52
Did the CIA Conclude That Stalin WASN'T a Dictator? (www.youtube.com)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by sadschmuck@hexbear.net to c/history@hexbear.net
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

No.

According to a claim circulating online, there is a CIA document or internal communication from the 1950s asserting that Joseph Stalin was not a dictator. The existence of this document is cited as proof either that Stalin was not a dictator after all, or at least that even the CIA didn't think he was. However, looking at the document in question, we see it is not a pronouncement of fact by the CIA whatsoever, but an anecdotal information report submitted to CIA information gatherers. As such, the document is a primary source representing the perspective of one anonymous informant, not the opinion of the CIA as a whole. Additionally, the document is contradicted by dozens of more reliable or detailed documents obtained or created by the CIA in the same period, indicating that they did not believe Stalin was non-dictatorial as claimed.

The transcript is in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I like what RedWizard had to say elsewhere in this thread.

One of the things that does make this item of agitprop so effective is that it takes a 'trusted source' in the minds of liberals and turns it on them. They have no real pre-programmed response to this kind of message. This, however, will begin to fail to be effective and rightfully paint those who parriot [sic] it as shallow agents peddeling [sic] in simple misinformation that they themselves cannot even identify. Sources like the ones presented in this video, which effectively state, "The CIA was stairing [sic] at a black box, unable to expose it's inner workings, and deriving its function purly [sic] from its form," could be more persuasive. It would need to be followed up, however, with more current Soviet archive research.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

I don't see why that should be done if not confronted with corrections and arguments. Pre-emptively turning a highly effective one line argument into a significantly less effective wall of text on the possibility that it might be refuted with this argument when I have never seen a single person counter it this way not even once in decades of using it seems like breaking your own kneecaps.

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Agreed, it's an imperfect source that can be used in addition to better sources at best. Doing good persuasion and agitprop requires a realistic and grounded view, not just dogmatically upholding the flattering and dogmatically dismissing the unflattering. The flattering can be twisted into hurting more than good, contextual but unflattering pieces in the right circumstances.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
52 points (98.1% liked)

History

24023 readers
38 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
WhoaSlowDownMaurice@hexbear.net
thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net
RiotDoll@hexbear.net