Jump to content

Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Lenin in England

Following Lenin's death many streets in the strongly socialist (communist?) mining villages in the North East of England were changed to the names of Lenin and other communist leaders. See: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=DH9+6PA&om=1 or Chopwell. Is this worthy of a mention in this article?

  • I agree. It is interesting that those actions were taken. It would be interesting to include the question of why.

errata note

The main article refers to a decision to execute the Tsar and family in August 1918. They were executed purportedly in Yekaterinburg the night of July 17-18 1918 -- the date of the discussion in the main article is in error (or is an old calendar form reference).


Deleted material

"Historical research, especially after the fall of Communism opened the Communist achieves, has shown many negative aspects of Lenin's regime. From the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calender): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).

After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.

In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.

During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121). The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Finally, Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. Foreign relief organizations suspended aid when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [1][2][3]."

As can be seen, it is extremely well-referenced. However, the communist supporters seems to be extremely afraid to let other know of this and immediately revert all attempts to insert it.Ultramarine Ultramarine 13:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have never heard of this before. I highly recommend that you consult with a historian before publishing anything you read off of the internet! Infact, from what I learned in Western Civ, the Red Army didn't kill peasants, but they did consume much of their food (soldiers eat first, civilians second), leading to peasants starving. However, the White Army did not have support of towns, and they would raid towns... raping and kiling the civilians as well. My source? A well educated history professor of 30+ years.--So Hungry 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultramarine's panic is misdirected. All this information and much is already present in one form or another somewhere else. See eg Category:Soviet repressions. The problem with quite a few people is that they fail to understand that it is both meaningless and misleading put the whole history of the Soviet Union into two articles: Lenin and Stalin. (It is misleading because this may be seen as an attempt to put all blame onto these two persons only.) mikka (t) 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
These are reverted not because everyone here is a communist supporter, but because many of these things are tangental and hardly relevent to lenin's biographical article. The spiel from the black book of communism should probably be in the criticisms of communism article or an article detailing soviet atrocities, the actions after the assassination attempt are already covered here I believe. Remember! Wikipedia:Stay on topic, beyond POV disputes, this is the primary reason that I believe your edits are usually reverted.
An example of the irrelevance of those statistics in the lenin article:
There were large scale rapes of German women by American soldiers in world war 2 documented, but it would be absurd to add that to the FDR article. How about all the deaths in the american civil war? should we attribute those to Lincoln? Hundreds of communists have been imprisoned, deported, and tortured by the American government over the years. Thousands of humans across the US and the world died during the great depression. Christians and criminals were killed in arena battles during the heyday of the ancient Roman Empire. All of these we can go find statistics for, but we dont throw these statistics around in the articles of the rulers of the time. Those statistics belong elsewhere, in articles concerning the topic of the statistic and not who was alive and head of the state at the time.
After doing a little research into some of those statistics you named I've found there are multiple ranged figures and you have taken the upper ranges or the higest ranged figures of deaths and imprisonments i could find. This further hurts the willingness of wikipedians to accept your word or even your citations due to the selective nature of their inclusion.
Try and write for wikipedia with reputable scholarly books and articles with proper citations, because I would be concerned with the neutrality and accuracy of some of these sources)...and be sure to add the information into appropriate articles. This will contribute not only to the quality of wikipedia but to the upstanding academic nature of the community here. Solidusspriggan 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well worded about Lincoln and the american civil war Solidusspriggan, I agree with what you say!

---Bronks 25 January 2006.

If there is something wrong with other articles, correct them. There is a difference between wars deaths and deliberate executions of civilians, often innocent of even having a different political view. I give ranges, not the highest numbers. For the rest, original research without sources which is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

for users joining the discussion this subject of "deleted material" is a continuation of the "head of soviet state" dispute. The "totally disputed" tag remains because of the anti-communist, out of context, and politically motivated information added, subtracted, and manipulated by user:ultramarine.

There is nothing wrong with those other articles, and should be nothing wrong with this one in the same way. User ultramarine puts very high, the highest possible, ends on the ranges of deaths, he also villifies Lenin constantly and adds highly irrelevent(to the article at hand) statistics. There are articles where such statistics are appropriate and I encourage ultramarine to contribute to those articles rather than adding tangental and villifying information to this article. Criticisms of communism, the article on the famine, articles on soviet atrocities etc are all appropriate places for many of these statistics. Please contribute constructively to these articles rather than destructively to this one. The state of the issue at hand is that ultramarine is the only user disputing our exclusion of his biased and out of context tangental edits A more accurate and neutral version of the section is in the works by a few wikipedians here which will be released soon at which time I will remove the template added by my intelligentsian brother who advocated for its removal. Ultramarine has no intention of reaching consensus or compromise. Anyone who favors to better this article in the name of neutrality and non tangental additions of only slightly related or entirely unrelated statistics associated with the times more than the ruler?:

  1. Aye Solidusspriggan 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) as well as in the interest of the WikiProject Soviet Union

Another user adding his agreement. (Kozlovesred 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Aye as well. GeorgeSears

The Black Book of Communism is extremely partial and like pointed out by others, goes for the big, impressive death stasitics where possible. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't enjoy any wider support among professional historians. It's not downright absurd, like the writings of Rudolph Rummel, but it has a very obvious agenda which isn't simply the pursuit of truth. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether the facts, or indeed which facts, should actually be mentioned here or not, but as a source the book should be used with caution.
Peter Isotalo 07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


The Black Book of communism is "extremely partial" and sourced Marxist websites aren't? Ridiculous. Its a historical source, extremely well reviewed, published by Harvard University Press, and I've linked to it, just as the Marxist website has been sourced.

Further NPOV points in the article: "The White Army acted with great brutality." Blatant lie of omission: both sides did, as the SOURCE ITSELF says. I've changed this to Both sides.

  • Grain requisitioning is indicative of Lenin's personal directives and his interpretation of Communism. It can be compared and contrasted with Stalin's apporach and Kruschev's criticisms of Lenin's actions and as such is a springboard for comment on Lenin as an individual. It is certainly factually sound and should be included if this article is to be an accurate account of his reign.

Head of State

Line 72. I think there is a violation of wiki policy here: one cannot baselessly assert that " . .it is often argued that Lenin countermanded . ." - is this numerically true? Statistically? Was a study made? Someone is trying to insert what appears to be original research. It is more correct to say 'who' exactly argues this. What is empirically known is that Trotskyists and Left Communists argue this. I tried to add as much and found it reverted by user Butros. So i have reverted it. I will revert it again so long as I see that I am following wiki policy on unreferenced opions, etc. Capone 07:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Left Communists, or as Lenin called them, "ultra-leftists," might argue that "Lenin countermanded proletarian democracy," but Trotskyists certainly do not. Also, this argument is cited by many to the "right" of Lenin as well, not just by "socialists to the left." Kozlovesred 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. So then - the point was not which people argue this, but rather, that NO CITATION of who argued this was given!! If it is agreed that it can be determined who argued this, which is the only basis by which the vague 'it is argued' comment may stand, then it is also necessary in following wiki policy to add WHO argues this (factions, individuals, etc.). Is it agreed, then, that it should be included who argues this? Because the way it appears otherwise is along the lines of the famous Fox News 'many people argue' statements. It occurred to me that those to Lenin's right also made this argument, but it also occurred to me that since those people had opposed the revolution in the first place, logically, their argument would have no standing. Nonetheless, they made the argument, and it should be included who made that argument. I see this has been reverted to the vague 'god voice' style authority on Lenin, unsourced, once again. This violates wiki policy, and so I will revert once more, sigh. Don't make me bring the rest of my wiki friends here to play, okay? Capone 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just added examples of who made that argument - kollantai to Lenin's left and Kautsky to Lenin's right. Is this problematic? Capone 03:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's fair. Kozlovesred 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Why is the Russian unbolded? The difference between и and и is large enough to be confusing, especially to people who don't know the alphabet very well (the difference between т and т would get even more confusing). I would revert it back, but since it's already been changed, I'm wondering if this is a policy for all Wikipedia articles. Linka 23:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Foreign names are generally written in italics and not bolded, but it may vary depending on the script used. Chinese characters are, for example, not suited for bolding and especially not italics, so they're written in normal style. I don't believe native names should be bolded in an English language encyclopedia, Latin script or not.
Peter Isotalo 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Featured Article Candidate?

