• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It seems most historians disagree with your thought here, as shown in the earlier quotes. You claim he was often contested, did not have the ability to make anything happen and so on, but that doesn’t seem to have been the reality. Even this document you shared just says it was “exaggerated”, not that he didn’t have those powers. But most considering his rule seem to have labeled him as a dictator and it’s very easy to see why.

      If you don’t agree with Soviet records

      Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I never said he was powerless, I said he did not have sole control nor all-encompassing power. He was the head of state, of course he had power. The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here. The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

        Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

        Soviet Records on democratic processes and political structuring.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I never said he was powerless

          Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen

          “Did not have the ability to make anything happen” would make him seem very powerless.

          The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here

          The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

          My mythology of just the normal historians’ view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            “Did not have the ability to make anything happen” would make him seem very powerless.

            The stress is meant to be placed on anything, ie he couldn’t snap his fingers and magically have his will be done. He played a large role in directing policy, especially during WWII.

            My mythology of just the normal historians’ view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

            What constitutes a “Normal Historian?” The CIA didn’t agree with you and neither does historical evidence.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I think it would’ve been clearer to say “everything” than “anything”. Because now it just sounds like he couldn’t do anything

              What constitutes a “Normal Historian?”

              Just historians who’ve looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who’ve studied history.

              The CIA didn’t agree with you

              It’s one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?

              neither does historical evidence.

              Historians seem to disagree.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                I think it would’ve been clearer to say “everything” than “anything”. Because now it just sounds like he couldn’t do anything

                Fair and valid point.

                Just historians who’ve looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who’ve studied history.

                There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you’re not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of “Normal Historians.”

                It’s one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?

                It’s one document, and yet more than anything you’ve provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you’re not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of “Normal Historians.”

                  I’m not really talking about pro or anti-Soviet historians. just the majority of the prominent ones who have studied the subject. Preferably you’d want to trust historians who avoid thinking of historical stuff as some pro-anti thing as you’ve framed it.

                  It’s one document, and yet more than anything you’ve provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?

                  Sources for the Wikipedia article are linked with as [1] that. I can paste them here if that’s what you want, for easier access I guess.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I’m not really talking about pro or anti-Soviet historians. just the majority of the prominent ones who have studied the subject. Preferably you’d want to trust historians who avoid thinking of historical stuff as some pro-anti thing as you’ve framed it.

                    Name one.

                    Sources for the Wikipedia article are linked with as [1] that. I can paste them here if that’s what you want, for easier access I guess.

                    Are you saying you stand by all sources listed in the Wikipedia articles, even the ones that have been contested or outright disproven?

      • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

        Okay you’re just a deeply unserious person. A government modifying its own internally kept records for the purposes of propaganda? Baby brained premise chasing.