Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

North Korea and Eastern Europe in the lead

The lead currently reads: "The Soviets annexed the Baltic states and helped establish pro-Soviet Marxist–Leninist governments throughout Central and Eastern Europe." I sought to amend that sentence by adding "and in North Korea" to the end. In my edit summary, I included a digression noting the highly nationalistic character of Asian communism (in China, Vietnam, and Cambodia) and indicating that North Korea is something of an exception due to the essential role played by Soviet occupation troops in establishing a communist government there. Note that this same sentence included China as well as North Korea for some time until both were deleted by Rjensen, who explained that in those countries "Stalin's role was much less than in Eastern Europe." However, I do not concede that Stalin's role in exporting communism to North Korea was less direct or less significant than his similar role in Eastern Europe. As the body of this article (which the lead is supposed to summarize) currently states: "After the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States divided up the Korean Peninsula, formerly a Japanese colonial possession, along the 38th parallel, setting up a communist government in the north and a pro-Western government in the south." Paul Siebert reverted my edit on the basis that the North Korean system of government "is more Confucian than communist." I don't believe that such a label is supported by the consensus of reliable academic sources on North Korea, and even if it is, it would be no less preposterous—Confucianism has existed for thousands of years but only produced a totalitarian police state with gulags and an extensive cult of personality in the context of a 20th century Soviet occupation? That said, there is no need to resolve this debate in order for the lead to summarize the body of this article. The North Koreans did not distance themselves from Marxism–Leninism until later, but if that is the problem then the "Marxist–Leninist" bit should be excised from the sentence and North Korea should be restored; there's certainly no doubt that North Korea retained its "pro–Soviet" orientation until the very end of the Cold War.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"helped" establish--and just who did they help? people picked by Stalin who were based in Moscow. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen, actually, a Japanese occupation almost completely wiped out all intellectuals or potential political leaders from Korea, so there were virtually nobody whom Stalin (or anybody else) could have helped to do anything. Stalin helped anti-Japanese partisans lead by Kim to come to power, in addition, there was a small group of Korean Communists, and, in addition to that, Soviet Union sent a significant number of "Soviet Koreans" (actually, Russian speaking Soviet citizens of Korean origin) to take key administrative positions , thereby filling the gap in Korean bureaucracy (completely eradicated by Japanese). The latter group was the most westernised and the most moderate in the NK establishment, and this group was almost completely eliminated by Kim in mid 50s, when he resisted to de-Stalinisation.

from Rjensen--my comment was directed at Stalin in Eastern Europe. As for Kim, I agree with Bruce Cumings that Kim was largely independent of Stalin and Mao in 1945 and took over thanks to support from Korean guerrillas who had been based in Manchuria and USSR since mid-1930s. Korea's Place in the Sun pp 161, 195. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And Korean Communists (who were in Korea during the Japanese occupation) were eliminated by Kim too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I can provide sources if needed, but it may take some time. Kim's regime was Stalinist, which is not the same as marxist. Later, during the "Khruschev's thaw" the Soviets tried to start similar transformations in NK, however, capitalising on the problems Khruschev had in Hungary in 1956, Kim successfully eliminated "Soviet Koreans" from the NK leadership, and starting from that time he was systematically eradicating any mention of Marxism from the party's documents. Juchje is a strong nationalistic doctrine, NK society is an estate society. It has nothing in common with Marxism, although it inherited some features of a Stalinist society. Many author call this society as Confucianism wrapped in Marxism, but not vise versa. It would be correct to say that Stalin established a stainist society in NK, but not Marxist. If you disagree with that, I may provide sources, but I would appreciate if you trusted me: these sources will hardly be used in this article, so to look for them would be just wasting of my time.

In my opinion, an absolutely non-controversial statement would be "pro-Soviet totalitarian government". --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Kim's regime was Stalinist, which is not the same as marxist." I don't disagree with that. "In my opinion, an absolutely non-controversial statement would be 'pro-Soviet totalitarian government'." Yes, I'd be fine with that, or just with "pro–Soviet" as I suggested above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In Communist states, it's actually the Party that provides totalitarian control, not the government. The top dog is called party secretary (Stalin) or chairman (Mao) (not the prime minister) For example there are party officials in every non-government agency and they make the decisions. SO I would say 'pro-Soviet totalitarian regime' -- with 'regime' covering a lot more than 'government' Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

{{ec}"Totalitarian" is also important ("pro-Soviet" refers to foreign policy only). NK was and continues to be nationalist estate totalitarian society. That had little relation to Marxism, in some aspects (nationalism and estate structure of the society) it is opposite to Marxsism. The absence of private property is also not an exclusive Marxist feature, because in many Asian society the main resource, irrigation, was and continues to be a state property, which makes private property of other resources not important.

By the way, juchje does not abolish private property: you can be a capitalist, for example, you can own a restoran in NK, however, it is nominally considered a state property, and the owner is considered a manager appointed by the government.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Whereas "regime" has some negative connotations (which we are supposed to avoid), it is probably better in this case, because "government" is something that can be easily changed (for example using a democratic procedure, like in Britain), in contrast to a "regime", which is replaced either as a result of the leader's death or revolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Rjensen's citation of Bruce Cumings above, what Cumings says is: "North Korea was never simply a Soviet satellite in the 1940s, but evolved from a coalition regime based on widespread people's committees in 1945-46 to one under relative Soviet dominance in 1947-48, thence in 1949 to one with important links to China, which in turn enabled the DPRK to maneuver between the two communist giants" (Korea's Place in the Sun, 1997 ed, p 227). However, this is just one opinion, as Cumings acknowledges, and some say Kim was handpicked by Stalin. Nevertheless, we should have a neutral mention of China and North Korea in the lead (and perhaps Vietnam). Not only is the establishment of the DPRK not mentioned in the lead, the Korean War isn't either. This was the second biggest war of the twentieth century. It's important to note that under Stalin's rule, the fortunes of the Communism movement (at least in crude terms) improved dramatically. There were now Communist governments in Eastern Europe and East Asia...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

every satellite has a different trajectory and N Korea has the least involvement of Stalin, so I think it can be dropped from the lede. If we overload the lede with 8 other little countries we make it MUCH harder for users to follow. The major RS on Stalin pay very little attention to Kim & Korea--because he paid little attention. One sentence on the Korean war is enough in the lede in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jack; it makes sense to mention East Asia alongside Central and Eastern Europe as Stalin's government certainly played a role in backing Marxist-Leninist movements in both China and Korea (and then Vietnam and on a lesser level Cambodia). How about "helped establish pro-Soviet Marxist–Leninist regimes throughout most of Central and Eastern Europe and parts of East Asia." Nice and simple. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Viet Minh were more nationalists than communists, and Soviet influence was pretty small in Vietnam during Stalin's rule. Cambodian Khmer Rouge came to power long after Stalin's death, and they were mostly ultra-radical Maoists than Marxist-Leninist. Regarding NK, as I already explained, it is hard to say if they were Marxist-Leninist (Stalin himself was Marxist only nominally, Stalinism has little relation to Marxism). Therefore, I think what you say is incorrect. The only thing we can say about Kim's regime that it was totalitarian. However, taking into account that Japanese eradicated all intellectuals in Korea, totalitarian/autoritarian nature of Korean society can be attributed to that factor too: South Korea was antidemocratic for a very long time, only recently it became a democratic country (although Confucianism is still strong there, for example, a girl from a good college may have serious problems when she marries a boy from a low rank school).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I know that you're really quite keen on it, but I really, really don't buy into this idea that Stalin was not a Marxist or was only barely a Marxist and that Stalinism is thus not a variant of Marxism. This really isn't the view put forward by the majority of Reliable Sources produced by academic historians; it seems to me to be an idea largely pushed by Trotskyists and members of rival Marxist factions who have a vested interest in presenting themselves as "true" Marxists, whatever that means. I can very much appreciate why many Marxists might want to keep Stalin and Stalinism at arm's length given the really rather nasty things it has been responsible for, but from an outsider perspective it clearly owes so much of its basic framework to Marxism and (more to the point) referred to itself as Marxism and constantly sought to legitimate itself by reference to Marx's writings. It reminds me of the situation facing Christianity: Roman Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and members of the Christian Identity movement all call themselves Christians, all base their frameworks around Biblical concepts and ideas, and from an outsider perspective all look like they have core commonalities, but members of each faction regularly deny that the others are "real" Christians, insisting that everyone (or almost everyone) but themselves have got it completely wrong. So it is with Marxism. Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, and lord knows how many types of non-Leninist Marxists all arguing over whose interpretation is correct and who is and is not a "real" Marxist. People are of course very much entitled to the view that Stalin and Stalinism were/are not Marxist, but this article should not present this view as fact. Thus, it would be inappropriate for the article to start presenting either Stalin's regime, or that of the North Koreans, as somehow not being Marxist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, even if one takes the view that the establishment of Marxist-Leninist (or Maoist, which presented itself as a purer, non-"revisionist" movement getting back to the "true" Marxism of Lenin and Stalin) governments in Vietnam and Cambodia had nothing to do with Stalin, the wording that I proposed ("parts of East Asia") still accurately describes what happened in Korea and China. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right that mainstream sources do not stress the idea that Stalin was not a Marxist. What actually happens, they do not mention his Marxism, because they believe this factor was irrelevant to the events they are describing. Ideological motifs are not considered important by the authors who write about Stalinism, such as Roberts, Haslam, Ellman, Carley, Watson, and many others. Stalin was a Marxist only nominally, his domestic and foreign policy was mostly opportunistic, dictated by the need to maintain personal supremacy. See, for example, Haslam's description of Stalin's policy towards Germany in late 30s:

"The picture that emerges is of a very curious dualism in Stalin’s policy. Not sufficiently confident of his understanding of foreign affairs, even compared with Molotov’s limited knowledge and most certainly not compared with Litvinov’s vast range, and ever mistrustful of relying entirely on any one adviser, Stalin tried to conduct what amounted to two entirely contradictory lines simultaneously. Whereas Krivitsky gives the two lines a spurious unity through his argument that collective security was merely Stalin’s counter (presumably to be cashed in) to Hitler’s moves, Roberts incautiously subsumes almost everything that Stalin did or any alternative line that anyone else proposed under the rubric of collective security. Neither is entirely plausible. If anyone is too taken in by the psychologist’s notion that the individual cannot hold two entirely incompatible ideas in his mind at the same time, they should take a closer look at Stalin. The ultimate goal was,however,consistent: the maintenance of personal supremacy, for which divisionamong his colleagues and subordinates was essential, even if it led to confusion in policy making."

