I have this “friend” that likes to parrot that “StAlIn wAs As BaD aS HiTlEr” bullshit. Last time he brought up something about Stalin killing 140k Ukrainian officers or some shit. I have no idea what the full details is about it. Does this shit sound familiar to anyone? I assume it’s some propaganda or something taken completely out of context. What’s the best source to read or perhaps listen too that goes into depth about Stalin’s history? The best thing I’ve listened to recently was the Revolutionary Left Radio podcasts episode on Stalin from the ML perspective and debunking a lot of shit but I want to go even more into it. I want to be able to crush this dipshit next time he tries to bring up any of that shit.
In this situation, I’d be tempted to do a bit of Socratic dialogue.
Probe and question.
140k. Okay. That sounds terrible. Let’s work this out. When? All at once? Over ten years? More? 140k officers? Wow. How big was the army to have so many officers. Is these were officers, was this during a war? Which one? What side were those Ukrainians on? How? With his bare hands? Or were they killed by Soviet soldiers? During combat? Or afterwards as prisoners of war?
They either give you some details and you can discuss them. (And ask more questions about the details.) Or they don’t. But if they don’t, there’s not much you can say. (You could still say you’re interested and ask them to come back with more details the next time you meet.)
The point here would not be to get at the truth (in one conversation, anyway). That would require going back to the sources and studying, then meeting up again to continue the discussion.
The point is to unravel the claim and get your “friend” to see that he needs to hold himself to a higher standard of rigour. And to see that unless he meets an appropriate standard, you’re not going to entertain sensationalism.
Stalin made mistakes. So if someone points out a mistake, it’s okay to acknowledge it, to analyse it. If it’s a real mistake. If it really happened.
If someone does point out a mistake, it’s an opportunity to bring them into the fold and subtly shift the framework: yeah, that was bad; what problem were the Soviets trying to solve? and how should they have solved it instead? do we face a similar problem today? how would we deal with it if it came up?
If the 140k were killed in a war, likely WWII, it’s an opportunity to state how terrible that war was and to follow up with questions about who started it, why, and how the Soviets responded, and what would your friend have done differently.
This way, you’ve moved the ground and can get the other person to see that even if ‘Stalin killed 140k Ukrainians’, he did not just go out and murder a random 140k people. At the very least, if it turns out that the details prove the event happened, your friend has got to admit that Stalin could not have done this alone… and then you’ve started to break down this idea that Stalin was a single-minded totalitarian despot who got his way at the click of a finger.
Ludo Martens’ Another View of Stalin is phenomenal. It gives detailed accounts of the turmoils that Stalin had to lead through, as well as explaining a lot of anti-communist talking points as either totally fabricated or issues that occured in spite of Stalin’s leadership instead of because of it.
Much of Grover Furr’s work is more reactive in its analyses, that being deconstructing myths one at a time in more of a bulleted list format. Khruschev Lied is still essential imo for debunking a lot of the myths.
I’m not sure I’ve heard of the 140k officer thing. It’s probably related to purges if I had to guess and this is a beautiful account of what purges actually were, who they were levied against and why, etc. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RbEmfzJeY48
Thanks so much comrade. That podcast episode I mentioned and some of the Proles of the round table go into the purges too. My “friend” has some real dogshit takes a lot of the time so I’m sure it’s just some bullshit. I also need to read up on the Ukraine pogroms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was somehow tied to those or other issues with the Ukrainian nationalists and he’s gonna end up defending fucking fascists.
My knowledge of the early stuff is just lacking and finding time to sit down and read about it has proven difficult. I hate that I’ve lived souch of my life ignorant and now I am trying to speed run learning what others have spend decades learning. At least with the podcasts stuff I can listen to it while I run and lift which is like, the one little thing I can do to keep myself in shape after work.
Absolutely. If you haven’t listened, some of the members of Proles of the Roundtable went on to create Invent the Future which is just as great a podcast.
Something that amazed me to learn (from Martens’ book) about the early USSR and early into Stalin’s leadership is that the Whites were very active throughout the countryside until like 1928, committing pogroms and burning down villages – in that sense the Russian Civil War went on for much longer than wikipedia or whatever would claim it did, and it’s also a prime example imo of important historical context being completely forgotten (intentionally or otherwise) in favor of anti-communist talking points. Dekulakization and the liquidation of certain aspects of the peasant class make a whole lot more sense with this context, but that doesn’t serve the prevailing narrative.
