Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on July 19, 2001, 10:27:00 AM
-
Good idea or bad idea?
-
Noone will let him in.
Stalin wanted in NATO in 1949 too.
-
Depends on the reasons why.
as for Stalin in 49... The cold war was already starting to heat (oxymoron there) up. USSR comes into NATO and then who is the "enemy"???
-
Nifty, you expressed the heart of the matter in one phrase :)
Let's see if this approach still exists.
Putin wants to be like Stalin, but lacks class.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Putin wants to be like Stalin, but lacks class.
And 50 million deaths.
-
Rip, where did you get that number?
Wonder when it will reach 150 million.
-
I don't think Russia is ready to be in NATO. But instead of just saying "no" there should be communication about what changes are needed, and some kind of plan and timetable established for Russia to make those changes and for NATO to let them in. I think 2017 would be a reasonable and historically convenient date. :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Rip, where did you get that number?
Free press, something that's a new concept to Russia in only the last 10 years. You want every book or just a select few I pulled those numbers from (not exact mind you, but once you get over 30 million, does exact number really matter?)
Another thing that Putin lacks is paranoia and insanity.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
I think 2017 would be a reasonable and historically convenient date. :)
ROTFLOL!
-
Rip, I remember the "free press", the Voice of America in spring, 1986. Every day they declared the number of people killed by Chernobil explosion. They started from modest 5000, and in less then a week ended up with 120000. Don't know if they went further - I stopped listening to that roadkill.
There is no statistics about Stalin's repressions. Official numbers are that the biggest population of GULAG was 1.2 million in 1940, it is probably a fake, but "uncounted millions" of victims is a roadkill too. Rip, 50 million is 1/3 of the whole USSR population that time.
Stalin was the most successful Russian politician since Alexander III. Let's not talk about paranoia and insanity. He was a bastard, but a clever bastard.
Funked, Russia will never switch to NATO weapon standars for obvious reasons. And frankly speaking that Russian military will ever agree to act according to orders from the US, that they'll have to do according to NATO regulations... So it looks like Stalin's request in 1949. And after our new allience with China it's especially funny.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
-------------------
Originally posted by Boroda:
Putin wants to be like Stalin, but lacks class.
--------------------
And 50 million deaths.
That's what Boroda meant by saying "Putin lacks class".
-
Mietla, please don't put words in my mouth.
-
"" one death is a tragedy.....
a million deaths are a statistic""
joe stalin
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Rip, I remember the "free press", the Voice of America in spring, 1986. Every day they declared the number of people killed by Chernobil explosion. They started from modest 5000, and in less then a week ended up with 120000. Don't know if they went further - I stopped listening to that roadkill.
There is no statistics about Stalin's repressions. Official numbers are that the biggest population of GULAG was 1.2 million in 1940, it is probably a fake, but "uncounted millions" of victims is a roadkill too. Rip, 50 million is 1/3 of the whole USSR population that time.
Stalin was the most successful Russian politician since Alexander III. Let's not talk about paranoia and insanity. He was a bastard, but a clever bastard.
Funked, Russia will never switch to NATO weapon standars for obvious reasons. And frankly speaking that Russian military will ever agree to act according to orders from the US, that they'll have to do according to NATO regulations... So it looks like Stalin's request in 1949. And after our new allience with China it's especially funny.
Who said Soviet Mind Control doesn't work?
FYI, Soviet population was 1/3 of what I quoted dead AFTER the great purge (don't they have history books on this in Russia?) Of course there are no official statistics, he made sure those were 'eliminated' along with the millions of people.
No one here paid much attention to the VOA, but, what I believe they were reporting was 120,000 were AFFECTED, not dead. That included the baltic countries and other countries downwind.
Boroda, time to join a book club, read some history that your country was too fearful for you to find out. Your young, open your mind up, don't close it down so soon, you have plenty of good years ahead of you to take in information from all sides and evaluate it yourself. And stop drinking so much! ;)
-
Rip, I remember the "free press", the Voice of America in spring, 1986. Every day they declared the number of people killed by Chernobil explosion. They started from modest 5000, and in less then a week ended up with 120000. Don't know if they went further - I stopped listening to that roadkill.
