Putin wants in Nato

[leonid]

DMF,

So, you say the use of the word 'great' in describing a leader implies a certain magnanimity of character?  Octavian, or Augustus Caesar, is one you consider a great leader, yet he was not as merciful to his Roman opponents in the Civil War as his father, Gaius Julius Caesar.  Augustus made the most of every chance he had of eliminating a political opponent in the Civil War.  Julius Caesar's death can arguably be attributed to his policy of clemency towards his political enemies.  Yet, Julius Caesar himself was responsible for the deaths of millions of both Germanic and Gallic barbarians, deaths deemed unecessary by even his own peers.

The USA is also often used in conjunction with the word 'great', but we as an entire nation bear the blood of millions upon millions of dead Native Americans.  What makes it all the more disturbing is that we have always looked upon their deaths as sort of an unfortunate 'side effect' of our own progress, as if we really didn't want it to go that route, but, well, it just sort of ended up that way.  Poor excuse for a legacy of racial death spanning nearly 150 years.  Things that last for nearly a century and a half don't just happen out of misfortune, or misunderstanding.  The sad truth is, the United States of America had to choose between economic progress and respect for another people, and in the end the Native Americans lost every time.  This was not the work of a single, crazed meglomaniac who held a country by totalitarian means, but the persistent unwritten policy of a free, democratic nation.

If a country such as the United States of America can hold onto the title of 'greatness' so confidently, then who's to say a leader known for his bloody hands didn't also attain a level of greatness as a war leader?

[Toad]

Originally posted by leonid:
DMF,

The USA is also often used in conjunction with the word 'great', but we as an entire nation bear the blood of millions upon millions of dead Native Americans

Not much to be proud of with respect to US treatment of the Native American.

However, better check your numbers. You are overestimating significantly if you are going from 1776 forward.

[Toad]

BTW, Leonid was just getting into an interesting dicussion with Boroda about Russia and Chechnya.

How would you compare Russia's never-completed attempts at conquering the Chechens with the US - Native American conquest? Both situations really got started about the same time but one is still going on.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by leonid:
Octavian, or Augustus Caesar, is one you consider a great leader, yet he was not as merciful to his Roman opponents in the Civil War as his father, Gaius Julius Caesar.

A different time in a vastly different world.  Surely you can't compare the values of the world of the 1900's with those of ancient Rome.  That Stalin would deal with political enemies in a fashion similar to Octavius, two thousand years his senior, only serves to condemn him more.

However, now you misunderstand why I consider Augustus Caesar to be a "great" ruler.  He demonstrated not only political skill and military prowess, but he also showed amazing foresight.  He laid the foundations and built the tentative borders of an empire that would last for hundreds of years and whose influence we still observe today.  The USSR lasted a little over 70 years and failed in large part due to Stalin's counterproductive economic and political policies.

 

The USA is also often used in conjunction with the word 'great', but we as an entire nation bear the blood of millions upon millions of dead Native Americans.

The factors that determine a "great" nation differ from those that determine a "great" leader.  A nation probably isn't charismatic, skilled, and administratively adept, for instance.  The term "great" has also been used to describe the former USSR and Russia... and I wouldn't disagree with its use there.

Nonetheless, of course you're right that the genocide of Native Americans was insane in its own right.  There is no defending that just as there is no defending Stalin.  What's also undeniable is that Stalin murdered more people in less time... likely tens of millions in his thirty years as General Secretary.  There is absolutely no justifying that in the name of any progress.

 

If a country such as the United States of America can hold onto the title of 'greatness' so confidently, then who's to say a leader known for his bloody hands didn't also attain a level of greatness as a war leader?

Apples and oranges.  And as I've argued before, I wholeheartedly DISagree about Stalin's status as a strong military leader.  Regardless of how well he led the war effort, the fact remains that his lack of foresight in purging the military ranks gravely endangered the USSR and may have nearly destroyed it.  As an unintended consequence of the Molotov-Ribentropp pact, Stalin was lucky enough to buy the time necessary to repopulate elements of the officer corps, though training and overall quality were poor.

I won't even get into his ruthless disregard for the lives of his own military so long as his war objectives were met.  NKVD anyone?

I wish Russians would realize that their success against Germany came from themselves... from their inventiveness, unerring tenacity, and skill.  Stalin should be thanking them for victory, not the other way around.

