Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

This is the archive of the Talk:Vladimir Lenin page. Do not add to this - it is preserved as a historical record of discussion from August/September 2006.

Languages

What languages did Lenin speak?

• Russian, of course.
• German
• French
• Latin & Greek
• English (I'm pretty sure of)

...more?...

Bronks 17:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure he spoke English.--Nixer 08:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He spoke English alright, he translated a whole book from English to Russian. However, he only learnt to SPEAK the language properly when he visited London in 1902 with Krupskaya. This site contains a personal account by Krupskaya that proves this: [1]. Black-Velvet 13:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish

Lenin's linguistic powers

When Lenin and Krupskaya arrived in London in about 1900, Krupskaya noted in her diary that they were amazed by the great size of the capital and, although they thought that they knew English, by the fact that they could not understand a word that was said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2006

Name Pronounciation

I think the pronounciation of Lenin's name should be in something more popular than Ogg.

I don't think we CAN use anything more popular. .mp3s (and the like) require a license, or some such, and .oggs are free...Wikipedia being the free encyclopedia (free as in gratis). I should say I don't know this for a fact, so correct me if I be wrong.--Yossarian 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

I think TeaDrinker is wrong about http://www.vilenin.info/.

http://www.vilenin.info/ have voting about carrying out of a body of Lenin from the Mausoleum, except for that a site contains more than 586 comments of high quality with various estimations about Lenin's activity and the Mausoleum.

Please, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TeaDrinker#Lenin.27s_Mausoleum

With respect, Aleksandr 82.208.121.130 22:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's Embalment

The article states that after Lenin died, it was intended that he should be cryogenically frozen for future revival but that this was not done for a 'variety of reasons'. Shouldn't the article state what those reasons were instead of being vague? I don't know what they were but hopefully someone will. ::..SMI..:: 09:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The user who keeps on adding the tags has not made any efforts to make any futher comments apart from the ones that have been strongly refuted without any attempt at defense from him. I don't want to be involved in petty revert wars over this, but if no rationale for his tag will appear here any time soon I will remove it again and take action against this user on the basis of uncivility, personal attacks and disruption. Does anyone find this unreasonable or have any other thoughts on this?--Konstable 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. As for the laborious 'Hercules' - I deprecate his attempts to vandalise 'Lenin Shrines'. I have one of these in my back garden and it is the pride of the neighbourhood. Anyway, better sign off, it's my turn to do duty under the bed of the local Neo-Con - 'Red Rosa'

NPOV banner reinserted -- again

This entire article needs to be deleted and rewritten from scratch. Some Lenin fan-club has turned this Wikipedia article into a Lenin shrine. It is a complete embarrasment. The Harvard historian Richard Pipes is referred to by some idiot as "the ultra-conservative politician, Richard Pipes". A bogus section on Lenin's non-existent "fight against anti-semitism" has even been included. My suggestion: 1) Contact as many administrators as you possibly can. Alert them to what has been going on with this article for over two years now. 2) Ban the Lenin-fan editors who have abused their Wikipedia privileges with regard to this article once-and-for-all. J.R. Hercules 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL--Konstable 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your other comments, I have never read this article fully, nor edited it any one bit. But I have personally heard a recording of Lenin's speech targetting "anti-semitism", so I don't know what you're talking about. As for calling editors "idiots" have a read of WP:NPA also, its an enforced policy.--Konstable 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean about Lenin’s fight against anti-semitism beeing “bogus”? There are approx. 7 audio-recorded speeches by Lenin. One of them is his speech against anti-Semitism. It is VERY famous, and represents what he and his party stood for, (i.e. against all forms of racism), despite of what Richard Pipes claims. (He is the real bogus.) There are two traditional conservative lies used to attacked bolshevism. One is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks wanted to kill all the Jews for some reason, (this is what Pipes claims.) The other ultra-conservative tradition is to accuse the Bolsheviks of being the leaders of a Jewish world conspiracy to take over the world in the name of Zion. (The tsar and the white guards used to say this about Lenin.) Neither is true. Therefore it is important for an honest encyclopedia to bring forward Lenin’s stand against anti-semitsim. --Bronks 08:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

J.R. Hercules has re-inserted the {{POV}} tag again, and I have removed it. He has not expressed any futher concerns and his previous concerns have been responded to without any comment from him, so I don't see how the tag is called for. If anyone has some concerns feel free to bring them up and put up the tag with reasons. But I'm sorry reasons like "Lenin-fan editors" controlling the article and "idiots" putting in false information (which two users have responded to) are not good reasons.--Konstable 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lenin is not known for his his "fight against anti-semitism". It is not central to his identity or his historical significance. In the limitied space that wikipedia offers we must remain focussed on the core historical truths. This is neither a 300 page biograpghy nor a one-page political brochure. Lenin will be remembered as integral in fighting the Tsar, creating a world-influencing strongly-disciplined top-down partisan organization, toppling the post-Tsarist Russian government, and winning the subsequent cinil war. Secondarily one might argue that the NEP was an important issue to discuss. Everything else smacks of hero-worship and rank partisanship.

........ In fact, many agree that this page is one of the worst examples of POV on all of wikipedia. I am not going to insert the POV tag. What is worse is that I am going to abandon reading this entry, and related entries and mourn the destruction of what should have been a masterful idea; that of an open encyclopedia. 70.226.144.230Phillip October, 2006

NPOV banner reinserted (again)

Reasons:

1) "Lenin's fight against anti-semitism" - This sounds like something from out of a campaign brochure; it's not appropriate phrasing in an encyclopedia article. More to the point, despite his speech quoted in the article, Lenin actually did very little about anti-semitism, and, in fact, merely replaced Tsarist anti-semitism (which he railed against) with a Communist anti-semitism:

"Although Lenin found anti-Semitism abhorrent, the regime was hostile toward Judaism from the beginning. In 1919 Soviet authorities abolished Jewish community councils, which were traditionally responsible for maintaining synagogues. They created a special Jewish section of the party, whose tasks included propaganda against Jewish clergy and religion. Training of rabbis became impossible..."[html]http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0128)[/html] User:J.R. Hercules

The Bolsheviks were atheists and criticized all religions. But they were not against jews as a people, the were in no way racist. They were above all internationalists, and believed in for the equal rights for all people, no matter color or race. And as Lenin's speech explains, he fought against anti-semitism, which had been a problem in tsarist and capitalist russia, you can’t lie and say that’s not true. Bronks 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

During the Civil War, the Bolshevik areas were a haven for the Jews who were granted unheard of authority, with one even being put in charge of the Red Army. By contrast when the White Army took Ekaterinburg from the Bolsheviks the White Army massacred 2,000 of the Jewish inhabitants just for the fun of it. The Tsarist anti-Semitism which you talk about was continued by the Whites not the Reds. The White leadership was viciously anti-Semitic and used the 'Protocals of the Elders of Zion' as their bible when carrying out their pogroms. Indeed the pro-Semitic policies of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were accounted an utter scandal by their Jew-baiting opponents:

'Previously, Russians have never seen a Jew in a position of authority: neither as governor, nor as policeman, nor even as postal employee...Now the Jew is on every corner and on all rungs of power. The Russian now sees the Jew as judge and executioner. He meets Jews at every step...issuing orders, working for the Soviet regime...' (I.M. Bikerman quoted in 'The Fate of the Romanovs' (2003) by G. King and P. Wilson pages 186-187). Colin4C 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Anti-Communist historian and ultra-conservative politician Richard Pipes has argued that policies such as... - As I already pointed out (and which no one attempted to refute), this is a blatently NPOV and laughable description of Richard Pipes, a Harvard professor widely considered among historians of Soviet Russia as one of the leading figures in the field. He is a historian, nothing more. User:J.R. Hercules

Pipes had a political role advising Reagan, (who was an anti-communist - see for instance his support for HUAC) during the Cold War and latterly the neo-cons. Colin4C 19:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pipes is a conservative politician first, a historian second (if even that). Bronks 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3) However, the nature of these so-called "excesses," as well as Lenin's reasons behind their defense, remain unnamed. - The nature of the "excesses" of the Cheka's terror, referring to Orlando Figes' writing, are specified in Figes' book, and with a great amount of detail. For instance, he recounts how, when Lenin passed Dzerzhinsky a note with a crossed-off figure of "1500 counter-revolutionaries in prison", Dzerzhinsky had those 1500 immediately executed, because he thought that's what Lenin wanted. It wasn't what Lenin wanted in that particular case, but it reveals the kind of environment of random, mass executions which existed under Lenin's leadership.