Boroda, Voice of America isn't exactly the free press, just good old cause-supporting propoganda :) Speaking of Chernobyl, how long did it take the Soviet press to break the story? We had our own (though much smaller) nuclear accident at Three Mile Island and it was on the evening news nationally as it happened. The investigations that followed were also covered openly.
The Western press (and book authors for that matter), when it isn't busy chasing down the latest sex scandal or hard hitting story on a child trapped in a well, is generally fully open to print/telecast what it sees fit.
As for Joe Stalin... while sentimentality may be strong among those who never posed a perceived threat to the regime, there are more than a few Russians who remember how classy Beria and his henchmen were -- starvation in a gulag or bullet in the back of the head. (Of course, Beria also used to pick women off the street for mandatory "dates", but that's more of a personal evil than government policy.)
There are various numbers for the death toll, but tens of millions during his entire reign are fairly common and accepted.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Mietla, please don't put words in my mouth.
sorry for the sarcasm, but it kind of bugs me if someone shows an admiration for this piece of filfh Stalin (jokingly or not)
-
Admiration of Stalin is growing in Russia - an artifact of the increased support for extremist parties triggered by - yes, it's our old friends - poverty and disillusionment.
50 million is a little high - most historians agree the figure is around 28 million. Still, based on a extrapolation of the population of Russia prior to 1917, to the present day, Russia is a much smaller country.
Due to the enormous casualties suffered in WW2 (both civilian and military), starvation in the early reforms when Stalin gained power, and to a lesser extent, the purges and murder of political 'dissidents'.
The 20th century was a superb century for despotic mass-murderers. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. Will we ever see their kind again?
As for NATO, I want ot see Russian in it. Maybe reform is needed first, but that shouldn't be a concrete wall.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
but the real question is does nato wanna get some putin?
;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Another thing that Putin lacks is paranoia and insanity.
Too early to judge on these two.
PapaH
-
Actually, Putin not only said that he would like there to be talk of Russia's inclusion to NATO, but he also put forth the idea that maybe NATO is no longer valid with the fall of the Soviet Union, and that a newer, exclusively European alliance should be considered.
Putin has a point, and Europe should certainly be able to handle what lies before it without military assistance from the USA. Times are changing.
-
Boroda you Russians will never amount to anything if you all think like you do..........
Sorry to say but its true, please move on.
Look how the Germans and Japanese have done it, your post-communist period is very much the same.
Admit your mistakes, abandon the idols, shelve the blind pride, and move forward!
Good Luck!
-
The only thing to admire about Stalin is the fact that he's dead.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Boroda you Russians will never amount to anything if you all think like you do..........
Sorry to say but its true, please move on.
Look how the Germans and Japanese have done it, your post-communist period is very much the same.
Admit your mistakes, abandon the idols, shelve the blind pride, and move forward!
Good Luck!
When referring to Germany & Japan, if you mean their rise from the ashes of defeat in WWII, it was a totally different set of conditions. Basically, in the case of Germany and Japan the USA rebuilt them both up, politically and financially. Money was no problem as long as a democratic political process was firmly emplaced in each former Axis nation.
In Russia, after the fall of the Soviet Union, money was everything. While during the postwar era it was considered a sound exchange for adding another democratic nation into the world, in the 1990's Russia was viewed as an opportunity to make cash. The logic(or excuse?) was that any country that has a chance at a free market would just suddenly 'will' itself into a free nation. At least, that's the way I see it, because nothing else they did made any sense. I mean, we had this golden opportunity to make firm friends with our former nemesis, and help them on their difficult path to democracy, but instead we let our pockets do the talking. We couldn't rise to the occasion, like we did back during the postwar, and figure out what mattered(guiding another nation to democracy) and what didn't(money).
-
leonid I wasnt reffering to financial aspects of post war Germany or Japan. It was more about attitude and just learing to move on, from listeng to several Russians I know and some I have seen on this and other BBS areas there seems to be a lot of "Borodas", with stements like "Stalin was greatest politician.....", followed by a minimal quailification. It just doesnt seem healthy to have such an outlook, I say move on drop the failed idols and confront the new problems, dont forever fight the old wars.
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20010722/mdf27461.jpg)
Everybody wants something ... Let's make a Deal!
