6 ms·

Stalinism was the worst dissaster which happened to Russia since the napoleonic wars or even mongols. It is also responsible for one of the bigest genocide of a

by jkot 12y ago

Stalinism was the worst dissaster which happened to Russia since the napoleonic wars or even mongols. It is also responsible for one of the bigest genocide of all times (slavic peasants). I really have hard time to grasp why articles even debating this ideology are here.

hga 12y ago
Because "Commies Are Cool" (see the cult of Che), and their supporters imagine themselves as becoming commissars, not anonymous bodies in ditches.
- avmich 12y ago
  Unfortunately yes, to some extent. Propaganda is a serious force, as latest events in Russia and Ukraine are showing.
throwaway344 12y ago
I think that the interest here on HN would be similar for education in a long-lasting fascist (or whatever kind of brutal) state's scientific system. I really don't see the interest here as a moral statement on communism, but rather as just interest.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  And the morality of the sort of political system the US has (I'd say "capitalism" but that's a little simplistic), is also not being judged when we examine the US scientific approach.
m0skit0 12y ago
Without Stalinism the USSR would have probably lost WW2, which in turn means Hitler would not have been defeated. Sad but true.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  Meh, who knows what would have happened. If the Russian Revolution had played out differently, Russia could have become a socialist country more like modern European states, still broken the back of the Germans on the Eastern front, helped defeat Hitler, and we might have had a half century of free trade and economic growth. Accurately evaluating alternative history is next to impossible.
  - warkid 12y ago
    "what would have happened" - suprising to see it here, in comments about a science-related article. The fact is that the most evil, biggest and thoughest army of all times was defeated(with enormous participation of the "western" allies, though). And still, it's kinda "doubtful" that Stalin was somewhat maybe a tiny bit good at commandment...
- avmich 12y ago
  Stalin purged so many military commanders it's doubtful USSR wouldn't have advantages in WW2 without Stalin. The war would likely be fought very differently - or not fought at all, as Hitler wouldn't be so careless with his Barbarossa plan.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Just look at the performance of the Red Army in the Winter War for an example.
- mantas 12y ago
  If there was no Stalin, WW2 would have been totally different. Soviet Union helped Hitler a lot to rebuild Germany military power and prepare for WW2. In fact, they started WW2 as allies. Soviets were giving supplies to Germany till the moment Germans did U-turn and attacked USSR. Without Stalinism, were would probably be no need for WW2 at all. Or it would be a totally different event.
  - the_af 12y ago
rdtsc 12y ago
It is also interesting that in the last decade or so Putin has been trying to historically redeem Stalin. "He was brutal this and that", but, "he did all these great things as well" kind of idea. Maybe realizing he is also a dictator by redeeming one of the most brutal and evil dictators he is also legitimizing his own power.
the_af 12y ago
Because debating things is what people do and should do. Also, the scientific system in the Soviet Union does not automatically equate to Stalinism. On of the closing paragraphs more or less answers your question: "To avert any misunderstanding: I am not defending the Soviet Science System; I am describing it. There was a great deal of shoddy work, rent-seeking and suffering within that system. But there was also extremely good work, and the latter was a product of the system that engendered the former. That’s the paradox that comes from looking at any science system: it wouldn’t be a system at all if it didn’t, in some sense, work."
s_q_b 12y ago
If we want to avoid the nightmare of another superpower arising that behaves in that fashion, we would be wise to learn how it was able to amass so much power. Also, just because part a system is bad doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from it. The Soviets had some truly amazing technological achievements, especially in physics, and they often did their work on a shoestring budget. Learning and debating alternative systems is a good thing. Even if those systems were evil as a whole, there might be valuable insights somewhere within them.
fit2rule 12y ago
Stalinism didn't go away - it still exists in the mindset of the global elite as a mechanism for power. Writing it off with prejudice would be a serious mistake; for all its failings of the human species, it certainly provided some small powerful groups with a recipe for mass control. This is even more important a subject today than it ever was.
othaiNgo 12y ago
I disagree. Without Stalin's political system we were not able to build our nuclear and fusion shield (not only the bomb itself, but rockets, plains and other delivery systems), antimissile systems and so on. The goal of that defence project demanded hyper concentration of human resources, and Stalin did this. And if he didn't who can grant for shure that USA would not use their nukes against our country (or, may be some other country, which was in conflict with USA) as they did against Japan? The most people thanked Stalin for that safety he gave our nation, the minority had suffered. Yes, there was oversacrifices and exaggerations, and that was cruel regime and highly militarized. But it was necessary to protect ourselves from the unfriendly West (the West openly hated communism since the beggining, even when it was only internal Russian affair). And in the end, it was Churchill, who declared Сold War, not Stalin. And Putin has nothing in common with Stalin. You know, our elders say about our current political situation: if we would have Stalin nowadays the life would be far far better. Putin is not so strong, and smart, and firm and slefless, as Stalin was. For instance Putin have ended Russian Academy of Sciences So... You may not be afraid, we are not able to rebuild Union here in any sense.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > Yes, there was oversacrifices and exaggerations, and that was cruel regime and highly militarized. But it was necessary to protect ourselves from the unfriendly West (the West openly hated communism since the beggining, even when it was only internal Russian affair). And in the end, it was Churchill, who declared Сold War, not Stalin. Come on. The large-scale purges, the public trials, the goulags... this was done to suppress not only internal dissent, but any independent thought. How many loyal communists, original bolsheviks, were executed or sent to die in the camps? This had nothing to do with "protecting the USSR from the West" (I'll note that Stalin seemed very willing to work with the West, in the person of Adolf Hitler, as long as he got something out of it). Stalin was a mass murderer. You cannot brush his crimes under the carpet by talking about "exagerations", "sacrifices" and "necessity".
  - othaiNgo 12y ago
    And am I brushing something away? I'm just saying, that he was not catastrophic to our country. For instance during Yeltsin's democratic government there was no repressions but because of povetry died over 3000000 people, and we lost a lot of industrial enterprises. During Stalin's repressions died 650000 people, but he developed our country... So... Who was a greater catastrophe for Russia? You know, just claiming that Stalin was complete disaster for us is oversimplification.

by jkot 12y ago

hga 12y ago

Because "Commies Are Cool" (see the cult of Che), and their supporters imagine themselves as becoming commissars, not anonymous bodies in ditches.

avmich 12y ago
Unfortunately yes, to some extent. Propaganda is a serious force, as latest events in Russia and Ukraine are showing.

throwaway344 12y ago

I think that the interest here on HN would be similar for education in a long-lasting fascist (or whatever kind of brutal) state's scientific system. I really don't see the interest here as a moral statement on communism, but rather as just interest.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
And the morality of the sort of political system the US has (I'd say "capitalism" but that's a little simplistic), is also not being judged when we examine the US scientific approach.

m0skit0 12y ago

Without Stalinism the USSR would have probably lost WW2, which in turn means Hitler would not have been defeated. Sad but true.

s_q_b 12y ago
Meh, who knows what would have happened. If the Russian Revolution had played out differently, Russia could have become a socialist country more like modern European states, still broken the back of the Germans on the Eastern front, helped defeat Hitler, and we might have had a half century of free trade and economic growth. Accurately evaluating alternative history is next to impossible.
- warkid 12y ago
  "what would have happened" - suprising to see it here, in comments about a science-related article. The fact is that the most evil, biggest and thoughest army of all times was defeated(with enormous participation of the "western" allies, though). And still, it's kinda "doubtful" that Stalin was somewhat maybe a tiny bit good at commandment...
avmich 12y ago
Stalin purged so many military commanders it's doubtful USSR wouldn't have advantages in WW2 without Stalin. The war would likely be fought very differently - or not fought at all, as Hitler wouldn't be so careless with his Barbarossa plan.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Just look at the performance of the Red Army in the Winter War for an example.
mantas 12y ago
If there was no Stalin, WW2 would have been totally different. Soviet Union helped Hitler a lot to rebuild Germany military power and prepare for WW2. In fact, they started WW2 as allies. Soviets were giving supplies to Germany till the moment Germans did U-turn and attacked USSR. Without Stalinism, were would probably be no need for WW2 at all. Or it would be a totally different event.
- the_af 12y ago

rdtsc 12y ago

It is also interesting that in the last decade or so Putin has been trying to historically redeem Stalin. "He was brutal this and that", but, "he did all these great things as well" kind of idea. Maybe realizing he is also a dictator by redeeming one of the most brutal and evil dictators he is also legitimizing his own power.

