you seem knowledgeable on the subject, what was the deal with Stalin anyway? was he as evil as history would have us believe. im only asking because I find myself questioning alot of what we've been taught over the years
Stalin was totalitarian leader, whose main goal was building a powerful empire. He does not take into account human lives and tried to get his goal at any cost. However, since his goal was not a personal wealth, sometimes his actions made life of people better. Do you know, f.e. that during Stalin years smoothbore guns sold at homedepots along with spades and hammers without any papers? And immidiately after his death Russians was robbed of the right to have a gun. It's very strange along with his cruelty and totalitarian nature. All in all, eventually he build his empire, and Russia become first world country (at the time) with aerospace, nuclear bomb, advanced science, total education and relatevely healthy population under his control, despite all wars, misfortune and disasters. That cost a lot of lifes, but not all of them are on him. He definitely was not the best possible ruler, but I think he was not the worse. Hard to tell, but I think that if, f.e. Trotsky took over in 1930-s, things could be much worse for country and people.
I can't tell who Stalin really was, but he definitely was the real and independent historic figure, unlike modern politicians.
In Russia, some people worship him, some hate him, there is no any definite attitude.
Sorry, but your comment about weapons is simply false. In 1918 the CPC passed law confiscating all weapons from the public. Only Party members were allowed to retain a single smoothbore weapon, which had to be registered. In 1924 the gun laws were further restricted allowing party members to own only smoothbore hunting shotguns with 3 round chambers or less, and all other guns were confiscated. Those hunting shotguns had to be registered both with the local and National party, two separate registrations, with a 10-year sentence for any failure.
During the war, these registered smoothbore weapons were all confiscated by the state to be handed to the Red Army. Stalinist Russia had some of the tightest gun restrictions on the planet at the time.
When Stalin died in 53, the laws were loosened, slightly, allowing smoothbore hunting weapons without registration, but that ended when Khrushchev died and the Stalinist gun laws were reimposed.
Definitely should burn old photos of my ancestors with backgrounds showing a house walls with guns openly hanging and ones with boys shooting cans from early 1950-s. Also have to forget family stories. Because somebody in internet read some articles in internet about how draconian was laws in the past.
You never heard about continious rewriting of the official history, especially in Russia, Didn't you?
Sport, the plural of anecdote is not data. I don’t care what you claim your family has or doesn’t have in pictures.
And by all means, if you have evidence these primary sourced laws I cited are ‘rewritten’ then by all means demonstrate it. But you claiming history gets rewritten does not give you license to rewrite it yourself.
you seem knowledgeable on the subject, what was the deal with Stalin anyway? was he as evil as history would have us believe. im only asking because I find myself questioning alot of what we've been taught over the years
Stalin was totalitarian leader, whose main goal was building a powerful empire. He does not take into account human lives and tried to get his goal at any cost. However, since his goal was not a personal wealth, sometimes his actions made life of people better. Do you know, f.e. that during Stalin years smoothbore guns sold at homedepots along with spades and hammers without any papers? And immidiately after his death Russians was robbed of the right to have a gun. It's very strange along with his cruelty and totalitarian nature. All in all, eventually he build his empire, and Russia become first world country (at the time) with aerospace, nuclear bomb, advanced science, total education and relatevely healthy population under his control, despite all wars, misfortune and disasters. That cost a lot of lifes, but not all of them are on him. He definitely was not the best possible ruler, but I think he was not the worse. Hard to tell, but I think that if, f.e. Trotsky took over in 1930-s, things could be much worse for country and people.
I can't tell who Stalin really was, but he definitely was the real and independent historic figure, unlike modern politicians.
In Russia, some people worship him, some hate him, there is no any definite attitude.
Sorry, but your comment about weapons is simply false. In 1918 the CPC passed law confiscating all weapons from the public. Only Party members were allowed to retain a single smoothbore weapon, which had to be registered. In 1924 the gun laws were further restricted allowing party members to own only smoothbore hunting shotguns with 3 round chambers or less, and all other guns were confiscated. Those hunting shotguns had to be registered both with the local and National party, two separate registrations, with a 10-year sentence for any failure.
During the war, these registered smoothbore weapons were all confiscated by the state to be handed to the Red Army. Stalinist Russia had some of the tightest gun restrictions on the planet at the time.
When Stalin died in 53, the laws were loosened, slightly, allowing smoothbore hunting weapons without registration, but that ended when Khrushchev died and the Stalinist gun laws were reimposed.
Definitely should burn old photos of my ancestors with backgrounds showing a house walls with guns openly hanging and ones with boys shooting cans from early 1950-s. Also have to forget family stories. Because somebody in internet read some articles in internet about how draconian was laws in the past.
You never heard about continious rewriting of the official history, especially in Russia, Didn't you?
Sport, the plural of anecdote is not data. I don’t care what you claim your family has or doesn’t have in pictures.
And by all means, if you have evidence these primary sourced laws I cited are ‘rewritten’ then by all means demonstrate it. But you claiming history gets rewritten does not give you license to rewrite it yourself.