It’s a bit murkier than that. Stalin ordered the purges, but ordered them to stop when it got to him that the number sentenced to death was higher than anticipated, as he wasn’t carrying out the orders but instead by troikas. Stalin and Molotov had initially set a limit of 72,950 executions. Further, the 681,692 figure was the number sentenced to death, not necessarily executed, though this number is often given by anti-communist historians like Robert Conquest as assumed 100% executions.
Overall, most communists agree that the purges certainly had excess, but also agree that purges were necessary. The assassination of Kirov had revealed that there were indeed fascists in government and other critical areas, and on the eve of an expected war with the Nazis it would be suicide to not address this. Stalin is seen generally positively among communists for managing to stablize socialism in the world’s first socialist state, and though there certainly are mistakes to learn from, there’s also plenty of successes to learn from as well.
Thanks for some more info. But you say the death sentences were necessary at the time. But is it really ever necessary. If we ever achieve socialism it has to be possible to avoid death sentences, they are proven to go wrong and are generally inhumane.
Purges were necessary, that doesn’t mean the executions were. Purges often meant simply expelling someone from the party or a prison sentence, not necessarily execution. What’s clear when studying the soviet union, though, is the sheer siege and subterfuge targetting them from right when they first began. We can understand why they did what they did, while also understanding that if they had better resources and political stability then the better option would have been imprisonment and potentially rehabilitation.
It’s a bit murkier than that. Stalin ordered the purges, but ordered them to stop when it got to him that the number sentenced to death was higher than anticipated, as he wasn’t carrying out the orders but instead by troikas. Stalin and Molotov had initially set a limit of 72,950 executions. Further, the 681,692 figure was the number sentenced to death, not necessarily executed, though this number is often given by anti-communist historians like Robert Conquest as assumed 100% executions.
Overall, most communists agree that the purges certainly had excess, but also agree that purges were necessary. The assassination of Kirov had revealed that there were indeed fascists in government and other critical areas, and on the eve of an expected war with the Nazis it would be suicide to not address this. Stalin is seen generally positively among communists for managing to stablize socialism in the world’s first socialist state, and though there certainly are mistakes to learn from, there’s also plenty of successes to learn from as well.
Thanks for some more info. But you say the death sentences were necessary at the time. But is it really ever necessary. If we ever achieve socialism it has to be possible to avoid death sentences, they are proven to go wrong and are generally inhumane.
Purges were necessary, that doesn’t mean the executions were. Purges often meant simply expelling someone from the party or a prison sentence, not necessarily execution. What’s clear when studying the soviet union, though, is the sheer siege and subterfuge targetting them from right when they first began. We can understand why they did what they did, while also understanding that if they had better resources and political stability then the better option would have been imprisonment and potentially rehabilitation.