This whitewashing of Lenin's acts is the reason why this article requires an NPOV banner. With some effort and cooperation, the article can easily be made neutral, factual, and encyclopediac. J.R. Hercules 14:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Trotsky, Lenin's comrade was jewish! and Richard Pipes IS ultra-conservative and very closed minded and unintelligent if you ask me. so please can you stop claiming and get a life

In fact the Soviet Russia (and early USSR) was the first state in history where there was capital punishment for anti-semitism invented in the criminal code.--Nixer 15:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you have a look at the actual conduct towards those who practiced Judaism during the campaign against religion in 1921. States should be judged on the basis of what they do, not what they say they do. If they really did hang people for expressing an anti-Jewish opinion-which seems a bit extreme-, then this would have to have included many Soviet state functionaries. On this whole question please see 'What Is To Be Done-Part III' below

White Guard 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Killing the Tsar

I would dispute this black-washing of Lenin in the article:

'Sverdlov made a quick decision to execute the Tsar and his family right away, rather than having them being taken by the Whites. Sverdlov later informed Lenin about this, who agreed it had been the right decision, since the Bolsheviks would rather not have let the royal family become a banner for the White Movement.'

According to the very well researched 'The Fate of the Romanovs' (2003) by G. King and P.Wilson the decision to kill the Tsar was made by the Ekaterinburg Soviet, who then telegraphed Sverdlov to get his approval to kill the Tsar and then transport the Tsar's family into Bolshevik territory. Sverdlov agreed. However the Ekaterinburg Soviet took this opportunity to kill the royal kids and the Tsarina as well, thus hoodwinking Sverdlov and Lenin as to their true murderous intentions. And no - Anastasia didn't survive... Colin4C 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to make sure that there is no attempt to 'white-wash' Lenin and his fellow gangsters here are the facts behind the murder of Tsar Nicholas and his family.

For the Ural Soviet the presence of the royal family in Ekaterinburg was a source of unease, particularly with loyal armies close by. They decided on death as the only solution to their problem, but were unwilling to act on this without the approval of Moscow. Isiah Goloshchekin, a member of the Soviet and a personal friend of Sverdlov, was sent to Moscow to sound out the feelings of the council of commissars. While in Moscow he stayed with Sverdlov, who told him that the government was still considering puting Nicholas on trial, an idea favoured by Trotsky.

This changed when White forces drew ever closer to Ekaterinburg. Goloshchekin returned with the news that the fate of the family had been delegated by Moscow to the Ural Soviet. With the Czech Legion closing in the decision was taken for immediate execution.

It was 'the fate of the Tsar', which was the question, not 'the fate of the family'. The Ekatarinburg Soviet took the decision, in the light of the military situation, to execute the Tsar, rather than put him on trial - with the tacit support of Sverdlov (not Lenin, who was at this time fully occupied battling the insurrection of the Left SR's in Moscow).

'Such reluctant provisional permission, predicated on the military situation in the Urals, clearly only referred to Nicholas himself. He was to be the only member of the Imperial family put on trial; neither the empress, though popularly believed to have been complicit in the disintegration of the empire, nor her children, were to be implicated or charged with any crime. On this point, as he again told Sverdlov, Lenin was adamant: he vehemently opposed wholesale executions, such as that proposed by Ekaterinburg, which would include the royal children. This, he repeated, would have a negative effect on public opinion, both in Russia, where it would concentrate discontent against the Bolsheviks, and abroad, where it would be viewed as a moral question' (King and Wilson 2003 'The Fate of the Romanovs': 288) Colin4C 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

News of the death of Nicholas was reported by Sverdlov, with Lenin's approval, at a meeting of the Executive Council on 18 July, though no mention was made at the time of the fate of the rest of the family. Both Lenin and Sverdlov, however, knew that the entire family was dead. Tapes of Kremlin telegrams were later discovered, one of which contains the following; "Tell Sverdlov that the whole family met the same fate as the head. Officially, the family will perish during the evacuation." The official statement that the family had been moved from Ekaterinburg was a deliberate lie.

Your Kremlin tape transcript seems to contradict the point you are making viz: 'Tell Sverdlov...'. If Sverdlov ordered the executions it would be pointless telling him what he already knew! Your reference to 'Kremlin telegrams' is a bit mystifying, I imagine that a telegram communication would come from elsewhere (i.e. I don't think the Soviets telegraphed each other inside the Kremlin building)? If so who is giving official policy advice to the head-men of the Soviet regime???? (the ghost of Rasputin maybe??? or maybe the 'White Guard'?) Colin4C 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A year after the event the government finally admitted that the whole family had been killed, though they tried to blame the Social Revolutionaries for the act, claiming that they did so in order to discredit the Bolsheviks. But the links between the Urals and Moscow was later made patently clear by Trotsky:

"My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Ekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov, I asked in passing: 'Oh, yes, and where is the Tsar? 'It's all over,' he answered. 'He has been shot.' 'And where is the family?' 'And the family along with him.' 'All of them?', I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise. 'All of them,' replied Sverdlov. 'What about it?' He was waiting to see my reaction, I made no reply. 'And who made the decision?', I asked. 'We decided it here. Ilych [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally round, especially under the present difficult circumstances.' I did not ask any further questions and considered the matter closed. Actually, the decision was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of the summary justice (sic) showed the world that we would continue to fight mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar's family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and dishearten the enemy, but also in order to shake up our own ranks to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay only complete victory or complete ruin...This Lenin sensed well."

We have only Trotsky's word for this. Also, the historical records show that Trotsky was actually in Moscow at the time of the executions, not at the front as he claimed, so he got that bit of the story wrong.... Also in a later book he told a completely different story about the executions, claiming that Stalin ordered them! Colin4C 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither Lenin nor Sverdlov had been 'hoodwinked'; and as the Communist regime grew in strength they showed their pride in the act by renaming Ekaterinburg as Sverdlovsk.

'the Communist regime', maybe, but not Lenin, he did not live long enough to see Stalin's perversions of his ideals Colin4C 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

1. The Ekaterinburg Soviet did not take this decision in isolation; it specifically sought the approval of Moscow, both in Goloschekin's visit to the capital and in subsequent telegrams. The fate of the whole family, not just Nicholas, was delegated to the local Soviet. Both Sverdlov and Lenin were involved throughout, Sverdlov actively and Lenin tacitly. The family would not have been murdered if Lenin had issued orders to the contrary.

The Ekaterinburg Soviet had considerable autonomy and often disagreed with and disobeyed Moscow's directives. For a start off, months before the executions, they detoured the train carrying the Moscow bound Tsar to Ekaterinburg. They had their own agenda...

