This is Hector,

Stalin was brutal, that is true. However, comparing him to Hitler is completely ridiculous. Stalin was against the Russian Orthodox Church, and as was noted correctly he did kill priests. Since these priests were mostly connected to the emigre White movement, as far as I'm concerned they deserved it. It is also true that Stalin adopted anti-semitism and Russian chauvinism over non-Russian people's in the USSR, and this was totally against everything the Bolshevik program stood for, which was egalitarianism. But Stalin did not have a racist policy of extermination like Hitler did. Hell, if anything Hitler was more like the U.S and British governments. U.S treatment of black people and and Japanese Americans which also included in the amred forces. Or British enslavement of India.

Furthermore, as I've explained before, Stalin was a sellout to Communist principles. The Great Purges, Stalin murdered thousands of dedicated Communists including those who fought against the U.S led invasion in the Russian Civil War, and good comrades who fought against Franco fascist forces in Spain backed by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, USA, and Great Britain. So if anything, the imperialists should be thankful to Stalin. His traitorous program of peaceful co-existence with the capitalists kept Communist revolutions from occuring abroad. But of course, I seriously doubt Goble or anyone else at "La Russophobe" will ever condemn Stalin for killing Communists.

LONG LIVE THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION!

RE: ...“Tserkovniy vestnik” describes how difficult it was for Golovkova to get behind the blinds drawn by history and by those who still are not prepared to acknowledge the crimes of the Soviet system against the Church and ordinary citizens.

What is the goal of this another LR's "Blah-Blah-Blah" other than "Blah-Blah-Blah" on the old well studied topic? Runing out of fresh material or swear words for Putin?

I have read through the link-pointed material and could not find ahything saying that Golodcova's research was somehow obstructed. It looks like she got the necessary assistanse from the authorities and access to the wast archived material.
I also do not understand who are those not prepared to acknowledge the crimes of the Soviet system against the Church and ordinary citizens.
All those crimes are well known.
Some of the Stalin executioner were themself sentenced or executed after Khrushchev's report on 20-th CPSU Congress in 1956.
Stalin's monuments were removed, the cities, towns and collective farms named after him renamed. The victims of the regime were released from the prisons and camps, their sentences, as well as the ones of those who had been executed or died were reviewed and they were acquitted and rehabilitated.
After 1987 (Perestroyka, Gorbachev) all the archives were open to researchers and journalists willing to study this period of Russian history.
The innocent prisoners who perished during that tragic period are remembered. Temples and monuments erected to remind about the victims. There are a lot of literature published about that time. No secrets. The LR link to "Ogonyok" is a characteristic one. "Ogonyok" is a popular Russian weekly magazine with huge circulation. The issue cited by LR is a fresh one, dated May 20, 2007, and as you can see it is not shy to speak about Stalin regime crimes, and KGB-Russian Orthodox Church ties.
So, what else La Russophobe can find about Stalin, to be new, unknown?
Well, this is Kim. And she can. As she says, Stalin was pursuing social engineering projects and killed poor handicapped people ("invalids" in the text) just to get a better stronger race out of Russian nationals. Same as Hitler did, but even worse. As a group. Reading her comments and the title, one can think Stalin targeted handicapped people arrested and killed them just for having physical defects. What a BS!
She should read the text better. Even if believe that the information in the cited article is all correct, it is quite clear from the quotation given in LR's comment, that people were FIRST arrested for political crimes real or supposed, (like anti-Soviet propaganda, spying, sabotage, whatever). Regardless of their disability, like scores of other political prisoners. And THEN, only when the prisons become overcrowded some of them were executed. So there was no such a plan or intention to exterminate the handicapped people. No eugenic projects.
In the Butovo site more than 20500 people were executed and only 1600 of them were handicapped people, which is close to the regular percentage of the handicapped.

No difference between Stalin and Hitler in terms of murderousness? Wow. I'm in shock. Never knew that. Nominate the man for a Nobel Prize, fast!

Brilliant, simply brilliant.

Could we get Paul Goble to analyze whether the sun rises in the East or not? Maybe he could elucidate the still unresolved question on whether the stars circle the Earth or not...

He seems to be of overwhelming intellectual forte.

Wrong, Russophobe.

There were big differences between Stalin and Hitler.

Hitler caused the most bloody, destructive war in history, the Second World War.

Stalin did not.

In fact, Stalin offered Great Britain and France an alliance that some anti-Nazis in the German Foreign Ministry believed would have detered Hitler attacking Poland, if the British and French governments had accepted it.

Therefore they were different.

And further, Stalin did not kill more Russians than Hitler.

Stalin DID cause World War II, by making a secret pact with Hitler that made Hitler bold enough to attack the rest of Europe, believing Russia would not respond. Russia got slave territory from Germany in Eastern Europe as part of the deal.

