Robert J. Thurston

Also, what you need to understand is that there are a plethora of editors on Wiki who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours.

This is meaningless. Their views have been thoroughly discredited since 1989. But it is sad to see Wikipedia to be dominated by right-wing zealots who censor the facts.

The section as it stands in fact covers all sides of the debate - it explains that scholars disagree, that some put the death toll at only 4 million and others at 50 million.

This section is blatantly skewed to favour those with inflated, unsubstantiated estimates. It accomodates Solzhenitsyn's deranged 60 million death toll while saying nothing about Frank Lorimer's 4-5 million death toll in the 1930s. As it stands, the likes of Applebaum, Erlikman, Conquest, and others belong to a fringe. Their views are not shared by the majority of scholars.

And it tentatively suggests a compromise figure of 15 to 17 million, including famine victims.

The famine figures are also criminally overestimated. Russian archives for Ukraine, North Caucuses, and Volga show an excess of 2.2 million deaths. Ronald Grigor Suny in his history about USSR stated 4 to 5 million overall died from famine while Wheatcroft in this article favoured a similar figure. In 1981, he stated that 3-4 million died in famine. Boris Urlanis in 1974 estimated 2.7 million deaths, Barbara Anderson and Eric Silver in 1985 estimated 2-3 million deaths.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf Jacob Peters

With all due respect, I'm really not interested in re-opening this debate. Most if not all the points you raise have already been debated exhaustively on these pages. Rather than start the process all over again, I suggest you take the time to read the archive of this talk page going back over the last few months. I think you will probably find the response to most of your arguments there. If there are still some points you'd like to raise then that you feel have not been adequately dealt with, I'm prepared to listen to what you have to say. Gatoclass 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect in the suggestion that my points have been exhaustively refuted. Please don't dodge my points by referring me to outdated, irrelevant discussion like some burreaucrat. The purpose of this section is to discuss. As it stands, I have been correct on each and every single point. Jacob Peters


 * Why do you try to tell that there was no cult of personality, and everything was just a lie of the CIA? I've read an encyclopedia from the '60s (not an American one, it was written in the Eastern block) which is full of pro-Soviet propaganda and POV, and even they write about Stalin's mistakes, and that he showed a bad example to the communists with his cult of personality. --V. Szabolcs 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course there was cult of personality!What about all the statues, paintings etc produced to glorify Stalin as a demi-god. It is extremely naive and incorrect for anyone to suggest otherwise.

POV Introduction
was the de facto leader and dictator of the Soviet Union from about 1928 to his death in 1953.

It is a deranged right-wing POV to call Stalin a dictator. He had always been amongst the main leaders of the Bolshevik Party which in 1917 was the most popular party manifested by their share in the Congress of Soviets. He was part of the Central Committee even before the 1905 Revolution and was one of the five original members of the Politbureau. He indisputably had the support of the majority of the party in the 1920s. Since the party represented the workers and peasants, the majority of the population in turn supported Stalin. Opinion polls show that the majority of Russians have stated that Stalin did more good than harm for the country.

Between 1934 and 1953 that position was, nominally, just one of several Central Committee Secretaries, but his leadership was universally acknowledged.

Stalin became prime minister in 1941 and was in this position until 1953. He was officially the leader of the government. Previously, Molotov had been premier.

Although many still defend Stalin's record, in the West Stalin's name has become popularly synonymous with the crimes of mass murder he is alleged to have committed and with tyranny.

This immediately implies the connotation that Stalin was an evil man and therefore those that support him are automatically on the defensive. This section needs to be cleansed of these deranged right wing POVs.

Jacob Peters
 * This explains a lot of what we've seen on Wikipedia these days. Stalin is a dictator = POV. Stalin was a mass murderer = POV. Sure, why not. --Sugarcaddy 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion which fails to represent a neutral point of view. Stalin was amongst dozens of leaders of the Communist Party SU and led the council of people's commissars in 1941-53. To call Stalin a "mass murderer" is an allegation not supported by a judgement in a court of law. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy for the reason that is to be upheld. Jacob Peters


 * Stalin was in every objective sense of the term was a dictator, and is so described by a huge variety of reliable academic sources, both Western and Russian; he is also included in the Wikipedia List of dictators. I have argued this point, with detailed examples, in the above discussion, and I will continue to argue and defend this point against this kind of revisionsim, 'deranged and right-wing', as I am. The representation in the Congress of Soviets for the Bolsheviks was deliberately manipulated to compensate for their poor showing in the vote for the Constituent Assembly, where they achieved only 24% of the popular vote.  The Assembly, the first democratic gathering in Russian history, was, of course, immediately dissolved.  Throughout the 1920s Stalin manipulated the post of General Secretary to place his own nominees in all of the important party positions, which by 1928 gave him a stranglehold of the whole apparatus.  The party represented the workers and peasants?  Well, it's a point of view, certainly, though the workers and peasants had by 1928 nobody else to represent them.  And Comrade Stalin 'represented' a great many of the peasants off to his concentration camps after 1928.  Opinion polls in Stalin's Russia?  About as much use, I would have though, as plebiscites in Hitler's Germany.  Jacob, I don't think you would recognise a neutral POV if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.  It's obvious to me that you have an 'agenda', just as there are others with a similar agenda on the Hitler page.  A sad state of affairsWhite Guard 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You fail to make a single convincing argument. With an ideological name user id, little of what you can say can be taken with credibility and anything you say is bound to be ridden with some ridiculous POV.

The familiar "if you don't agree with me, you're a revisionist" argument has gotten stale. Understand that there are differing viewpoints in history. Having a disagreement does not make one a "revisionist" but only someone with a different opinion.

You are completely incorrect about the Congress of Soviets which was by far the most democratic system of government there has been in the world. The Congress of Soviets preceded the Constituent Assembly. Out of 650 elected delegates, 390 were Bolsheviks and another 100 were Left Socialist Revolutionaries. On behalf of the Soviets, the Bolsheviks seized power with total legitimacy. The Constituent Assembly was a vastly inferior parliamentary form of government which deprived workers, peasants, and soldiers from input. The claim that the Bolsheviks performed poorly in the Constituent Assembly is unsubstantiated. As historian Evan Mawdsley explains, the SRs joined the Provisional Government coalition in May 1917 and became identified with it. Constantly outbit by the Bolsheviks, the SR PArty lost its influence among workers and soldiers. When the Assembly was closed, it was a symptom of SR weakeness. The SR Party lacked the local following to physically defend the Assembly building and there was no support from the rest of Russia. The rump SR Party lacked a working majority: they had lost the Left SR delegates and the Ukrainian SRs did not attend. Even without Lenin the Assembly would have fallen on its own weight.

The myths about Stalin packing in the Party with his supporters is a total myth which has been refuted by J.Arch Getty. In fact, Stalin always had the support of the party against Trotsky and later Bukharin because his path was understood to be calm and rational. It is a fact that in the 1920s the vast majority of the Party had supported Stalin.

The claim that Stalin sent peasants to "concentration camps" is a distortion and factual error. It is incendiary that you attempt to compare an anti-racist Stalin to the Nazis. Kulaks were not sent to concentration camps of any kind but were rather transferred to special settlements where they were placed in other sectors of the economy such as timber. Soviet archives document the great lengths the Soviet government took in order to ensure the safety of these people.

The comparison of opinion polls in Russia to plebiscites in the Third Reich is puzzling. If you're suggestion is that Russia is akin to Nazi Germany, then that is bogus.Jacob Peters