The society built by Stalin can be perfectly described without any references to Marxism, and that is what many authors do.

We have a double negation of Marxism. First, Stalin totally negated the essence of Marxism in what he was doing starting from mid 30s, and the Asian leaders, who nominally accepted Stalin's Marxism used it to pursue their own goals to fit it into realities of the Asian society and to get support from the USSR. That means their "Marxism" was much less marxist than Stalin's "Marxism" was.

Anyway, that works for NK only, because Indochina is totally irrelevant: the events that lead communists to power in Indochina occurred much later, and they are not connected to Stalin at all.

Regarding representation of some regime as Marxist, can you please explain me which events that happened during Stalin's era are understood better when the word "Marxist" is used? Does the term "Marxism" help us to explain the mechanism of the Great Purge? Conversion of peasantry into de facto serfs? Persecution of Jews? Deportations? Stalin's imperialism? Destruction of Comintern? Totalitarianism? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I can ask the same question on a different manner: the Holocaust or Hitler's imperialism directly follows from the Nazi doctrine, because it was just an implementation of what Hitler wrote in Mein Kamp. Can you please explain what exactly in Stalin's policy can be seen as an implementation of Marxian ideas described in Das Kapital or other major writings?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul, I think that your statement that "Stalin totally negated the essence of Marxism" gets to the nub of your view. If I understand correctly, you believe that there is a pure "essence" of Marxism which true Marxists adhere to but which pseudo Marxists (like, in your view, Stalin) have deviated from. This is a view that many Marxists hold and would lead me to suspect that you personally align with some form of Marxism that is different from Stalinism (and you certainly don't need to tell me or anyone else whether you are or not; that's your own business, but would be my inference from your comments). Here, we disagree on a fairly philosophical level; I don't buy into any such thing as pure Marxism. There are many different Marxisms: the Marxism of early Marx, of later Marx, of Lenin, of Luxembourg, of Trotsky, of Stalin, of Mao, of Hoxha, of Pol Pot, etc. There is a family resemblance running through these different currents of thought, they all have certain commonalities, and all call themselves Marxist, but they differ from one another to varying degrees as they have each been influenced by other currents of thought, exposed to different geographical contexts and shaped by shifting social forces. This is where I think our differences lie. You believe in real Marxism and fake Marxism; I believe in a family of different Marxisms, none of which is any more real than any other.

This being said, we are not here to discuss the nature of Marxism. We are here to discuss Stalin and how he (and movements connected to him) should be presented in this article. I think that there is ample evidence for Stalin being a man who totally understood himself as a Marxist, who viewed his place in history within a Marxist framework, and who sought to bring about the societal changes that Marxism prophesied. Yes, he may well have also been motivated by personal ambition, by opportunism, and by nationalistic sentiment, but none of these things negate his affiliation and adherence to Marxism. Ideologies get mixed and matched all the time. Stalin wrote voluminously on the subject of Marxism; he called himself a Marxist; he talked about the construction of a socialist society; he emphasised class struggle and the removal of "enemies of the working class". However, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what my personal view of Stalin and his ideology is. What matters is what the Reliable Sources say. And, contra some of your comments, Stalin's biographers generally are pretty damn unambiguous on this issue. Montefiore (2007, p.336) said that Marxism held a "quasi-religious" value for Stalin; Service (2004, p. 9) noted that Marxism was the guiding philosophy throughout Stalin's life. I don't know any major biographer who disputes the eminent place that Marxism held in Stalin's worldview. Your belief that Stalin was not a Marxist is, to be honest, WP:Fringe. It's true that not every single policy that Stalin and his government implemented was solely carried out on the basis of his analysis of Marxist texts, but that's the nature of the real world. Regardless of one's guiding ideology, the restrains of personal ambition and realpolitik get in the way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We can continue only after you explain what is Marxism according to your point of view. Our fellows Wikipedians defined Marxism as a sociological method. How many other state systems or regimes do you know that are based on some scientific method? Do you know any Freudist, Positivist, Existentialist, etc regimes? Marxism is not an antithesis to Fascism or Nazism, because Nazism is an "ideology and practice", but Marxism is not. Actually, besides his Manifesto, Marx wrote nothing about a future society, he studied the capitalist system and societies in the past. Therefore, it is a big question if all XX century communist regimes had any relation to Marxism.

If we consider Lenin a Marxist (he was not an outstanding theorist, but he was trying to stick with what Marx wrote), one of his major contribution into the Marxist theory of a future society is a "State and revolution". Its major idea is that no state can exist in a Communist society. Indeed, according to Marxism, state is a tool that is used by a ruling class for oppression of other classes, concretely, to protect the current state of things when everything that was produced by workers and peasants is being distributed in a completely unjust way. That means, according to Marxists, that there will be no need in state in a communist society, and, according to Lenin, the state is gradually disappearing when the society is moving towards communism.

What was the most important Stalin's "contribution" into Marxist theory? The concept of "intensification of a class struggle when the society is moving towards communism". Not only it contradicts to elementary logic, it directly contradicts to what Lenin say. Can Stalin be considered a Leninist? This story is more than just a theoretical discussion: Stalin's "theory" provided a theoretical background for a murder of several million people and for indirect killing of many more millions. This "theoretical concept" is a key of Stalinism, and it directly contradicts to what both Marx and Lenin say.

Finally, I categorically object to usage of any terminology if it sheds no additional light on the question that is being discussed, and if it blurs a picture instead of clarifying it. I am ready to continue this discussion when we explain me clearly what concrete purpose the usage of the term "Marxist-Leninist" serves in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I support Midnightblueowl's wording suggested above. We can argue forever about Marxism-Leninism, but that's not the point. The PRC was established in 1949; the DPRK was established in 1948; the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was established in 1945. All these things happened while Stalin was in power, and they all had Stalin's assistance in various ways. To leave this out misrepresents the Cold War and the influence that the USSR had in Stalin's last days.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, my point is exactly the same: Marxism-Leninism is not the point. if we replace it with "communism" I'll have no serious objections. However, as far as I know, Stalin played a little role in the Vietnam case. Viet Min were more nationalist and anti-Axis, there was a connection between them and Vietnam communists, but that was for internal reasons, not due to Stalin's efforts. Later, Ho, who was more nationalist than communist, decided that aligning with the USSR would serve his political goals better, but it would be incorrect to say he came to power due to extensive Soviet help. Actually, we are speaking about two regimes: PRC and North Korea. In these two cases, the Soviet support was important, however, it had different roles. Whereas in China Stalin supported Mao in his fight against a strong political opponent, in NK the Soviets just played as a barrier that prevented American influence, because there was an almost full political vacuum in Korea after Japanese occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources question

Just looking at the article and noticed that it heavily relies on Montefiore's two books (especially for the early years of Stalin), while Kotkin's books are only given in the further reading section. Granted Kotin's books are a little newer, but they are arguably of a higher academic quality than Montefiore, and the first volume covers most of the same stuff. Just feel that it would reflect better to use a more reputable source, even if they are largely saying the same thing. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You make a very valid point and I was planning on getting around to including Kotkin's works as citations in due course. They are, of course, very heavy tomes and it will take a while to read through them and methodically select the appropriate page citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Montefiore, but the more sources the better.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything wrong with Montefiore's work, but he was clearly writing with a broad, non-academic audience in mind. Kotkin's work is, I believe, more focused at a specialist, scholarly audience. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm honest I am looking at it more from an academic slant (it is a topic I'm familiar with at that level), thus the preference for a more scholarly work. But I will agree Kotkin's book(s), while good, are a chore to go through and do need time to fully process (I myself am still working through Volume 2). Overall very impressed with the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I've started incorporating elements from Kotkin's works into the article. I actually find that, when dealing with Stalin's early life, Montefiore's book is the superior—or at the least the more detailed—volume. Kotkin spends a great deal of time trying to contextualise Stalin's life in world history by discussing political developments in, for example, Germany and Japan, and far less delving into the minutiae of what was actually happening to Stalin and his family. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Gulag pre-war

I noticed that while there is quite a bit of information how Gulag developed post-war, there seems almost nothing about its establishment in 1930s. I don't have any specific suggestions at mind currently, but just thought to note here that it seemed a bit weird to me.--Staberinde (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right. A sentence or so on the pre-war gulag system certainly wouldn't go amiss. It would need to be properly referenced, though. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Troublesome quote & Ispolkom

