• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      But he does seem to have had a total control of the state through his position, control of tools such as NKVD, fear, intimidation, cult of personality, purging of opponents and so on. Unless you think it doesn’t count unless you have an official position of dictator and has been named as such by the Roman senate, of course.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          It seems most historians disagree with your thought here, as shown in the earlier quotes. You claim he was often contested, did not have the ability to make anything happen and so on, but that doesn’t seem to have been the reality. Even this document you shared just says it was “exaggerated”, not that he didn’t have those powers. But most considering his rule seem to have labeled him as a dictator and it’s very easy to see why.

          If you don’t agree with Soviet records

          Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I never said he was powerless, I said he did not have sole control nor all-encompassing power. He was the head of state, of course he had power. The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here. The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

            Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

            Soviet Records on democratic processes and political structuring.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              I never said he was powerless

              Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen

              “Did not have the ability to make anything happen” would make him seem very powerless.

              The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here

              The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

              My mythology of just the normal historians’ view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                “Did not have the ability to make anything happen” would make him seem very powerless.

                The stress is meant to be placed on anything, ie he couldn’t snap his fingers and magically have his will be done. He played a large role in directing policy, especially during WWII.

                My mythology of just the normal historians’ view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

                What constitutes a “Normal Historian?” The CIA didn’t agree with you and neither does historical evidence.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I think it would’ve been clearer to say “everything” than “anything”. Because now it just sounds like he couldn’t do anything

                  What constitutes a “Normal Historian?”

                  Just historians who’ve looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who’ve studied history.

                  The CIA didn’t agree with you

                  It’s one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?

                  neither does historical evidence.

                  Historians seem to disagree.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I think it would’ve been clearer to say “everything” than “anything”. Because now it just sounds like he couldn’t do anything

                    Fair and valid point.

                    Just historians who’ve looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who’ve studied history.

                    There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you’re not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of “Normal Historians.”

                    It’s one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?

                    It’s one document, and yet more than anything you’ve provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?