Stalin murdered at least 20 million Russians. Hitler's soldiders killed no more than that in their invasion of Russia. I'm disappointed that those claiming Stalin was not as murderous as Hitler make no effort whatsoever to document their facts before accusing this blog of inaccuracy. You can't expect to be taken serious or to alter our editorial view just by spouting off your own unsupported personal opinions.

Moreover, if Stalin only murdered 50% as many Russians as Hitler, would that be a reason for Russians to respect him, and sing his song for their national anthem? I'd think Russians would be at least a little annoyed at somebody killing millions of Russians, given how mad they get when a foreigner simply goes as far as to insult them. But then, maybe that is why Russia is a failing, doomed nation.

Evidence of Soviet barbaric murder is easy to find and known by all outside Russia:

But from 1918 to 1953, the Soviet government executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or tortured to death, or otherwise killed 39,500,000 of its own people (my best estimate among figures ranging from a minimum of twenty million killed by Stalin to a total over the whole communist period of eighty-three million).

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM

Soviet Union leads list in civilians killed by government at over 60 million, with China in second place at just over 35 million.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html

Soviet deaths at the hands of foreign powers from all sources were just over 20 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country

Interestingly, last link above shows that both Lithuania and Poland had World War II casualty rates higher than that of Russia, which many people think suffered the most during Hitler's reign of terror, which Russians played a key role in causing with their secret deal selling out their allies.

Russia today refuses to acknowledge the Holodomor, the Artificial Famine in Ukraine.

I find it astonishing that any human being would come out, dripping with some sort of attempted sarcasm, and say there is no need to talk about Stalin because there is nothing "new."

In Russia, it was forbidden to criticize Stalin, their "leader, their teacher, their father."

Same attitude today.

I find it disturbing that someone would suggest that Stalin is better or different from Hitler because Stalin "was against the Russian Orthodox Church and killed priests."

Any human being would condemn the actions of Stalin, and make sure that such a thing does not happen again, and learn the lessons of history.

Not so with russkies - they get their back hairs up, because "how dare anyone criticize anything in russkie land?"

Of course, how often have I heard stupid russkies scream "Stalin was Georgian, blame Georgia."

Sick, sick russkies.

Stalin's crimes are well known?'

Stalin did not carry out those crimes himself.

And today, russkies still carry icons of Stalin around their necks, and moan and groan about the lack of "stabilnost."

There was and is no difference between Nazis and Sovoks, between Hitler and Stalin.

Only russkies refuse to acknowledge it.

I expect that the Oily Mother Russia Orthodox Pravoslavnaya Church will soon make Stalin a saint.

Just like they do with all of their murdering rulers.

"Stalin DID cause World War II, by making a secret pact"

False. The Pact was no secret at all. Ribbentrop's arrival was global news. And that pact did not cause WWII. Hitler did.

"..with Hitler that made Hitler bold enough to attack the rest of Europe."

If the M-R Pact of 23 August 1939 made Hitler bold enough to attack the rest of Europe, as you say, why did Hitler cancel the attack on Poland, scheduled for 26 August 1939, in the evening of 25 August 1939?

"...believing Russia would not respond."

Colonel-General Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff at the outbreak of WWII, was fully confident of crushing the Polish armed forces before the Red Army could intervene. He was also confident of defeating the Red Army if they did. But if, as you maintain, Hitler believed the USSR would not intervene, why did Hitler cancel the attack on Poland scheduled for 26 August, late in the evening of 25 August, after the M-R Pact had been signed?

"Russia got slave territory from Germany in Eastern Europe as part of the deal."

In mid-September 1939, German General Guderian sent 1 regiment to capture the Polish fortress of Brest, which it did over the course of one morning.

In Soviet hands, that same fortress conducted a prolonged defense, costing German 45th Infantry Division 22 officers and 290 men killed in action *on the first day of the war*.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!

Little sovok shows up to give pee on everyone's leg and tell us it's raining.

Although officially labeled a "non-aggression treaty", the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact included a secret protocol, in which the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were divided into spheres of interest of the parties. The secret protocol explicitly assumed "territorial and political rearrangements" in the areas of these countries. Subsequently all the mentioned countries were invaded, occupied or forced to cede part of their territory to either the Soviet Union, Germany, or both.

For the Soviet Union, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a much-needed response to the deterioration of the European security situation in the latter half of the 1930s, as Nazi Germany, aligned with Fascist Italy in the Axis Powers, aimed to reverse the disadvantageous Treaty of Versailles after World War I. In addition, the ongoing Nomonhan Incident, culminating in the Battle of Halhin Gol, may have been a significant consideration for the Soviets for whom a two-front war was an anathema. The pact may in fact have influenced the Japanese to seek a cease-fire two weeks after the pact's announcement.