Headline: "The Russian Revolution: 1917" (February Revolution part)
Quote: "Stalin was appointed the Bolshevik representative to the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet" - but this was the Ispolkom. The source, Montefiore "The Court of the red Tsar" p.310 deals with Jews, Germany 1939, Beria etc - about times long after the February Revolution. I have the Swedish 2004 translation, (Swedish ISBN 91-518-4280-7). Neither Richard Pipes "The Russian Revolution" (second edition 1995 , Swedish ISBN 91-27-09935-0) mentions Stalin in combination with this revolution - and Pipes is fairly thorough on the Ispolkom as well as the entire Petrograd Soviet. Neither Isaac Deutscher supports this statement (Deutscher was one of the first authors on Stalin) - "Stalin - A political biography" 1949, revised in 1961, (Swedish ISBN of the 1980 printing 91-550-2469-6) . Stalin could perhaps have been in the Petrograd Soviet, as one among several thousands of workers and soldiers (but first after 12.March 1917 if so, as that's the date he arrived to Petrograd according to Deutscher) - but hardly in its executive committee, Ispolkom. (Sometimes I've noted a confusion between the Petrograd Soviet itself and the self-appointed executive committee, Ispolkom). It was the latter which became powerful and often challenged the Provisional Government. Besides our Petrograd Soviet article states no Bolshevik was in this committee, not even after 8.April. (After the October Revolution naturally everything was turned upside down, but that's not the issue here). Something doesn't add up here, I fear. Boeing720 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither Montefiore's second work on Stalin (The Young Stalin, 2007) supports anything about him as a member of Ispolkom, the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet. Stalin's arrival to Petrograd impairs with Deutcher, but nothing is stated about Stalin as a member of the executive committee, Ispolkom in chapters 34-36 which includes p310. I will remove that part (if it hasn't been done already). Boeing720 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so hasty with that removal, Boeing. I've double checked the cited sources and they do confirm what the article currently states. Conquest, in his 1991 work Stalin: Breaker of Nations, states the following on pages 59 and 60: "The same day [i.e. 13 March] Stalin, Muranov and Kamenev were named Bolshevik delegates to the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet." And later on page 60: "When Stalin took his seat on the Executive Committee of the Soviet, he seems to have been given a reasonably warm welcome by his old Georgian opponents Nikolai Chkheidze (now the Soviet's Chairman) and Irakli Tseretelli. Stalin made no remembered contribution to debate and seems to have spent his time mainly in sounding out and establishing relations with the other socialist delegates". Montefiore, on pages 310 and 311 of his 2007 work Young Stalin, states the following: "Appointed as a Bolshevik representative to the Executive Committee of the Soviet, Stalin was welcomed at the Taurida Palace by his fellow Georgians Chkreidze and Irakli Tsereteli, its star orator." That Deutscher did not mention this information is not particularly surprising given that he was writing in the 1940s when a great deal of information about Stalin's life was not publicly known, while Pipes' work is a grand sweep of the events that took place in the Russian Empire over several decades; accordingly it does not go into great detail on a great many things, the minutiae of Stalin's revolutionary career among them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough and I can agree with you on the grand lines of the authors we are discussing. (Have no access to Conquest though) But I have both Montefiore's works. As you quote "Young Stalin" (and as different languages and printings may differ in page numbering), and if possible, could you be so kind to tell me in what chapter you have your pages 310-311 ?

In my Swedish translation (Swedish ISBN 978-91-518-4545-6), these pages are found in chapter 35 (pages 307-312), which in English ought to have the title "The Hunter" (and doesn't deal with much else than what Stalin later said to various persons after WW2, about his time in Siberia). Boeing720 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

In my English language translation, pages 310 and 311 are in Chapter 38, "1917 Spring: Floundering Leader", which is the first chapter in "Part Five". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Photography

I've noticed a disturbing trend of communist and fascist personalities having glamour pictures on their page. Stalin holding his pipe looking wistfully in the distance looks ridiculous.

A "glamour picture"? Now you've got me thinking of Stalin and Hitler striking poses in skimpy bikinis for Vogue magazine. The simple reality is that we use what photos we can get, i.e. ones that are in the public domain and not subject to copyright. Beyond that we focus on a nice, clear image of the individual, and that will often mean images that were staged or taken for official publicity purposes. Of course, these will not be deliberately casting the individuals in question in a negative light, but what's the alternative? Looking for a photo of Stalin and Hitler having a bad hair day or of them punching kittens, just to show how nasty they were? Seeking a 'bad' image of these leaders just because most of us think that they were 'bad' people who led 'bad' regimes also raises serious issues of bias. Why should Stalin and Hitler get pictures casting them in a bad light when all of the U.S. Presidents get nice, official photographs of them in their infoboxes? It would be hypocritical of us if we started selecting imagery in this way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Midnightblueowl. And I don't believe in a such trend. Boeing720 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We've gone through several pictures in recent times. This one is very illustrative of Stalin, and even hints at his deformed arm.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As I've already expressed - not that I in any way can agree with the first comment. And I personally find the main portray to be excellent, from several perspectives. It's both a very typical Stalin image of its time - and not all people can be judged by their looks, can they ? (Good looking persons can well be terrible personalities as well as people who may look horrible can be very kind etc) Despite all Stalin's evil deeds this was how large parts of the world thought of him after the spring of 1945.

So the "pipe-image" is (also) in a way a certain lesson in itself, I think. But as I happened to find a photo of Stalin in custody, originating from the Tsar-Russian police's criminal album 1908, I added it further down. A crook in the Tsar's autocratic Empire, a later proclaimed hero of the Soviet Union, but posthumously revealed as one of the worst ("de facto") dictators through history. It's my hope we have space also for the "1908 crook"-image. Boeing720 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort but I don't think that that image is copyright free, Boeing720, or at least the case for it being unequivocally copyright free has not been made. We had this same problem over at the Vladimir Lenin article when it was undergoing FAC. A lot of the images on that article had been assumed to be in the public domain because they were so old, but actually it was revealed that the article could not reach FA status while they remained because they were not unequivocally, demonstrably public domain. With a lot of the images from the late 19th and early 20th century, the photographer is not known, and that really complicates things when trying to ascertain whether something is public domain or not in the Russian Federation. It's frustrating, but that's just the way it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I doubt this is the case with this one. This photo is obviously taken by the Tsar's police. By someone unknown and in duty (resembling Nazi-Germany's annual war books, I think). And even if true, it's a journalistic shot, published in Sweden 49½ years ago, hence any possible remaining copyright will expire in five months time. (As I have understood PD:Sweden) Nevertheless I think it's a question for Wikimedia.

On the other hand, and as I can see you have made huge efforts in this article, you can simply remove it, if you feel it isn't suitable for any reason.

But please - I read Montefiore's first work (the red Tsar..) 8-10 years ago, but I bought "Young Stalin" a couple of months ago, at a countryside combined "second hand literature, caged bird & woodwork shop" ! (Owned by a retired old man, "Bok-Bo" [English: Book-Bo; "Bo" is a Swedish or Scandinavian name], who apparently buys and sells the ackward combination of birds and books and has some kind of handicraft workshop too) together with at least 15-20 various (and cheap) books, most of them related to history, but not all of them. I haven't read "Young Stalin" yet. I do not doubt your quote (and there was another source too,anyways) so this isn't any other than asking for a little help (Wikipedia aside), if you please just could tell me in which chapter (number or name) the English pages 310-311 are found, I would be very grateful.

I also wish to add that this "page-problem" sometimes also occurs between different printings (= no change is done by the author, solely by the publisher) and a splendid example of this is William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The page numbering of the "thick as a brick" version was horrible (also in English), but Shirer actually wrote four separate books. Then the publisher put them together, but kept the original numbering. So for instance "page 100" can be found at four different papers, so to speak. And later (as it seems; according to some references to that work I've seen) has the work been renumbered in a newer printing. There are other examples (like pocket versions vs "common books" especially when special pages with good quality photos are involved, such pages are rarely numbered in the more expensive versions, but often are in pocket versions - and then the page numbering impairs...), but to my knowledge none that compares to Shirer's

I've searched, "read and read" from around the beginning of part four, chapter 33, page 293 and forwards in my Swedish version. It would be far more easy to find the quote, if knowing in which chapter the English pages 310-311 are to be found. I've lately become interested in the February Revolution aand Alexander Kerensky and the time between the two revolutions. Boeing720 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry ! I had not noticed that you had replied above. Thank You very much indeed Boeing720 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the image of Stalin taken by Tsarist secret police, if it can be established that the image is certainly Public Domain (for whatever reason), and appropriately described as such on the image page, then I'd be very happy to have said images re-added to this article. I just don't want to have a situation where we get this article to FAC, only to have to then remove loads of images and rifle around for Public Domain alternatives (as we had to do with the Lenin article a few years back). Better to try and get that problem sorted now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