This article is, in my view, with a bit of work, possibly a candidate for nomination to be featured. The section in which the neutrality is being disputed will need to be rectified, but everything else appears to be there - sources, further reading, etc.

Thoughts? --RevenDS 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is no longer disputed as I was the one who included the disputed tag for the current version.

Still disputed. The many well-documented human rights violations causing the death of millions of people under Lenin's regime should be mentioned. Ultramarine 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
we covered this issue months ago. There were massive human rights violations under the regime of every US president before the civil war, as slavery was still in effect. Do we include those in the article of each president before lincoln? of course not, this was already discussed and resolved, as a matter of fact I added the dipsuted tag because of the type of information that you just added. Solidusspriggan 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I say that with the most recent version reverted to by me (which is the consensus version reached by all editors involved in this article accept Ultramarine) Should be put up for nomination. It is a fine article which is unbiased and highly informative and well structured.Solidusspriggan 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this still a featured article candidate? It has been for four months now, and if an fac article has more opposing votes than supporting votes, and this doesn't change within a week, it becomes a former fac. So, why isn't this a former fac? I'm waiting for an answer. --Kschwerdt514 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

The current edit war being waged by user:Ultramarine was already waged once by him and lost to the majority of reasonable and intelligent editors. In looking though the history one will find this is the exact information that led the wikipedians to include a "totally disputed" tag. Now that the tag has finally been removed Ultramarine has begun adding this non-neutral and non-factual information again in an attempt to undermine the integrity of wikipedia and promote his userpage stated agendas. Furthermore after this most recent round of attacks on the integrity, neutrality, and factual accuracy of this article, and in the inevitable end that has come about leaving his edits omitted, he has now added a "totally disputed" tag to a section that was once determined by all other wikipedians involved as accurate and neutral.

All my added material has been sourced.Ultramarine 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The bot is back! Kozlovesred 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of Lenin

I just wanted to post the relevant paragraphs from Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution:

"Lenin was no automaton of infallible decisions. He was "only" a man of genius, and nothing human was alien to him, therein included the capacity to make mistakes. Lenin said this of the attitude of epigones to the great revolutionists: 'After their deaths, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonise them, so to speak, to render a certain homage to their names in order thus the more safely to betray them in action.' The present epigones demand that Lenin be acknowledged infallible in order the more easily to extend the same dogma to themselves."
[...]
"The recent Soviet histories have completely erased from the October revolution the extremely important and instructive chapter about the disagreements between Lenin and the Central Committee—both upon the basic matter of principle in which Lenin was right, and also upon those particular, but very important, questions upon which the Central Committee was right. According to the new doctrine, neither Lenin nor the Central Committee could make a mistake, and consequently there could have been no conflict between them. In those cases where it becomes impossible to deny that there was a disagreement, it is, in obedience to a general prescription, laid at the door of Trotsky." [4]

It shows the difference between admiring Lenin and deifying him... -- Nikodemos 13:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has been quoting this article, which is a book review, in his recent additions to the censorship section. What he did not quote was the low credibility that the author of that review places upon the book, and his repeated warnings that the book is biased. Specifically:

My main reservation is the tendentious nature of the editor's own role. Mr. Pipes, an emeritus professor of Russian history at Harvard, is famous for his low opinion of Lenin -- in The Russian Revolution (1990) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (1994) he depicts Lenin as the devil incarnate -- and it is difficult to avoid the inference that his selection and interpretation of the documents in The Unknown Lenin have been slanted to support this view.
Mr. Pipes constantly urges us to think the worst of Lenin, even where the evidence is quite ambivalent, and often gives us a one-sided gloss. For example, he claims that Lenin was opposed to the Workers Opposition of 1920-21 (which defended trade union rights) because he considered workers to be fundamentally unsocialist and unrevolutionary. But not a word is said about the other (more common) interpretations of this -- for example, that Lenin was afraid of the Workers Opposition precisely because he recognized that the working class remained a revolutionary force and was still committed to the Socialist ideals of 1917, only now their anger was directed against Lenin's party, which claimed to rule in their name.
Mr. Pipes is at his most controversial in his treatment of by far the most important document in The Unknown Lenin, a speech to a closed session of the Communist Party conference in September 1920. The context of the speech was the Red Army's defeat at the gates of Warsaw after it had begun a counteroffensive against the Polish Army, which had invaded Ukraine. According to Mr. Pipes, the speech proves that Lenin had intended to use the march on Warsaw as a springboard for the invasion of Germany and England. Thus the Poles saved Europe from the Reds.
But in fact Lenin said nothing of the sort. Rather, he argued that the counter-offensive had been meant to deter the West from invading Russia. Lenin claimed that Poland had been built up by the Allies at Versailles as a weapon against Soviet Russia. Warsaw was the center of the entire current system of international imperialism and the march on it was meant to shake that system and inspire revolutions in the West. This was a form of national self-assertion, a way of warning the capitalist powers that Russia would no longer allow itself to be carved up by them and would fight back when attacked. It was a political offensive against the West, a declaration of the international civil war, not the start of an invasion of the West. Nowhere did Lenin mention Germany or England -- except in a political context -- and it is unrealistic to suggest that, aware as he was of the Red Army's exhaustion from the campaign against Poland, he would have pushed it on against these stronger powers. The Reds crossing the English Channel? This is surely a cold war fantasy, or perhaps the figment of a Russophobic mind. [5]

Just putting things in perspective... -- Nikodemos 13:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You ignore this:

Otherwise, however, Mr. Pipes's editorial views are fully justified by the evidence. As one would expect, most of the newly released documents from the Soviet archives uncover Lenin's darker side. Three aspects of this in particular stand out.
One is Lenin's cruelty, his callous attitude to the helpless victims of his revolution and his calls for terror against its enemies. In one shocking letter of 1922, Lenin urged the Politburo to put down an uprising by the clergy in the textile town of Shuia: The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing . . . the better. One Russian historian has recently estimated that 8,000 priests and laymen were executed as a result of this letter.
Another aspect is Lenin's contempt for his closest comrades (although not for Stalin, according to Mr. Pipes). Lev Kamenev was a poor fellow, weak, frightened, intimidated. As for Trotsky, he was in love with the organization, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue." Ultramarine 13:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the material is highly controversial, and was published by an editor who specifically set out to make Lenin look bad. Honestly, Ultramarine, this whole ad hominem argument you are trying to make here is really below you. -- Nikodemos 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The material may be controversial but is based on original Soviet sources. Figes and Pipes only differs in their intepretation, not regarding the validity of the documents.Ultramarine 13:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Granted, but when all you have to quote is a single sentence, don't you think it might be just a little bit out of context? It is a fact that Lenin did not shy away from extreme means to achieve his goals. Whether those means were as unjustified as his critics claim, however, is another matter. Killing civilians for the purpose of winning a war was considered legitimate up to and including WW2, and was a tactic used by all sides. -- Nikodemos 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether his personally ordered terror was justified can be discussed. But Wikipedia should not hide the criticism against him. Wikipedia discusses the civilians killed during WWII, the same standard should apply to Lenin. Ultramarine
  • We've had this talk before with Ultramarine. Richard Pipes can not be considered a neutral source, he is super POV. He is not a historian, he is a conservative politician and a super anti-communist. Bronks

What the Soviet Union did to Lenin's legacy ought to go in the article on the Soviet Union. What was included was totally irrelevant information. Also, the hanging order was included without a hint of context or neutrality whatsoever. Kozlovesred 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As documented in material available at the Library of Congress [6][7][8]:

11-8-18. Send to Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists: Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take away all of their grain. 4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this. Yours, Lenin. P.S. Use your toughest people for this." Ultramarine 07:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we've got two places around this article where we could peruse that order! Kozlovesred 07:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This text is taken completely out of context and used as POV. There is no mentioning of the situation in Russia at the time, the civil war and, what was it, approx. 19 forign nations invading to support the whites. There is already a good mentioning of the red terror: "Tens of thousands of perceived enemies of the Revolution, many accused of actively conspiring against the Bolshevik government, were put in labor camps and up to 200,000 "counterrevolutionary elements" were executed." That should be enough. Bronks 28/3 2006.

No, the red army just defeated the white army!

Not there 'allies' like this article stats. Very POV! The allies had token forces that barely fought at all. And when they did, they won! (Romanyankee78 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Sure, like when the Czech troops surrendered White Admiral and would be dictator Kolchak to the Bolsheviks who shot him. -Tom Cod

Lenin's personal responsibility for the terror

IMO, the biggest fault of this page is that is that Lenin himself is often invisible and the bit on the terror is the prime example. What we hav is an account of the early years of Bolshevik rule. What is barely touched on is the extent that Lenin put his personal stamp on that regime. This page is entitled not Bolshevism but Lenin. Did the terror happen in spite of Lenin or was Lenin a prime instigator of the terror.

That's why the hanging order fulfills a role. It points to the direct involvement of Lenin personally.

I'd like to know what is behind to the opposition. Are people going to revert should I quote an academically respectable historian which points to Lenin's personal advocacy of terror? Is the opposition to the hanging order based on a postmodernist relativism that states that everyone in that era was equally brutal? If the later then I would say this view is mistaken. War Criminals did not in that time face ending up in the Hague but customs of war did restrict what was acceptable. The civil war was brutal to an extent that was indeed exceptional for its time. Dejvid 13:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The Civil War was brutal because of the conditions. The Russian Revolution and Civil War came out of WWI which was a lot more brutal. The Bolsheviks opposed WWI 100%, and they didn't start the Civil War either. Lenin knew there would be a class war (civil war), but he didn't start it. The war was started by the former tsarists, whites and other counterrevolutionaries in an attempt to overthrow the popular government of Russia with aid from many, mighty foreign nations. The Bolsheviks could not have remain in power during such conditions without a combination of 1. great popular support from the Russian people and many minority peoples in Russia, 2. using brutal methods against brutal enemies. Bronks 1/4 2006.
    • The hanging order was issued before Fanya Kaplan attempted assassination, so that cannot be used as an excuse. Russia was at peace with Germany at this time. The Hanging order should be included as a very important evidence of Lenin's personal responsibility for the terror. It also give important information on his personality. If background information is lacking, it can be added to the text. Ultramarine 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


The WWI was a lot more brutal?? Did the Germans conduct terror on the same level against civilians in northern France and Belgium?

That Lenin believed that his regime needed the terror to survive is certain. Whether he was right in that belief is another matter (and of course leaving aside whether a regime that can only survive by such means deserves to survive). In any case, even if so, it would not justify censoring out his personal advocacy of the terror.Dejvid 13:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Was WWI a lot more brutal? How do you propose we measure that?

In point of fact it was Bronks who brought this up by claiming that the civil war should be seen in the context of the "lot more brutal" WWI.
I think he will hav his job cut out if he wishes to sustain that.Dejvid 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, of course censorship is never justified. But so is material included from a clearly biased perspective. If you want to find something that will point to Lenin's personal advocacy of the terror, at least find something more comprehensive than his order that 100 kulaks be hanged, in which he also explains his reasons for his advocacy of terror. One can easily come in and point out that the hanging order was only one incident, and Lenin never resorted to it again.

Of course, one must remember the context as well. It's very easy to moralize, being as we are not surrounded by war and revolution. Kozlovesred 17:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Instead of accusing Lenin of being "too brutal", one could question if maybe he was too kind. Right after the revolution, the Bolsheviks made the huge mistake of trusting their enemies, when they let most of the former tsarists officers go free as long as they swore not to take up arms against the new government and the russian people. If the Bolsheviks had imprisoned these white officers right away, instead of letting them go and organize the counterrevolution, the Civil War could, if not have been avoided, at least have been smaller. Lenin had to pay for his initial kindness by using more brutality later. Bronks 1/4 2006.
By all means include references that support that POV.Dejvid 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
my statment is not any more POV than yours. Bronks 7/4 2006.
There seems to be an attitude of: "It's sourced, so it's not POV to include," which, coming from the Ultramarine School of Historical Distortion, is nothing we haven't seen before. Kozlovesred 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it POV stuff can be included in Wiki provided it is flagged as such by including a reference. Hence for Bronks to include something on the lines he stated is valid if he is quoting someone but not as his own POV.Dejvid 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a little late but here is a good quote: "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 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." Trotsky - Terror and Communism[9]

--Bronks 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Trotsky is being very selectiv in the facts he includes. However if it is clearly flagged as Trotsky's opinion then by all means include it. If I hav time I will find some good references that giv a different (and IMO a truer) picture. If I don't then that's my look out.Dejvid 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Figes

