Francis Miville has another view of Stalin, an interesting one at that:
The influence of the British Empire in the Indian Subcontinent, let that be never forgotten nor forgiven, was quite like that of the Stalinist Empire’s in Russia at its worst moments. However, the British Empire differed from Stalinist USSR in one way.
This way was that while Stalin loved to send opponents to death as a relaxing daily activity, but he never rejoiced in a famine such as the fake Holodomor decimating a whole urban or rural proletariat like in Ukraine. He wanted the famine to be defeated in a military fashion even if the number of fallen fighters fallen was as bad as in WWII.
Stalin’s middle-term aim was to create a level of general consumption that overtook the US. Stalin, even though he often did it by temporary necessity and had no remorse as long as others more numerous would pick the fruits of such sacrifices, never resolved to any ideal of governing his people by constant penury and by a standard of living too close to animal survival to allow a thought of revolution.
His main principle was that about 10
It must be not forgotten that the only alternative available for the USSR at that time was to regress to either a capitalistic comprador bourgeoisie or an aristocracy as a ruling class. If either alternative had been chosen, the USSR’s destiny would have been at best like South America.
This is because there was no place in the Western World for the USSR to become a New Germany or a Big Sweden. If either alternative arose, America would have intervened directly to prevent any such evolution.
In addition, it would be doomed to be a colony of Germany and Austria. These two countries’ plans for the USSR (and before that Russia), even before the popular evolution of Nazi doctrine, was to cull more than 60Please follow and like us: