STALIN and HITLER: Parallel Lives

[Vladimir_Ilich_Ulyanov]

Much people are sheep. They believe only what they are told by T.V. and other sheeps. Therefor, if one sheep say Stalin is bad, all sheeps say Stalin is bad. In this way does government keep people ignorant from truth. People only believe what they want to and the trick to get their beliving your position is change what they want. All it takes is convince one sheep, and others believe thing too. Such is how with Hitler also.

(P.N. Appoligys for my grammar, my brother is out.)

[judes101]

My feelings were echoed in those last few posts there! People are shockingly historically illiterate in the UK. I'm at an English school at the moment, and even though its an international school, I am the only person in my history class who is prepared to read between the lines about a person such as Stalin. Whilst most of my class believes only that he was and evil dictator who killed many people, I am the only one who recognises his strength as a leader and the importance of the role he played.
Thanx for the info about the TV shows Stalin, i'll be watching those next week (I have exams, but never mind...)

Judes L.

[_-_5TAL1N_-_]

Judes I totally agree with you, people in my school are also extremely ignorant and even show people like Saddam Hussein to excede Stalin, what utter non-sense. I just would like to see what Hussein achieved for his country - 1 thing; poverty. On the contrary Stalin led his nation to war and emerged victorious and upgraded his country considerably.
BEST REGARDS,
>>STALIN<<

[vorosilov]

Originally posted by _-_5TAL1N_-_
Voroshilov,
Yes that book is extremely good and please realise Lenin was absolutely against Stalin coming to power as he saw a defect in Stalin's character. Lenin even put that in his will which was found by Stalin and cleverly destroyed.
BEST REGARDS,
>>STALIN<<

Well, who did Lenin named as a leader in his will?
Trotzky, Kamenev, Zinovjev.
He must have not named Stalin, because Stalin allegedly destroyed the peace of paper. The peace of paper, what Lenin allegedly wrote after several of stroke attack. However, the other three did really wanted to read the testament? The Zinovjev/Kamenev duo was scared to death to think, that Trotzky would prevail. Trotzky was just as much affraid of them. They were just really hated each other.
It was just perfect for both side to have Stalin as General Secretary after Lenin's death. Nobody wanted to read that "peace of paper".

BEST REGARDS: STALIN

[_-_5TAL1N_-_]

Voroshilov,
To tell the facts Lenin's ideal hier was Trotsky, Trotsky had done so much for the Red Army and the Bolshevik party. The reason this was not fulfilled was due to Trotskys extreme ideal of world revolution which was not possible at that stage in Russia. Stalin used many manipulative techniques to gain support and put Trotsky into exile in Mexico and have him executed in 1940.
Best Regards,
>>STALIN<<

[vorosilov]

[quote]Originally posted by _-_5TAL1N_-_
[b]Voroshilov,
To tell the facts Lenin's ideal hier was Trotsky, Trotsky had done so much for the Red Army and the Bolshevik party.

DEAR STALIN,

The menshevik Trotzky was the arch enemy of the bolsheviks before the revolution. He joined the party in 1917. Lenin would have never named him as his successor. And remember, that the General Secretary was Stalin. There was no need to name anybody. Stalin allready had the power.

Please read ,what happened on the 13. party congress, where Lenin's last letter was made public.

BEST REGARDS: VOROSILOV

Ps: Trotzky was speaking a lot for the party, but Stalin was working for it.

[Edited by vorosilov on 29th November 2001 at 08:00]

[mastodon]

Trotsky was initially a 'mezhraiontsy.' Trotsky was more for the unification of the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. During the February Revolution, Trotsky was the head of the 'mezhraiontsy' movement which called for an immediate end to the war and revolution. This was, however, an off-shoot of Mensheviks.

Trotsky was most definitely a Menshevik.

I think Trotsky was more closely aligned with the Bolsheviks myself. When Trotsky first arrived in Russia after living in New York, one of the first things he did was defend the Bolsheviks against the Menshivik spokesman, Theodore Dan. Dan condemned the Bolsheviks for demonstrations and the like. At a meeting of all the parties in the Soviet, including the Bolsheviks, Dan proposed that no demonstrations were to be held without approval of the rest of the parties. Lenin had just organized an armed demonstration in Petrograd, but it was thwarted by the congress. Irakli Tsereteli argued that Dan's motion was too whimpy and the Bolsheviks should immediately be disarmed. Lenin chose not to attend this gathering so the Bolshevik case was argued by Trotsky. The following day, the socialists voted for the mild punishment proposed by Dan - a VERY significant turn in the Revolution, by the way. This meant that the Bolsheviks could claim that they acted on the behalf and in the interest of the soviets against alleged enemies.

Trotsky did draw a lot of fire from joining the party late. He wasn't liked because, as Vorosilov stated, he made plenty of ideological attacks on the Bolsheviks - not to mention Trotsky was very arrogant. However, Trotsky was an ideal complement to Lenin. Trotsky was brighter, more flamboyant, and a much better writer and speaker. Lenin's charisma and intrigue was limited to his followers, but Trotsky could woo the general public. The biggest hurdle that Trotsky had was his heritage - he was Jewish. Even prior to the Revolution, Jews in Russia were considered outsiders. During the Civil War, Trotsky was crucial. He was Lenin's right-hand man, but after victory had been won - Trotsky was cumbersome to the cause.

As Vorosilov has stated many times, the primary contenders for party leadership were: Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky, and Zinoviev.

I have rooted through some of my papers and found a quote of Lenin that many here might find interesting:

"Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated in his own hands unbounded power, and I am not sure whether he will always know how to use this power cautiously enough. ... Stalin is too rough, and this fault, quite tolerable among ourselves and in dealings between us Communists, becomes intolerable in the office of General Secretary [Which Stalin was at this time]. Therefore I suggest that the comrades think of some means of displacing Stalin from this position and of naming in his stead some other man who will differ from Comrade Stalin only in this dominant characteristic, i.e., will be more tolerant, more loyal, more civil, and more considerate toward comrades, less capricious, etc."
Lenin - December, 1922
Source: Pravda, July 3, 1956