the_af 12y ago

Because debating things is what people do and should do. Also, the scientific system in the Soviet Union does not automatically equate to Stalinism. On of the closing paragraphs more or less answers your question: "To avert any misunderstanding: I am not defending the Soviet Science System; I am describing it. There was a great deal of shoddy work, rent-seeking and suffering within that system. But there was also extremely good work, and the latter was a product of the system that engendered the former. That’s the paradox that comes from looking at any science system: it wouldn’t be a system at all if it didn’t, in some sense, work."

s_q_b 12y ago

If we want to avoid the nightmare of another superpower arising that behaves in that fashion, we would be wise to learn how it was able to amass so much power. Also, just because part a system is bad doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from it. The Soviets had some truly amazing technological achievements, especially in physics, and they often did their work on a shoestring budget. Learning and debating alternative systems is a good thing. Even if those systems were evil as a whole, there might be valuable insights somewhere within them.

fit2rule 12y ago

Stalinism didn't go away - it still exists in the mindset of the global elite as a mechanism for power. Writing it off with prejudice would be a serious mistake; for all its failings of the human species, it certainly provided some small powerful groups with a recipe for mass control. This is even more important a subject today than it ever was.

othaiNgo 12y ago

I disagree. Without Stalin's political system we were not able to build our nuclear and fusion shield (not only the bomb itself, but rockets, plains and other delivery systems), antimissile systems and so on. The goal of that defence project demanded hyper concentration of human resources, and Stalin did this. And if he didn't who can grant for shure that USA would not use their nukes against our country (or, may be some other country, which was in conflict with USA) as they did against Japan? The most people thanked Stalin for that safety he gave our nation, the minority had suffered. Yes, there was oversacrifices and exaggerations, and that was cruel regime and highly militarized. But it was necessary to protect ourselves from the unfriendly West (the West openly hated communism since the beggining, even when it was only internal Russian affair). And in the end, it was Churchill, who declared Сold War, not Stalin. And Putin has nothing in common with Stalin. You know, our elders say about our current political situation: if we would have Stalin nowadays the life would be far far better. Putin is not so strong, and smart, and firm and slefless, as Stalin was. For instance Putin have ended Russian Academy of Sciences So... You may not be afraid, we are not able to rebuild Union here in any sense.

mercurial 12y ago
> Yes, there was oversacrifices and exaggerations, and that was cruel regime and highly militarized. But it was necessary to protect ourselves from the unfriendly West (the West openly hated communism since the beggining, even when it was only internal Russian affair). And in the end, it was Churchill, who declared Сold War, not Stalin. Come on. The large-scale purges, the public trials, the goulags... this was done to suppress not only internal dissent, but any independent thought. How many loyal communists, original bolsheviks, were executed or sent to die in the camps? This had nothing to do with "protecting the USSR from the West" (I'll note that Stalin seemed very willing to work with the West, in the person of Adolf Hitler, as long as he got something out of it). Stalin was a mass murderer. You cannot brush his crimes under the carpet by talking about "exagerations", "sacrifices" and "necessity".
- othaiNgo 12y ago
  And am I brushing something away? I'm just saying, that he was not catastrophic to our country. For instance during Yeltsin's democratic government there was no repressions but because of povetry died over 3000000 people, and we lost a lot of industrial enterprises. During Stalin's repressions died 650000 people, but he developed our country... So... Who was a greater catastrophe for Russia? You know, just claiming that Stalin was complete disaster for us is oversimplification.