Year after year the Russians stopped war but USA keeps on starting war's and killing all over the world

It has nothing to do with recognizing the Soviet legacy or not. It has to do with whether or not Joseph Jugashvili (aka Stalin), should be commemorated in a bronze statue in England. There is no denying the historical accuracy that Jugashvili was the leader of the Soviet Union. That's clear history. But it's also clear history that he was a vile and evil man who was responsible for the deaths of millions and untold counts of terror. This is history also. He is not worthy of any legacy other than that of evil. The Soviet Union should be commended for surviving his reign of terror. I am fully in agreement that the great role the Soviet Union played in WWII should be honored and recognized. But let the people that fought in that war, the brave Soviet Citizens of the time, let them be honored and recognized, not the tyrant who just so happened to be in power. One might say that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany DESPITE Joseph Jugashvili.

What a ridiculous story. Why would Stalin possibly feature in a statue called 'allies', alongside Churchill and Roosevelt, when for the most part of his political career he was anything but an ally of Britain and the US. Remember the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the Cold War RT?

@Nelson ... Uk and France had their own pacts withe Nazi's ... and US was supporting hitler financially

When was it that Stalin turned into the personification of evil at the side of Hitler? He was selected as the Man of the Year by Time Magazine in 1943. His exploits as courageous leader were close to heroic proportions. What happened to change this image ex post facto? It was changed by those powers who had imperialist ambitions and planned the containment of the USSR to bring the country down. They worked at it for almost half a century after they collaborated with that country to defeat the Nazis and conspired between themselves to heap most of the burden of sacrifice on it. Yes, The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the Nazi aggression with the death of at least 25,000 soldiers and civilians. 85,000 towns and villages were destroyed. Yet that perpetual imperialist and warmonger, the darling of the West called Churchill, unleashed a war of continuous attrition on the Soviet Union. Was it because the Soviet Union was evil, or because the people of the West were turning sovietophile, an anathema to the ruling classes of the US and Britain? No, Stalin had to be transfigured into an inherently evil person to save the Western regimes from "clear and present danger." Just as many of today's leaders are demonized if they refuse to follow the dictates of the capitalist-imperialist warmongers.

@Alex. I guess my main point was that Stalin was never anything more than an accidental ally of the US, Britain. My point about the R-M pact was more aimed at RT, which always neglects to mention it when banging on about Russia's role in WW2.

@Nelson .. ok I've seen it on this site a few times though .

armen08 It changed when indisputable evidence of his murderous tirades were declassified. The peoples of the Soviet Union were the heroes. Denial of Stalin's atrocities is just as evil as denying the heroic actions of the Soviet Peoples during the Great Patriotic War.

Thomas, How many people did Stalin kill? Without excusing the excesses, the total number of people exiled to Siberia was about 6-6.5 million throughout the whole Stalin era. Half for criminal offenses and the other half for political reasons. This is the most accurate picture agreed upon by impartial historians. Do you think readers are naive enough to believe assertions claiming that Stalin alone massacred millions upon millions of people, or tens of millions of people, depending on the circumstances and the imagination of the writer? Do you have any idea as to how much atrocity Churchill committed from the day he became a government official? Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

armen08 Only 6-6.5 million! Whew! I thought it was a lot. I'm glad it was such a low number! How many does it take before someone is declared a tyrant? Did Stalin take a gun and personally go kill these people? No. Is he responsible for their deaths. Yes. Clear evidence exists of his ordering tens of thousands of deaths directly. And get your history right. The United States bombed Japan, not England. Don't blame that on Churchill.

Thomas, I think about a million is a good figure, just like the tyrants of Bush and Blair, they killed over a million in Iraq for oil and political control. Actualy way more than Stalin did for political reasons. The numbers are easy to play with regard to history. The West has killed way more than Stalin, The native american genocide, the British deaths in India a mere 29 million, the British Kenyan Gulags...... the list goes on and on. The league table is interesting; you would need a logarithmic scale to get Hitler in, as he is incomparable to anything, but after that, the British institutional tyrany definitely via for second spot, with the US after their illegal invasions and the creation of the Iraq Gulag, definately moving in there just behind the British. Stalin pales into insignificance compared to the west for blood thristy evil. The worst part is stalin has gone, but Bush and The British institutional evil is still there alive and killing.