Moscow's agenda was to put the Tsar on trial. Sverdlov and co had no plans to put the children on trial, as far as I'm aware, and it would be still more bizarre to try the Tsar and then murder the kids without a trial. And as I mentioned before, at this time Lenin was distracted by a mini-revolution of the Left SR's in Moscow itself which almost toppled the Bolshevik regime. He was very far from being an omnipotent dictator. Colin4C 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

2. There was every point in informing Sverdlov that Moscow's orders had been carried out. When raised at the executive council meeting Lenin said not a word, either in surprise or disapproval.

That doesn't prove anything. Colin4C 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3. The Kermlin tape is an exchange of telegrams between Moscow and Ekaterinburg, and make it clear that the cover story that the family had been moved was a deliberate lie. Your heavy-handed sarcasm is wasted on me.

I'm still not sure about the import of your telegram...or who it was addressed to....it can't be Sverdlov himself or it wouldn't start 'Tell Sverdlov'....and why remind Sverdlov of what is 'official policy'? Surely Sverdlov would know what official policy is....

As far as I'm aware the Ekaterinburg Soviet telegraphed Moscow with a message giving them a fait accompli. Not much Sverdlov or Lenin could do about that. Colin4C 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Trotsky lied? It's possible; but why? What had he to gain? He approved both of the act itself and the political logic leading up to it.

Not necessarily lied. Maybe just a faulty recollection of things which happened many years ago. There is certainly a discrepancy between his recollection of his exact whereabouts at the time of the executions and what other historical sources tell us. Colin4C 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Mass arrest; execution without trial; secret police and official terror; suppression of dissent. These were some of Lenin's 'ideals', amplified and improved by Stalin, by far his most effective disciple.

These were not Lenin's ideals but rather emergency measures taken during the Civil War. Lenin - too late - tried to relieve Stalin of power. The dark ages and mass-killings in the Soviet Union started when Stalin overturned Lenin's NEP policy, inaugerated agrarian communism and then killed all his former Bolshevik colleagues....Stalin was more an effective disciple of Tsars such as Ivan the Terrible than Lenin.....Something about those Asiatic steppes which encourages despotism I guess: look at Genghis Khan (not a Marxist-Leninist) for instance...

Colin4C 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) White Guard 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Response

Thank you for answering my points. It's not clear to me, though, who you are because of the anonymous IP address. Can you be the same Colin4C? If so I applaud your slightly more sober tone. Well, this may be an argument destined to go round in circles forever, but here is my second response.

1. Inevitably, given the political circumstances, there had to be a high degree of administrative devolution and local initiative; but on such a crucial matter no Soviet would have acted without central authority. Sverdlov was involved from beginning to end. The trail was Trotsky's idea; mass murder served the purpose better. I'm am not surprised the true facts were covered in an official fog: it was a shameful act.

2. You must surely be aware of Lenin's intellectual style? Every point was argued flat into the ground, even on quite trivial issues. To say that his silence on this crucial matter 'does not prove anything' is highly disingenuous.

3. Telegrams of this nature would pass to secretaries or lower functionaries before the content was passed on. Sverdlov was not being advised of a fait accompli but of the fulfilment of a pre-agreed action.

4. On such a crucial conversation-especially when it touched on a matter close to his heart-I would have assumed Trotsky would be reliable. The details he reports are certainly highly specific. Are you saying he lied about Lenin's approval of the murders?

Trotsky reports, many years after the event, a conversation with Sverdlov, who in turn reports (for whatever reason) what an absent Lenin was supposed to have said and authorized at some time in the past. Trotsky then purports to or really does believe that what Sverdlov has told him about Lenin is an accurate statement of Lenin's actions and views. I think that this is what they call 'hear-say' evidence in a court of law: x told me that y said such and such etc...But whatever Trotsky's beliefs did he even remember the conversation accurately in the first place? Granting this, did Sverdlov himself report the truth? Maybe Sverdlov wanted to shift the responsibility...or maybe he thought that Lenin as 'the great leader' should be given the 'credit' for the executions. Who knows? Colin4C 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

5. NEP was a departure from the 'socialist' ideal. Stalin, it might be said, rescued this by returning Russia to the horrors of War Communism.

White Guard 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again I have to stress that Trotsky's report is highly specific for a man who may have been uncertain about the details. There are some conversations-and incidents-that never dim, no matter how much time passes, and some forms of hear-say evidence are admissible in a court of law. Certainly either Sverdlov or Lenin or both deserve the 'credit' for the wholesale murder of the royal family, which is precisely the point I am making. White Guard 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What Is To Be Done?

Oh dear, oh dear; this whole article demonstrates a quite appalling political bias.

Here are some of the worst examples;

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. We are told that the Bolsheviks closed down the Constituent Assembly "with the backing of the overwhelming majority of the workers in both of Russia's major cities", though this simply glosses over the fact that this was another coup, comparable to that of October 1917, designed to ensure that a political minority retained control of absolute power. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was, in practice, never more than the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party. Quotations are used here to support a distinctly political-and undemocratic act-as an intellectual and historical necessity. This is the worst example of manipulation and bias that I have ever come across in Wikipedia.

SOVIET DEMOCRACY. We are told that Lenin 'advocated and helped to form' a 'Soviet democracy', though the whole drift of Leninism since 1903 had been towards political professionalism and centralised control. Lenin's concept of 'democratic centralism' militated against effective democracy by silencing debate after decisions had been taken; and the political organisation of the Bolsheviks ensure that the Soviets quickly ceased to represent any dissenting views.

OPPRESSION. The Soviet state is defended against the use of secret police and labour camps on the entirely disingenuous grounds that these had been used by the Tsars! The Russo-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday and World War I are then alluded to for some bizarre and unexplained reason to excuse forms of oppression used by the Bolsheviks. "They also mention that the scale of the circumstances which surrounded the Bolsheviks was different as well: a country ravaged by an unprecedentaly destructive world war, a mass of people kept historically illiterate by Tsarist autocracy, an oppositional force that fought to oust the Bolsheviks from power etc." Make what you will of that semi-literate and intellectually incoherent nonsense. Trotsky and a 'river of blood'? If there was such a river he began the flow.

WORKERS STATE. Consider this: "The Leninist vision of revolution demanded a professional revolutionary cadre that would lead the working class in their conquest of power and centralize economic and administrative power in the hands of a workers state." This could be straight out of official Soviet publications from the Brezhnev era. As a statement of historical and political fact it is utter tosh.

THE TSAR'S CRIMES. So the Bolsheviks intended to put the Tsar on trail for his 'crimes against the Russian people'? What crimes might these have been? Incidentally, Lenin was not an 'auxiliary' in Sverdlov's decision to murder the Tsar and his family; he was instrumental in the whole process.

• The tsar was a dictator who oppressed the russian people. He was overthrown by the russian people and (like Saddam Hussein today) should have been put to trail for his crimes against the russian people! Bronks 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• What about the millions killed in the battlefields of the Eastern Front - sent there by the Tsar? Also the Tsar was not above promoting a few pogroms against the Jews now and again and also lending his weight in a trial to convict a Jewish school-teacher accused of ritual murder! Lenin wanted the Tsar tried in Moscow, unfortunately the Ekaterinburg Soviet had different ideas.Colin4C 12:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• As mentioned above Sverdlov (not Lenin, who was not consulted) gave the go-ahead to the Ekaterinburg Soviet for a trial of the Tsar, or if that was not possible, due to the exigencies of war, his execution. Killing the rest of the family was the decision of the Ekaterinburg Soviet alone. Lenin, in his wisdom, of which he had plenty, thought that killing the children would be a public relations disaster (which is what turned out to be the case). Lenin was a very astute politician, who acted with a lot more moderation than his succesor: for instance accepting foreign aid for the famine, re-establishing capitalism with the NEP etc etc. Colin4C 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

CIVIL WAR AND FAMINE. On this point the bias become almost palpable. We are told that the 'deliberate contintuation of the civil war' by the White forces and their allies 'caused widspread famine and the death of millions.' The inference here is that those opposed to the Bolsheviks, the October coup and all the undemocratic actions taken thereafter should simply have gone away and accepted the new realities. This is a bit like saying that the actions of a few colonial rebels in 1776 led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, to take but one example. Not a word is said about the effects of War Communism and the seizure of thousands of tons of corn-including seed corn-by Bolshevik agents, the true cause of the mass famine.