For its part, the Soviet Union was not interested in maintaining a status quo, which it saw as disadvantageous to its interests, deriving as it did from the period of Soviet weakness immediately following the 1917 October Revolution and Russian Civil War. Helping Germany grow strong had accordingly been Soviet policy from 1920 to 1933. A fourth partition of Poland was suggested at regular intervals, satisfying Lenin's imperative that Versailles be undermined by destroying Poland. Once Hitler renounced the military cooperation between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia that Hans von Seeckt had arranged, Stalin adopted the popular front policy, trying to draw the Western powers into war with Germany.

Soviet leaders adopted the position that war between what they characterized as rival imperialist countries was not only an inevitable consequence of capitalism, but by weakening the participants would also enhance conditions for the spread of Communism. This strategy worked out well for the victorious Soviets, who spread Communism into eastern Europe after the countries were weakened during World War II.

The bottom line is:

Stalin = Hitler

And Hitler = Stalin.

Except that sick, little schizoid russkies refuse to come to terms with their deplorable system of government.

"Hurt us better" seems to be their motto.

The secret protocols to the Stalin-Hitler pact do constitute a secret pact idiot.

The fought so hard as shown by these photos:

http://www.kojinshugi.com/naziparade.htm

Yes they look to be fighting hard.

Soviet Socialist, National Socialists two sides of the same coin.

The Pact was not secret. It had articles that were secret. Get your terminology straight.

And LR claimed that the Pact "made Hitler bold enough to attack the rest of Europe". Again, if that is so, why did Hitler cancel the attack on Poland two days after the Pact was signed? Could it be that the attack on Poland depended on something other than Molotov's signature on the Pact, contrary to the impression given here? It appears so, and labeling correct views as "sovok" is a pretty limp response.

"Soviet Socialist, National Socialists two sides of the same coin."

Hm. That's interesting. But if that's so, please tell me why it was that every non-Socialist party, including the Catholic "Center Party", voted in favor of the Enabling Act, the legislation that gave Hitler the power to rule by decree? Dosen't seem odd that a political party representing the political interests of the Catholic Church in Germany would vote to give unlimited power to a Socialist?

What elmer says is in no way a surprise. The guy learn the History of “sovok” from his mom and dad who used to live in the USSR. Mostly from his mom, I think. Actually, “pee on his leg”, as he says, is not what he needs. He needs some in his eyes to make his vision clearer.
But La Russophobe?! She is supposed to be a smart cookie! How this intelligent lady could say that Stalin started the World War -II ?!

OK la Russophobe… I am fond of dispersing “the fog of ignorance” in the some people minds.

As you may know, The European prewar situation was a complex game with 3 parties to play.
Germany, France-Britain and the USSR.
Hitler in his early work “Mein Kampf” made clear about what he wanted. And he wanted living space for Germany on expense of Soviet Russia. He also planned to annex Poland and the Baltic states. He called it “Drang nah Osten”-Marching to the East. So he was the main aggressor with territorial claims.

France and Britain did not like Hitler, and hated the USSR. They knew about Hitler‘s plans “to go East” and they wanted him to attack the USSR.
France and Britain pursued the “policy of appeasement” of Germany to direct Hitler's aggression against the USSR

Poland first signed Polish-German Non-aggression Pact of January 1934. This pact proved a great advantage to Hitler four years later when he could move against Austria and Czechoslovakia without fear of Polish intervention. Poland's motives were mainly uneasiness about the Soviet Union. In October 1938, Poland together with Germany participated in partition of Chechoslovakia: the helpless Prague government had to cede Teschen as the result of a Polish ultimatum.

Soviet Union did not have territorial disputes and claims (other than Bessarabia, occupied by Romania in 1918), and it was not an issue the USSR was pursuing. It was the state driven by ideological motives. The goal was to spread the communist ideology worldwide and the establishment of a World Union of Socialist Soviet republics."
This goal was be achieved trough support of Communist uprisings and strikes throughout the world, but not by the means of military force. For that the USSR created Comintern (was dismissed in 1942, under the allies USA and Britain pressure).
So, the USSR was a kind of “ideological aggressor” like the USA now, with George Bush messianic views.

Communists and fascists were bitter enemies, total antipodes, and the Soviet Union was the first force in the world to fight fascism (in Spain, 1935-36). In 1938 the USSR offered military assistance to Czechoslovakia against Germany, but the Czechs feared that accepting only Soviet aid could convert their country in a battlefield with unacceptable level of destruction and casualties. They dared not fight alone if the British and French washed their hands of them, which they did.
Soviet Union tried to create an anti-fascist alliance with European countries, namely France and Britain . But Prime Minister Chamberlain, leader of the Western Allies, was in no hurry to talk to the Soviets. He simply did not believe in the value of a military alliance with Soviet Russia. In a private letter he even asserted: "I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives..."
Chamberlain was not alone in his distrust. The Poles actually hated the Soviets... As a result, Poland, along with Britain, had thus far refused all Soviet offers to discuss joint military action in the event of further Nazi aggression. This rejection encouraged Stalin to negotiate with the Nazis.