-
Do you really think Russians would have been happy about us setting up military governments for the period of transition Leonid, as was done in Germany and Japan?
And if we did, to supervise that everything going to Russia as aid was going to Russia as aid, to monitor corruption, and to oversee govermental reforms, I'm sure that you would praise the fact our troops were in Moscow, "helping."
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
The only thing to admire about Stalin is the fact that he's dead.
-- Todd/DMF
he had good hair....in a mike ditka sorta way.
-
Stalin imprisoned hundreds of thousands who talked against him (and anyone unfortunate enough to be associated with someone who did)
Stalin murdered anyone whom he believed would plot against him (and anyone unfortunate enough to be associated with someone who did). These estimates conservatively are in the low tens of thousands during the second world war and many tens of thousands before his death. He was quite simply the most ruthless barbaric human slave owner in all of human history.
Unfortunately, Russians think of him as a great man but I suppose by Russian standrads he was a great man.
Yeager
-
Yeager. The conservative numbers finnaly accepted in the west are in the 10s of millions. Not thousands.
From what I have seen of Soviet "help" in the balkans they would only join Nato to ruin it.
The Japanese and the Germans were defeated in a way that only the most thick could deny. Much as the Southern states where. Only an increadble fring holds out any thought of a different out come in all three places. The Russians imploded. They were not defeated. The % of people that can envision a different outcome and come up with excuses as to why it could be different must neccesarily be very much higher.
Borodo seems like a nut to me. But maybe Ive been brainwashed by the CBC into wrong think.
-
Letting russia partly in NATO might be good idea... might warm up relationship with western and eastern countries.
We can't really refer to Stalin here, even though Putin is an ex-KGB.
At least hopefully.
-
I dunno. I think Putin is a much better leader than Yeltsin, who was a drunken old bastard with a lot of brain, but brain that suffered heavily from his alcohol abuse.
Which really dictated Russian foreign policy.
Russia has had totalitarian or very strong leaders for a very long time - I'd argue that in the current state they NEED a strong leader. So far, with the exception of Chechnya and the culling of the press, Putin hasn't done that bad a job IMHO. it's a very difficult job, but he's not too bad at it.
Russia desperately wants to be a superpower still - this despite having much lower than even Denmark and just about only twice as much money involved.
If Russia gets its toejam together, it can become an economic power.
Boroda, are you actually advocating communism as a preferred way of government compared to democracy and open market capitalism? Just curious as I seem to detect some nostalgia about "the good old days" in some of your posts.
-
Can anyone say that Stalin was a wuss? pimp? sissy? hell now.. If you can terrify alone a whole nation, especially as big as Russia is you are a great leader and trully determinated person.. Stalin was one of the greatest Leaders..... He was EVIL leader but thats another story.. No one warships him at this thread and least Boroda does. Dont get get it wrong...
As for NATO and Russia... I dont see it happen in near future.. US wants its vulching rights and will not let anyone interfear with that...
-
What Dmitry said.
Strange that many Westerners think that any Russian is a commie.
Remember my post about North Korea?
My family suffered from Stalin's regime, both parts - Ukrainan from Mother's side, and Russian/Cossack from Father's side. That posts about hunger in the Ukraine in 1933 are not just words for my family.
-
Boroda... i don't understand... if you are russian then you must be a communist, KGB informant, Stalin loving/old day missing - killer of freedom, aren't you ?
You mean to say that all russians aren't like the ones i've seen in "Red Dawn" ?
-
If you can terrify alone a whole nation, especially as big as Russia is you are a great leader and trully determinated person.
====
I will never accept the term "great" when applied towards a man who would rather order the murders of tens of thousands rather than live his own life in peace.
You "could" say that the only way to rule a nation as vast and diverse as Russia in the 30s, 40s and 50s would be in cold blood but I would say that it did not have to be. If you had a truly great leader in those times your nation today could very well be the pinnacle of human civilization.
No, Stalin was not a great leader, he was a terrible leader. Russia and her people could have done so much more with a truly great leader.
Still could.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
he had good hair....in a mike ditka sorta way.
ROTFLOL!!! Thks for my SWOM today! (Spewing Water On Monitor)
-
Can anyone say that Stalin was a wuss? pimp? sissy?