 * I'm finished with this, and with Wikipedia, distorted and corrupted by people like you, little better than the Nazis who appear from time to time on the Adolf Hitler page. My nom de guerre was chosen with care, because it almost invariably milseads people like you into betraying all of their political and ideological perversity.  Anyway, your ignorance of Russian history is more than matched by your ignorance of Russian culture.  I am a great admirer of Mikhail Bulgakov, arguably one of the greatest Russian novelists of the last century.  I leave that for those with sufficient wit to understand.  The Day of the Turbins is now over. White Guard 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't let the odd ignoramus with no appreciation of history put you off Wikipedia for good White Guard. Even if you do there are 1000's more sane people that won't let revisionist rubbish to stand. Stalin not thought of as a dictator in Russia? Get a grip. Lenin maybe. There was a very famous saying in Russia during and after WWII. "We had to choose between two dictators. We chose the one that spoke Russian." --LiamE 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It's for the first time I hear that very famous saying. And I'm Russian. Were it comes from? --Nekto 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Most recently a Russian collegue a few weeks back, though I was aware of the saying before that. He's from a place " a couple of hundred miles from Moscow " in his own words. Was very famous an exageration? As I understand it, it is a corruption of some of Trotsky's writing about the problems in Ethopia at the time, where he talked of the proletariat making the choice between two dictators. --LiamE 08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose that the phrase must be a sort of joke. Hardly it comes from ww2, most likely it appered in perestroyka time. --Nekto 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

... the Bolshevik Party which in 1917 was the most popular party manifested by their share in the Congress of Soviets ... is indeed an example of a extreme "deranged Bolshevik POV". The Bolsheviks never were a popular party, the very a small but highly organized group that managed to gain a majority in a single vote of the Russian Socialdemocratic party, in which they were a minority by far. Then they gained power by a coup, defended it in a violent civil war, used it to install a totaliatarian dictatorship, which included military aggression, persecution of dissidents and the death of millions. Str1977 (smile back) 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting but somewhat shocking to see somebody trying to prove that Stalin wasn't a dictator. Calling Stalin a dictator is not "deranged right-wing POV", it is a pretty adequate description of one of history's most brutal tyrants. This has been more than adequately proven in hundreds of works. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

POV rants are not permissable. Unless you have constructive, mature discussion, please refrain from contributing to this section. Calling an immensely popular government leader like Stalin a dictator is a blatant violation of NPOV policy. There is no basis to the claim that Stalin was a dictator. All of the amateurish points above have been thoroughly discredited. I request to have this page unblocked.Jacob Peters

I stopped trying to be nice to these on wikipedia a long time ago. I thought I'd seen it all with the liberals trying to hide the facts about gun control politicians, but now I have found a trying to defend one of the most brutal dictators of all time.Jacob Peters, you are one .Saltforkgunman 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I used Remove personal attacks. I have also concluded that Mr. Peters is knowingly in error, but Wikipedia policy asks us to try to direct our comments to his actions rather than focusing on him as a person. Art LaPella 03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be fooled, folks. This Jacob Peters character is obviously Borat using an alias to kid you all.  Those who are interested will find his picture and his official site here {http://www.borat.tv]. Yes, indeed, Jacob Borat, Stalin does indeed have big khram. Clio the Muse 01:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, crap.I thought personal attacks were in order.If Jacob Peters is a joke, I don't find it funny.Saltforkgunman 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly frank with you, I don't find 'it' funny either; but he's still a joke. Clio the Muse 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but somewhat shocking to see somebody trying to prove that Stalin wasn't a dictator.

Sorry, but this is false. Stalin had always been a leading member of the Bolshevik Party which in summer of 1917 was the most popular political group in Russia. Stalin was one of seven original members of the Politbureau. Whereas the vast majority of the Bolsheviks joined only during and after 1917, Stalin had been with the Social Democratic Party since before the 20th century. In additon, Stalin was a delegate to earlier party congresses.

Besides, it is a flagrant violation of NPOV policy to call someone a dictator. The reason for this is because according to the POV of others, Stalin was not a dicatator. According to the POV of a deranged anti-communist fringe, Stalin was a dictator. "Wikipedia's list of dictators" is not a valid argument as Wikipedia is not exactly an valid source. The section for one slanders some of the greatest leaders of 20th century.

The evidence shows that the legislative process in the USSR was carried out collectively by the Supreme Soviet:

'''ARTICLE 30. The highest organ of state authority of the U.S.S.R. is the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.'''

it is a pretty adequate description of one of history's most brutal tyrants.

Calling a man a brutal tyrant even though he invaded not a single country is a pretty deranged POV. The evidence shows that Stalin was Russia's best leader since Peter I.

This has been more than adequately proven in hundreds of works.