Had the USSR not signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the events would most likely go the following way:
Germany attacks Poland. Britain and France do nothing to help the Poles. They want Hitler to go farther East. Germany occupies the whole Poland, and than invades the USSR. France and Britain watching and waiting. German with their superior military force advanced deep into Russian territory but the war would become dragging and exausting for fighting sides, because of the huge Soviet territorial and human resourses. The allies enter the war when both Germany and USSR got totally exausted. Most likely it would be British invasion from Iran to the Soviet Transcaucasia to occupy oil-rich Baku region to deny Germany from that sourse of oil. Allies would advance on the occupied by Germans Russian territiry to fight Germans back, and be able to dictate their terms to the Russian Government.
So Stalin made a smart move. He turned the fascist agressin against the ones who wanted it against Russia, and won some time to get prepared for the war.

For elmer: Do not listen to your mom, read here:
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/hitler/lectures/nazisoviet.html

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-pact.htm

russkies know no bounds when it comes to LYING, and "russian" is no exception.

Bolshevism and Communism were spread through the use of VIOLENCE.

From the very start.

And, outside of Russia, it was spread through the use of VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, and THREATS.

The sovoks found the most loathsome, stupid gang types that they could - in order to beat up, intimidate, threaten and otherwise "convince" people to "convert" to communism.

It was the same all over.

In Ukraine, it was spread through forced collectivization and the HOLODOMOR, which Stalin used to spread Russian Communism.

And WWII became a convenient excuse for sovok army thugs to occupy assorted countries throughout Europe, and then claim that people "invited" the "liberators" to stay.

All throughout Europe, people wanted to be free of the russkie sovok liberators.

But the russkie sovok "liberators" were no different from Hitler.

One miserable deranged thug, Hitler = another miserable deranged thug, Stalin.

Except that the one that the russkies imported, and his successors, killed far more Russians and non-Russians.

This is Hector,

Stalin started WWII because he made a pact with Hitler? That's hilarious. The point of the Hilter-Stalin pact was non-aggression: peaceful co-existence. I can't for the life of me figure out how this was resposible for the interimperialist war between the U.S and Japanese imperialists, or the western and fascist imperialists.

Elmer, you've used the word "sovok" countless times. I can tell its a derogatory term for a Russian, but what is its orgin and meaning exactly? Or is this a word you invented?

Stalin and Hitler were not and are not miserable people. They are written in Annals of History as great leaders who were shaking the world.
You know who was chosen as the #1 Person of the Second Millenium? Chingiz Khan. And now Mongols are going to errect a huge monument to their great lider. Hitler and Stalin were the other contestants.
Interestingly that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson fell far behind.

So, you are the miserable one. Spiritually you are a beggar. You lost your language, cultural roots, and have not got a complete relpacement of what you lost.

This is why you spit towards "russkie"-s.

As about "Glodomor" here is some home reading for you (if you can not read in Russian, ask your mom)
http://www.regnum.ru/#full830148

Hi Hector!

elmer is not that smart to invent something. He just learned from his mom who emigrated from Russia.
The word "sovok" (which means "a scoop" or "a trowel") was used by the West-admired Russians in the end of 80-th through 90-th (the time of the Soviet Union's end and a decade after) to show a snobbish attitude of the speaker towards all that can be called "soviet".
It came to usage because assonant to the word "soviet".
The word has two common usages:
1. A soviet man or woman(also homo soveticus) poor, unsophisticated, uncivilized, suffering from lack of cars, jeans and toilet paper, having inferiority complex when encounters the Westerners and the Western Civilization (which has the surplus of cars, jeans and toilet paper as the speaker sees it).
Ex. He is such a sovok.

2. The Soviet Union.
Ex. They in sovok can not afford buying a used Honda Accord like us…

It is not much in use in Russia today but still a popular word among the Russian immigrants in the USA, who came in 90-es.

Besides the many differences outlined above, there is one major, huge difference between the two men.

Stalin was not an ideologue. Stalin was just a man of great determination and will who wanted power for its own sake. He didn't care about perfecting or expanding communism; he saw himself as a new sort of Czar and Russia as his empire. Faced with a choice between the continuation of the communist system and the continuation of his rule, it's hard to imagine Stalin even hesitating in choosing the latter.

Hitler was something else entirely. Hitler actually believed in Nazism. He sought power, not for personal aggrandizement, but because he was a fanatical devotee of his own warped ideology.

Basically it boils down to this: Nazi Germany was the realization of the Nazi dream, while it lasted; whereas Stalin's Russia was the destruction of the communist dream.