Just think how horrific it would be on an anniversary of Hitler’s birth if an article were to appear in a German outlet entitled, “Hitler: Feared and Revered.” Perhaps the article could then go on to say how Hitler loved animals, solved German hyper-inflation, made Germans (briefly) proud of themselves again, etc. Perhaps readers could even be made to feel sorry for Hitler by having the article point out that he, too, was beaten as a child. Thankfully, such articles do not appear. They would represent gross moral bankruptcy in any society that would produce them. The same with comparable articles about Stalin.

Firstly Hitler and Stalin are not even close. There is no equation at all between them. Hitler was the initaiator of the Nazis, there is no one or thing even close to their evil. Secondly unless you have been living in a cocoon, then you will know that articles, even recently have been produced as to 'how Hitler got things done' These were published in the London and US press. Bankrupt? Think Formula one! Indeed free speech is a great thing don't stifle it! Its the glorification of Nazism that needs to be stamped out, not free speech! We can debate anything, but we can't incite anything, there is a difference, civilised people know it!

Given the messaging over the damaging implications of policies of one of the key neo-liberalizers of 1990s,policies which brought utter ruination to Russia, I am not quite sure that Russia is at a stage where honest discuss about Stalin- with detached sober reflections-could take place. The current political elite in Russia are driven wealth making drives- their economic model is that of the new school of economics. We need to reflect on the recent history Russia under the rule of the neo-liberalizers and if Russia elite show it is capable of this reflection, then perhaps re-reading of Stalin may advance Russian’s struggle for new self-understanding. Marzipan6 Hitler and Stalin were not the same. Stalin was ruthless but not racist nor he was crazy as Hitler. Hitler was truly a crazy man full of Aryan mythologies. I am amazed that his generals followed him to the last minute as he brought Germany to utter ruination. Stalin did horrible things but he was not willing to bring the same ruination to the Soviet Union and Russia. Russians can see that. It is shame that little nations of the eastern Europe- majority who supported Third Reich occupation of their countries, now want to sully the history of the Soviet Union by their attempt to commensurate Hitler and the Third Reich with Stalin and the Soviet Union. This is false comparison which is motivated primarily -not by historical knowledge- but by anti-Russian political agenda.

Societies which lose respect for decency permit monsters like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, and others to emerge. They should only be remember for the horror and misery they caused. Stalin's ruthlessness contributed to the near defeat of the USSR in WW II. Stalin's paranoid Georgian mafia of Beria, Ruhadze, etc. executed the best officers of the Red Army (almost all Russians). They either imprisoned or executed their best scientists and engineers (again mostly Russians). Stalin and his Georgian mafia had an almost pathological fear of the Russian people. Even today, the Georgians exhibit this paranoia. Had Stalin and Beria, his Georgian sidekick, not committed their crimes against the Slavic peoples, USSR would have been a much more formidable foe to Germany than she was in 1941. The Red Army would have quickly put an end to the invading Germans if the USSR had had a normal leader instead of a Georgian madman.

True, Hitler and Stalin had numerous differences in character, ideology and in degrees of sanity. But their similarities overwhelm the differences. The greatest of these commonalities is commitment to a totalitarian dictatorship that ground people and nations in pieces beneath it and that bathed history in tragedy, blood and horror to an extent that none other has equalled. And it is absolutely stupid to claim that any criticism of Soviet barbarity is explained by the critics’ supposed glorification of Nazism.

Kihnu, it could be argued that if the USSR had a normal leader, it would not have been the USSR. From its first to its last day, the USSR was not a normal state. Gorbachev tried to move towards being a normal leader, and the USSR simply could not bear the forces which this unleashed, and disintegrated spectacularly.

Stalin was no more ruthless than any other leader in a similar situation. If you want to HONESTLY consider a similar situation, consider what went on between Henry VIII, Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I of England...what a slaughter, what a cruel massacre on all sides...but that is what happens when one social system ovethrows another, I guess (the fuedal social system was giving way to nascent capitalism...Protestantism is the religion of capitalism). Or consider what happejned in my country (USA) where we had to fight to ovethrow chattel slavery and replace it with capitalism, at least in the western territories. Millions were slaughtered. If you think a "Gulag" is bad, you should hear about Andersonville Prison! Or take another example: why do you think they slaughtered the Native Americans in my country,for the fun of it? No. They did it to advance CAPITALISM, and to keep the western territories from being taken by any other power at the time (like Russia, LOL). Stalin was no worse than any of the leaders who did these things. But I do think the purges were very wrong...it was a huge mistake. Why not just FIRE THEM! Is that naieve? Honestly, I think Stalin was like the barking dog who caught the truck...he himself was probably very, very shocked that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did...and he just did the best he could, which was not good enough, perhaps, but the Soviet Union, well, I'm sorry, but my whole family were Popular Front Democrats, and I know exactly what the Soviet Union did for all of us, which was a lot (unemployment insurance, vacatons with pay, sick days, unions, dignity, arbitration of grievances, Paul Robeson, Frank Sinatra, Lucille Ball, John Garfield, Woody Guthrie, Charlie Chaplin, . I learned that from my FATHER and GRANDFATHER, not from any media or academic.