No, it has not. "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-33" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies does not at all portray a country dominated a single man. This book documents extensive communication and sometimes conflict between regional and central branches of leadership.

Jacob Peters

(removed sexist offesive personal attack, and ca. 100 words)


 * ...Bolshevik Party which in summer of 1917 was the most popular political group in Russia... - blatantly false, debunked above.


 * Besides, it is a flagrant violation of NPOV policy to call someone a dictator. The reason for this is because according to the POV of others, Stalin was not a dicatator. - Utterly ridiculous, and contrary to WP:NPOV. By this logic, wikipedia could never assert anything that had been denied by a single crackpot.


 * According to the POV of a deranged anti-communist fringe, Stalin was a dictator. If by "deranged anti-communist fringe" you mean "vast majority of historians, not to mention the Russian people", then sure.


 * ...even though he invaded not a single country... That would be aside from Germany and Finland, right?


 * You need to get your facts straight; if you're going to advocate an extreme minority view, you should at least do so using a factual basis. siafu 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... Germany? How so? --Nekto 08:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty well detailed in Vistula-Oder Offensive, ending with the Red Army capturing Berlin. I was sure they still taught WWII in school? siafu 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Western Allies also invaded Germany, although we did a better job of respecting local politics after Hitler was gone. Finland and 1939 East Poland are better examples of siafu's point. Art LaPella 17:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

blatantly false, debunked above.

That is incorrect as the Bolsheviks formed the majority in the Congress of Soviets when it convened on 7 November 1917. Out of 649 delegates, there were 390 Bolsheviks.


 * Quoted from above: The representation in the Congress of Soviets for the Bolsheviks was deliberately manipulated to compensate for their poor showing in the vote for the Constituent Assembly, where they achieved only 24% of the popular vote. Pretty easy read there.

By this logic, wikipedia could never assert anything that had been denied by a single crackpot.

This is not the view shared by most historians. In works by the premier scholars of Soviet history such as E.H Carr, RW Davies, and Stephen Wheatcroft, the word dictator is not to be found when discussing Stalin.


 * E.H. Carr, it should be mentioned, is also the historian who published The Twenty Years' Crisis, which very much favored appeasement towards Hitler and the nazi regime. He is generally considered to have completely misread Hitler, Stalin, and all the dictators that came under his study.  About his work, Arnold Toynbee wrote: "It leaves you in a moral vacuum and at a political dead point."  In short, he is not a reliable or unbiased source on Stalin.


 * Both R. W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft are experts on economic history, and not directly relevant to Stalin. In particular, the fact that they don't use the word "dictator" is not exactly significant: do they portray as the saint you would have us believe him to be?  Not so much.

If by "deranged anti-communist fringe" you mean "vast majority of historians, not to mention the Russian people", then sure.

You have no way of measuring "vast majority of historians". In fact, most texts describe Stalin as "Soviet leader" which is a neutral term.


 * I have no way of measuring? It's called reading.  Apparently you seem to assert that the rest of the world has no way of knowing reality ("deranged" I believe is your word of choice), but you yourself have the proper gauge.  Right.

Opinon polls show that Russians overwhelmingly are positive of Stalin's legacy despite all the anti-Stalin propaganda they've been bombarded first with Khrushchev then with Gorbachev and then with quislings like Yeltsin.


 * Opinion polls from when? I suppose you have a cite for that?  It would seem unlikely, as this is simply nonsense.

That would be aside from Germany and Finland, right?

There was not an invasion of Germany as it was Germany that unleashed Operation Barbarossa. Neither was there an invasion of Finland. It was a mere border clash like the ones with Japan in Siberia in 1938-39. Neither was there an invasion of "East Poland" which was actually West Ukraine and West Byelorussia stolen by the Polish in 1921. By Sept 17, 1939 when Ukrainian and Byelorussian units moved in to liberate their land, the cowardly Polish militarist regime had fled to Romania. Neither was there an invasion of the Baltic states as they had legally permitted the deployment of Red Army forces. Jacob Peters


