CH: Stalin's a Good Guy

stalin-jung_2.gif


Stalin was certainly celebrity material :)
 
stalin-jung_2.gif


Stalin was certainly celebrity material :)

I for one was shocked upon seeing this photo.

Also if he became a singer that would be an interesting turn of events. Joe Steel the man with the iron lung! They might call him.

Though he could also stay in the seminary and become a priest and live an ignoble life as one that helped the poor in Russia or something like that.
 
Opera singer, moves to America, ends up in Benny Goodmans band, is a part of swing band era during the 1920's and 30's...
 
Stalin's mother did also say that Stalin himself could have become an Orthodox priest, and she said this when she was in her deathbed.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Stalin's mother did also say that Stalin himself could have become an Orthodox priest, and she said this when she was in her deathbed.
She also said it to his face.

Upon a visit in the mid-30s (IIRC, the last one he made), Stalin asked her, "Why did you beat me so hard?"

"That's why you turned out so well. Joseph, what exactly are you now?"

"Well, remember the Tsar? I'm something like a Tsar."

"You'd have done better to become a priest."
 
Stalin had an abusive mother possibly? Hmm, well, Hitler did too so... time to kill some abusers, or at least cut out their abusiveness?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Stalin had an abusive mother possibly? Hmm, well, Hitler did too so... time to kill some abusers, or at least cut out their abusiveness?
Stalin had an incredibly abusive father, an abusive mother, and lived in a village that had weekly bare-knuckle free-for-alls refereed by priests. Getting beaten up was part and parcel of growing up in the Caucasus at the time.

Hitler had an abusive-ish father, but Klara thought her little Ade was God on earth.
 
Stalin had an incredibly abusive father, an abusive mother, and lived in a village that had weekly bare-knuckle free-for-alls refereed by priests.

Hitler had an abusive father, but Klara thought her little Ade was God on earth.

...Ouch. That explains his personal issues though, although why he(relatively speaking) turned out better than Hitler on many issues is something else entirely.

With that in mind... kill his parents and replace them with people that don't treat him like shit?
 
She also said it to his face.

Upon a visit in the mid-30s (IIRC, the last one he made), Stalin asked her, "Why did you beat me so hard?"

"That's why you turned out so well. Joseph, what exactly are you now?"

"Well, remember the Tsar? I'm something like a Tsar."

"You'd have done better to become a priest."

Poor Stalin. I can imagine Klara Podzl telling young Adolf Hitler that he'd be better as an architect.
 
What was wrong with him in reality? Was it mental illness?

If you read Ðilas' account, there isn't anything wrong with him.

He is a competent leader who perhaps over uses brutalisation and political brutality to the detriment of his own interests.

Fitzpatrick and a variety of "No Good Soviets" analysts point out that Stalin's policies were in the material and political interest of the vast majority of the industrial working class, lower party members and senior party members. Even agricultural proletarians who were forced into industrial work benefitted greatly from periods of high Stalinism.

The chief losers were Ukrainians, selected national minorities, agricultural proletarians, the few agricultural peasants, the agricultural petits-bourgeois, non red specialists, limited numbers of mid and senior government and party members, and the unnecessary deaths of soldiers and civillians in preventing European fascism.

Stalin directly and indirectly supplied high standards of living, promotion, and the promise of further increases and promotions to the majority of the Soviet population; and, more importantly, to the strategically important sections of new party members and urban industrial workers.

There is nothing particularly horrible about Stalin as a person; the entire structure of Soviet society, politically and economically, ensured that industrialisation was going to be extremely ugly for the politically insignificant portion of the Soviet citizenry and for a minority of government and party members.

yours,
Sam R.
 
If you read Ðilas' account, there isn't anything wrong with him.

He is a competent leader who perhaps over uses brutalisation and political brutality to the detriment of his own interests.

Fitzpatrick and a variety of "No Good Soviets" analysts point out that Stalin's policies were in the material and political interest of the vast majority of the industrial working class, lower party members and senior party members. Even agricultural proletarians who were forced into industrial work benefitted greatly from periods of high Stalinism.

The chief losers were Ukrainians, selected national minorities, agricultural proletarians, the few agricultural peasants, the agricultural petits-bourgeois, non red specialists, limited numbers of mid and senior government and party members, and the unnecessary deaths of soldiers and civillians in preventing European fascism.

Stalin directly and indirectly supplied high standards of living, promotion, and the promise of further increases and promotions to the majority of the Soviet population; and, more importantly, to the strategically important sections of new party members and urban industrial workers.

There is nothing particularly horrible about Stalin as a person; the entire structure of Soviet society, politically and economically, ensured that industrialisation was going to be extremely ugly for the politically insignificant portion of the Soviet citizenry and for a minority of government and party members.

yours,
Sam R.

...Except for the part where he liquidates virtually the entire Red Army officer core including strategic genius Marshal Tukhachevsky and all old-guard Bolsheviks.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
...Except for the part where he liquidates virtually the entire Red Army officer core including strategic genius Marshal Tukhachevsky and all old-guard Bolsheviks.
This doesn't mean he has mental problems, this means he doesn't like people who could undermine his power.