Pauline writes, “Stalin was no more ruthless than any other leader in a similar situation,” and she is right. Hitler was a leader in a similar situation, and Stalin was no more ruthless than him. Tell us about the Andersonville Prison please, Pauline, and we’ll see whether it was as bad as the GULAG. I am glad that your family were Popular Front Democrats, Pauline, and Paul Robeson and Frank Sinatra were great! Love ‘em. Most Estonian families were of no particular political persuasion, and Stalin killed them by the thousands regardless. Together with their artists, their writers, their performers, their doctors and lawyers and builders and babes in arms and old folk in their 90s. The same happened to Latvians, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, and even to Russians – by the millions all told. But you got your sick days and your arbitration of grievances. That's good.

Marzipan6 You are correct that communism is incompatible with normalcy. I should have phrase my comment thus: .. without Stalin and Beria. Soviet communism was an ideology born from the minds of people who hated normalcy and strived in chaos. However, seems to me that the Red Chinese have been able to bring their form of "communism" into the 21st century and are very competitive "capitalists". Russia also had this opportunity, but they allowed Stalin to grab power and rule over them as a bloody tyrant. Had Stalin not been in power, Russia would have been a much stronger country and the horror of the WW II could have been avoided. Russians should not celebrate Stalin's birthday, any more than they should celebrate Batu Khan's birthday.

Pauline I agree that Americans have much to be ashamed of in their country's history. But, this doesn't stop Americans from pointing fingers at other countries, and attacking those nations who are too weak to defend themselves, for example Serbia.

Kihnu, China has prospered only to the degree that it has set aside Marxist principles. This has happened partially in the economic realm, but hardly at all in the social realm. I say “partially” in the economic realm because while much of Marxism has been set aside in favor of capitalist principles, the checks and balances and public scrutiny that are part of a modern capitalist system are simply not there. This means that China’s destruction of its environment is vastly greater than exists in any capitalist society. Economic profit is gained at the expense of utter environmental vandalism, and this is not sustainable. In regard to the social realm in China, the principles of Marxism-based Communist oppression are fully in place. Rights of individuals (for example, people living in the path of new building developments), of ethnic groups (such as Tibetans and Turkic peoples of China’s north-west) and of organizations not to Peking’s liking (like the Falun Gong) are dealt with very much in Stalinist fashion. In both the economic and social realms, China’s current behavior is not sustainable, any more than was the USSR’s. Unless China changes greatly, it is heading for a collapse, and given China’s huge size and economic influence, this will make major problems for the world. I agree that the Soviet opposition to Hitler could have been much more effective than it was. Stalin’s paranoia made enemies of Russia’s neighbors that would have preferred to have been Russia’s friends, or at least would have wanted to have a normal relationship with Russia. Instead of seeking to destroy them like Moscow tried to in regard to the Baltics, they could have been Russia’s genuine allies had Russia’s behavior been more reasonable. Of course there are plenty of other examples that also come to mind, but this is just one.

The majority of the Russian people today have a positive opinion of Stalin. Why doesn't RT allow any positive statement about Stalin in any comment string? Are Marzipan6's anti-Russian monologues more interesting to the readers of RT?

"Marzipan6" Comparing Stalin to Hitler proves nothing except that they were two different people in two different nations. Hitler did not act alone and neither did Stalin but Hitler misread the causes of the economic depression in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and also what caused the ending of World War 1. He thought that Germany received a bad deal at the end of World War 1 (as the leaders of USA and Britain also thought at the time and they pushed for no war reparations to be made by Germany in the Treaty of Versailles) but . France went ahead anyway with massive reparations from Germany which destroyed the German economy and paved the way for the problems in Germany which lead to World War 2.