I know historical hindsight is 20/20, but how did no one bully this guy into giving up his moronic “de-stalinisation” policy? Like the SU was built by Stalin and now suddenly hes satan incarnate? No wonder SU citizens lost faith in the party over time, how can you trust a bunch weather vanes?
I don’t remember the source, but I always think back to that Stalin quote where he said he felt like a cult of personality was being built around him, with the aim that it would be used against him eventually. It seems like his suspicions were true, since that is exactly what happened after his death.
Reading about things like him being referenced in the national anthem, or the naming of Stalingrad, as a couple examples, there’s always a note that he objected to it before it was approved over his objection. Of course that’s usually portrayed as him putting on a show after ordering the things himself, but it seems to line up with the idea that it wasn’t being pushed by him, since he’s noted as disapproving of those kinds of things every time I’ve read about them.
Something I’ve noticed about how bourgeois historians treat Stalin is how they always assume the worst motives without any basis other than he must have always had the worst motives. I’m not talking about the hardcore “Stalin was a totalitarian monster” types, I mean the historians who actually try to be reasonable and even-handed. But even they just assume yeah, Stalin must’ve orchestrated all that. And they have no basis for that assumption, other than just “we have to assume the worst about Stalin at all times because he’s Stalin”.
the more i’ve read the more i believe he was positively riddled with stress and anxiety over that kind of stuff
he knew where it was leading and there was nothing he could do to stop it. he didn’t seem to be enjoying it at all