• 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?

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

                Name one.

                For the dictator claim? Martin McCauley is cited on Wikipedia. Oleg Khlevniuk too. Some others, but you asked for one.

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

                I was just noting that the sources for the claims are there. Wikipedia is just a convenient thing to refer to, as you know.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Okay, and what did these historians explicitly claim? Did they say Stalin alone controlled the entirety of the USSR uncontestably?

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    As it relates to the conversation, that Stalin was a dictator. Khlevniuk’s book is literally titled Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator lol. So they certainly believe that the requirements for calling him a dictator has been sufficiently fulfilled. Both “Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator” and “Stalin and Stalinism” are available to read, if you catch my drift, but if you want me to recite parts from them for you, you’ll have to wait for me to get home.