• The Bolsheviks didn't start the civil war, the were not responsible for the horrors of the white guards and invading forign troops. Also, the reds could not have survived and won unless they had had the absolute majority of the russian people on their side. Bronks 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

LENIN'S FIGHT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM. Apart from a single speech, what form did this take? What way, in other words, did the Soviet state encourage and support the practice of Judaism? One might as well deduce the actual practice and structure of Leninist government from 'The State and Revolution.'

• Lenin and the bolsheviks fought against anti-semitism, don't pretend anything ells. Bronks 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• This wasn't just talk. As I mentioned above, the Bolshevik regime puts Jews in positions of power and authority for the first time in Russian history. Meanwhile the pro-Tsarist White Guard was massacering any Jew they could get hold of. The White leadership had the same feelings about the Jews as corporal Adolf and believed that the Bolshevik regime was part of a Jewish World Conspiracy orchestrated by 'the Elders of Zion' (who apparantly met in a Jewish graveyard in Prague and there decided on a fiendish plan to take over the world...Doh!).Colin4C 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have NEVER read an article on Wikipedia in more desperate need of a major overhaul; and until such time as this is carried out I intend to reinstate the NPOV label for all of the above reasons. I will he pleased to argue the case on a point by point basis if anyone wishes. White Guard 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some words by Trotsky on the revolution and red terror during the civil war:

In Petrograd we conquered power in November, 1917, almost without bloodshed, and even without arrests. The ministers of Kerensky’s Government were set free very soon after the revolution. More, the Cossack General, Krasnov, who had advanced on Petrograd together with Kerensky after the power had passed to the Soviet, and who had been made prisoner by us at Gatchina, was set free on his word of honor the next day. This was “generosity” quite in the spirit of the first measures of the [1871 Paris] Commune. But it was a mistake. Afterwards, General Krasnov, after fighting against us for about a year in the South, and destroying many thousands of Communists, again advanced on Petrograd, this time in the ranks of Yudenich’s army. The proletarian revolution assumed a more severe character only after the rising of the junkers in Petrograd, and particularly after the rising of the Czechoslovaks on the Volga organized by the Cadets, the S.R.s, and the Mensheviks, after their mass executions of Communists, the attempt on Lenin’s life, the murder of Uritsky, etc., etc. Communism and Terror[2] -Bronks 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What Is To be Done-part II

Some of the points I raised above have been questioned, but not all. Here is my repsonse;

1. The Tsar was an autocratic ruler, not a dictator; and to attempt to compare him with Saddam Hussein is ludicrous. I would ask people to try to think beyond petty prejudice, and to look at the specific circumstances of history, not to attempt to reduce everything to a single common denominator. I am reminded of a headline in Die Rote Fahne, the German Communist party newspaper, greeting the minority cabinet of Heinrich Brunning in 1930 with Faschismus ist schon da! (Fascism is now here). They were to find out three years later just how wrong they had been.

2. Is the Tsar really to be blamed for taking his country into the First World War, in fulfilment of his treaty obligations? Well, in that case an indictment should also be made out against Raymond Poicaré, Herbert Asquith, Kaiser Wilhelm and the like. It seems so unfair that Nikkie should carry such a burden on his own.

There actually was an idea mooted at this time, amongst some Britons, to 'Hang the Kaiser'. Asquith got away with it though....as did Lloyd George (despite the debacle of 'Wipers III')Colin4C 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3. What pogroms did Nicholas authorise? The trial of the Tsar, as far as I am aware, was Trotsky's project, not Lenin's.

The notorious 'Easter Massacre' of Jews (50 killed, 600 beaten and tortured) at Kishinev in 1903 was authorized by good old 'Nickie'. Leaflets inciting the violence were printed by the Ministry of Interior Press. Nickie commented with satisfaction that Jews 'have got above themselves' and 'ought to be taught a lesson'.

After this we just lose count of the number of pogroms: there were 690 separate incidents in 1905 alone, including 1000 killed in a single incident at Odessa. These were not all orchestrated by Nickie, but there was a feeling amongst the authorities that if Jews were being killed by an anti-Semitic mob - men, women and children - it was best not to intervene. In 1906 Nickie (evidentally not divining the thoughts of Lenin on this matter) refused requests to rescind anti-Jewish laws. Some of his favorite reading at this time was the 'Protocals of the Elders of Zion'. Says Nickie about this farrago of nonsense: 'What depth of thought! Everywhere one sees the directing and destroying hand of Jewry!' Nickie was also whole hearted in his support of the para-military 'Black Hundreds' (who were a sort of Ku Klux Klan for Jews). However Nickie did suffer a set-back when a Jew was aquitted for the ritual murder of a child in 1913, despite him actively perjuring the evidence and knowing full well that he was innocent: 'all Russia has suffered a defeat' commiserated the official government newspaper. Colin4C 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I said nothing in 'What Is To Be Done?' about the murder of the Tsar and his whole family; but all I have to say on this matter is covered above.

5. The Bolshevik's did not start the Civil War? Well, it's a point of view, certainly; others might argue that they did so both by their illegal seizure of power in October 1917 and by their dismissal of the democratically elected Constituent Assembly in January 1918. You may not like this, but if the Reds were justified in making a 'Revolution' the Whites were equally justified in opposing it. If you understood anything about the history of Russia in this period you would see that the horror was not confined to one side alone. The Communists survived for all sorts of strategic reasons, controlling all interior lines of communication and having a co-ordinated command structure, unlike the Whites. They did indeed have the support of the peasants, fearful that a White victory might reverse some of their gains. The peasants had to wait until 1928 to understand that they faced a far greater enemy.

5. Please have the goodness to re-read and, more to the point, try to understand the question I am raising in regard to Lenin's alleged campaign against anti-semitism. I am not pretending anything: I am, rather, asking for practical examples of Lenin's campaign. So, in what way did Lenin and the Bolsheviks fight anti-semitism; and once again, what steps were taken to promote and defend the Jewish religion in Russia? Both my respondents clearly see the Jewish people in purely racial terms; I see Judaism as a religion. Were Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Sverdlov and the like practicing Jews? I suspect that if we look at the effect of the Bolshevik seizure of power on Jewish congregations a different picture will emerge.

Yes, but if you actually were a Jew in Lenin's Russia, where would you rather be: in the territory of the White Army, subject to their pogroms, or in the territory of the Reds, subject to their allegedly dim view of the Jewish faith? Colin4C 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Could I have examples please of the White leadership's views on the Jewish question? What, for example, did Anton Denikin say or do in the matter? Please do not confuse wholesale pogroms with specific political policies. Your points about Hitler and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have no bearing on the matter, and were not raised by me. Once again I have to say that your sarcasm says more about your own intellectual immaturity than offering an effective counter to any argument I have presented.

I think the Protocols were forged by the Tsarist secret police. Its prophecies of Jewish world domination were seen by the Whites to be fulfilled in the Soviet Regime. Hitler, who also read the book, had the same idea that the Soviet Regime was an integral part of the Jewish World Conspiracy, which inspired him to write his own book: Meine Kampf and then to attack Russia...(moral: books can be bad for you)Colin4C 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Thank you for that passage from Trotsky. Now, please have a look at the course of the Revolution in Moscow and attempt to draw some contrast.