First - as I understand matters, you're aiming to get this article to good reading status and possibly featured as well, I would like to wish you the best of luck with this task. And secondly - I have found the quote (p 330), and thanks again. It isn't very much Montefiore writes about Stalin and the executive committee. But it is certainly significant enough. I think it's a good question weather Stalin was involved in the disastrous Petrograd Soviet Order No. 1 or not. (The order wasn't issued by the entire Soviet, but by its executive committeee, Ispolkom. Pipes states it was five orders, and that it was no 1 & 3 that caused confusion, "striping of officers", desertions etc.) About the photo, I'm far from an expert on Wikimedia matters. I just think it has to be PD, or at least soon will be. But I'm not certain. Hence, I suggest that the picture possibly can rest at Wikimedia for now. Unless someone who really knows turns up. Thanks again, Midnightblueowl ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, happened to see "Preceded by Molotov" (as General Secretary of the Communist Party). My first feeling after reading that, is that Lenin appointed Stalin as the first General Secretary, and at that time that title didn't mean much. Or at least Stalin initially was disappointed, but soon learned how to use this office. I think my idea comes from a TV-documentary, but cannot recall more than that. Boeing720 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reason For Reupload

Midnightblueowl When explaining why I re-uploaded File:Stalin_in_exile_1915.jpg back to the article, I incorrectly stated it was in the Russian public domain because it "was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication". I meant to say to say the image is in the Russian public domain because it "was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication." Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

But there is no evidence provided that it was published before 1943, only that it was taken before that date. Obviously, if you can demonstrate that it was published anonymously or pseudonymously before that date then that would be fantastic and the image will be able to stay long-term, but we cannot jump to conclusions about something being PD just because it is old. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Birth name in the first paragraph

Over the past few days, User:Blether has repeatedly engaged in WP:Edit warring at this page to insert Stalin's Georgian birthname into the opening sentence ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). I would hope that they desist from this course of action and try to gain consensus for their addition here at the talk page. Persistent edit warring will of course incur sanctions so is best avoided. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been surprised that adding Stalin's birth name to the article lead seems so controversial. It's standard practice in biography entries - see for example, Mark Twain or Muhammad Ali. Surprised too that such an orthodox and uncontentious addition is each time deleted within 5-10 minutes. Blether (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a terrible idea to give his Georgian name in the opening sentence by any stretch of the imagination, but we already do have a note in that first sentence that explains what Stalin's original name was so it's not really necessary to duplicate the name, in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not especially bothered either way, but what I am bothered about it Blether's constant adding of the info when it's been removed, rather than discussing it. Just as bad is discussing it above - but still adding it contrary to established page consensus. Ergo, I've removed it again. I'm assuming good faith, but if it's added once more it becomes inescapably edit warring and Blether will be reported. Blether is now on 3 reverts, and as put out in the WP:3RR edits do not have to be within 24hours if it's apparent that the editor in question is refusing to listen or abide by consensus - which is the case here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's up to those of you feel you have a 'concensus' here, to decide whether you want most for Wikipedia to be good, or to have control of it. The convention in biographical encyclopedia entries is, if the subject has changed his or her name, you give the original name beside it Here's another example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe. If you want Stalin's entry here to be a glaring exception, knock yourselves out :) Blether (talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury

There's a variation in styles - most of these real names are in bold; brackets are used occasionally. Maybe those are points to discuss. Whether a subject's real name goes up top or not, isn't really a point that's open to dispute, is it? Blether (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support having the birth name in the opening sentence. We can't assume people are going to read the note. Further to the examples given Lenin's birth name is given in his article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. Some more examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek (sort-of) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh Blether (talk)

Unless there are any strong objections, I propose that we move forward and integrate Blether's suggestion into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Dang it. I am angry I missed this discussion, since it was I who researched Stalin's Georgian name (I went through the Georgian National Archives to get it, consulted Georgian language professors, etc). My take is that his original Georgian name is too trivial for the lede. I support mentioning it in the main body of the article, but I think it should be removed from the lede. Kurzon (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

His birth name is trivial???--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: - you could always take the issue to an RfC if you felt passionately about it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Currently, there's a stub article on Stalin's Tax on trees that i think should be merged with this article. Other merger destination ideas are welcome, too! Matuko 03:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be better were someone to simply expand the Tax on trees articles. I'm not convinced a merger is the best course of action here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the tree tax is a relatively minor part of Stalin's rule, and the article is long enough as it is. Kges1901 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There should probably be an article Taxation in the Soviet Union because there is a category of that name. Perhaps all the stubs could be merged into that article. I don't think the Tax on trees article has much merit. It was a tax on fruit trees that lasted for 10 years. There are plenty of taxes that have perverse effects. It seems to have notoriety because Khrushchev complained about it. This is very minor.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The merger is garbage, as is the stub article. The idea that a nominal "leader" is personally responsible for every one of the thousands of policies enacted over decades in a country of almost 200M people is utter bullshit. Stop encouraging fascist nonsense! 76.70.118.211 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for just under a month now, and has not attracted any support. Given that it is resulting in a somewhat unsightly tag being plonked on the front of the (widely read) Stalin article, might I suggest that we end the merger proposal? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

End it. This is ridiculous. 76.70.118.211 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Trivial stuff

There is this line in Early life:

"He was the son of Besarion Jughashvili and Ekaterine "Keke" Geladze,[4] who had married in May 1872,[5] and had lost two sons in infancy prior to Stalin's birth."

I want to delete mention of their marriage date and previous children. I think it's too trivial for this article. Maybe you could mention this in Besarion Jughashvili's article, but here it serves no good purpose. Kurzon (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The importance of a male child is not trivial, particularly for a poverty-stricken family. The date shows the length of time between marriage and the birth of their only surviving son (and child), Ioseb. You're nitpicking needlessly. 76.70.118.211 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I genuinely think that fact is too trivial. It's worth mentioning in the Besarion Jughashvili article, but not here. It doesn't have much relevancy to Stalin's upbringing. Kurzon (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to the Talk Page, Kurzon, and please, don't try and make this change unilaterally again. I agree with the IP; the information given is of some interest. It gives an impression of how long the couple had been married prior to Stalin's birth. That's not insignificant; it could have been a year, it could have been ten years. The reader doesn't know that unless we tell them. More importantly, this text actually tells the reader that they were married, which is I think a significant point. The information about the couple losing two sons prior is also pertinent information, in part because it makes it apparent to the reader that Stalin was their first child to survive. Otherwise they might assume that, like most people, he had siblings. If we were to remove this text, it would be possible for the reader to assume (incorrectly of course) that Stalin's parents had been married for many years and already had a number of children. Ultimately, this little half sentence—although short and somewhat stumpy—helps to convey some important information to the reader about Stalin's family background and thus the context from which he emerged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want readers to understand that he had no siblings, just say that he was an only child. Kurzon (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think on balance the existing text is worthy of inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Do these claims need attribution?

Regarding this, I would like to ask the following. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, in-text attribution is needed for biased statements of opinions. In connection to that, I am wondering if we really believe that the statement "Stalin was one of the most notorious figures in history, one who responsible for systematic killing of people on a massive scale" is a biased statement shared by some authors, or it is a mainstream view? Does anybody really believe that is not a universally accepted view? This is exactly what WP:INTEXT warns about: the Sun sets in the west not according to NYT, it is a universally accepted fact. Accordingly, Stalin's involvement in mass killings is not Service's personal view: if we provide a list of all notable authors who shares this opinion, it will be longer that this article's section. I strongly object to the attempt to present the universally accepted fact as someone's biased opinion. I also strongly object to editorialising like "the tentative historical consensus". We do not need these weasel words. I think, this section can be cleaned of any attributions or editorialising, because there is a scholarly consensus about Stalin's crimes (only minor details, such as a degree of his involvement in Holodomor, are remaining a subject of discussion).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A quotation does need an "in-text attribution". I think "notorious" is a POV word, and should only be used in quotations. I doubt "Stalin was one of the most notorious figures in history". Stalin had a good reputation among some people during his life (including the Western Allies at one point) and continues to have a following, including by the Chinese regime. History goes for a long time. I doubt his "notoriety" will last as long as Genghis Khan's. The view of Stalin as a mass murderer is not universally accepted, as he continues to have his supporters. And many would disagree with the description of him as "systematic". Others have described him as capricious, chaotic, unpredictable, mysterious... I think that statement needs to be a quotation, if it is included at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If the statement remains, it needs to be as a quote and attributed to Service. I have no issue with the text "the tentative historical consensus" as there does indeed seem to be a growing consensus among scholars that the number of gulag deaths, based on archival data, fall within this range. It should be stated so readers understands this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Whereas "notorious" is POV, his involvement in mass killing on a huge scale is a universally accepted fact (at least in the English speaking world). I have no problem with removal of "notorious", but the main statement (about mass killing) should have no attribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote this section again. My rationale is as follows:

- In most cases, attributing is against NPOV, because the mainstream view is that Stalin was responsible for mass killings. That is not an opinion of a single (or few) scholars. That is similar to write: "According to XXX, Hitler is responsible for killing of 6 million Jews".

- The number of people killed during the Great Purge is not Ellman's estimate. First, in his article he writes he had a discussion with a number of experts in the field (he provides a list of names). Second, his estimates are in agreement with what others say. It is not his opinion only, why explicitly attributing this statement to Ellman we create an impression that might not be a mainstream view, which is incorrect.

- I reorganized the text in a more logical way: from obvious and direct killings to more or less indirect: officially documented executions go first; the actual number of Great Purge deaths go after that; then the Gulag deaths figures are provided; the broader category of deaths from criminal neglect go after than, and finally, famine victims are included. The next logical step is a discussion of Stalin's accusations of genocide (famine-genocide). This way is much more logical than the previous back and forward presentation of facts.

