07:14:11 PM Jun 12th 2012
edited by doomsday524
edited by doomsday524
Why do we have to whitewash Joseph Stalin's page of so many villanious tropes? We don't do that to Hitler. Maybe some weirdo out there thinks one or the other is some kind of hero, but people with any common sense know both of these people were evil mass murderers.
11:10:32 PM Jun 12th 2012
^Because official policy disagrees with you. We don't apply "evil" tropes to Real Life people.
09:53:55 AM Jul 18th 2012
Churchill. De Gaulle. Wells. Just some weirdos. He clearly wasn't an angel, he caused loot of bloodshed, that's true. But he wasn't monster people love to pain him also. Monster won't earn so much respect. And, also... just be cool. There is nothing certain about Stalin. Too many polar opinions overlap. Also, times were different.
12:10:51 PM Nov 21st 2012
The ends justify the means, eh? How appropriate. I agree that there is whitewashing here. And Hitler earned *plenty* of respect, even today. (Pity he stole all the sugar.)
09:17:22 PM Mar 18th 2013
I was wondering the same thing too. Why is there villain tropes in the Adolf Hitler page, but not for this person too?
05:11:55 PM May 20th 2013
Some months ago (November 2012?), Adolf Hitler had no evil tropes. My logic is thus: if we can't say that Hitler is evil, then we can't say that Stalin is evil. Now that Adolf Hitler has evil tropes again, my logic is no longer valid. If we add evil tropes to Josef Stalin, would we fall down a slippery slope and declare other national leaders to be evil, until both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are evil?
09:41:51 AM Apr 27th 2011
edited by darkpast
edited by darkpast
I'd say there more to the Lenin-Stalin split than just Stalin insulting Lenin's wife. For example, The Other Wiki states that: "Lenin was no longer able to overlook the bitterness of the conflict in Georgia [...] However, Lenin's doubts about the conduct of Stalin and his allies around the Georgian question mounted. He was also afraid of negative outcry that might ensue abroad and in other Soviet republics. In late December 1922, Lenin accepted that both Ordzhonikidze and Stalin were guilty of the imposition of Great Russian nationalism upon non-Russian nationalities. He now considered Stalin and his forceful centralizing policy increasingly dangerous and decided to dissociate himself at once from his protégé."
03:39:31 PM May 14th 2011
The issue in question relates to Lenin's last testimony condemning Stalin on numerous grounds, recommending Trostky for the position of Party Leader, and which Stalin had suppressed. It turned out that Lenin seems to have wrote that after Stalin had an argument with Lenin's wife, which was bad enough that she complained to her then-bedridden husband about it. This makes it more like the straw that broke the camels back; the more important issue is that the testimonial has often been presented as evidence that Lenin had come to his senses, realised that Stalin was becoming a despotitic monster, and wanted him totally removed from power. In context, Lenin and Stalin had been having several arguments prior to this, Lenin had been previously pushing for Trotsky and Stalin to work together, and most important of all though he recommended Stalin be removed from the position of General-Secretary the man would still hav remained on the Politburo and had other offices so he would retain a lot of power. Based on Lenin's own nature and past behaviour, it is actually more likely that he was having a bit of a huff- he was too poorly to run the Soviet Union and though he was kept appraised of events (the fact that Stalin visited him regularly, at the mans home, at all- as did several others- is proof of the influence he weilded) he was frustrated and annoyed that he wasn't running the show, and feared that both Stalin and Trotsky were upstaging him. Stalin got it worse because he by now possessed greater power, which in turn made Lenin more combatant and petty, and neither had ever shrunk from arguing with one another before. Which is not to say that Lenin did not genuinelly disagree with many of Stalin's policies at the time (though, broadly, Stalin was a commited Marxist-Leninist in both theory and practice, and they even worked out several together, so he was hardly deviating to any great degree) but its likely he was more annoyed by the fact that Stalin didn't actually have to listen to his criticisms anymore than whether or not he did. So the argument between Stalin and Lenin's wife was sort of an excuse. Lenin's critique of Stalin "imposing Great Russian nationalism upon non-Russian nationalities" is a bit rich from the man who tried to annex Poland and Finland, and it should be noted that one of Stalin's great contributions to Bolshevik policy, one praised by Lenin, was precisely his idea of giving other Soviet republics a degree of autonomy.