Only these points were made to question my argument set out above. Not a word has been said about the Constituent Assembly, Soviet Democracy, Oppression or the Workers State, or in response to my points about the contribution of War Communism to the mass famine during the early 1920s, particularly in reference to the confiscation of seed corn.

Lenin has his advocates; that's fine: but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political appreciation. I will make my own POV plain: I loath Lenin and I consider the Bolsehvik coup to have been a disaster for the Russian people, which even now they are still struggling to overcome. I would, however, never allow subjective views to influence an attempt at historical detachment. This article is not detached, for all of the above reasons, and that is why I put an NPOV label on it. This has been removed for no very coherent reason. I am relatively new to Wikipedia; but does this attempt to undermine legitimate and closely argued objections over the lack of neutrality of an article not constitute a form of vandalism? I will reinstate the tag because my arguments have not been properly addressed. If an edit war results I assume I will have to seek some form of official intervention. But I do emphasise again please do not attempt to insult me by sarcasm or any other childish device; it makes no difference to me personally, I assure you, and is intellectually counter-productive. White Guard 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, think putting NPOV labels on articles (rather than editing them, which you are totally free to do) is intellectually counter-productive as is your disingenuous statement:

'I loath Lenin and I consider the Bolsehvik coup to have been a disaster for the Russian people, which even now they are still struggling to overcome. I would, however, never allow subjective views to influence an attempt at historical detachment' [!!!!].

Anyway we all salute your manly imperviousness to sarcasm and your lack of a sense of humour: I however equally am equally impervious to your threat (once you've lost the intellectual argument?) 'to seek some form of official intervention' and your wild accusations of 'vandalism'. You'll be accusing us of 'Bolshevism' next, no doubt.....(and as for the Ekaterinburg business I have a valid alibi...)Colin4C 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I made no threat or accusation, but simply raised what I consider to be a legitimate procedural question. You removed a tag without proper justification, which I thought might be considered as a form of vandalism. I can assure you that I never make 'wild accusations' of any type; it is not in my nature. I though it might help if I made my own POV plain, but emphasise again that I would never allow it to contaminate proper historical discussion. NPOV tags must serve some purpose; otherwise they would not exist. What I am saying is this article does not correspond to acceptable standards of encyclopedic detachment, and deserves to be flagged up as a problem until such time that it does.

I am afraid your humour escapes me. My problem, no doubt. White Guard 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

White Atrocities

Just to point out that during the Civil War the Whites distinguished themselves in many ways against the Reds. Take Semyonov for instance, who with the support of the White Gov of Siberia 'murdered, raped, and pillaged his way from the Pacific to the Urals, leaving behind a wave of human misery unequaled even by the most virulent Red Army leaders...Hundreds of towns and villages were burned to the ground, peasant farms were destroyed, women and children tortured and raped. In all more than a hundred thousand men, women and children were killed by Semyonov and his division, a number without parallel by any other single leader, White or Red, in the Civil War.' (King and Wilson 2003 The Fate of the Romanovs 187-188); see also Henry Barlein (1926) The March of the Seventy Thousand).

Your evidence? Certainly there is some evidence that the Cossacks fighting on the White side conducted purges of Jews and of suspected Bolshevik sympathisers, but in all my extensive reading on the topic (see Orlando Figes' seminal work A People's Tragedy, 1919-1924) I have never come across allegations that the Whites indiscriminately murdered peasants. Please quote the precise source of your information. 82.110.125.83 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to login before signing the above contribution Walton monarchist89 08:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added my reference and given some further reading above. According to King and Wilson Semyonov, though indeed a 'rogue cossack', was under the direct command of Admiral Kolchak, who was aware of what he was doing but did nothing to stop him. Semyonov's atrocities were the subject of a hearing by the US Senate Committee on Labour and Education in 1922 who took evidence from General William Graves, a member of the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia at the time. Colin4C 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He is at Grigory Semyonov. PatGallacher 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just looked also at the White Army article: White movement. Unlike this article's inclusion of criticisms of Lenin there is NOTHING AT ALL critical of the Whites in the White article. The anti-Semitic and other atrocities committed by the White armies go blithely unmentioned. Despite this whitewash of the Whites NOBODY has put a 'neutrality disputed' notice on it or threatened to get the admins involved etc etc. Makes you wonder doesn't it? Colin4C 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not really; well certainly not in the sense you would prefer. If you think there is a problem with the article on the Whites then I suggest that you make the necessary amendments, or raise any disquiet you have on the talk page. Also, as your remarks are obviously directed at me, I emphasise once again that it was not my intention to 'threaten' but to raise a specific procedural point on content disputes, which I think is my right. White Guard 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with White Guard on this. However, to be fair to Colin4C, I did some further reading and discovered that, reportedly, Kolchak's favourite book was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - possibly explains his anti-Semitic attitudes, and says something about Kolchak and the Whites in terms of attitude. But it's my view that we can't simply condemn Kolchak and the Whites for this - bear in mind that there was a vicious streak of anti-Semitism in Russian society, both pre- and post-revolution, and they lived in an age when moral standards were somewhat different. Plus, bear in mind that the Bolsheviks' well-documented atrocities (see Cheka) against the bourgeoisie and suspected pro-White supporters certainly outweigh the atrocities that were committed by the Whites against Jews. I'm not trying to whitewash the Whites' reputation (sorry, rather bad play on words there); they certainly did conduct horrific purges of Jews. But however bad they were, the Bolsheviks were worse, and their success in the Civil War led eventually to the deaths of 70 million Russians and other Soviet peoples through starvation, governmental incompetence, purges, and gulags. Walton_monarchist89

