I feel like talking about Stalin is like walking on eggshells… You don’t want to go, “Stalin’s death toll is overexaggerated, in my opinion he didn’t kill enough people!!!” because that will make the average person instantly stop hearing you

What’s the best way to talk about Stalin in a sensitive way that doesn’t trigger a fight or flight response?

  • ClathrateG [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    47·
    10 days ago

    If you’re talking with western libs start with a comparison to Churchill:

    ‘You think Churchill was a good guy for his part in beating the Nazis right?’

    ‘Yep’

    ‘Despite the fact that he was directly involved in perpetrating a genocide that killed millions(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)?’

    ‘Uhhh’

    ‘Well don’t you think that Stalin who was even more instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and while he may have had policies that led to unnecessary deaths is also worthy of praise? and perhaps your admiration of Churchill and contempt for Stalin is influenced by propaganda rather than an neutral analysis of both’s intentions and actions?’

    Some are too propagandised to even consider it, some more critical thinking and curious may actually consider their preconceived notations are wrong and do some reading

    You can also hit them with things like, ‘The over-demonisation of Stalin and the USSR in official US/western history has been driven by literal Nazi propaganda’

    ‘Nazis like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Halder#Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht a Nazi general who post-war became lead consultant to the US Army Historical Division is responsible for such things as the myth of the clean Wehrmacht’, that ‘the soviets were worse than the Nazis’, ‘Stalin personally ordered human wave attacks that’s the only way the Untermensch soviets could beat the superior aryans, certainly not through any sort of tactical and strategic brilliance’ etc’

    ‘What’s that you didn’t even know this guy existed and had such an effect on the history you were taught? wowee don’t you think then there maybe other notions and opinions that you hold as being gospel truth despite never examining their source may also be wrong?’

    ofc this requires a at-least somewhat receptive interlocutor, some people simply shut down at the association of anything positive with Stalin and the USSR, that even things like ‘the Stalin led soviets liberated every single Nazi death camp’ won’t penetrate, Which is how you can get every member of the contemporary Canadian parliament give a standing ovation to a Nazi collaborator who was in an SS unit, even after being introduced as a ‘hero who fought against the russians in world war two’ I have to imagine at least some of those people have basic knowledge of history and know that Russia/USSR was an allied power in WWII, but the drilled in ‘stalin/ussr/russia/communism == bad’ takes precedence

    • MarxMadness [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      16·
      10 days ago

      The comparison to Churchill (or FDR) is a good starting point. When libs talk about these “heroes,” their positive accomplishments are what’s important, and any genocide, segregation, forced displacement, etc. that they had a hand in is a mere uncomfortable blemish on a generally good record. They were products of their time working in imperfect systems, they made some progress in some places, their replacement would have been worse, etc.

      I say that’s about how I view Stalin – 70% good, 30% bad – except his state was generally pursuing worthy aims instead of Churchill or FDR, who were presiding over and expanding exploitative empires.

      There are usually two directions the conversation goes from here:

      1. Specific, objectionable Soviet practices. Internal deportations of ethic groups, for example. Getting into the weeds is almost always useless, because unless you and the person you’re speaking with sit down and read some books together (and unless they accept that those books are accurate), you’re going to get lost in disagreements about what actually happened. Best to stick with pointing out that your Churchills or FDRs did the same stuff (Japanese internment, for example), and that at worst they are viewed as flawed, not the worst dictator ever.
      2. “You’re doing some kind of fallacy by comparing the USSR to other countries.” Here, I usually point out that comparing state actions is a foundational part of what passes for international law. We’re not judging states against the People’s Republic of Heaven, we’re asking if one system is better than another. Comparisons to other countries are also inherent in any discussion of international relations, which definitionally involve other countries.