You're viewing part of a thread.
As an example, no sources are put forward in your first exerpt, no references. This is an opinion piece from a Zionist, anticommunist grifter.
It's just happens that his opinions seem to largely shared by other works about Soviet Union during Stalin. Such as the other book mentioned. It seems to be more fastidious with sourcing the claims too, so it might be more to your liking in that respect.
I wonder why books published by an Anticommunist country that went through a decades long scare would have anticommunist grifters with anticommunist opinions. I am also curious why said anticommunists also happen to be islamophobic, pro-NATO, Zionist, pro-Imperialism, and have ties to the Military Industrial Complex.
Khlevniuk is Russia. Not that I'd consider the nationality the thing I use to judge historians.
We are talking about Martin McCauley, who wrote Stalin and Stalinism.
We were talking about them both. You chose to focus on only one of them, despite both making the claim about Stalin being a dictator.
Because I didn't bother with the second after realizing you believe a fascist-written opinion piece to be worthy of respect.
I was under the impression it was the claims we were discussing, which Khlevniuk's book seem to support, not what or who deserves our respect. For that reason it might be worthwhile to check that out too. Totally up to you of course.
Respect, as in accept the opinions. Nothing you have shown has supported the idea that Stalin could not be opposed, and was not opposed, nor that he was all-powerful.
We were talking about whether Stalin was a dictator or not. Khlevniuk's Stalin: A New Biography of a Dictator makes that case.
Stalin could not be opposed, and was not opposed, nor that he was all-powerful.
Even Hitler wasn't a dictator on those grounds. And I think he is considered the epitome of a modern day dictator.