- I also removed Cold War era estimates: this figures are obsolete, even Conquest and Rosefielde concede they were wrong: why do we need to confuse a reader? This section is not a good place for description of the history of the subject, it belongs to the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin article.

I strongly object to attribution in this section, because by doing that we present universally accepted facts as individual opine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this, because I don't find the edit summary convincing: we hardly need to provide a historical perspective of the subject, we need to start with what is universally accepted Stalin's victims (executions, Gulag deaths), and end with what still remains a subject of debates (i.e. should all excess deaths during Stalinism be described as Stalin's victims). I again strongly object of attribution of obvious and mainstream statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do. For a long time it was believed that Stalin killed 20-60 million but the opening of the archives has complicated things. That should be stated. Hence the first sentence of the second paragraph. Also, leading the section with Service is consistent with the beginning of the "Legacy". This is part of the legacy section and we should start with a historian assessing his overall legacy in that department. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If you believe this information belongs to this article, it would be correct not to pick a random author who happened to write about that subject, but to tell who was the first person who made this information public (Mora & Zwiernag in 1942), who presented the first more or less systematic study (either Solzhenitsyn or Conquest), whose estimates were highest (probably, Rummel's), and why all this information is considered obsolete (due to "archival revolution" in late 1980s). Otherwise we just mislead a reader who might conclude that these figures are reasonable, but are currently rejected for unknown reason. However, I doubt we need to overload this huge article with these details, because they are relevant more to historiography of the USSR, not to Stalin's biography.

What is really necessary to explain is the following: (i) there is a consensus (at least, among English speaking historians) that Stalin in responsible for mass killings, and this statement needs no attribution; (ii) the excess mortality in the USSR during Stalin's rule is known (not exactly, but pretty well); (iii) however, there were several types of excess deaths: executions, Gulag or deportation deaths, collectivisation deaths, famine deaths. Regarding some of those cases, there is a consensus about Stalin's responsibility. In other cases, it is a subject of debates. In other words, we know how many people died prematurely/were killed/executed, etc. However, there is still no agreement which of those deaths can be ascribed to Stalin.

In my opinion, it is more important to explain that, and if we add a discussion of historiographic issues, the section will be confusing and unreadable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edits again without explaining why your edits are in agreement with our neutrality policy and guidelines. That is not good. In addition, your edits are misleading: the way you present information implies that GRZ supports Cold war era estimates, which is untrue. Your edits are hardly an improvement. Please, consider self-reverting, and let's discuss it again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Its not misleading. GRZ mentions estimates of 60 million during the Cold War and follows it with a mention of "more modest" estimates made more recently. GRZ and Synder are being used as sources for the historiography. Likwise in the Holodomor paragraph, Tauger is used as a source for the Ukrainian national claim and what recent historical studies have said. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you will see that I added back your edits but with the historiographical claim and the Service claim intact. LittleJerry (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert Thankfully, C.J. Griffin removed the viewpoint about the "best modern estimate", and I agree that we need to be able to justify in talk-pages what we do or say in articles using reliable sources, and not merely make edits to justify a viewpoint. Time and again, I have seen this behaviour from LittleJerry, making edits to justify viewpoints, without taking into consideration what other reliable sources may say, he may even remove references that may be relevant to the topic, if he does not consider them to be necessary. Leo1pard (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

LittleJerry I see that you have agreed that you cannot keep pushing viewpoints like what is the "best modern estimate"? Leo1pard (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. "Best modern estimate" was first added by C.J. Griffin not me, I don't care if one changes it. Anyhow, this user getting involved in this discussion is suspicious. I nominated one of their pet projects for deletion and two other users have recently agreed with me. This one clearly has an axe to grind. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to say that it's suspicious about why I'm here though. It's not like I wouldn't edit topics that are related to politics or history. Leo1pard (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No. It was first added by Paul Siebert with this edit. I insisted on attribution as such a statement should not be made in Wikipeidia's voice.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to get suspicious about why I am even here. It's not like I wouldn't edit a topic like this. Leo1pard (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is definitely an improvement: it is universally accepted that Stalin killed a lot of people. However, I don't think the rest of the text is good.

In my opinion, it would be incorrect to write this section in the same way as the article about Hitler does, because there is a difference between the story of Hitler and Stalin. I believe everybody (including most readers) know that Hitler killed people during the Holocaust, he actually killed a lot of civilians in Europe, and he is responsible for WWII deaths. The number of deaths Hitler is responsible for is known pretty well, and the degree of his responsibility is not a subject of debates in mainstream literature. In contrast, the total number of deaths caused by Stalin's regime became known only recently, and majority of them were not clearly attributable to the regime (and to Stalin personally). In contrast to Hitler's case, a reader may be unaware of what deaths we are talking about. That is why, after the first sentence we need to briefly explain what exactly we are talking about. In other words, after the sentence saying that

"Stalin's regime and he personally are responsible for millions of excess deaths that occurred in the USSR during his rule"

we should explain what we are talking about:

"These deaths occurred as a result of collectivization, famine, terror campaigns, high mortality rate in Gulag, etc."

Then it would be correct to describe the scale of these mass deaths: to provide modern figures for the Great purge deaths, famine deaths, deportation deaths, etc.

The next logical step would be to explain that Stalin was directly responsible for Great purge deaths and the deaths resulted by other repression campaign, for deportation deaths, for Gulag mortality, whereas most famine deaths are more a result of criminal neglect, poor management, miscalsulations etc. As a summary for all of that, we can use Snyder (6 millions directly attributable to Stalin, and 3 more millions of indirect deaths). That would be a good way to present information: "Mass killings and mass mortality occurred during Stalin's rule; the main killings events were ...; the number of people killed in each event was ....; Stalin's responsibility for each or them is ....; in total, Stalin in directly responsible for X million deaths and indirectly for Y million deaths." That is the information a reader needs to know.

Does a reader need to know Cold war era estimate? I doubt. Does a reader need to know official data (GRZ)? I am not sure. All of that just blur a picture: the former is too high and obsolete, the latter is too low (and mainstream historians use this figure just as a starting point, they do not trust it). It would be better to move this information to a footnote, or remove at all. Regarding other attributions, I suggest to remove them too. The authors we are talking about didn't work in isolation. If you read their papers, you probably noticed each of them answered concerns raised by others, and, finally, they arrived to some common view. Ellman wrote his article after a discussion with N. Adler, R. Binner, R. Conquest, R.W. Davies, M. Haynes, J. Keep, G. Oly,E. van Ree G. Rittersporn, R.W . Davies, L. Viola, S.Wheatcroft. Although he adds that "None of them is responsible for anything written in this article. The author alone is responsible for the interpretation offered and for the remaining errors", the figure of the Great Purge deaths Ellman provides is obviously a consensus figure. He definitely took into account opinia of those authors, and, taking into account that none of them publicly objected or criticised this figure since 2002 (it is hard to believe they were unaware of Ellman's article) is an indication this figure reflects a current scholarly consensus. That means, no attribution is needed.

The second part of this section (accusation of genocide) is a separate story, I propose to return to it after we finish with this part first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Midnightblueowl has to say. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure this user has ever participated in this discussion, therefore I would like to know what is the reason to ask them to join it. I do not claim your actual motive is WP:CANVAS, and I am sure the actual reason is different. Am I right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

They have been the main contributor and wrote 90% of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia has no authorship. I am interested to know Midnightblueowl's opinion, but not because this user made a significant contribution, but because it is always good to hear one more opinion.

Irrespective to what this user will say, what is your own opinion on what I wrote? What exactly are you disagreeing with (if you are), and why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see you restored the "longstanding version" under a pretext that the discussion on the talk page is in progress. Formally, that is correct. However, you can do that only in the case if you presented some arguments in support of this version, and you are waiting for a response from me. However, as I already explained, this version presents mainstream (universally accepted) view as an individual opinion of one (or few) authors, and that is a violation of our policy. You failed to refute this my argument. That is not a question of style, not an ordinary content dispute: I claim this your edit violates our core policy, and you are perfectly aware of that. That is not good. Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of text here and I haven't read through all of it, but from what I have read I do not think that there is a particularly strong argument for removing the quotation marks around Service's statements. Directly quoting a leading biographer of Stalin isn't an attempt to make their views look "biased"; it's about reflecting one expert opinion which might differ in certain respects from other expert opinions. Midnightblueowl (talk)

A quote is not a problem per se, however, it only can supplement some general (and universal) statement. Otherwise we will have exactly what MOS warn about: "According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. By providing a quote instead of just making a statement you imply that other opinia may exist on that account, which sounds apologetic.

You should either include many quotes from different renown authors (to demonstrate this is a mainstream view), or add a reservation that the author you cite is the most famous Stalin's biographer, and his views are universally recognized. However, in the last case, you don't need attribution per MOS.

If you write "According to Servise, Stalin was a notorious figure responsible for millions and millions deaths", the first thing a reader may think is "Well, that means other authors may think differently." If you write "Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths, period" a reader concludes Wikipedia is not playing dirty politcorrect games, and openly calls a bloody tyrant a bloody tyrant, thereby reflecting mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so mentioning the high Cold War estimates is not blurring the line. It is followed by mention that more recent estimates are much lower. And there's nothing wrong with citing sources that discuss the historical trends. There's no policy against that. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have to further objections or comments on the attribution issue, please, self-revert.