 * You have a rather funny definition of invasion, not to mention an extremely revisionist view of the Winter War. It was not a "border clash", it was an aggressive invasion by a much stronger power hoping to conquer a weaker one.  Moreover, the definition of "invasion" is the aggressive movement of troops into a foreign country; a "counter-invasion" like the Red Army's invasion of Germany is still and invasion.  This is all, of course, rather irrespective of the fact that whether or not Stalin actually invaded another country (though he clearly did) has anything to do with whether or not he is a dictator, something you have yet to demonstrate.  It seems rather clear, however, that reality is not something that you're likely to allow to interfere with your POV, so unless the song and dance changes I don't think I'll be following this any further. siafu 04:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a rather funny definition of invasion, not to mention an extremely revisionist view of the Winter War. It was not a "border clash", it was an aggressive invasion by a much stronger power hoping to conquer a weaker one. Moreover, the definition of "invasion" is the aggressive movement of troops into a foreign country; a "counter-invasion" like the Red Army's invasion of Germany is still and invasion. This is all, of course, rather irrespective of the fact that whether or not Stalin actually invaded another country (though he clearly did) has anything to do with whether or not he is a dictator, something you have yet to demonstrate. It seems rather clear, however, that reality is not something that you're likely to allow to interfere with your POV, so unless the song and dance changes I don't think I'll be following this any further.

The term "revisionist" is completely a matter of perspective. If you were to propagate this slanderous rubbish in USSR, you would be considered some insane revisionist. Your perspective comes from the corporate press and think tanks whereas my perspective comes from progressive literature as shown in the Bolshaia Soviet Encyclopedia. The facts show that Finland at the incitement of the British essentially provoked the border clash. Furthermore, Finland became a separate country due to the extortionist Brest-Litovsk treaty that set forth Russian provinces to become colonies of Germany in the Mitteleuropa outline. Before 1918, there was never a separate Finland. What is called Finland was part of the Swedish Empire from 1150-1809 and later a part of Russia until 1918. During "Winter War", Finland was sent at least 350 aircraft, 1,500 cannons, over 6,000 machine guns, up to 100 thousand rifles, 650,000 handgrenades, 2,500,000 shells, 160,000,000 cartridges and much more by England, France, and Sweden.

It has been demonstrated numerous works by Stephen Wheatcroft and RW Davies in their histories of the Soviet economy that Stalin was far from a dicatator and that the structure of Soviet administration throughout its existence often involved conflict between central and regional branches as well as a high degree of autonomy for local districts. Jacob Peters

