Hello. Can you please give me some pointers how to understand why Stalin(I feel situation was more complicated) did all that executing repressions in 1937? Where do I need to start digging?

I'm reading your blog for a while and I start to realize my understanding of Stalin or Mao Zedong are really fragmented and clouded by red scare propaganda. When I read quotes you posted, if I haven't known they wrote it, I'd agree in most cases.

I know you describe many historical situation in depth and with understanding. I read your great fanine in 1931-1933 and holodomor discussion, and it was really good. I researched it a few years ago and my sources show similar stuff.

And thanks for writing about inter imperialist war and reasons, it helped me with understanding of current situation. Propaganda got me for a moment I'm afraid, very hard to turn off emotions and think of it... Read to much reddit nonsense first days, and couldn't point out what felt off until I read your analysis. Thanks

In the period prior to Stalin taking leadership, the USSR had been taking a soft hand towards backwards elements in society. In The Tax In Kind, Lenin explains how the policy of the USSR had to be to work with the petty-bourgeoisie, and capitalist experts, rather than attempting to do away with them entirely.

Because the proletariat were a progressive class, they had history on their side. As time went on, the proletariat's position would grow stronger, and the capitalist position would grow weaker. Despite the proletariat seizing state power, the petty-bourgeoisie still had a lot of sway in the Russian economy. If the communists made enemies of them, it would mean the suffering and deprivation of the wartime would continue, and the revolution could even be overthrown. It was decided that, because the small-producers were so deeply embedded in society and production, it would be best to appease them somewhat, so they wouldn't form a very entrenched enemy. If done correctly, they would not only not inhibit socialism, but they could even be a massive force pushing socialism forwards - just as with the peasantry, another middle class that expected certain privileges above the proletariat.

In addition, the intelligentsia was an extremely important element of socialist construction. The proletariat had no experience of managing production, of organising a state, or of running a military. For this reason, capitalist experts were allowed to keep their privileged positions, to manage enterprises and even exploit workers, because, in the long run, it would pay off - because the proletariat would learn from them, and gain their experience. Because the proletariat had history on its side, it could take the long road, taking a small hit now to make a large gain later. In military matters, too, many pre-revolutionary capitalist military experts were employed. The USSR was entirely aware that these military experts were untrustworthy. They were, at best, turncoats, but their expertise was indispensable in building an army.

However, the situation changed. After Lenin's passing, the geopolitical situation developed: Nazi Germany began amassing for war, explicitly war against the USSR. It planned a genocidal conquest of the east, its 'Generalplan Ost', considering the Slavic peoples subhuman, and communism a Jewish plot. On the latter, the western powers of Europe agreed, and refused to form an anti-Nazi alliance with the USSR, because they hoped Germany would take care of the communist problem - the exact same reason the German liberals had allowed the Nazi party to grow to such power, to oppose a growing communist movement.

Clearly, preparing for war - and, moreso, a war waged by fascists, which finds its base of power in the middle classes - the existing strategy was untenable. Those turncoat military experts could be trusted so long as they were kept in an academy, teaching tactics, but leading a war? Definitely not. The appeasement of the peasantry and other middle classes needed to take second importance to ensuring wartime production, just as it had during the period of 'War Communism' that had preceded the tax in kind. The backwards elements needed to be removed, and production safeguarded.

For the latter, collectivisation was enforced. It was a much more efficient and equitable system - but it created strong resentment within the peasantry, who expected to own their own farms, and to make money from selling their produce. For the former... a disenfranchised middle class, downwardly-mobile and having lost a former class status and elevated position in society - it was the textbook base for fascism. While many bourgeois managers and bureaucrats could simply be stripped of their position, placed among the proletariat, this would not be tenable for all. The top capitalist military experts (and some opposition factions), if they were allowed to remain alive, could easily form the basis of a Nazi collaborator movement.

Much like with the Romanovs, if the proletariat had complete omnipotence, it would have been preferable to simply demote or detain these people. However, the proletariat did not have complete power, and, in times of war, must expect to be forced to contest the reactionaries for power. A political figure for enemies of the workers to rally around could not be allowed to emerge, and that could not be ensured unless they were completely removed from the equation. The amount of executions in the purges is exaggerated, but many did happen. It's no coincidence they happened immediately before WW2.

These purges allowed the USSR to survive the Nazi invasion and genocide. They had this positive side, but also obviously had a negative side - nobody wants death if they can avoid it. In the long term, the purges also had the negative effect of curtailing the economic development that the New Economic Plan was advancing. Along with collectivisation, the USSR had pivoted strongly away from the light industry of the NEP, towards the heavy industry required to build the tanks and aircraft necessary to survive the war. This resulted in a dearth of consumer goods in the later USSR, which contributed to discontent among the people, especially in contrast to the Coca-Cola, fast fashion, and TVs of the west.

As you said, the situation was complicated. Such is the nature of governing a country. Thank you for the compliment, I'm glad my analyses are appreciated!