You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Okay, and what did these historians explicitly claim? Did they say Stalin alone controlled the entirety of the USSR uncontestably?
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.
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.
Thanks for the input
As if anything can get through to you
You seem very upset at me for some reason. What's got you so upset?
Your intellectual dishonesty and your ideological preference for fascism.
My preference for fascism? Interesting.
Also your vapid and time wasting comments
I'm terribly sorry about it all, you don't have to discuss things with me if you don't want to, you know. That'd be that.
okay