There is something you have all misunderstood and misinterpreted. While it is true that Stalin has been labeled a dictator by the almost entire population of the world it does not mean it is something objective. Our job as wikipedians and followers of the wikipedia NPOV policy is to report history as it happened. Dictator is a very subjective term, it is not objective...no where is there an outline as to what a dictator is nor is it a title given to someone s that of prime minister or president. It is not something that has been formally stated. Around the world people have labeled Stalin a dictator true...but they are not objective labels, Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union...the de facto leader if you will, but he was not appointed dictator of the Soviet Union! Never! That title is simply inexistent. To Mr. White Guard, with whom I have already had this discussion previously, I ask please to set aside the political biases and concentrate on what I am trying to get through...Stalin might well in fact be a dictator by certain standards and opinions, but it is not a universally acknowledged fact...understand? It is not something that was implemented by law, it is simply something that certain people from certain political ideologies have chosen to label Stalin as...Whether Stalin was a dictator or not is not something I am here to argue, the point is plain and simple...To Label Stalin as a dictator on this webpage is to commit a violation of the rules of Wikipedia as horrible as that which the people that defend such label to stand claim the censorship of information was in the USSR...to please, understand, that labeling Stalin as a dictator is giving him a characteristic that is based entirely on judgment and opinion, not a universal truth (such Angela Merkel being the chancellor of Germany) but merely something that has been placed with a certain political bias...STALIN MIGHT HAVE IN FACT BEEN A DICTATOR; BUT SAYING THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS IS NOT SOMETHING WITH ENOUGH BASIS OR SUPPORT TO KEEP IT ON THIS PAGE...UNLESS OF COURSE SOMEONE FINDS THAT HE WAS MADE A FORMAL DICTATOR AT SOME POINT IN HIS CAREER...PLEASEEEEE...FORGET THE BIAS AND UNDERSTAND MY POINT! Kiske 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * His rule was mostly based on his authority rather than formal powers.--Nixer 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling stalin "de facto dictator" is right wing bias? So following your the logic calling Hitler and Mussolini dictators is left wing bias? Also Encyclopædia Britannica is then also biased http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9379422 ? Staberinde 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes i read that article and it seems to be extremely POVed. It is clear POV that the Stalin's reforms led to death of many million as says the encyclopedia. There are many incorrectnesses in the article. For example, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not during WWII, saying "Stalin attacked Finland" is also incorrect because it was the country - the USSR who attacked. We do not say in encyclopedia "Bush attacked Iraq", we say "USA under leadership of Bush attacked Iraq". "He allied Russia" is also incorrect since it was USSR, not Russia. Saying that Stalin was paranoid is also POV since paranoia is a medical desease and no medic determined this diagnosis Stalin to suffer from. This article is not like any encyclopedy article. This is extremely incorrect and POVed.--Nixer 12:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't read that article through but now looks like its problematical indeed. Still, is calling Hitler and Mussolini dictators also bias? Staberinde 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is less POV since Hitler was official "Fuehrer of Germany". But it would be fine for me if it said that he was "Fuehrer of Germany" rather than dictator. Anyone will conclude himself that it is equal to dictator. By the way, in Marxist view personal dictatorship is impossible. Any regime is a dictatorship of a class or social group even if it is formal dictatorship of one person (he anyway acts for the benefit of the class that supports him).--Nixer 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But we are not here to present the Marxist view nor are we saying that dictator was his title or rank.--Eupator 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Mussolini and Hitler are dictators is also biased. I am not biased in the left wing, I am simply exposing a very simple point...a point I do not understand why right wing biased people keep ignoring...READ THE ABOVE! Kiske 15:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your concerns are legitimate (that is the question if any given leader should be described by anything else (pronoun) other than the official title in the lead) but you're making the word dictator sound more ambiguous than it actually is. I would suggest we take this into a simple vote or an rfc.--Eupator 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A vote sounds legitimate...but I am afraid the right wing candidates will monopolize the voting...does the name "White Guard" ring a bell?Kiske 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we do not need voting here. Let's simply stick with the rules.--Nixer 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nixer, what does it mean "in Western view" ? Do Georgians or say Ukrainians consider Stalin something other than a dictator? Perhaps North Koreans might disagree but can you seriously claim that most people of the former USSR (including the overwhelming majority of ethnic Russians) don't consider Stalin to have been a dictator?--Eupator 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a survey. An RfC might be an overkill. --Lysytalk 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was a member of the Politbureau which collectively set forth the policy of the Communist Party. Indeed, Stalin had been of the original members of the Politbureau. Moreover, Stalin had been part of the Central Committee since 1907 which was the highest body of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Keep in mind that 95% of Bolsheviks in November 1917 had joined the party only during previous months of 1917. Those with an equal degree of power with Stalin in the Politbureau included Molotov, Kalinin, Zhdanov, Voroshilov, Beria, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, and others. Between 1941-1953, Stalin was head of government as chairman of Council if People's Commissars having succeeded Molotov. Policy was then carried out by the Council of People's Commissars and the Deputy of Soviets. Stalin was in no way a dictator. He was not above the law. He was in fact one of the greatest, most beneficial leaders the Russia has seen since Peter. Jacob Peters