This comment seems a little unfair on Figes: "However, the nature of these so-called "excesses," as well as Lenin's reasons behind their defense, remain unnamed." It is true that Figes does not state which excesses Bukharin et al were complaining about but this is because Figes has earlier extensively describe the capricious nature of the terror, with little concern that many innocent (by even a Bolshevik definition) people were caught up in the net along with the extensive use of torture. Given the context of Figes book it is quite reasonable for Figes to feel further details were not needed. The point that a faction in the Bolshevik party wanted to mitigate the terror and Lenin opposed this remains valid whatever the details. Hence the responsibility of Lenin is greater than for that of the Bolshevik party as a whole.Dejvid 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and the comment will go back. Not illuminating the nature of these so-called "excesses" is just as academically capricious, and I would say ideological, as the "nature of the terror" itself. You are being quite unfair yourself by deleting my comment on Figes', in my opinion, poor scholarship. Kozlovesred 18:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete your comment (check the history, please) and don't intend to. It is my hope that you read Figes yourself and then you can judge for yourself whether Figes was being unfair.Dejvid 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then it was I who was being unfair for insinuating that you did! I'd take up your offer, but the reviews of his book on Amazon don't look very appealing. All I ask for is honesty in life, and it appears Figes has an agenda. Kozlovesred 19:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't always check the history either... As to the reviews, remember that review writers hav their agendas too. Figes judges the revolution by how it affected ordinary people but he isn't tendentious about it. He is also very readable which is why I think you would get something out of it even if you disagree with him.Dejvid 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course review writers have their own agendas, but one must first of all be concerned with objective truth. You've read the book. Was there anything positive gained from the Russian Revolution, or was it simply the most evil of evils? Does Figes' I'm assuming anti-communist ideology even preclude him from mentioning, for instance, the immense increase in literacy after the Bolsheviks' seizure of power, the revamped legal code, etc.? Kozlovesred 22:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Pipes quote

Wikipedida policy states that all significant views should be included. Academic books are certainly valid views. Ultramarine 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion before. Look into the history, Ultramarine. That's all I'm going to say to you. Kozlovesred 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How about reading these books? Ultramarine 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that Kozlovesred has an agenda with this article that has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a scholarly, fact-based, and sternly neutral encyclopedia-type entry. He should be reminded (maybe by an admin?) that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- not a propaganda or apologist platform.J.R. Hercules 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have an agenda: one that is concerned with getting at all sides of an issue and finding out the truth. This is something which seems lost to rabid and automatic anti-communists. Kozlovesred 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no "side". This is not a debate. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. It relates information dryly, matter-of-factly, without agenda or regard to personal feelings. J.R. Hercules 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Ultramarine's addition of the lecture. I will be reading it shortly. Kozlovesred 05:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the short quote in its entirety. Kozlovesred 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • We have indeed had this talk before, and Richard Pipes is not to be considered a neutral source. Pipes himself dosen't use sources correctly, he igonres all the facts that go against him. Pipes is not a historian, he is a very conservative politician. His whole agenda with writing those books of his is to spread anti-communism, not objetic history of what really happened. Bronks.
"Pipes is not a historian, he is a very conservative politician." That's nice -- you mind telling us what political offices Richard Pipes has held? Apparently, you're some kind of Lenin apologist; that's not to be tolerated in this article. The only thing that's to be tolerated in this article are 'facts'. If that concept seems alien to you, then I suggest you create your own personal website devoted to making a shrine of Lenin. Don't think you going to be able to do that here.J.R. Hercules 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Mr Hercules. Do you want me to give an example of a political post Richard Pipes has held. How about this: "In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security Council holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs under President Ronald Reagan". Read the Pipes article! Bronks.

Judging by your form of argumentation, Hercules, I would be willing to bet that you haven't quite reached your twenties yet, but this is an assumption on my part. But what I don't assume is this: Anybody with any bit of political and philosophical knowledge whatsoever knows that "facts" can look different with different perspectives, and perspectives can look different with different "facts." Don't believe me? What was done with the Pipes quote that I had to supply Lenin's full utterance to? If I sound abrasive to you, then I apologize. Keep in mind that I don't mean to offend. This doesn't accomplish anything. Kozlovesred 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Bronk's point can be substantiated with the dishonest use of that Lenin quote. Fortunately, however, Ultramarine provided the material whereby one can see what Lenin was at least trying to say. Kozlovesred 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nikolai

The article states that he's sometimes known as Nikolai in the Western press, but it doesn't explain where that name comes from. Does anybody know? --Delirium 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This Article

I can see that Marxists have been having a field day with this article. Don't worry - it will be fixed soon enough - no white washing, no apoligas, just objective view of the murderous repressive dictator that Lenin was. PMA 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well not many on here have been - Lenin lead the regime - he must be held to account for its crimes - to pretend that he did not direct his government's policies or had no involement in them is at best naeive and at worst moronic and preposterous. PMA 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (oh and by the way see 172's comments on my Talk Page - i think i can say from his remarks that i carry more calibre and respect than a bunch of unreconstructed lefties or indeed, extreme rightists.)

What is "moronic and preposterous" is to assume, without any historical knowledge whatsoever, that Lenin held free sway within his party. Lenin was accountable to everyone else in the party; such was the principle of democratic centralism. Keep your anti-communist hysteria off an encyclopedia that seeks NPOV. Your compatriots tried to paint Lenin as a monster before. It's nothing new, and I am sure you are well accustomed to quoting out of context to solidify your ideology. Kozlovesred 14:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can say i am an anti-communist hysteric than i can tell you to keep your obvious Marxism off here too then. Few of you are interested in NPOV - you want *M*POV - your discussions of the "vast right wing army" on each other's talk pages make it rather obvious. PMA 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what you got. Kozlovesred 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Kozlovesred and Bronks, like all users, PMA has a POV. More importantly, he is also a longtime respected editor. He should be applauded for being open about his view (that Lenin "must be held to account for [the] crimes [of the Bolshevik regime]"). He is interested in working toward defending the editorial policy of NPOV against ideologues on both left and right. Please engage in his content concerns seriously. 172 | Talk 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the talk pages of most of the people on this page they admit openly to being solid leftists and or marxists - i could try to engage with them but i dont think at the moment that there is much point in bothering. For what it's worth to Bronks and Kozlovesred i do mean well as 172 said. PMA 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And what if I am a Marxist? Your anti-Marxism isn't an ideology as well? I can hardly "assume good faith" considering the tricks of the right-wing ideologues who frequently work not out of any respect for the truth, but already with a prepackaged agenda: Lenin "must be held to account for [the] crimes of [the Bolshevik regime.]" And what of the crimes of their enemies who forced their hand? Kozlovesred 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Although you work from a prepackaged agenda as well - you would adjust or ignore facts that would be inconvinient to your case as much as any die hard anti-communist - "enemies that forced thir hand" - i think i can say that had the organised Whites not existed, Lenin and the government he lead would have found or created something to justify their terror - Joseph Stalin didn't have any trouble in doing so. Lenin instituted the labour camps, Lenin's regime instituted the betrayal, the reporting, the purges, Lenin stated that terror and violence was the means of the state, and that any and all resistance should be beaten down brutally and swiftly. Lenin was no better than Stalin, perhaps more refined, but no better morally speaking, he instituted the terror, Stalin merely utilised and expanded it. PMA 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1.) I would never ignore or delete facts that would be "inconvinient" to my case. I've just come to realize that there are people who would, for whatever reason, and I seek a well-rounded explanation of those "facts" which they include, which is in accord with Wikipedia policy. 2.) You cannot, in fact, "say that had the organized Whites not existed, Lenin and the government he lead would have found or created something to justify their terror." This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of historical analysis. Even polished historians have a hard time with hypothetical statements. 3.) Joseph Stalin was not Vladimir Lenin. They were different people who lived and breathed under different circumstances. 4.) "Lenin instituted the labor camps." What of it? Didn't Roosevelt "institute labor camps" during the Great Depression? What do you propose the Bolsheviks should have done with their political opponents during a time of war and revolution? Given them cake and tea? 5.) What "betrayal?" 6.) What "reporting?" 7.) The purges from the Bolshevik party? 8.) Terror and violence is the means of the state. This is in fact one of the definitions of what a nation-state is: a political entity with a monopoly of violence within a given geographical location. Welcome to our world. 9.) "Lenin was no better than Stalin." I suppose they are both equally "evil" and morally culpable, right? Yours morals, not mine. Kozlovesred 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Lenin, like all statsmen in times of war (Churchill, George Washington, Lincoln, George W. Bush, Gustav II Adolf...) have blood on his hands. But unlike Stalin he fought against real enemies in a time of revolution and civil war. Don't say that there wasn't any real threat from the white movement! Look at what happened in Finland where the Whites won - mass executions of workers and farmers, the same would have happend in Russia if the whites had won there. ... And you can not compare Lenin with Stalin. Stalin lead a counter revolution against everything that Lenin and the Bolsheviks stood for. Of all the millions killed by Stalin, the real communists were the first to go. Bronks 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, all of Stalins policies had predecessors in Stalin. The comparison to the Tsar's policies, as a matter of scale, is ridiculous, and I've introduced a sourced reference to the scale (~20,000 political prisoners were executed in the first few months after the October Revolution; ~6,000 political prisoners were condemned to death in almost the entire 19th century by the Tsarist regime).