Tukhachevsky and Stalin loathed one another and personally held each other responsible for the Bolshevik failures in Poland. Being good at your job has never been a guarantee of safety, just a bonus.
 
Well, here's a sequence of events I can think of...without giving specific dates:

-Iosif Dzhugashvili does not drop out of seminary in his native Georgia, thus continuing his education to priesthood.

-Sometime around the turn of the century, the Tsar (whoever he may be) decided to intensify the Russification of Georgia, forcing many educational institutions (including the seminary) to be under government control. Dzhugashvili decides to flee to Lemberg with his fiancée in Galicia to continue his priestly education. They got married a year after arriving in Galicia.

-During his stay in Lemberg, Dzhugashvili decided to defect to the Catholic Church upon exposure to the Catholics there. He was eventually ordained deacon, then priest for the Greek Archeparchy of Lemberg.

-After World War I, Lemberg was seized by Poland and became Lwow.

-During his time in Interbellum Poland, the Archeparch sent him and his family to Warsaw to advocate the rights of the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia. During his numerous travels to the Polish Cities, he met Karol Woytila and Maximilian Kolbe.

-Mrs. Dzhugashvili died in 1929 in Warsaw. He relinquished almost all of his personal properties to his now grown-up sons, wanting to devote the rest of his life to the priesthood.

-Around 1932, the Archeparch sent Dzhugashvili to Rome to be the Polish/Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church's representative there.

-Around 1935ish, Dzhugashvili was ordained a bishop, taking over as Archeparch of Lwow upon the death of the previous eparch. At the same year, he hears of the Holodomor in the neighbouring Ukraine. Using his influence, he managed to convince the Polish Government to denounce 'Stalin' (OTL Trotsky).

-1935 - 1939: Tens of thousands of Ukrainians sneak their way into Poland, risking death from the border guards of the Red Army. Most of these refugees found their way in Lwow.

-1939: As Archeparch Dzhugashvili was visiting Archbishop Sapieha in Krakow, 'Stalin' and Hitler invade Poland. Despite his wishes to return to his Soviet-occupied see in Lwow, the Polish Government and Catholic Clergy urged him to stay in Krakow, as they felt that the Nazis was the lesser of the two evils.

-1940: Archeparch Dzhugashvili fell into depression as he found out one of his sons was killed in combat fighting the Soviets. He thus devoted most of his time helping Sapieha run a clandestine seminary in Krakow, taking a particular interest in teaching Woytila.

-1942: Dzhugashvili learns about the Auschwitz Camp, and drawing from his experiences in helping the Ukrainians, made plans to try and save Jews in Poland.

-1945: As the Red Army sweep the Nazis away from Poland, Sapieha urged Dzhugashvili to flee to Rome, rightfully fearing that the Soviets would kill him. Dzhugashvili, wanting to return to his see for the final time, went to Lwow instead.

-1946: From the personal orders of 'Stalin', Dzhugashvili was shot by a firing squad for 'sedition', i.e. his role in smuggling Ukranians to Poland during the Holomodor.

-1978: Newly-elected Ioannes Paulus II began proceedings for the beatification and canonization of his former mentor, Archeparch Dzhugashvili of Lwow.

-1984: Dzhugashvili beatified as a martyr.

-1991: One month after the USSR dissolved, Dzhugashvili was canonized as St. Joseph of Lwow.
 
No Stalin regime and the USSR obligingly does everything exactly the same? Nah. (To say nothing of a rather distorted diaspora-driven version of the collectivisation famine. Thousands of peasants were fleeing the famine. They were fleeing to cities in Ukraine and other parts of the USSR.)
 
No Stalin regime and the USSR obligingly does everything exactly the same? Nah.

Hey, I don't claim it's perfect.:D Just playing around and having fun with the timeline.

The whole point is, Dzhugashvili became a cleric, saved people from the Holodomor and the Holocaust (or their equivalents in ATL), and was martyred for his deeds.
 
That's the thing, though: it entails changing Stalin into a profoundly different kind of person at some point. The real trick - as EdT has shown with Cromwell, Mosley, and Winston Churchill - is to get basically the same person to occupy a profoundly different place in our cultural memory. So how could Stalin the violent revolutionary be a hero? Something mentioned here - and used by EdT, come to think of it, about Lenin - is to make him the walk-on assassin of a villainous figure.
 
That's the thing, though: it entails changing Stalin into a profoundly different kind of person at some point. The real trick - as EdT has shown with Cromwell, Mosley, and Winston Churchill - is to get basically the same person to occupy a profoundly different place in our cultural memory. So how could Stalin the violent revolutionary be a hero? Something mentioned here - and used by EdT, come to think of it, about Lenin - is to make him the walk-on assassin of a villainous figure.

Or to make them into the underdog. Just look at Trotsky who was at best a very dark shade of grey yet is remembered as being a hero for opposing Stalin but failing.
 
I'm not terribly familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy, but the thought of Stalin as some sort of radical religious reformer strikes me as an interesting possibility. Basically, assume that he doesn't get caught with the literature he had at seminary and keep him "in the tent". Any thoughts on where that goes?
 
Top