You are all missing the point! Whether or not he was a dictator is not what really matters here! What matters is the fact that because he was never formally given the "title" of dictator giving him such a title is giving a trait he was never actually given, which is, whether you like it or not, providing POV information. Stalin may have been a dictator, and it may be true that 99.9% of the world's population including the majority of former Soviet Citizens think and believe he might be a dictator...but providing him with that title is being POV...it is not an absolute truth! (Like Vicente Fox being the president of Mexico or Angela Merkel being Chancellor of Germany) it is a trait. It is like saying that George W. Bush is am imperialist or a conqueror or an aggressor...the facts are that he is an conqueror and an imperialist, but because he has not been awarded such a title formally, it would be POV to write "George W. Bush, president of the US and conqueror or invader of Iraq", even though it might be true because I am giving him a trait based on judgment, not on accuracy or solid facts...what is a dictator? Where do we define dictator? Where does a dictator begin or end? What are the limits? There is nothing in the world, no paper or anything that specifies this, so there is not way we can award him such a title in an accurate encyclopedia, even though in the end he might very well be a dictator...understand? Understand?! We are not debating his evilness or how democratic he was! We are debating the fact that the man has been called something he was never formally turned into and solely based on judgment. It is like saying (in another context) that a pornographic actress is a pervert of that David Lynch might be deranged because of his films or that a certain actor might be a bad actor or that James Joyce is a great writer...they are not traits that have been formally given (even though they might be true) to these people and should therefore not be placed on their page, in the initial part. Maybe in the later part of the article there could be a section talking about how good some people consider this writer (or how Stalin is considered by many to be a dictator)...Please, this is the last time I am going to try to convince you of this...If you don't understand...you are mentally retarded and I will be forced to create an editing war and change Dictator every chance I get in this encyclopedia...I am only sticking to wikipedian policies and doing what I should be doing...you are the ones that are wrong! Kiske 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly Kiske, stop makeing personal attacks. Also Kiske only raises case of Stalin(maybe its connected with the fact that he is communist?) but if it is POV to call Stalin dictator then article List of dictators should be deleted completely and also word "dictator" should be removed from introductions of many other articles, for example Benito Mussolini, Józef Piłsudski, Saddam Hussein etc. So its not only about Stalin, it is about quite many articles, so RfC would be fine in my opinion. Staberinde 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not only raising the case of Stalin...and the fact that I am a communist has nothing to do with it! If dictator appears in several articles we should, because they are subjective adjectives, delete that article and delete the word dictator from all other introductions and article... Kiske 13:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand all the fuss that is being made about the labelling of Stalin as a dictator. I think if we had asked the man himself if he were a dictator, he probably would have laughed and would not have cared one way or the other - as long as everybody did as he ordered. If by "dictator" we mean a political leader who is able to dictate the policies of a dictatorship, Stalin certainly qualifies. He could create laws and policies, or choose to ignore them, on his own authority. To all those who feel that the term dictator is in itself derogatory: please mind the concept of the "benevolent dictator". At least theoretically, being a dictator is not necessarily a bad thing. It is all the harsh oppression and brutal violence against the opposition that makes it bad. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, we should all be able to agree that Stalin was in fact a dictator, and most of us (like his successor Khrushchev did in On the Personality Cult and its Consequences) would also agree that he was in fact a malevolent dictator. I will give Stalin one thing though, that is that I don't believe he was in it for his own personal gain. He probably did think he was acting in the best interest of the Soviet Union, but of course he wilfully ignored (and acted against) the interests of the people under his rule. By the way, placing "state" above "people" is a defining characteristic of fascism, not so much of communism. Was Stalin a fascist? All the militarism, nationalism and personality worship are other indicators. I would like to see more of that debate reflected in this Wikipedia article. I believe at least a few scholars have written about it. Olav L 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Khrushchev never labelled Stalin dictator because personal dictatorship is impossible in Marxist doctrine. He only critisized "cult of personality".