Other matters of fact are that Lenin seized power from the democratic Provisional government through violent and patently undemocratic means; that he shut down the free elections after the Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks made a very poor showing among the electorate; that with the other Bolsheviks he formed an assembly dominated by Bolsheviks and allies, none of them elected; that the Bolshevik slogan, approved by Lenin, was "All power to the Soviets", but when the Soviets went against his policies, he disbanded them; that protests, revolts and marches held against the Bolshevik regime, peaceful or otherwise, were crushed with military force; that Trostsky, under Lenin's aegis, invented the Concentration Camps to deal with political prisoners; that Lenin signed orders to execute "class enemies" and put them on public display; and that Lenin implemented the policies of War Communism, which meant forcibly taking the peasants' grain from them at gunpoint, where obviously the next year the peasants did not plant surplus grain, which was a large contribution to the terrible famines of 1921-1923. I will source all of these facts and introduce them into the article one by one, because right now the piece is a whitewash. There is even a section titled "Lenin's struggle against Anti-Semitism". Would it be NPOV if I introduced a WHOLE SECTION in Trotsky's biography about how he invented Concentration Camps and wrote "In Defense of Terrorism"?

Kwertii's previous revert says: secret police, labor camps, and executions of opponents were not Lenin's invention; they were all quite common under the Tsar.

That is correct. However, it is a lie of ommission to say that but not mention the massive difference in scale: Lenin and the Bolsheviks executed more political prisoners in a couple of weeks than the Tsarist regime had in 90+ years (I have sourced this). Not to mention, the Tsar did not introduce policies of grain requisitioning, concentration camps and show trials; those are properly attributed to Lenin, whether it fits in with his sainthood or not.

Statues... Lenin in Russia today

I've only been to Russia twice (2001 & 2003), so I hope there will be some russian wikipedians that can, either agree or dissagree with what I say...

Images of Lenin statues that were torn down after the fall of the USSR are mostly from eastern europe, not from Russia. In Poland, Balticum, Hungary, etc... most statues were torn down. But in Russia iteslf, most of the Lenin statues remain standing. Although not to the extrime as it was before, with statues in every street corner.

In Russia today, Lenin is not condisdered a "bad guy". He is seen as a historical figure and an important statesman. Bronks 12:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What relevance does this have? I'm hardly surprised the Russians view him as an "important statesman" instead of a brutal dictator after 70 years of living in a relentless propaganda machine?

-> Yes, that is what the propaganda in US used to say for last 70 years. Lenin was brutal leader in a brutal time. But remember, his party was the only one which was against the WWI. In WWI much more people were killed than during the Civil War and revolution. Without WWI there will be no revolution and no civil war. This is obvious and undisputable. One more little thing. Grain requisitions have been started by provisional government (if not tsarist - don't know exactly). The reason was the total collapse of the russian economical system which was caused by war. Anonymous.

We, Russians, do not have one strict opinion about Lenin. When there's a pluralism... Lenin is neither good nor bad - he is great. He changed our country. --Wildead 07:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lenin

Somebody removed from this article my remark: "in prerevolutionary era some people believed that Lenin was a bad man". This is a fact, and also stated in an objective way as above. If somebody thinks that the fact is not important enough, or more exactly other facts included in this article are more important than this one, please explain on what arguments such selectiveness is based.


Introducing Alternate Viewpoints, Sourcing Claims, and Lies of Omission

I am going to go over the changes I made to this page here. Many of the minutae are of course very debateable. However what seems obvious to me is that the primary intent of the current article is hagiography. No serious criticisms are presented (and there are many, which I will source) which are not immediately dismissed; on the other hand, much positive information is presented uncritically. Imagine if someone did this with the Mussolini article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia representing both sides of view, it is not supposed to be "anti-fascist" or "anti-communist" or subscribe to any Marxist, Fascist or any other tropes.

Your contention that this article is a hagiography of Lenin stems from your own anti-communist ideology. I've read Pipes myself. He is hardly an honest historicial source. He, and his son, are dishonest intellectual scoundrels with rabid anti-communist agendas. With them, the facts are made to fit the theory, not vice versa. Kozlovesred 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It really doesnt matter what you think of Pipes or anyone else. He's a widely respected historian, not a crank with a website. If the Marxist website can be used as a source, Pipes certainly can. You really aren't in a position to make judgments about the intellectual honesty of experts on Russian history.

Widely respected? In what circles? On the contrary, I am in a position to make judgments about the intellectual honesty of experts on Russian history. Your compatriots introduced Pipes' soundbite of Lenin saying "The Paris Commune was too generous; it should have eliminated its enemies." According to Pipes, that's all there is to it. But I, myself, had to find the speech in which Lenin said that and provide a full context. This is intellectual honesty? Kozlovesred 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

First major change:

Introduces alternate viewpt, sourced to Richard Pipes and shared by others (Conquest, et al.- major historians of Russia) that Stalin's policies are logical outcomes of Lenin's policies. This viewpoint is not presented in Kwertii's article:

"Leon Trotsky argued that a direct correlation cannot be made between Lenin and Stalin because this perspective ignores many external factors, such as the turmoil of revolution and civil war during Lenin's leadership. Further Trotsky claimed that a "river of blood" separated Lenin from Stalin's actions because Stalin executed many of Lenin's old comrades and their supporters, grouped in the Left Opposition. This was indeed to include Trotsky himself."

On the contrary. This viewpoint IS presented in the article: "Even though Lenin supported and helped to form a "Soviet democracy," it is often argued by Lenin's opponents on the right, like Kautsky, and on his left, like Kollontai, that he countermanded proletarian emancipation and democracy (workers' control through the soviets or workers' councils). It is argued that this paved the road to Stalinism." I accept your change about the scale of the Bolsheviks' executions, but to add more is just redudant and unneccessary. Kozlovesred 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is presenting the OPPOSITE viewpoint, which is that Stalin's policies are not attributable to Lenin's, and the things they had in common were inherited from the Tsarist regime. A lengthy defense of this idea is introduced and attributed to Trotsky. I have introduced a similar rebuttal to this idea sourced and attributed to the historian Richard Pipes. "On the other hand, historians such as Richard Pipes have argued that Stalin's policies were the natural result of events Lenin himself set in motion, such as the absolute power of the Party leadership, the sweeping powers given to the secret police, and the forced requisitioning of grain from peasants."


