I already was pretty sympathetic to the USSR when I found out about this, but I was surprised to learn that Stalin tried to resign multiple times but the party didn't allow him to.

Pictures of young, hot Stalin.

Deprogramming someone from anti-Stalin hysteria is difficult, because it's so deep-seated. If you're not careful, they're going to think you're doing something akin to Hitler apologia. I think the best you can do initially is to just try to convey that he was not that different from a lot of other strongmen leaders, and emphasize the absolute madness and chaos of the times he lived.

You'll have to make the case simultaneously that the USSR was not the ultimate evil. That's an easier task, because I think most people haven't really been exposed to the arguments: that living standards improved dramatically through-out it's entire history, only stagnating during the 70s and 80s (when the US was also stagnating). And that it did that despite starting basically from Zero in the 20s (really emphasize how poor and underdeveloped the USSR was in 1922), and then having to defend itself in a gargantuan, genocidal invasion from Nazis who killed 1 in every 6 people in the country.

If you compare to other strongmen leaders, who loot the country to live an ostentatious lifestyle, while running undeniably ineffective governments with stagnant economies, and then compare to the USSR and Stalin... you might plant the seed that maybe Stalin was actually earnestly trying to run a country well, and that he actually did a pretty good job considering the circumstances.

he's by far the world record holder for most nazi deaths caused, that's gotta count for something

I've been reading around that topic myself.

Book: Losurdo's Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend quickly gets to the point of "something shifted in the perception of Stalin, why?". Somewhere else pointed out that he primarily uses sources antagonistic to Stalin to show that their own arguments are often contradictory (though of course Stalin isn't without some serious actual faults).

This article about Stalin from a US journalist does a good job showing him as a rather modest human.

He (allegedly) robbed a bank.

(Source: https://wir2022.wid.world/www-site/uploads/2023/03/D_FINAL_WIL_RIM_RAPPORT_2303.pdf)

(Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041395/life-expectancy-russia-all-time/)

Also he freed the concentration camps.

Not going to flip anyone from anti-communist to communist, but Nia Frome's "Tankies" is an excellent way to reframe contextualization of Stalin and AES. Everything of substance requires learning and investigation, but this right here sidesteps the normal club used by liberals against us.

Ask them about the # of u.s. casualties from WW2 and the comparative # of Soviet casualties. Guarantee they won’t have any idea that it’s like a 1 to 20 ratio.

If they do know but don’t care then you can probably just write them off because they probably have some weird racist ideas about the Slavic brain pan.

If they don’t know and are taken aback that opens the door to you to assert some authority in the discussion. You can gently suggest that MAYBE they have been fed a bunch of warmed over Cold War bullshit their whole life.

The only way you can get around having to be overly didactic is to assert early that you know more about this shit than they do. Because you probably do.

If they don’t know about the difference in casualty #’s but being made aware has zero effect on them than they are also probably not worth trying to educate. In that case they either; don’t think Soviet lives carry the same weight, or, they just don’t value human life at all. Or some Nazi thing, but I repeat myself. Either way you can probably write them off.

Americans are full of bluster (assuming that’s where you are) and love to act well informed about shit they have a very cursory knowledge of. If you make them self aware of this right off the rip, they may not like you more, but they are more likely to be listen to you. Besides it’s all about delivery.

Remember, above all, be normal. Not an easy line to walk when talking Stalin, especially not in the U.S.

Godspeed comrade o7

I don't think humanizing Stalin is an especially urgent matter, but he's got some good interviews with western writers:

https://redsails.org/stalin-and-ludwig/

https://redsails.org/stalin-and-wells/

maybe this

imo, there is an “apolitical” way to begin to break it down, but it won’t work in isolation.

First, listen to what they have heard/believe, and then simply lay the seeds of doubt by treating them like an adult, critical-thinker. Start from a position of agnosticism about historical judgement, but inquire about the inconsistencies that occurred over time that seemed overtly dishonest, “I have heard those things too. But, I think history is written by the winners, and I am skeptical of some of the things I hear people say about cold-war history, because it hardly ever stands up to any scrutiny.”

here is a practical “apolitical” example:

The dichotomy between US war-time media (propaganda) and cold was propaganda. A great source for this are political cartoons. During the WW2, the US media portrayed Stalin as a wise fatherly type figure and friend of the people. “Uncle Joe” There are so many examples. Emphasize that those aren’t necessarily true, because we know, as grown-up adults that can think for oneself, that Stalin was simply a human being, not a larger than life figure. That they intentionally crafted an image of him to suite war-time needs. But, the same could be said for the post-war/cold-war media, where Stalin was painted as a maniac. Look to political cartoons during the early 1950s, particularly the american war in Korea, where Stalin is portrayed in a starkly different manner, an overtly racist caricature of a fur-covered animal/brute, hell bent on world domination. But, even in that time, with that hatred, people would acknowledge that Stalin and the Red Army were on the right side of the war and Soviet casualties were not only grievous, but Nazi Germany was culpable. So why is it people can’t even stand to admit that today? Things have become even more exaggerated.

This points out a definite contradiction, one simultaneously knows that at some point the US media was willing to portray things as they are not. But perhaps the truth is that they are always portraying history and people for a particular purpose- never truly as things are, so the truth should be sought after as the picture is likely more grey, or complicated, than what you hear people say thoughtlessly. Ask them, do they think the US/western media is honest? Were they honest about Iraq1/Iraq2/Vietnam/Iran-Contra why is this different? Do they think popular history about, say, the founding fathers is truly accurate? Is Hamilton real or a broadway show? When someone makes a claim about history, how often do you think that person has truly tried to studied that history deeply? Usually it isn’t too deep, they are just repeating something someone told them as an unquestioned fact, backed up by the fact that “everyone knows it.” This extends to popular history, too. Uncomfortable truths, like, “George Washington was the wealthiest man in North America, massacred indigenous people to provoke a war with the French for land, and owned Slaves since he was a child, and started a War of Independence to maintain his wealth and status.” upset people and generate pushback without any real academic dispute, but people still write, and sell many books about how awesome George Washington was while glossing over the truth.

Then hit them with another dose of reality: history is written by the winners. Stalin was succeeded by someone who solidified his legitimacy by dumping on Stalin’s legacy: i.e. Khrushchev used mistakes or “crimes” made during Stalin’s time to silence his political rivals and shore up his rule, is the same way nearly any opportunistic political figure has in history. So even internally, for decades Stalin had few defenders after his death. Now the Soviet Union is gone. So for decades, internally and externally, everyone in power has had a vested interest in painting Stalin as a monster. The only people writing critical perspectives on that history, outside of a few academics who are treated as unserious or fringe, are academics who want to be taken “seriously” by publishers or western academics. Stalin has been so caricatured that if one were to work to “revise” the “common wisdom,” they lose access to a large audiences and tarnish their credibility with absolutely no upside. So many historians simply work on less contentious topics and defer to the work of “respected” works, as the media, and other academics will simply dismiss their work. New York Times would cover a book exposing another “secret atrocity” of a US political enemy, but they aren’t going to publish an article on a book that scrutinizes conventional wisdom on this topic because their editors will ask, to what end are we covering this crank? But nonetheless, the history is there... Have they read it?

“How can the guy who defeated Hitler be bad? What’re you, a Nazi?”

You can find some positive things FDR said about Stalin. Can't think of anything easier than that.

revolutionaryth0t's videos are good they cover a variety of topics of interest to liberal sensibilities. https://www.youtube.com/@revolutionaryth0t

Stalin was just... like, this guy... you know?

https://youtu.be/vrY9Kl6I3Y4

Look at the mustache.