 * Look, whoever you are, please read the WP article I referred to. Khrushchev may have stopped short of actually calling Stalin a dictator, but he talked about his "despotic character" and everything else, the persecutions etc. And of course personal dicatorship cannot exist in Marxism - that is exactly why he was eventually viewed as such a traitor to the cause. Olav L 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No I meant personal dictatorship is impossible in Marxism. Marxist doctrine states that there in no personal dictatorship in the world. Each political regime protects interests of certain class. In monachy it is landowners and aristocracy. In principate and domenate it is slave-owners. In fascism it is small and military industrial bourgeoisie, decsassified elements and other reactionary forces, etc. It is not dictatorship of a fuehrer. It is dictatorship of reactionary bourgeoisie.--Nixer 23:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I must have misread that remark, then. Thanks for explaining but allow me to remain sceptical ;-) Olav L 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The fuss is about one simple thing. Stalinists, Nazis, and other marginals are not alowed into editing Encyclopaedia Britannica, but they are allowed to edit Wiki. And so they do.//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. Thanks for the reminder. Olav L 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The insinuation that Communists for who you use the pejorative "Stalinist" are political "marginals" is outrageous as is the comparison of them to Nazis. Communist parties have long been part of the mainstream in the bourgeois parliamentary system. They received between 20 to 35% of the vote throughout the post-war period in France, Italy, and Finland. Today, they still poll about 6.5 million votes in Japan and 2.5 million in France and Italy. Communists currently serve in the governments of a diverse array of countries ranging from India to Syria to South Africa. Jacob Peters
 * Communists may not be marginals, but Stalinists are. If you can't see the difference, it's your problem. Most respectable communists I know, and most that you mentioned, would spit on Stalin's grave and would certainly not try to find excuses for all the excesses of his rule. Olav L 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion Stalin was an evil dictator, only Hitler was worse. However saying so in the introduction is POV, and in fact takes away from the impact of the article since it is better to trust the reader to make up his or her own mind. Steve Dufour 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact the blaming of Stalin was triggered by the current political situation in 1950s. If Khrushchev did not need and ideological phraseology to defeat his opponent Beria in power struggle, you would never think Stanin was so bad.--Nixer 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly expressed. That includes opinions that Stalin was a dictator, a great leader, and a tragic figure. I don't think that can all be worked into the introduction, however. Fred Bauder 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate Stalin! I also worked for the overthrow of the Soviet Union and the end of communism!  However using the word dictator in the opening paragraph adds nothing to the article.  It is enough to say that he was the leader of the USSR and tell what he did.  Steve Dufour 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, NPOV requires fair representation of what is a generally held point of view, but perhaps not in the first paragraph. Fred Bauder 04:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair to me. However just telling people what Stalin did is much more damning (and informative) than giving him the label of "dictator".   It might even be said that it's people like Stalin and Hitler who give the word "dictator" a bad name.  There have been hundreds of dictators in the world and most of them were not so evil as those two. Steve Dufour 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stalin gives bad name to whatever group we place him: leader, communist, georgian etc. Dictator is a good and short word for non-monarch undemocratic leaders and in my opinion its not POV.--Staberinde 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'''I am responding to the RfC.

Folks, this should be an EZ dispute to solve!

You simply mention how he is viewed as a dictator (or synonym) by group x and viewed as a liberator (or synonym) by group y. This would adhere to NPOV. So who is going to make this edit? An please stop, those of you who appear to be doing some bad faith-ing and POV-pushing.''' C.m.jones


 * You are makeing the same mistake that other posters who consider dicator to be POV are doing. Liberator and dictator are not contradicting each other. Liberator is opposite do invader/occupier. Dicator is opposite to democratic leader(which stalin clearly wasn't). Dictator can be positive ruler("benevolent dictator"). For example Julius Caesar is considered to be positive leader by many, from modern times Józef Piłsudski is is held in high regard by most of the Polish public, also many greeks think that Ioannis Metaxas was good leader.--Staberinde 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Existance of good dictators does not make the term neutral especialyy in the case where the person reject the opinion that he is dictator.--Nixer 19:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I support calling stalin a dicator. Per Staberinde and others, it is an academic NPOV term used for Stalin by many academic sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to be in stalemate as some people are sure that useing term dictator is POV-pushing and others think that its completely accurate. RfC didn't solve the dispute, so I think that WP:POLL should be made about useing term "dictator" in this article, or anyone has better idea?--Staberinde 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can quote reliable historians who use a different term in preference to dictator, then we have something to discuss. - Merzbow 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that Stalin should be called dictator but some other users(Nixer, Kiske etc) have opposite view--Staberinde 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipeida is not a democracy or an opinion poll presenting the average personal opinons of the editors. It is an encyclopedia based on verifiable and reliable sources. If a majority of editors voted in support for the flat Earth theory, then Wikipedia would still, in accordance with its policy, ignore that poll in favor of the views found in reliable sources.Ultramarine 14:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)