-- Todd/DMF

[Dmitry]

How would you compare Russia's never-completed attempts at conquering the Chechens with the US - Native American conquest? Both situations really got started about the same time but one is still going on.

Here comes the so called by me word GREATNESS.. - Stalin moved out whole Chechnya over 1 (one) night...  
Little wuss Gorbachev started and after Yeltsin took over... Now Putin is on Chechnya... we yet to see the ending.

Also for me Stalin's greatness is not based on his achivments during the war, but what our economy became right after the war.

[Boroda]

As Dmitry said in this thread, and I said in other threads: unfortunately, 90% of former USSR industry was built before 1953  

Russia became a world power (sorry - it was the one until 1917, and even until 1945 - Trinity test-explosion) only because Stalin had the tremendous will to unite the whole country in a great effort to withstand the upcoming cold war...

I'll never admit that my family members worked and died for nothing. Or even worse then nothing - for Coka-Cola and Wrigley's chewinggum...

Who said that Beria was a killer? Yes, he was. And he did kidnap pretty girls (hehe, envy?) according to the Western legend. But he was executed by the Party forces only because he started to release "political prisoners", and stated that the next Soviet government should be elected by free democratic procedure.

Khruschev and gang simply killed him because the most educated, most democratic, and most protected Soviet leader didn't suite Party oligarchy...

DMF, you definetly studied Soviet political history from Western sources.

You say - why Stalin was better then Trotsky? Simply because Trotskiy always stood for "barack communism" and "World Revolution". Softened versions of Trotskiy's ideas were used in Maoist China, Albania and North Korea. Fortunately - Albanian desire for "World Revolution" had no backup like NATO bombers in 50-60s.

Stalin was a man of his word. He made agreements with Roosevelt and Churchill, and NEVER broke them, even after Churchill declared "cold war" in 1946...

In my Great Soviet Encyclopedia I still have a small folded leaflet with sir Winston Churchill's speach for the 80 years of Stalin, 1959. It's filled with enormous respect for his dead enemy. Sir Winston was a great Politician of the XX century, together with his teammates in anti-hitler coaliton.

Speaking about Indians and Chechens.
Russians always tried to avoid conflicts with the nations they encountered. Or how else small groups of Cossacks could "conquer" Siberia from Urals to the very Pacific!? No wars at all. We simply lived and left live. Instead of slaughters - Russians taught Yakuts, Tunguzes, Bashkirs, Buryats and hundreeds of other nations to read and write, to write down their legends etc. No bayonets, only trade and coexistance.

Toad, Chechens were one of the very few problems. Probably the only illiterate gangster nation that took up arms.

Stalin was a Caucasian too, and he knew Chechens very well. So - he have chosen the most human and decisive solution for the problem...

[GRUNHERZ]

Boroda, and you obviously studied Soviet history from "Soviet" sources.

 

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]

[Dmitry]

Trurh has been un-covered just recently around name of Beria... If you really like to know about his life and what he did and what he tried to do - then youy ought to look for some info... About 99% of Russian population still believes in evilness of Beria.. I was too untill very recent..

[pimpjoe]

why is it russia ends up with all the duds???

[Toad]

only because Stalin had the tremendous will to unite the whole country in a great effort to withstand the upcoming cold war...

This is opening a can of worms... but is it possible Stalin STARTED the Cold War to unite the country?

Look at the end of WW2; which nation closed borders? Which nation isolated itself from trade and commerce with the rest of the world?

Russians always tried to avoid conflicts with the nations they encountered...., Chechens were one of the very few problems. Probably the only illiterate gangster nation that took up arms

You're making a joke, correct? The gentle Russians expanding imperialistically and all other nations they encountered cheerfully joining in the march to glory while singing happily? Except those bastige Chechens who just couldn't understand how lucky they were to be forced into the parade?  

Guess the Russians, both Imperial and Soviet, didn't need guns then (except for those nasty Chechens that just wouldn't play the game the Russian way) right?

Sorry Boroda; what I'm reading about the Chechens indicates that Russia, Imperial or Soviet, never conquered them. Looks to me like you've got "another Viet Nam on your hands" or you're going to have to go for the "Final Solution to the Chechen problem".

Face the facts: they NEVER wanted to be in the Russian Empire and they aren't going to give up.