all 2 comments

[–]Wyboth 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Heres' a good introduction to Stalin; I highly recommend reading the entire thing, if anyone has the time. It goes into why Khrushchev's attack on Stalin is very hypocritical, considering what Khrushchev said at the time about the purges.

[–]captain_cornflakes[S] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That article reads like a lot of Stalin apologia, and glosses over what was actually occurring in the totalitarian USSR. The technological advancement cited was only achieved because of slavery in the Gulag archipelago. This shadow system was fueled by waves of mass arrests, carried out by a genuinely jackbooted police state. Here's Solzhenitsyn's description of Article 58:

One can find more epithets in praise of this article than Turgenev once assembled to praise the Russian language, or Nekrasov to praise Mother Russia: great, powerful, abundant, highly ramified, multiform, wide sweeping 58, which summed up the world not so much through the exact terms of its sections as in their extended dialectical interpretation. Who among us has not experienced its all-encompassing embrace? In all truth, there is no step, thought, action, or lack of action under the heavens which could not be punished by the heavy hand of Article 58.

Arrests by quota went to the torture system which then sent you to the archipelago. The lucky made it out alive in some form, most were shuffled between camps until their death. It's quite honestly disgusting to see a defense of the largest totalitarian state in history under the guise of "Well it could have been worse" and "At least he did some things right".