Of course the irony (and tragedy) is that the Bolsheviks themselves were eventually liquidated by Stalin, which makes it hard to believe that the Purges were all part of some Marxist-Leninist grand plan (I mean surely they didn't all have some sort of death wish?). And it is well known that Lenin tried to sideline Stalin, just before he died. Maybe the responsibility lies with those Left SR's etc who were so keen to pump full of lead the only man (Lenin) who could have saved the situation for Russia. And maybe we should try to look at the place of Lenin in history in some kind of objective fashion, rather than blame him for things which happened after he was dead and of which he would have deeply dissaproved. Lenin was in many ways a moderate: witness the NEP, his acceptance of foreign aid during the famine etc etc. History is complex: it is all to easy (in the Texan bar-room of the soul) to construct some grand scheme Manichaen scheme of Good vs Evil, Hobbits vs Orcs, Light vs Darkness, Black Hats versus White Hats with the evil-enemy constantly being redefined as Catholic/Commie/Moslem/Flavour of the month/Colin4C 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Stalin not a Bolshevik, or Mikoyan, or Ordzhonikidze, or Molotov, or Yezov or Kalinin etc. etc.? Do you have a Marxist view of history, or do you simply admire Lenin as a man? You are absolutely right when you contend that history is complex, and cannot be divided into simple issues of black and white, all good on one side and all bad on the other. But that is precisely what you are doing yourself-Lenin all good and Stalin all bad. Is that not a Manichean-as opposed to a Marxist-view of history? Lenin could have 'saved the situation' if it had not been for the bullets of poor Dora Kaplan? Who knows? Perhaps Marat would have saved the Jacobins if it had not been for Charlotte Corday? Again, it's possible; but this seems to me to be a hopelessly narrow reading of the past. The real point is that all the tendencies that took shape under Stalin were already present under Lenin; it was just a matter of degree. To define Lenin as a 'moderate' seems to be so far off target that I have to question your depth of reading, if not your depth of understanding. Even after the emergency of the Civil War had passed the repressive and extraordinary measures put in place under the Red Terror remained in place; more to the point, they got steadily worse, forcing Julius Martov, Lenin's old colleague in the RSDP, into exile, and confining other socialists and anarchists endlessly in concentration camps. Lenin was familiar with the 'wonderful Georgian's' methods both at Tsaritsyn and in the Caucasus; so to condemn him simply for 'rudeness' to Krupskaya seems to be one of history's greatest understatements. NEP, moreover, was for Lenin little more than a tactical retreat, and he accepted foreign aid to combat a famine created by the previous policy of War Communism. Let us indeed look at history objectively: Lenin was not a saint and Stalin was not a devil. They represent, each in their own way, evolutionary stages in a particularly murderous and intolerant view of historical necessity. White Guard 23:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to know I'm a sort of post-modern Marxist. I once constructed a grand synthesis of the ideas of Foucault and Gramsci only to discover that a tiresome fellow called Edward Said had already invented that particular wheel...anyway I arrived at the same conclusions as he did...As for Lenin I admire him as a politician and a theorist...or rather how he combined theory and practice (a la Marx). The guy was, well, rational....not some paranoid psycho like Stalin/Genghis Khan/Ivan the Terrible or devious cretin like Bush/Blair or obsessive puritan like Robespierre or retarded social Darwinist like f*****g Adolf Thatcher. As for moderation my exact words were 'in many ways a moderate'. Lenin had strong beliefs but they did not lead him into cloud-cuckoo land like the aforementioned (un)worthies IMHO Colin4C 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I urge you to look again, and in more detail, at Lenin's career. He had a lot more in common with Ivan Grozny than you would allow. Soviet Russia was the worst cloud-cuckoo land ever conceived up to that point in history, far more malevolent in every way than the Republic of Virtue. White Guard 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with White Guard on this. Colin4C, to say that Lenin was somehow "better" than Stalin, Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible is self-deluding in the extreme. While Stalin went to greater heights of paranoia than Lenin, it was Lenin who established the Soviet state's basic framework of authoritarianism, violent purges of the bourgeoisie (once again see Cheka), class warfare, and general destructive lunacy. Most reputable historians of the period (Orlando Figes, Richard Pipes, etc., even the Russian novelist Solzhenitsyn) view Lenin's rule as a tremendous human tragedy. And to call Margaret Thatcher a "Social Darwinist" and compare her with Hitler is, quite frankly, offensive. The leader with whom Lenin most invites comparison is, in fact, Robespierre; and the ideologically-based mass murder of the middle classes and the kulaks (so-called "rich" peasants) in Soviet Russia is very similar to the murder of royalists and the aristocracy during the French Revolution. Walton monarchist89 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's authoritarianism was mainly a reaction to the terrible Civil War. As we have mentioned here before, Pipes in an extreme right-winger, cold-warrior, advisor of Reagen, the neo-cons etc; Solzhenitsyn is a reactionary Russian nationalist - in his latest book he is once more making the White assertion about the connection between Jews and Communists, and calling for the Jews to repent for their role in the Bolshevik revolution!; as for Figes I wasn't totally bowled over by his book, despite all the commendatory newspaper reviews, plastered all over the jacket - he has a very annoying habit of indulging in counter-factual reveries...seeming to suggest, for example, that if the Left SR's had overthrown Lenin and co all would have been for the best for Mother Russia, which is in no way provable...and is not 'history'. You may have a point about certain resemblances between Robespierre and Lenin, except that Robespierre eventually dived off the deep-end, and came unstuck, which Lenin never did. As for the kulak purge. that was Stalins idea, long after Lenin was dead, even the idea of what a kulak was, was Stalin's invention. Colin4C 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again I have to say your grasp of historical fact is very poor. In April 1918, before the Civil War was properly underway, Julius Martov wrote the following in Novaia Zaria, the newspaper of the Moscow regional committee of the Mensheviks;

After all that the workers have gone through during the past six months, it should be clear to anyone that "soviet power" is a fairy tale, and not a beautiful one at that. There is no soviet power in Russia, and no proletarian power. Under this label reign armed members of the Bolshevik party, who go against workers and peasants when workers and peasants disagree with them. In reality "soviet power" has turned into an irresponsible, uncontrolled, unjust, tyrannical, and costly power of commisars, committees, staffs and armed bands.

Your comment about the kulaks also reveals the depths of your ignorance (or wilful blindness): it was not Stalin who devised the campaign against the kulaks; this was an early Bolshevik initiative. In May 1918 Sverdlov outlined Bolshevik policy in the countryside; "two hostile camps must be created in the villages, setting the poorest layers of the population against the kulak elements." That same month a decree was issued calling all "working and property-less peasants to unite immediately for a merciless war on the kulaks", and declaring grain-horders to be 'enemies of the people', subject to ten years imprisonment and confiscation of property. Peasant attempts-not just kulaks- to resist the unrealistic grain requistions of War Communism, which continued after the Civil War ended, met with severe reprisals: many were flogged, beaten and shot, and their houses burned down. The Tambov rebellion was one such response to this official barbarism.

Lenin was every bit as savage and mercilesss as Stalin, as I have said ad nauseum; it was only a question of degree. I. S. Unshilikht, a leading Chekist, later recalled how Lenin "made short shrift of philistine party members who complained of the mercilessness of the Cheka, how he laughed at and mocked the 'humanness' of the capitalist world." There was nothing in Stalinism that was not already present in Leninism. A good Communist, as Lenin said, 'is a good Chekist.' Spying, informing and terror were a permanent part of Soviet life. Robespierre was a cold-blooded fanatic: Lenin's blood was not a degree warmer. Since you seem to know what 'history is' try to understand it a little better. White Guard 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't buy your cold-war teleology and demonology and grand domino theories no matter how many times you repeat them and even if you drag in disgruntled Mensheviks to help you out. Lenin was Lenin and Stalin was Stalin. History happens. Events occur. Who is to say what causes what and what is to happen the day after tomorrow? I remember cold-warriors in the old days, fingers poised on their nuclear buttons, who imagined that the Soviet regime would go on forever - maintained in permanent existence by a system of terror...then all of a sudden it collapsed in a heap, which left them a bit non-plussed - the permanent system of terror was obviously not so effective as they imagined and left them without an excuse to destroy humanity in an atom bomb war (which was THEIR system of terror). As I said before the most merciless killer in the Civil War period and the one with the highest body count wasn't Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin or even Sverdlov, it was the White leader Semyenov, who no doubt was also a dab hand at laughing and mocking at 'humaness'. We can all construct cod teleological theories...perhaps draw a line from Semyenov to Mussolini onto General Franco maybe, with a branch out to Hitler ending up with Pinochet and construct a grand scheme of right-wing terrorists forever laughing and mocking at whatever.....