Second major change:


"Although many of the decried institutions and policies Stalin used such as secret police, labor camps, and executions of political opponents were practiced under Lenin's regime, these techniques were all commonly used by the Tsars long before Lenin, and were long since established as the standard means of dealing with political dissent in Russia."

This is a lie of ommission, because it relates two things which factually differ in scale. It is like comparing my faucet to Niagara falls. I have introduced and sourced the fact that 3 times more political prisoners were executed in the first 3 months of Bolshevik rule than in the entire 90 years preceding the fall of the Tsarist regime. If the comparison must be made, the scales must be mentioned.

Fine, this is fact, but it requires an explanation of the circumstances that led the Bolsheviks to perform them. This isn't a black and white issue here. We're talking about a complex historical event. Please refrain from making the Bolsheviks out to be evil demons. Kozlovesred 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I contest this fact. Put the figures in the article. How many political prisoners did the tsarist regime kill in 90 years? How many did the Bolsheviks kill in 3 months? Kozlovesred 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The figures are approximately 6,200 for the Tsarist Regime, 1827 - 1917; and 20,000 for the Bolsheviks in the first 3 months of the Revolution. The source if available in bookstores.


I contest a whole boatload of your "facts". I contest that the circumstances were a) sufficiently different from any experienced under the Tsarist regime, which dealt with famines, massive rebellions and the like; and that it led to the executions.

You've got to be kidding me. WWI wasn't "sufficiently different?" Kozlovesred 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I contest that the Cheka were formed to protect the government.

Then what were they formed to do? Kozlovesred 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I contest that an "overwhelming majority" of workers supported Lenin when he shut down the free Assembly elections when the Bolsheviks barely won any votes.

Look at the voting results. An overwhelming majority of workers in both Moscow and Petrograd supported the Bolsheviks. It's in the cited article. Kozlovesred 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

an overwhelming number voted for the Bolsheviks in the elections for the constituant, true. It does not follow that they supported its suppression. Indeed in ten days that shook the world it states that in some factories bolshevik delegates to the soviets were recalled in the wake of the supression tho acording to Read it was because of those killed when troops fired on a pro-Constituant demonstration.Dejvid 09:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Kozlovesred 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you have felt free to add "This "fact" is under dispute, however" I have also added my objections in this form to various areas of the text.

Now that you've given me the figures, put them in the article, and "this 'fact' is under dispute, however" will go away. But only 6200 for the Tsarist regime? That's nonsense. What about the Russo-Japanese War? What about Bloody Sunday? What about, again, WWI? Kozlovesred 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And once again, you are in really no position to tell me if a major Historian like Richard Pipes is acceptable or not. If Trotsky, a man involved personally in the bloodbath of the Revolution is allowed to be quoted, than so can Pipes. I dont care about your original research about how Richard Pipes is wrong. I find the Marxist website, Trotsky and the various unsourced claims to be very biased and dubious; do I get to delete them?

Pipes isn't just a "major historian," he's also a conservative politician. Don't make him sound like he's just an intellectual figure. Kozlovesred 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt require an explanation that LED them to perform them. That presupposes an excuse.

No, it doesn't. It presupposes a concrete historical analysis of what compelled the Bolsheviks to act as they did, and it should be applied to everyone. You seek to insert things without any historical context whatsoever. Kozlovesred 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It might require an explanation of the entire circumstances, which might have explained their actions, or it might not- but this is a Lenin article, not a history of Russian Revolution article

Exactly, then why are you adding things about the scale of executions during the revolution as compared to the tsarist era?

- and the scale must be mentioned because you have included the excuse that Lenin's policies were preceded by the Tsar's.

I didn't include that. That was Kwerti. Kozlovesred 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the comparison should be taken out. Either it is accurately compared, or not compared at all.

Be my guest, IP address. Kozlovesred 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not making the Bolsheviks out to be evil demons, but the scale of the bloodshed is a fact that should not be suppressed because it is bad PR, sorry.

I agree. It was brutal, but I do think that dishonest soundbites are also bad PR. Sorry. Kozlovesred 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

These are not "soundbites", and again, its not to be suppressed simply because you dont like how it makes the Bolsheviks look. The fact of killing political prisoners- endorsed by Lenin- is just that, a fact. Slavery is a fact, do we need to make excuses for why people took part in the trade because talking about slavery is "soundbites"? Or more to the point, the paragraph about Lenin and anti-semitism is "good PR". I'm not advocating taking it out, and yet its just a short condensation on Lenin's full position on Jews and the Bolshevik policies in this regard. A "soundbite" if you will.

If historical facts are introduced without an explanation of the external circumstances that caused them, you are not writing history. You are introducing soundbites based on your own pre-conceived ideology. Like I said, I will not delete historical facts, but I do ask for historical honesty. As for slavery, how else could it have occurred? The slavery system was the backbone of the South's economy. Nobody is making excuses for "why people took part in the trade," but people do demand a little bit of an explanation for why it occurred at that particular time, in that particular context. Kozlovesred 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, the comparison to the Tsarist regime is entirely inappropriate. Finally, you seem to have a history of editing out sourced arguments/facts that might possibly cast an unfavorable light on Lenin, or in your exaggeration "make the Bolsheviks out to be demons."

You're right. I do have a history of "editing out sourced arguments that might possibly cast an unfavorable light on Lenin," and I have all intention to continue to do so. Why? Because I seek NPOV, unlike "sourced arguments that might possibly cast an unfavorable light on Lenin." Find some intellectually honest and relatively NPOV sources, and I assure you I won't delete them. Kozlovesred 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, sources dont have to be intellectually honest and NPOV by your standards. The Marxist website is "relatively NPOV"? Quoting Trotsky at length is legitimately NPOV, a man INVOLVED in the regime, but quoting Pipes is unallowable because you happen to dislike him? For that matter, sources dont have to be NPOV at all: they just have to be legitimate sources, and attributed as such. Quit playing gatekeeper; you dont determine standards of intellectual honesty. If I was in charge of that, the Marxist website and Trotsky wouldn't be here with their excuses quoted. But I'm not, so they stay. And neither are you in charge.

The Marxist website has primary sources of the people actually involved in the war and revolution. Your sources are disgruntled anti-communist historians who base their history on free will. Notice, however, that I'm not that black and white. Pipes is already in the article, and I haven't taken your Black Book of Communism source out, which is really something considering the lack of credibility it has with most of the article's editors, as you can see in the discussion page. Kozlovesred 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is POV, there is plenty of flattering information in this article about Lenin that does not have explanations of how Lenin was really a demon doing a few good things;

Really? So he was a demon? I thought he was a historical figure? Are you trying to impose a religious POV on this article now? Kozlovesred 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

its called a rhetorical example.

similarly, there is no requirement that unflattering information be suppressed unless it is explained how Lenin was really a good man forced to do evil things.

"Evil" things? These are your morals, not mine. Keep them to yourself. Kozlovesred 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


another rhetorical example. Dont be facetious.