Regarding the question of Cold war era estimates, yes, it is not related to a policy. It is quite ok. However, the way the information is presented is quite unsatisfactory and confusing. The paragraph

"Cold War era estimates for the total number of deaths under Stalin have been as high as 60 million but more recent estimates – made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s – have been far lower (Sentence A). Official records show that there were 799,455 documented executions in the Soviet Union between 1921 and 1953, with 681,692 of these carried out during the years of the Great Purge, 1937–38 (sentence B). However, according to Michael Ellman, the best modern estimate for the number of repression deaths during the Great Purge is 950,000–1.2 million, which includes executions, deaths in detention, or soon after their release (Sentence C). In addition, while archival data shows that 1,053,829 perished in the Gulag from 1934 to 1953, the current historical consensus is that of the 18 million people who passed through the Gulag system from 1930 to 1953, between 1.5 and 1.7 million died as a result of their incarceration (Sentence D)."

has several problems.

First, a transition from the sentence A to sentence B is obscure: it is not clear why "Cold war era" estimates are compared with "official figures": the text does not explain the official figures became available only in late 1980s, and no direct data were available during the Cold war, so Cold war figures are just indirect estimates, which are intrinsically unreliable.

Second, by writing B right after A we are comparing apples with oranges (all deaths, from all causes, including famine deaths vs documented executions). That is totally confusing and misleading.

Third, "however" between "B" and "C" is totally misleading, because Ellman (i) discusses Great Purge victims only, whereas the "B" discusses all executions, but (ii) "C" adds to the number of victims those who was not sentenced to deaths, but who died in Gulag or soon after that, and the victims of extrajudical executions in camps. That means there is no discrepancy between GRZ and Ellman, they just discuss totally different categories.

Fourth, the sentence "D" starts with "in addition", however, Ellman's figures (in the sentence "C") partially include this category, but only for those who was repressed during late 30s.

In other words, this text is a total mess, it is absolutely confusing, and if you don't understand that, that means it would be better if you read more on that subject.

And, I still cannot understand what goal we are achieving by providing obsolete estimates (Cold war data) and Soviet official data, which have been thoroughly analyzed by other authors, including Ellman and others to produce more reliable and trustworthy data?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I made some changes. I don't object to your other points. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with LittleJerry on citing sources which discuss historical trends given this is very contentious issue. I don't see any issue with the transition from A to B. The end of A tells the reader that archival data produced much lower estimates than historians were calculating during the Cold War, that is a perfect segue to the GRZ hard data, which I think is important to include so readers can see this for themselves. Then an analysis of such data from Ellman, Wheatcroft, Snyder et al to flush it all out. I believe Paul Siebert inserted Ellman's Great Purge estimates in that paragraph; I was merely trying to work around them. That part does not flow well with the rest of the paragraph. Perhaps it should be moved to a new paragraph.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No. If I understand it correct, "A" tells about all deaths (at least, about Gulag deaths, deportation deaths, etc). In contrast, GRZ tells about the number of victims who were officially sentenced and executed. These are two totally different categories. Second, it is not clear from the text why the Cold war figure was so high, and why the discrepancy between it and GRZ is so dramatic. The reservation "but more recent estimates – made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s – have been far lower" is totally misleading. It implies GRZ provide alternative estimate for the total number of deaths under Stalin, although this particular figure includes just official executions (it even does not include an official figures of Gulag mortality, the figure GRZ do provide).

If you want a reader to see everything for themselves, you have to provide some internally consistent data set, not a couple randomly selected figures. The only conclusion a reader can make from the provided data is that the question about Stalin's death toll is complicated and confusing, and every author have different opinion. That is not the case, a consensus has lamost been achieved about that (I don't speak about journalists, I mean serious researchers).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the statement about "Cold war era estimates" is misleading in one more aspect: it implies there was some consensus about that subject during the Cold war, which is absolutely not the case. The Cold war era estimates ranged from few thousands to tens of millions, which is quite understandable taking into account the lack of information about that subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the passage about Cold War estimates has been removed. While it still needs some minor improvements, I have no problems with the current version of that section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I added mention of the pre-1991 estimate in the part regarding Snyder. It now says:

The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw that but failed to mention it. I think it is an improvement over what came before, and the "20 million" figure was bandied about quite a bit towards the end of the Cold War, and still today in some circles.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your efforts, but I am still somewhat disappointed with the first sentence. It should start with a general claim, because Stalin's responsibility of mass deaths is not Servise's opinion, but a universally accepted fact. If you want, you may add a quote from Service after that, but I am not sure it is needed. Stalin was responsible for millions of death not "according to someone", he is responsible, and that is the truth in the same sense as the fact that the Sun sits in the west (independent on what NYT says about that). Please, restore the text without attribution, or add similar text if you believe the old one is stylistically not good.

Second, any description of Stalin's death toll should start with a explanation of what does that number mean. The best way would be to use Ellman's opinion (without attribution, because it is not controversial) that the question of the number of victims of Stalinism depends on a definition of that term, and different authors define it differently depending on their political views (and, in contrast to Hitler, there is much less consensus on that account). Then we can speak about different definitions of "victims of Stalinism". The most narrow view is GRZ: they define them as the people who was sentenced to death and executed. Then we can explain that actual number of victims was larger, because it may of may not include the following mass mortality events (i) Great Purge victims (including camp deaths, per Ellman), (ii) deportation victims, (iii) Gulag victims as whole, (iV) famine victims (here we can discuss Stalin's responsibility for Hologomor), (v) war time victims among civilian population (some authors, such as Maksudov, attribute it to Stalin's regime), and there is still on agreement among authors which of them should be attributed to Stalin (directly or indirectly).

After that we can summarize, and the best summary is provided, probably, by Snyder: he does not include all famine victims in Stalin's death toll, and he does not attribute all indirect deaths to Stalin, so his 6+3 seems an adequate summary of other modern authors.

It should be clear from this section that the dispute is not about the number of people who died prematurely, but if all of them should be ascribed to Stalin, fully or partially.

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that the historical estimates should also be discussed, however, they should be just mentioned to demonstrate that Wikipedia does not ignore these estimates that were popular in the past. We should provide them and explain that many authors who made these estimates reconsidered their view after acrhival data became available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

I thoroughly object to the GA review. The reviewer Jens Lallensack continuously objected to things he thought were too "positive" to Stalin. Not once did he object to things that were too "negative". That is bias, pure and simple. For example, Stalin's role in WW2. Many have rated it highly. Secondly, Stalin's motivation. We simply don't know. How can we speculate??? I'm glad none of the articles I've written have been assessed for GA status. I suspect they would be distorted into a parade of personal prejudice.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland, thank you for your opinion. Neutrality is one of the six "good article criteria": Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. As the reviewer, it is my duty to check if the article meets this criterion. And when I, as the reviewer, think that this is not the case (and I am still confident I did the right assessment), it is my duty to bring up these issues (and the author was not objecting them). I don't see anything wrong with my review – what would you do if you were the reviewer and would spot a bias in some direction? Do you feel that the article is now, after my comments have been addressed, biased to the other direction? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is more biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What, precisely, would you propose to change/undo? For the record, the review only resulted in the addition of some facts which I thought were essential, not the removal of others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better to deal with issues individually.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Rokossovski

In December 1942 he placed Konstantin Rokossovski in charge of holding the city.

Rokossovski was one of a number of Soviet commanders involved in the Battle of Stalingrad. He is only mentioned once in the article on the battle. Why single him out here?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

War against Japan

He [Stalin] was aware that the United States had developed nuclear weaponry, with which it intended to subdue the Japanese, and wanted to enter the war before he could be denied the territories promised to him.

I think this is a very questionable interpretation. Yes, Stalin was aware of the atomic bombs, but these were intended to be used against Germany. Secondly, Stalin had promised at Yalta to enter the war against Japan within three months of the defeat of Germany. His declaration of war was three months to the day. He was hardly in a hurry. And his entry into the war was welcomed by Truman. Fourthly, there is no way that Stalin could have predicted the day of the Japanese surrender, as suggested by this. Fifthly, the "territories" weren't that important. Stalin could easily have taken over Manchuria and the whole of Korea if he wanted to. Sixthly, how do historians know what he was thinking???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. A popular myth that a country that developed the atomic bomb first, and used it against the opponent, immediately and unconditionally wins, and the US won the war because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and would have won Germany in the same way, had the bomb been developed earlier) is very popular, but we cannot reproduce it just because Stalin's biographers share this view. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking it again, I think the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin are being overemphasised here.

In February 1945, the three leaders met at the Yalta Conference. Roosevelt and Churchill conceded to Stalin's demand that Germany pay the Soviet Union 20 billion dollars in reparations, and that his country be permitted to annex Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands in exchange for entering the war against Japan.

I don't think the islands were that important at Yalta. Later, the article says:

Soviet forces continued to expand until they occupied all their territorial concessions, but the U.S. rebuffed Stalin's desire for the Red Army to take a role in the Allied occupation of Japan.