As for the 'kulaks', what I meant is that Stalin, in his time, long past the period of War-Communism, defined them and 'constructed' them in his own particular way. They did not really exist as a class - they were invented according to a quota system of Purges, the same way Pol Pot classed anyone wearing glasses as 'bourgeois'. Colin4C 02:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in teleology or demonology but in simple historical facts; and I have never promoted 'domino theory', so I take your point as nothing more than a vacant polemic. You are obviously determined to reject every critique of Lenin, regardless of the source, so there really is no purpose is to be served by quoting Martov or any other 'disgruntled Menshevik.' Lenin and Stalin cannot be separated as historical entities: Stalin added nothing to a practice fully formed in every conceivable sense. But you are obviously incapable of making the connection. I cannot follow the rest of your logic, which seems to me to display a very poor level of debating skill and a high level of simple intellectual incoherence, as most of your other interventions have. You are right, of course, this is a pointless exercise, and I will make no further attempts to persuade you by way of argument or example. Your Lenin is beyond real history, and thus beyond reproach. I wish you joy of him. White Guard 02:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, I do agree with you, but we probably shouldn't start flinging insults (viz. intellectual incoherence). I am happy to continue rational debate.Colin4C, I concur with White Guard that Lenin and his government committed many atrocities against the Russian people, and your attempt to 'whitewash' their reputation is somewhat historically inaccurate (please don't take this as a personal attack). As for the kulaks, you're perfectly correct that they never really existed as a class, and were invented by the Communists as an attempt to encourage 'class warfare' in the countryside - yet you choose to ignore the fact that it was Lenin, not Stalin, who began the campaign against the kulaks. It was, admittedly, Stalin who was responsible for the wholesale purging of kulaks as part of his collectivisation programme. Overall, I would say Stalin took Lenin's ideology to new heights of paranoia and mass murder - but the foundations of this ideology were all in the system that Lenin established. Stalin was worse than Lenin, but there wasn't a clean historical break between the two - they were part of the same authoritarian and brutal Communist tradition. Walton monarchist89 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As we have mentioned before, an 'authoritarian and brutal tradition' had been part of the system of Imperial Russian governance since at least the time of Ivan the Terrible (or perhaps from the time of the Mongol rulers beforehand). This was the way things were done in Russia, otherwise the place would fall apart (as it eventually did under Gorbachev). It was not an invention of Lenin. Some places are just difficult to govern without wielding a stick (Iraq for instance). There is no democratic tradition in Russia, even today after the overthrow of communism things happen in the same bad old way. The 'heights of paranoia and mass murder' you mention occured in a discrete time-period between 1930-1938. Even Stalin thought it was bad idea after a while and halted the purges in 1938. After him Marxist-Leninist Krushchev thought it was a bad idea and Brezhnev concurred. Sure, these guys were not democrats but neither did they use Lenin's supposedly perfect apparatus of terror to commit mass-murder. But this has not stopped opponents of Marxist-Leninism to use Stalin's purges of the kulaks and his opponents between 1930-38 as a stick to beat Lenin (but not Tsar Nicholas it seems and Ivan the Terrible emerges with a clean bill of health) before him and the Soviet regime of Krushchev and Brezhnev after him. Our friend Solzhenytsin even has a scheme of his own in which Karl Marx back in leafy Highgate in the nineteenth century was somehoew complicit in the Russian purges of 1930-38, (contra this thory I have read (in Piers Brendon's 'The Dark Valley') that Stalin's mass-terror of 1934-38 was inspired by him reading about Hitler's 'Night of the Long Knives' in the newspaper "Good chap that Hitler! He showed how to deal with his opponents!" he opined). Despite 'White Guards self assurance on these matters the historical jury is still out on what inspired Stalin to commit mass murder between 1930-38.

Even the head of the Cheka, whom you mention, Mr Felix of infamous memory, thought Stalin was a bloodthirsty brute. The other Bolsheviks were no less kind. Kamenev thought him a 'ferocious savage'. Zinoviev opined that he was a 'bloodthirsty Ossetian' who had 'no idea of the meaning of conscience'. Trotsky thought him 'the grave-digger of the proletarian revolution'. Bukharin regarded him (as I do myself) as a 'debased Genghis Khan. But 'White Guard' knows best: Lenin was to blame....Not Nicholas, not Alexander the third, not Peter the Great, not good old Ivan always Lenin (and maybe Karl of Highgate as well?). Colin4C 10:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Walton monarchist, I use my words advisedly and never knowingly insult anyone, in which there is very little point. 'Intellectual incoherence' I use in a strictly descriptive sense. Read the above response, and the rest of Colin4C's contributions, with care, and you should begin to understand. A disorganised mind inevitably produces disorganised thought. No insult is intended, I assure you. Consider this, and I paraphrase: Lenin was part of an authoritarian and brutal tradition, wielding a stick where there was no democracy. After all, this was the way things were done in Russia. That was indeed the case, and I am glad for the admission, though I doubt the author understands the full significance of his remarks. I would, however, add that I do not agree with the determinism with which this point is put: there were plenty of people outside the Bolshevik party looking for a different route. I have argued throughout-with limited direct success- that Lenin, Stalin and any other Russian or Soviet leader should be seen in historical context, not isolated in an arbitrary and ideological fashion Two further points of information: Stalin halted the hysteria of the Yezhovchina in 1938; the Terror continued along more controlled lines under Beria, taking the life, amongst others, of the writer Isaac Babel in 1940. Stalin? To the above assessments I would simply add that he was Lenin's 'wonderful Georgian.' White Guard 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, I apologise for misinterpreting your remarks. Let's not become enemies - after all, we are, broadly, on the same side in this debate. I agree with every historical point you've made so far. Colin4C, I think maybe you and I should agree to disagree. The fact is that every historian writing about the Soviet period has a POV, whether leftist or rightist. You and I can sit here quoting different historians at each other all day, and we'kll never get anywhere. The fact is that, during the Russian Civil War, both Bolsheviks and Whites committed acts of violence against the Russian people in support of their aims. My personal POV, as a moderate conservative, is that the Whites were preferable to the Bolsheviks - but I don't intend to idealise Kolchak or Denikin, as you seem intent on doing with Lenin. Yes, Kolchak was a virulent anti-Semite; but I think you need to admit, in the face of the historical evidence, that Lenin personally did favour acts of brutality. First-hand contemporary sources show that Lenin recommended hanging the kulaks - a practice that Stalin was later to carry out during the collectivisation of the 1930s - and also that Lenin encouraged wholesale brutal 'class warfare' against the bourgeoisie. I agree with you that Lenin was more rational than Stalin, in that all his actions were clearly aimed at achieving the Marxist state - but this doesn't excuse the acts of violence and brutality committed by his regime, viz. the random arrests, interrogations and torture by the Cheka of innocent people, and the extralegal murder of the royal family (and, incidentally, their servants) by Lenin's supporters. (Whether Lenin personally ordered this murder is a controversial point of debate, and I don't want to get bogged down in arguing it.)

So, overall, I think we both need to concede the following points.

1) Yes, some White supporters (mostly Semyonov and his Cossacks, but with the broad approval of Kolchak) carried out extralegal killings of Jews and of suspected Bolshevik supporters.

2) Lenin and his supporters were also responsible for extralegal acts of brutality in order to consolidate their own power and combat the so-called 'decadent bourgeoisie'.

3) It is irrelevant whether or not Lenin was 'right' to use violence in pursuit of Marx's aims. All that matters is the facts. Let's stick to them Walton monarchist89 08:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, but it is really not necessary; it took your remark purely at face value, and my response was by way of clarification.

I have one or two small points to raise concerning some of your above statements. First of all a question. You say that Kolchak was a 'virulent anti-semite', but do you have any evidence for this? The Jewish population of Siberia, his area of control, was so small that hostility towards the Jews would not really have made any political sense. I am not saying he was not anti-semitic, it's just that I have never come across any reference to this.

I have to disagree with your assessment of Stalin: I think he was perfectly rational and also aimed for the Marxist state as conceived by Lenin, the greatest intellectual and political influence in his life. In 1921 Lenin was forced into the tactical retreat of NEP: in 1928 Stalin reversed this process, beginning the construction of a 'Socialist Society' along the lines that would very much have been approved by Lenin. Lenin's contempt for the peasants was boundless. You only have to consider his response to the famines of 1891 and 1920, the latter his own creation, to understand this; so I do not believe he would have been in any way preturbed by Stalin's mass collectivisation and the horror that followed from this.