That is hagiography, not encyclopedia. I don't care if Lenin happens to be your personal hero, thats fine; but suppressing information, not fine.

I totally agree. Kozlovesred 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The claim that exceptional circumstances LED the Bolsheviks to execute tens of thousands of political prisoners needs to be sourced and attributed; otherwise it is just original research. The specific circumstances mentioned need to be cited too. I have provided a cite for the fact I listed; these facts and the argument made from them (that the circumstances led them to commit the acts) needs to be sourced.

What do you mean, original research? These are general historical facts, and they teach them to elementary schoolers. Why is it so hard to understand that WWI was a huge influence on the Bolsheviks' policies? Kozlovesred 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that the revolution occured in the middle of WWI. It is an interpretation of those facts that the Bolshevik terror was a response to those conditions.

Then what conditions was it a response to? Kozlovesred 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly tennable that those conditions were merely a pretext. Hence to state in blandly without citaition is indeed origional research.Dejvid 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The conditions that the country was in the midst of a bloody civil war, and neither side was playing it "nice" Randomdude888 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Patronymic transliteration

How about changing the current Ilich to Ilyich? Sounds closer to original. --Brand спойт 11:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why this page is biased

This page IMO has a heavy bias in favor of Lenin. I don't think it is helpful, tho, to accuse other editors of bias. At least no greater bias then all of us have. This page is typical of Wikipedia in that pages will be edited by those who have a strong interest in a theme and that often means they are fans. I mean just look at Nicholas II of Russia. Not a mention of bloody sunday! In the hagiography stakes this page doesn't come close. NPOV is a myth and while it may be essential for Wikipedia to survive it is still a myth. The Leninist editors on this page are simply putting the truth as they see it which for them is quite neutral. The depressing fact is that to improve this page needs a lot of reading, hard work and persistence. I say depressing because I'm not sure I've got the stamina.

What I am sure is that anyone who seeks to oppose the bias on this page must keep in mind that Lenin fans are in the main motivated by the highest ideals as was indeed Lenin. Indeed it is this that scares me about Lenin. Nicholas did cruel things because he was an idiot who had too much power for his own good. Lenin caused immense human suffering not in spite of havving a highly moral motivation but because of that motivation.Dejvid 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: The Nicholas II page does now mention bloody Sunday but only cos I'v just added it - I wonder how long it will last.Dejvid 11:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this intellectual freewheeling before, mainly at the university. You say Lenin caused immense human suffering. Then what caused Lenin to cause immense human suffering? "Evil?" I'm not being rude here, but this is a philosophical question. Kozlovesred 17:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he believed that the ends justified the ends. On the face of it is quite rational to take actions that will result in short term evil consequences if the final outcome is something of such better that it outweighs the suffering. The problem is that the final outcome is too uncertain for such a balence sheet to be meaningful (not to mention that the evil means tends to shape the final ends).Dejvid 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, these are your morals, not mine. Your "evil" is not mine. Kozlovesred 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say, of course, "the ends justifies the means". Can I check what you just wrote. When you unleash terror it means many innocent people will be executed along with those who are in fact plotting to overthrow the regime. Taken in isolation that is surely an evil consequence. A justification would go along the lines that seeing as we are not sure who are real enemies of the revolution then we must accept that we are going to have to spread the net so wide that many innocent people will be killed. However much you might argue that the deaths of these innocent people was the lesser evil, you surely arn't denying that this was an evil consequence.Dejvid 11:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But I do deny the existence of a supra-historical, absolute morality. It does not require much effort to show that the moral codes which have regulated human conduct have varied substantially from one historical period to another. At one time, it was not considered immoral to eat prisoners of war. Later on, cannibalism was regarded with abhorrence, but prisoners of war could be turned into slaves. Even Aristotle was prepared to justify slavery on the grounds that slaves did not possess souls, and therefore were not fully human (the same argument was used in relation to women). Still later, it was considered morally wrong for one person to own another as a piece of property, but perfectly acceptable for feudal lords to have serfs who were chained to the land and entirely subject to the master, to the point of giving up his bride to the lord on her wedding night.

As for the Bolsheviks, the terror cannot be taken in isolation. The point of an encyclopedia like this is to understood such complex events in their entirety, or at least an attempt to! Kozlovesred 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two things here. You asked how come could Lenin have caused immense human suffering despite being motivated by morality. I gave my answer: he believed that one could balance immense human suffering now against greater happiness in the future. When I used the word evil consequence all I really meant was something that is very undesirable. I do take the argument further it is true. To an extent it I believe it is possible to take actions which in isolation are evil but to decide that it is the right thing to do to avoid a greater evil. (eg going to war against Hilter) However there are some acts so extreme that I believe that there can be no justification because even if it seems to us we are avoiding a greater evil it is impossible to know the future while the bad consequence of our act is usually certain. (eg bombing Dresden) That is simply in answer to your question.Dejvid 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but all I'm really saying is that "good" and "evil" are subjective utterances. My own values might tell me that what Hitler did to the Jews was "evil," but Hitler himself probably thought that the West was "evil" for thinking him "evil!" One has to look at the conditions that enable Hitlers to exist and change them so Hitlers cannot possibly exist in the future, not merely rattle on about what's "good" and "evil." Kozlovesred 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. If we take for granted for moment for Europe to fall under the rule of Hilter is a bad thing then, (assuming we are in the year 1939) what do we do about it. We can go to war which will lead to the deaths of many young men. Some societies would regard such heroic sacrifice a good thing but in 1939 this was not the norm in Europe. Or else we can surrender so avoiding war an submit to Nazi rule. In this case I would accept the ends justifies the means. But then a different question. We are told that to defeat Germany we must bomb her cities with the prime aim to kill civilians. If the "ends justifies the means" then we must simply decide whether the evil of Nazi victory is greater than the evil of all the women children, non combatant workers and others who will die in the bombing raids. It has long been a tradition in Europe that a war cannot not be just if certain norms are violated irrespective of the final ends. There is a good reason for this in that result of victory and defeat is always something than can be only guessed at while the consequence of sending 300 bombers to destroy a German city is easy to predict. Lenin did not accept that, which is why his actions led to extreme human suffering. And the good outcome that he hoped for, looking at Russia today did not come about.

Once again, we are looking at a complex historical event in isolation. I can't even begin to describe to you the events going on around Russia at the time, all events which in one way or another influenced the crisis in Russia. Globalization had already begun. And yet you ascribe Russia's sorry state today to one man who died 80 years ago.

And again, the bombing campaign in Germany was not decided in isolation. It's very easy to pinpoint certain acts of destructiveness from our padded posts, but it's more important to remember that Europe was in a state of siege at the time. I take offense to those terror bombings now, but I also wasn't alive during that time. Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler of course did evil things because he believe that they were desirable to "purify" the race. Taking "the ends justifies the means" to its ultimate conclusion is a different kind of madness.

Evil to you and me, but not to him. Those were really his beliefs. Better to ask: how and why did those beliefs come about?

More, a belief in moral objectivity is also tied in, more often than not, with a belief in free will and a God. I can see this argument going in that direction, but I don't know if I have the stamina to continue! Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note in none of the above does the argument change if our values change. I am using one example. In a different society a different example would be needed but the underlying point would still hold.