However, the Soviet expansion was in line with General Order No. 1 issued by General Macarthur to the Japanese government. There was nothing remarkable about it. This text suggests that the invasion of Manchuria was all about snatching the islands, which makes no geographic sense. And Stalin's offer to take part in the occupation of Japan is, I think, fairly trivial. I have checked what Robert Service says. It seems to be almost a throwaway line. He says that there was a race to the Kurils, like the race for Berlin, and later suggests there was a race to Tokyo. He doesn't seem to have any citation to support this. Overall, he only mentions the Kurils a few times. So I think that this article, perhaps accidentally, is overemphasising the issue. I don't think other historians place such an emphasis. David Glantz in August Storm says, "Moved by Allied appeals for support and wishing to cement the Soviet Union's postwar position in the Far East, Soviet leaders began planning a final campaign to wrest from Japan Manchuria, northern Korea, southern Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands". The islands were important, but not all-important.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I have checked Service's footnotes, and he refers to David Holloway's Stalin and the Bomb. The reference is to a conversation between Stalin and T. V. Soong, Chinese Foreign Minister. Stalin talks about the Kurils and Sakhalin, but also Darien and the Chinese Eastern Railway. The emphasis was on the USSR defending itself from future attack. The actual motive of Stalin for declaring war on Japan is worth of an essay. The problem is there isn't any way of distinguishing compliance with Yalta and lust for territory. No one seems to have suggested Stalin shouldn't attack Japan, even though Stalin had resisted this for some years and it wasn't necessarily advantageous. But this is basically irrelevant to this article. I suggest the text be amended based on Glantz's text. This is compatible with what Service argues, without being so contentious.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to do this.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

German invasion

There seem to be some discrepancies in this section. This article says, "The German advance on Moscow was halted by the arrival of winter", but the Battle of Moscow article describes winter as only one factor. Later, this article says, "While Red Army generals saw evidence that Hitler would shift efforts south, Stalin considered this to be a flanking campaign in efforts to take Moscow". This links to the Battle of Moscow, which had ended months before. Then, this article says the Battle of Stalingrad began in June 1942, whereas the article on the battle says 23 August.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea that German advance was halted by winter is a common stereotype, and it is not a surprise that Stalin's biographers, who are not WWII experts, reproduce it non-critically. of course, it is desirable to fix it, and to bring the article in accordance with the Battle of Moscow article.

Regarding the second question, yes, the link is misleading and should be removed.

Re battle of Stalingrad, the article probably means Fall Blau the Battle of Stalingrad was a part of.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the non-expert's opinion about the weather as the sole factor with the opinion of a renown eastern front expert. thank you Jack Upland for pointing at this problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you need to add the new book to the bibliography. Glantz 2001 redirects to nothing. LittleJerry (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted to fix the other points I raised. I think there are other problems with this section, including:

• The geography seems a bit hazy. Stalingrad is a long way from Moscow, but this isn't clear. I think my edit has improved this, but it could still do with some work.
• The article says, "That year, Hitler shifted his primary goal from an immediate victory on the Eastern Front, to the more long-term goal of securing the southern Soviet Union to conquer oil fields vital to a long-term German war effort". I don't understand the reference to a "more long-term goal" here. Immediate victory would have secured Hitler the oil fields, and more, perhaps victory in WW2. I think what Hitler did was abandon the immediate goal of taking Moscow, Leningrad etc, and head south and east for the oil fields. Perhaps I am missing something here.
• The Siege of Leningrad isn't mentioned. As it is one of the worse sieges in history, as it was a military disaster, and later a propaganda triumph, I think it should be mentioned. The article mentions refugees flooding into Leningrad, implying the city was a safe place. It also places this after the German occupation of Ukraine, whereas the siege of Leningrad began before the fall of Kiev.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article is not about WWII, it is about Stalin's role in it. We don't need to list all major events, only thyose Stalin was involved in.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Stalin was heavily involved in the whole war effort.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, he was. My point is that a discussion of, e.g., Leningrad, is relevant if we have something to say about Stalin's role in those events. If we are not going discuss Stalin's actions in some particular case, there is no need to mention it: this article does not have to describe a complete course of Eastern front events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The relevant sentence is: "The German Wehrmacht pushed deep into Soviet territory; soon, Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Baltic states were under German occupation, and Soviet refugees were flooding into Moscow and Leningrad". This doesn't mention Stalin. I think it would be better to say "...soon, Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Baltic states were under German occupation, and Leningrad was under siege...".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Soon — is this the best word to use in "...soon, Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Baltic states were under German occupation..."? The invasion started on 22 June; Kiev fell 19 September; Kharkov fell 24 October; Sevastopol (though not in Ukraine at this time) fell on 4 July 1942. That's not "soon" compared with the Fall of France or the Battle of Singapore. You could say "within months", but this is a bit vague and underwhelming.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in their joint invasion of Poland. was not a joint invasion they invaded On the 17th of September

Polish armed forces hoped to hold out long enough so that an offensive could be mounted against Germany in the west, but on September 17 Soviet forces invaded from the east and all hope was lost. The next day, Poland’s government and military leaders fled the country. On September 28, the Warsaw garrison finally surrendered to a relentless German siege. That day, Germany and the USSR concluded an agreement outlining their zones of occupation. For the fourth time in its history, Poland was partitioned by its more powerful neighborsJack90s15 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-invade-poland

That implies Fall Weiss was the joint invasion of the three states, which is obviously not true. Fall Weiss was an exclusively German plan, and the USSR was not informed about its details (even about the start date). In 8 September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

so I will fix it to say the 17th they invaded Jack90s15 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not fully correct. Neither the pact nor its secret protocol stipulated Nazi or Soviet invasion of Poland. According to Roberts, Stalin didn't take any obligation to invade Poland. In reality, the pact just outlined spheres of influence (the line Germany was not supposed to cross during its eastern expansion). It could be quite possible that, had Britain or France provided ma real support to Poland, and had Polish resistance not been broken so quickly, the Soviet Union would abstain from any actions. During then first half of September, Stalin was definitely waiting, and his actions strongly depended on the course of the events. He started preparation for invasion only when it became clear that Poland had been essentially defeated, and Britain and France provide no real support for it; in his telegram on Sept 8, Ribbentrop requested Stalin to invade Poland and threatened that if there would be no actions from the Soviet side, Germany would invade the "Soviet" part of Poland.

In connection to that, it would be correct to say about MRP as a neutrality pact that stipulated division of Eastern Europe on "spheres of influence". September invasion by the USSR did not follow directly from this pact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

consensus has in it was not a Joint invasion But I am glad we could work this out @Midnightblueowl:Jack90s15 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here, Jack90s15. I mean, there's barely been any discussion! But that being said I agree with your basic statement that referring to a "joint" invasion is misleading; rather there were two separate invasions, one German, the other Soviet. Thus, I think that simply referring to the Soviet invasion in the lead (and not mentioning the German one) is perfectly fine, and probably an improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead

1. The lead says: "He ruled the Soviet Union from the mid–1920s until his death in 1953, holding the titles of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1952 and the nation's Premier from 1941 to 1953. Initially presiding over an oligarchic one-party system that governed by plurality, he became the de facto dictator of the Soviet Union by the 1930s." I wonder if it would be better to say: "After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin established himself as Lenin's successor, ruling the Soviet Union until his death in 1953. Initially presiding over an oligarchic one-party system that governed by plurality, he became the de facto dictator by the 1930s, while officially holding the posts of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Premier (1941–1953)." I think this would compact the information, without giving confusing dates. This was prompted by an editor changing mid-1920s to 1922.
2. "protection rackets": was he really running protection rackets or actually protecting people? Montefiore suggests he was protecting Armenians from rape and murder.
3. "one-party state": other parties weren't banned till the Brezhnev era. Most parties had chosen the wrong side in the civil war and effectively banned themselves.
4. "Lenin's new Communist Party": the Bolsheviks had changed their name, but there was no new party. The text suggests that Stalin had joined the Labour Party and then joined the CP in 1917. This is very misleading for an uninformed reader.
5. "Lenin's New Economic Policy was replaced with a centralized command economy": this could suggest that Lenin would have been opposed to a planned economy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about everything you say in point one. Your proposed wording would entail lengthening the first paragraph, and if anything, it could do with being shortened (compare it, for instance, with the length of the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela articles). Using wording like "After Lenin's death in 1924" in the opening sentence raises the concern that at that juncture the article hasn't actually introduced who Lenin is, so we would have to do so, and that would just add on another five or six words. However, I'm sympathetic to changing the prose to "Initially presiding over an oligarchic one-party system that governed by plurality, he became the de facto dictator by the 1930s, while officially holding the posts of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Premier (1941–1953)." That is more concise and reader-friendly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

On point two, I am given to understand that Stalin was running 'protection rackets' in the sense of extracting money from businesses. He was also trying to keep warring ethnic groups away from each other, but those were two separate things. On point three, we could perhaps say "de facto one-party state" but I'm not sure it's necessary (I'm concerned about this lead getting any longer than it already is). To ignore any mention of the "one-party state" would, I think, do the reader a disservice as most readers (now and presumably in the future) will be more familiar with multi-party democratic states and might assume that that is what the Soviet Union was. On point four, I can see your point and perhaps we should reword this; however I think that it is important to clarify what the Communist Party was at this juncture. "Newly renamed" or something, perhaps? On point five, I'm not really sure that it implies what you believe it does; this could, however, be very simply remedied by removing "Lenin's". To be honest, we could even remove "New Economic Policy" and simply state "Stalin introduced a centralized command economy" or something like that. I don't see any pressing issue why we need to even mention the NEP here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