Count Cash, When Stalin's atrocities are brought up you have those who instead of addressing the issue point their fingers elsewhere and say "But look at what so-and-so did!" as if that justifies it. You'll notice that I never brought Bush, Blair, Clinton, Bill Cosby, Bob Hope or anyone else you want to point fingers at into the picture. That's a different question for a different discussion. What I'm trying to get you blinded people to see is that Stalin was evil, pure evil, a tyrant, a villain, a murderer, a narcissistic psychopath and it astounds me that despite the mountain of evidence, the overwhelming admission of those who lived and worked under him (that managed to survive), even the acknowledgment of the present Russian government that there are those who cannot understand this. The records are there. The personal notes written by Stalin are there. The photographs are there. Why the passion to revive his name in some glorious manner or water down what he did? Do you think that the Soviet Union could not have survive without him? Do you really view the Russian people as so week and helpless that they wouldn't have been able to defeat the Nazis unless Stalin was at the helm? I am pro Russia and in being pro Russia I am against anyone or anything who would seek to destroy her. Stalin tried to destroy her but she survived! Perhaps you'd be happier immigrating to North Korea where you can worship Kim Jong Il in like manner. Wake up! Address the issue! Answer these objections with facts about Stalin, about what he did, not by pointing fingers at every other country's leader with a whimpering and pathetic "But he did it too!"

Thomas, We don't live in isolated cocoons, the world is a little bit more complicated than that. The comparative is always of value and valid. What has been done over time is to try to present an unbalanced view of the world. To try to vilify Russia with Stalin, while not accepting the other tyrants in the world and their crimes. There is a big picture and people have to see it. We don't accept the moral preachers, from a false moral high ground, we accept only the big picture. That picture is while Stalin was a tyrant, there are other equal and greater tyrants in the world. My views on Stalin are well known on this site, and I get tired of repitition, so use the search facility if you wish to see them.

Count Cash, Then we'll leave it at that then. We could go into whether or not your representations of other leaders are accurate or on par with your claims, but that's another discussion for another time. I would agree that there are those who attempt to vilify Russia along with Stalin, and that's precisely one of the points I'm trying to make. I think the more his persona is denounced in Russia rather than "rehabilitated" the less people will equate the Russian people with Stalin. I'll also agree that the West has done a terrible job of acknowledging Russia and the Soviet Union's heroic role in WW2. But I believe in any country, let the honor be given to the brave who fought and died. People marching in Victory Day parades holding up pictures of Stalin always sadden me. Better that they held up pictures of soldiers, mothers, and children, those truly worthy of honor. So to refer to the original story, maybe it would be better if they built a monument showing soldiers from all of the allied standing together. To me that would be the most honorable.

Thomas Can you tell me how many people were killed in the United States civil war? Can you tell me how many non-British citizens were killed under Churchill's watch throughout the British Empire, starting from India? Can you tell me how many people have been killed in many parts of the world by the United States after WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, incited civil wars in numerous countries, ignoring many of the minor ones)? Can you tell me how many non-Russian citizens did Stalin kill? The USSR was going through a revolutionary period. Most of those killed by Stalin conspired against the Communist Party led by Stalin or were suspected collaborators with the enemies of the country, both following the World War I and preceding and following WWII. It was a fight for survival between the revolution and the reaction. Now, don't get me wrong. I will never claim that unnecessary atrocities were not committed. That's only expected. But think a million times before calling anybody evil, unless you want to expose your total ignorance. Stalin died over fifty years ago. He belongs to history and his work will be judged in time. Leave him alone, you and your friendly ideologues. Your bigoted expletive will get you nowhere. Take your hidden agenda to a more modern issue.