I don't think it would. As I pointed out before, morals change with the times. Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a limit to "the ends justifies the means" if great evil is to be avoided - however evil is defined. It only fails if you reject the idea that anything is bad and that we should regard all occurrences with indifferenceDejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't reject the idea that nothing is bad, by my own moral code, but there is surely some objectivity missing when someone describes something as "evil," as compared to 2 + 2 = 4. Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What you are now saying is that Lenin was merely a child of his time. I don't think this is what you yourself believe but it is the logic of what you wrote. Dejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lenin was as much a child of his time as we are of ours. How could it be any other way? Why didn't Neanderthals up and create the Internet all of a sudden? Kozlovesred 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are people who are alive today who can remember the times when Lenin livved. There is a difference.Dejvid

I don't understand. There are people around today who can remember the times when Hitler lived. What is the difference? Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For starters many people today believe that Lenin's ideas are still valid today.

You mean Marxism? If so, what's wrong with that? Kozlovesred 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Either Lenin's ideas are relavant today in which he must me judged by the values of today or else he is a "child of his time" in which he can only be studied for accademic interest like Aristotle. Which would you prefer?Dejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle isn't only studied for academic interest. His materialistic philosophy forms many key pillars of Western thought today, whether people know it or not.

As for Lenin, it's not our place to judge him in an encyclopedia that seeks something approaching NPOV, especially with "today's values," which I assume you mean the church's and state's. Kozlovesred 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You won't find anyone advocating slavery on the basis Aristotle thought it a good thing. Dejvid 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you won't today, but that was 2500 years ago, and even smart men like Aristotle were justifiying it to the masses! Kozlovesred 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd it is not true that 90 years ago there was a totally different attitude to war. Long before the Geneva Conventions there were the customs of war. The Geneva conventions have made those customs stricter but in principle they have laid down what was already accepted. And above all else plenty of Russians were shocked at the brutality not least some Bolsheviks. Dejvid 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where I said there was a totally different attitude to war 90 years ago. I don't know if it was totally different, but I'm sure views differed then, a time of intensified nationalism. Kozlovesred 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I have my doubts about the "bias" on this page you accuse the "Leninist" editors of having. How about when Pipes was introduced quoting Lenin: "The Paris Commune was too generous to its enemies; it should have exterminated them." Like I said before, to Pipes, that's all there was to it. But then one finds out that Lenin actually had more to say, yet this isn't included. This isn't anti-communist "bias?" Kozlovesred 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I said IMO because the point being is that this is in my opinion. If you re-read what I wrote you will see that I was saying the reason this page is not because of the bias of editors like you but because those who I agree with have an selfdefeating assumption that their point of view (that is to say our as I do agree with their view of Lenin) is so obvious that anyone who disagrees with them must be a knave or a fool.Dejvid 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but I don't believe that it is simply "their" point of view. Suffice it to say that the church and state hold the same view of Lenin as your compatriots do. Kozlovesred 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Excluded opposing views:

"Historical research, especially after the fall of Communism opened the Communist achieves, has shown many negative aspects of Lenin's regime. From the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calender): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).

After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.

In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.

During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121). The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Finally, Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. Foreign relief organizations suspended aid when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [10][11][12]."

In 1918 Lenin sent out an infamous hanging order. As documented in material available at the Library of Congress [13][14][15]:

11-8-18. Send to Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists: Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take away all of their grain. 4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this. Yours, Lenin. P.S. Use your toughest people for this.

From [16]:

Otherwise, however, Mr. Pipes's editorial views are fully justified by the evidence. As one would expect, most of the newly released documents from the Soviet archives uncover Lenin's darker side. Three aspects of this in particular stand out.
One is Lenin's cruelty, his callous attitude to the helpless victims of his revolution and his calls for terror against its enemies. In one shocking letter of 1922, Lenin urged the Politburo to put down an uprising by the clergy in the textile town of Shuia: The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing . . . the better. One Russian historian has recently estimated that 8,000 priests and laymen were executed as a result of this letter.
Another aspect is Lenin's contempt for his closest comrades (although not for Stalin, according to Mr. Pipes). Lev Kamenev was a poor fellow, weak, frightened, intimidated. As for Trotsky, he was in love with the organization, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue." Ultramarine 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? That was supposed to be contempt? Have you read anything about the background behind those comments, as well as Lenin's criticism of Stalin himself? Man, you really are dedicated to making history say what you want it to say! You will not get away with it. I'm on this article day in, day out, Big Brother. Kozlovesred 23:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. All views should be included, not just those from one side.Ultramarine 23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read "the rest of the discussion, including the archived discussion." I am done with you. Kozlovesred 23:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The bot is back! Kozlovesred 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Incivility/personal attacks are not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is really off the topic... but if you changed "Lenin" to "Bush" and changed "October 25" to "September 11", changing a couple of other details as well, you'd get a pretty interesting piece of text, that might in fact be partially correct. However, to give my opinion on this, "The Black Book of Communism" is as trustable as a source as Stalin's propaganda videos or Hitler's "Mein Kampf" are. It's not necessarily a good idea to use clearly biased, highly-POV sources in Wikipedia. It's like quoting Göbbels as a source in the Jewish people article. If Wikipedia was about presenting all, even the most outrageous views, the Muslims article should say that some think all muslims are terrorist, while Jewish people should state the Nazi opinions on jews as under-humans. --HJV 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Exellent point! Kitos. Bronks 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's Jewish ancestry

User:Nixer in Talk:Bolshevik, quoting [17] claims that Lenin's Jewish ancestry is a myth. If he is right, our article must be updated. Any comments? `'mikka (t) 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The source Nixer brings, proves nothing. It is but an over-long, over-emotionalized discussion between procommunists and anticommunists and antisemites. I have met a serious source with names ans data, in russian language, clearly showing Lenin's maternal grandparents: he: a jewish doctor who converted to pravoslav, got the state positions he craved, got a personal nobility rank, married a german-nationality woman and so Lenin's mother came into the world. This detail seemed as serious as everything else, but I must check out THEIR sources, if that be possible.

AbuAmir 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lenin was a mixture of many natonalities, and there were some jewish blood in that cocktail too. However, it is definitely wrong to say that Lenin was a Jew. Bronks 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. By the way, Jews would never admit he was any jew by jewish standards. Although his grandfather was "A Jew That Was", Lenin would be never granted an immigration visa to Israel ;-)

AbuAmir 11:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am specifically not asking to discuss whether Lenin was a Jew. Of course he was not. I am asking whether someone tracking the discussion among modern Russian patriots who claim that Lenin's grandfater Alexander Blank was not Jew. True or false, this discussion (which actually lasts since 1920s) must be mentioned in Wikipedia. Also I am not asking your opinion (it cannot be entered into article, as you know). I am asking about reputable sources. `'mikka (t) 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nikolai Lenin

About my recent correction: I was surprized that no one knowns that lenin was known as Nikolai Lenin, and in Soviet union, too. There was even a 1924 edition of 26 books under this name. See eg. [18]. I understand no one is reading Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but could you at least use google? `'mikka (t) 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Separate attempt on Lenin's life

A separate attempt seems to have been made in about 1918. Two men with a rifle fired at a car containing Lenin. They were never arrested or identified. (editor: 87.194.4.21)

I mentioned this attack in the article on Fritz Platten, feel free to check it out and maybe we could include it somewhere in this articel too. Bronks 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Lenin/Archive_2&oldid=1137301022"