Finally, I would like to take this article forward, removing the NPOV in the near future, hopefully on the basis of some kind of general consensus. I intend to put forward several suggestions-using my previous observations as a start point-within the next few days. I too am sympathetic to the Whites-probably even more than you are-but as I have tried to make plain I would never allow this to influence the pursuit of historical objectivity. Regards White Guard 23:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In principle I totally agree, White Guard. Lenin's contempt for the peasants was evidenced by his reported order to 'hang the kulaks'. Although he tried to secure peasant support with his land promises in 1917, it was soon clear that he viewed the peasants as a class enemy, with the industrial workers as the true Marxist proletariat. This irrational view did indeed lead to his deliberate brutality to peasants during War Communism, and was the ideological foundation for Stalin's purges of kulaks. So, overall I agree with everything you've said. But I have to disagree with an assessment of Stalin as rational; certainly he was the ideological heir to Lenin, but he replaced Lenin's cold Marxist rule with sheer paranoia and insanity, at least by the time of the purges of the 1930s. In my (admittedly biased) view, they were both insane but in different ways; Lenin the fanatical Marxist, to the point that he was willing to commit mass murder in pursuit of his aims, and Stalin the personally deranged, virtually abandoning most Marxist ideals.

But I digress. I agree with you that the page needs to be less POV. As for whether Kolchak was an anti-Semite, Figes did claim that Kolchak's preferred reading was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - but you're right, there isn't much hard evidence. Walton monarchist89 09:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest you read Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin the Court of the Red Tsar, on the assumption that you have not already done so? I think you will find that an entirely different picture of Stalin emerges. He did indeed suffer from some form of personal paranoia, but his political actions were based on rational calculations: even the purges served a purpose, advancing both his ideological position and his power within the party. If Stalin was mad there was always method in it. Where he came unstuck was in his dealings with Hitler, whom he believed was driven by the same rational and pragmatic calculations. Ironically, and to his cost, Hitler was the only man that Stalin ever trusted. Anyway, you say that Stalin virtually abandoned most Marxist ideals. On the contrary, he was the one that gave final shape to the Leninist vision of Marxism in Russia, with its intense suspicion of all opposition, its conspiratorial and elitist element, its hatred of the peasantry, and all of its murderous intolerance; as I have already said, it was merely a question of degree. There is nothing in Lenin's Russia that you will not find under Stalin, perfected in every malevolent aspect. White Guard 22:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we're arguing anyway. Stalin's personality is not especially relevant to this page. I agree with everything you've said so far about Lenin himself, so go ahead and make your modifications to the article. I apologise if I've appeared to be argumentative, but I've been trying to find points of consensus and a neutral platform between you, myself and Colin4C. Since I think we now agree on most of the main points - viz. that Lenin was guilty of committing numerous atrocities in the pursuit of Marxism, but that some White supporters (mainly Semyonov) also committed atrocities, mainly against Jews - I feel that we can now bring this discussion to an end. As I say, feel free to make modifications to the article. Walton monarchist89 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kolchak's Anti-Semitism This is recorded by his colleague G.K. Gins who wrote in his book (published in Peking in 1921)about the General that the Admiral 'literally devoured the Protocols' [!]. He liked it so much that he had a special edition printed for his troops at Omsk. Further editions were published by the White armies in Vladivostock and Khabarovsk and even (presumably for white emigres) in Japan! (See 'Warrant for Genocide' by Norman Cohn (1967: 129).)Colin4C 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Beyond his enthusiasm for-and dissemination of-the Protocols what practical form did his anti-semitism take? White Guard 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, both of you, can we just drop the topic of Kolchak's anti-semitism? This article isn't even about Kolchak. The two of you (by which I mean Colin4C and White Guard) seem to be locked in an eternal battle on this talk page, debating every possible matter relating to Lenin, the Civil War and the early Soviet period. Let's just try and proceed by consensus, and let's keep to the topic. Walton monarchist89 09:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; but it is not in my nature to allow unsupported statements to stand. Kolchak's anti-semitism seems to have consisted of little more than reading the Protocols, a pastime he shared with the editors of the London Times. Now, for contrast, read what I have written below on Lenin and anti-semitism.

White Guard 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What Is To be Done?-Part III

Further remarks are obviously required.

ANTI-SEMITISM. Could I please have a reference for Nicholas' authorisation of the Kishinev massacre? As far as I am aware this episode was the handiwork of Vyacheslav Plehve, minister of the interior and a notorious anti-semite. The pogrom was condemned by the governor of Bessarabia and by the central government. Sergius Witte, by far the Tsar's best minister, made his own feelings on the matter plain.

There were pogroms in Tsarist Russia, and anti-semitism was a long-established and poisonous tradition. The point is that this cannot always be traced back to the Tsar: Russian state and government was far too complex for that. Official anti-semitism was, moreover, of a confessional rather than a biological nature. Under Alexander III the drive for assimiliation became ever greater, after the murder of his liberal-minded father, but it also affected Catholics, Lutherans and Muslims, as well as Jews. Civil disabilities could always be lifted for converts to Orthodoxy, for those who were minded to take this path.

Nicholas was a conventional and unimaginitive man, but even he could detect the patently false. Although he was initially taken in by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (as was the London Times in 1919) he soon recognised them, according to Vladimir Burtsev, no friend of the Tsar, as dangerous political nonsense. You may care to consult Solomon Grayzel, again no admirer of Tsarist Russia, who in his A History of the Jews says "Even the Tsar had considered the forgery utterly improbable and unworthy of consideration." (Philadelphia, 1968, p. 613).

Now, this whole debate arose because I questioned Lenin's credentials as a campaigner against anti-semitism on the basis of a single speech with no examples provided. If we look at the actual record of Soviet Russia under Lenin a quite different picture emerges. The age-old antisemitism of the Tsars showed little sign of going away; if anything, it got worse. Red army units were amongst those responsible for pogroms in the Ukraine, to the obvious disquiet of Trotsky. During the 1921 campaign against religion, specifically authorised by Lenin, the Jews were singled out as a special target; even Maxim Gorky accused the government of using anti-semitism for political purposes. There were pogroms in Smolensk and other places. When Jewish people tried to defend their synagogues, threatened with confiscation, troops broke in, shouting 'Death to the Yids' in the process. The campaign of 1921 peaked in the mock trial of 'Judaism', carried out, for additionl emphasis, if any such was needed, in the very same courtroom as the Beiliss trial of 1913. What price Lenin's support for the Jews?

TERROR. Yes, there was terror, extensive and brutal; but that of the Whites was more than matched by that of the Reds, and not just against counter-revolutionaries but peope who had been their allies and comrades in the political underground. By 1921, well after the White threat had gone away, oppression and terror had become a fact of life in the 'worker's fatherland'. It never went away.

Let me make it plain that I am simpy asking that this article reflects the true facts of Lenin's career. As it stands at present it is little more than a biased 'appreciation.' White Guard 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been doing your homework 'White Guard'...We are evidentally getting a more intellectual class of red-baiter these days...I therefore pledge myself - on behalf of the 'Guardians of the Lenin-Shrine', at whatever expense in time and money, - to read the chapter 'The Pogroms and White Ideology in the Russian Civil War' by P. Kenez in Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russia (2004) edited by J.D. Klier and S. Lambroza (CUP), and will be back with a series of devastating counter-attacks to your above points...which will send you reeling right back up the trans-Siberian railway of intellectual discourse.... Colin4C 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome any intelligent and well-informed debate or exchange of views. I would only remind you that this page is about Lenin, not White anti-semitism, though, of course, I would be happy to talk about that where appropriate.. White Guard 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Koala

He is a red koala and want to dictatate the whole world he should be killed.

If this comment refers to Lenin, I wholeheartedly agree. But this encyclopedia isn't the place for political posturing. Walton monarchist89 07:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)