1. I was trying to shorten and simplify the first para, but perhaps introducing Lenin doesn't help. (I would also question whether the USSR should be called a "nation".) 4. I would agree with "newly renamed" or just "renamed". 5. I think it would be better not to mention the NEP, as it's really a distraction here.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We could call the Soviet Union a "state" rather than a "nation"? I'm happy to see mention of the NEP scrapped from the lead, unless any other editors have any objections? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland, there doesn't seem to be any criticism of the agreed changes forthcoming, so feel free to make the suggested changes to the lead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. I have had to change the text about the economy so that it flows. I hope this is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, Jack. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Major in third paragraph of introduction

In the third paragraph of the introduction it states that the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union led to the Soviet invasion of Poland (in 1939). Every account I have ever read indicates that it was Germany that invaded Poland in 1939, not the Soviets. This is a critical error which is hard to understand to have not been noticed until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:8382:807E:822:7274:BCF9:937D (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the article Soviet invasion of Poland. Favonian (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. Actually, the main point the IP is trying to make is exactly what some reputable authors, for example Geoffrey Roberts say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, it should be rewritten. As it stands it is misleading. It was changed from "joint invasion" to "Soviet invasion" a month ago (see discussion above). Perhaps we could say "the partition of Poland in 1939".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably stick with the present wording, at least until a better alternative is presented. I'm not sure that "partition of Poland" quite captures the way in which a sovereign state was invaded and occupied. "Partition" here makes me think in particular of the Partition of India and Pakistan, which was quite a different scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, "partition" is routinely used in the context of the First Polish republic, and this term is used to describe division of Poland among three different powers, Austria, Prussia and Russia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Further Reading

Presently the further reading section is missing the two biographies of stalin written by Ludo Martens and J. T. Murphy.213.65.195.254 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

His name

Not Joseph. Either Yoseb (g) or Yosif (r). Joseph would be English. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.56.14 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Darwin

How come there's nothing about how when Stalin was a teenager he converted to atheism after reading Darwins the origin of species?110.74.199.28 (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is mentioned in Early life of Joseph Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Stalin smuggling out Lenin

In the section about events in 1917, the article has Stalin masterminding Lenin's movements after he had gone into hiding in July that year, secretly moving him between different apartments and finally engineering the leader's escape to Razliv in Finland. These events became a familiar part of the "Lenin legend" in the USSR, with the daring and mettlesome leader playing hide-and-seek with the police, and of course Stalin wanted to cast himself as Lenin's closest ally and assistant at that point, but his role has long been seen as a piece of mythology. Michael Pearson's The Sealed Train and Robert Service's books on Lenin (two of the best-known and most thorough researchers on Lenin and the revolution) do not bring Stalin into the equation here: he was not Lenin's go-to man or security man.

Montefiore has a penchant for repeating colourful and racy stories about famous people even when they have long been discredited (his book on the Romanov dynasty abounds in that sort of thing, plus numerous errors of fact) and I fear this is just one more example of his credulity. 83.251.161.58 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be sourced to several authors.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, two more recent books including Khlevniuk's (and looking at reviews of his book at Amazon, it seems to be a literary book rather than a tightly researched study, and also written in a very convoluted manner). I still think it sounds iffy. During Stalin's years in power the events of 1917-18 and before were "rewritten" and people's testimonies and memoirs rearranged, or in many cases old veterans from the early days of the revolution would willingly toss in that they had seen Stalin at this or that iconic moment, in order to reinforce his link with Lenin and his central role in the revolution. It was the expected thing to say, there are loads of these "true stories" written by people in the Stalin years to survive and some of this probably still lives on with some Russian historians. In the west, serious historians have long taken the view that Stalin wasn't a particularly prominent guy in 1917. After the revolution he became junior minister for ethnic/nationality questions but he was still just working his way up the lower rungs of the ladder.

I'll have a look at a couple of other Stalin and Lenin biographies but I suspect many of them won't credit Stalin with the feat of managing Lenin's paths in and out of places of hiding, and at the very least the article should probably say that the matter is very contested and denied by many leading biographers and experts on the Russian revolution. 83.254.129.106 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You would probably need to provide biographies and historical studies that specifically challenge the claims were we to do that. Bear in mind that many Western biographers used to minimise Stalin's role pre-1917 in large part because Trotsky had sought to minimise Stalin's role in his publications, which were widely available in the West. More recent historical research since the opening of the archives has tended to accord Stalin a more prominent place in the Bolshevik movement during those years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Stalin's self-identification

Stalin was, above all, a political animal and any claims or statements he may have made about his ethnic or national self-identification cannot be viewed in vacuum; the political context must be considered and noted, which is precisely what I have done. Time magazine is a reputable source for such context, and much more appropriate than Rieber's work, which came half a century after-the-fact and provides no references as to where he got that exact quote. If you want to somehow keep both references, I am open to suggestions; however, please do not delete mine, as it provides much needed context for an otherwise nebulous claim.--Polinarok (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Your edit includes your own personal commentary on what the source says ("His self-identification could be even more flexible depending on circumstances and political expedience") as well as the removal of material sourced to an academic study of Stalin. It wasn't an improvement. Moreover, you shouldn't make false claims (as you did in this edit summary) to justify your edits and you really shouldn't edit war to impose your controversial addition into an article. I appreciate that you are quite new to Wikipedia, but that's not how it works here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not make any false statements. I looked at Rieber's work and he does not provide a reference for where he got that exact quote. As I said, I'm not going to take someone's word just because they are published by Cambridge University. My reference provides context for an otherwise ambiguous claim. An Encyclopaedia should not just parrot what Stalin said and just take it for its face value.--Polinarok (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Polinarok, you have been warned by multiple editors now. Stop edit warring on this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I retract my statement about you making a false claim; I misunderstood what you were trying to convey with your edit summary. By "not in source" I thought you were claiming that the Stalin quote was not in Rieber page 18 (which it most certainly is). Generally speaking, that would be what someone would mean by "not in source" at Wikipedia but I appreciate that you are quite new here and not necessarily up to scratch on all our jargon. I've gone back to the Rieber source again and you are correct that Rieber does not actually give a clear, direct citation for the Stalin quote. Several sentences on Rieber cites Trotsky's book Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence (pages 1, 2, 417, 420) and it may well be that the Stalin quote comes originally from there; I don't have said volume to check at the present time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies but you have not provided any valid reasons why the current text, in its very vague form, needs to remain. "It's been there for a long time" is not a valid reason. The claims made in that quote require some context - they are not something that you simply drop into text and walk away from. If you don't like what I added, feel free to contextualize the given information in some other way. One thing we cannot do is take Stalin's words for their face value.--Polinarok (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

I can appreciate your point. It's not unreasonable. My concern, however, is whether the Time magazine article actually supports the text that you are adding. The article is locked behind a paywall and at present I do not have access. Bare in mind the policies regarding WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the proposed addition doesn't add much to the article. It is merely primary source material which confirms that Stalin identified as Asiatic. Since the essential point is not in dispute, I don't think there's much of a case to add to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

What the source shows is that Stalin made a statement to that effect, now I am trying to provide background on the said statement, instead of taking the word of a manipulative autocrat for its face value. If Putin was quoted on something, you bet there would a few other sources explaining the situation and possible motivations. Lastly, we don't even know where the exact quote came from and what it originally looked like because Rieber doesn't tell us. I think the best compromise would be to not use the exact quote and instead convey its meaning in more general terms and explain the context in which these statements were made.--Polinarok (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

I have read the Time article. It's first paragraph is:

Russia is an Asiatic country, and I myself am an Asiatic, Joseph Stalin once told a Japanese diplomat. "Our country is both European and Asiatic. The largest part of our territory lies on the Asian continent." said roly-poly First Party Secretary Khrushchev five months ago in India. Last week Stalin's heirs were showing increasing determination to make Asians out of millions of other Russians.

The article goes on to talk about plans to develop Siberia after Stalin's death, including the Virgin Lands Campaign and the Northern river reversal. I don't think this supports the claim that Stalin spoke against the "backdrop of greater Soviet involvement in the Far East" (and that is misleading piping). Stalin's comment is just used to preface the article. There is no suggestion in the article that he was being "manipulative" or that his self-identification was "flexible". And I disagree that every statement by Stalin or Putin has to be analysed and critiqued. Speculating about "possible motivations" is unhelpful and open to bias. If there is some substantial commentary on the issue, yes, it could be added, but if not, we should just have the statement, and readers can decide if they accept it at face value or not.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Trotsky's book is available online — https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/stalin/index.htm — but I can't see the quote in it.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Even if you find Stalin to be genuine and trustworthy, the fact is that we have no evidence to substantiate the exact quote that is given by the author. In these circumstances it is prudent to drop the exact quote and, at most, briefly conveying this sentiment in more general terms, which will be less open to scrutiny.--Polinarok (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Also, I don't see why it is so important to include this quote under "Personal life". Did it play a formative role in Stalin's life? Or was he just trying to please Japanese diplomat? It's something he appears to have said at most once. Its best moved up in the article as a side note to where Lenin expresses similar sentiments.--Polinarok (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Firstly, there is clearly no consensus for this change, so I have reverted it. The quote belongs under "Personal life and characteristics" with the discussion of his Georgian identity etc. Your edit makes a false connection between a comment by Lenin and this quote. And I don't see why Time is a better source than Rieber. And I don't see why you doubt the quote. We have two sources, though the details they give are slightly different. It is a fact that Georgian is on the crossroads of Europe and Asia (to the west of Turkey). So there is nothing untrustworthy about Stalin using the term "Asian" or "Asiatic" about himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least we now know what this was all about.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)