I have this “friend” that likes to parrot that “StAlIn wAs As BaD aS HiTlEr” bullshit. Last time he brought up something about Stalin killing 140k Ukrainian officers or some shit. I have no idea what the full details is about it. Does this shit sound familiar to anyone? I assume it’s some propaganda or something taken completely out of context. What’s the best source to read or perhaps listen too that goes into depth about Stalin’s history? The best thing I’ve listened to recently was the Revolutionary Left Radio podcasts episode on Stalin from the ML perspective and debunking a lot of shit but I want to go even more into it. I want to be able to crush this dipshit next time he tries to bring up any of that shit.
In this situation, I’d be tempted to do a bit of Socratic dialogue.
Probe and question.
140k. Okay. That sounds terrible. Let’s work this out. When? All at once? Over ten years? More? 140k officers? Wow. How big was the army to have so many officers. Is these were officers, was this during a war? Which one? What side were those Ukrainians on? How? With his bare hands? Or were they killed by Soviet soldiers? During combat? Or afterwards as prisoners of war?
They either give you some details and you can discuss them. (And ask more questions about the details.) Or they don’t. But if they don’t, there’s not much you can say. (You could still say you’re interested and ask them to come back with more details the next time you meet.)
The point here would not be to get at the truth (in one conversation, anyway). That would require going back to the sources and studying, then meeting up again to continue the discussion.
The point is to unravel the claim and get your “friend” to see that he needs to hold himself to a higher standard of rigour. And to see that unless he meets an appropriate standard, you’re not going to entertain sensationalism.
Stalin made mistakes. So if someone points out a mistake, it’s okay to acknowledge it, to analyse it. If it’s a real mistake. If it really happened.
If someone does point out a mistake, it’s an opportunity to bring them into the fold and subtly shift the framework: yeah, that was bad; what problem were the Soviets trying to solve? and how should they have solved it instead? do we face a similar problem today? how would we deal with it if it came up?
If the 140k were killed in a war, likely WWII, it’s an opportunity to state how terrible that war was and to follow up with questions about who started it, why, and how the Soviets responded, and what would your friend have done differently.
This way, you’ve moved the ground and can get the other person to see that even if ‘Stalin killed 140k Ukrainians’, he did not just go out and murder a random 140k people. At the very least, if it turns out that the details prove the event happened, your friend has got to admit that Stalin could not have done this alone… and then you’ve started to break down this idea that Stalin was a single-minded totalitarian despot who got his way at the click of a finger.
Ludo Martens’ Another View of Stalin is phenomenal. It gives detailed accounts of the turmoils that Stalin had to lead through, as well as explaining a lot of anti-communist talking points as either totally fabricated or issues that occured in spite of Stalin’s leadership instead of because of it.
Much of Grover Furr’s work is more reactive in its analyses, that being deconstructing myths one at a time in more of a bulleted list format. Khruschev Lied is still essential imo for debunking a lot of the myths.
I’m not sure I’ve heard of the 140k officer thing. It’s probably related to purges if I had to guess and this is a beautiful account of what purges actually were, who they were levied against and why, etc. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RbEmfzJeY48
Thanks so much comrade. That podcast episode I mentioned and some of the Proles of the round table go into the purges too. My “friend” has some real dogshit takes a lot of the time so I’m sure it’s just some bullshit. I also need to read up on the Ukraine pogroms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was somehow tied to those or other issues with the Ukrainian nationalists and he’s gonna end up defending fucking fascists.
My knowledge of the early stuff is just lacking and finding time to sit down and read about it has proven difficult. I hate that I’ve lived souch of my life ignorant and now I am trying to speed run learning what others have spend decades learning. At least with the podcasts stuff I can listen to it while I run and lift which is like, the one little thing I can do to keep myself in shape after work.
Absolutely. If you haven’t listened, some of the members of Proles of the Roundtable went on to create Invent the Future which is just as great a podcast.
Something that amazed me to learn (from Martens’ book) about the early USSR and early into Stalin’s leadership is that the Whites were very active throughout the countryside until like 1928, committing pogroms and burning down villages – in that sense the Russian Civil War went on for much longer than wikipedia or whatever would claim it did, and it’s also a prime example imo of important historical context being completely forgotten (intentionally or otherwise) in favor of anti-communist talking points. Dekulakization and the liquidation of certain aspects of the peasant class make a whole lot more sense with this context, but that doesn’t serve the prevailing narrative.