Yes. His actions can only be explained by extreme cowardice and paranoia. Or would you define killing anyone that blinked at you funny as a sign of self confidence?
-
Yeager, I'll say some things that you probaly disagree.
Was there any other way to keep Russian people from COMPLETE destruction, together with other Eastern Slavs? Hitler clearly stated that Slavs must be all slaughtered, or kept in animal conditions.
It took 4 years of horrible war to defeat nazis. That's why I say Stalin was a great leader. And believe me - I am aware about his crimes much better then you. Believe me, Stalin was a schoolboy compared to Lenin, Trotskiy and other gangsters.
Any number of Stalin's victims you'll see in press, both is stalinist "patriotic" papers here in Russia or in "democratic" printed elsewhere, is a roadkill.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
It took 4 years of horrible war to defeat nazis. That's why I say Stalin was a great leader. And believe me - I am aware about his crimes much better then you. Believe me, Stalin was a schoolboy compared to Lenin, Trotskiy and other gangsters.
Ah, the classic "Stalin was but a schoolboy" quote. That's attributed, if I'm not mistaken, to Stalin apologist and lacky Molotov after the "great" leader's death. If you recognize that he said it in defense of his boss after Kruschev et al. launched an internal attack on Stalinism, it makes more sense in context.
What a shame it's roadkill. Before his death, Lenin showed signs of the sort of political terror common under Stalin. He pioneered the process (later perfected under Stalin) of bringing false charges of anti-state activities against political rivals and then staging a kangaroo court to convict the unfortunate target.
I have no idea why you consider Trotsky to be worse than Stalin. He, like many others, considered Stalin's tactics abonimable if not unstoppable. And unlike Trotsky, Stalin employed the services of sociopathic miscreants like Beria to carry out his policies.
Was Stalin a "great" leader when he purged the Soviet military of most of its brightest up-and-coming officers in the purges of the late 1930's? I have pictures of Stalin shaking hands with the wives of Soviet officers with the caption underneath noting that, within eight years, all of their husbands had been murdered by his orders. Had the Soviet military not been gutted at the middle and lower commissioned ranks, perhaps the war would have only taken two or three years. How is that "great" leadership? Does it show the signs of classic great leadership? Of foresight and planning? Did Stalin honestly consider Hitler less of a risk than his own military officers?
Though I'm not certain whether or not to believe them, other accounts hold that Stalin, so shocked at Germany's surprise invasion, suffered a nervous breakdown. Apparently he disappeared for an entire week during the early stages of the German march into Soviet territory, leaving the government reeling from his absence and unable to respond adequately to a situation that required immediate attention. I suppose that's "great" leadership as well. In many ways, the USSR defeated Germany in spite of Stalin, not because of him. If anything, he so undermined the military that, in fact, he was essential in the end. He worked hard to make it that way, apparently.
I suppose "great" leadership also informed his last great plot, the Doctor's Conspiracy. Ever hear of that one? Near the end of his life, Stalin's doctors were unable to cure his consistently degrading health. Stalin, ever the wiley politician, decided to use this to his advantage. As the doctors were Jewish, he planned to blame his poor health on a Jewish conspiracy to assassinate him via his doctors. This was a prelude to a purge of Jews that would have made Hitler jealous. Thankfully for the USSR, Stalin died before execution of this plan, and those who took over showed the foresight and leadership to promptly cancel it.
I ask again... how is this "great?" How is this somehow better than Lenin?
Select Sources (off the top of my head):
Remnick, David. Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy
-- Todd/DMF
-
<S> DMF, agree with your post. IMO, Hitler murdered because of ones blood line, Stalin murdered because of ones political belief.
-
DMF - there seems to several 'It's a good job Stalin died when he did, because he was about to do this...' theories. I'm not sure how many of them are credible. Although, by all accounts, he was a bit on the insane side of the spectrum at the end.
I don't understand how Boroda can think Trotsky was more 'evil' than Stalin. From what I've read, he was more of a moderate influence within the Communist Party and did hate what Stalin was doing to 'his' revolution. Having said that, the original 1917 revolution and the years immediately after were far from bloodless.
Anyway, Stalin saw him as enough of a threat to have his head ice-picked.
There were many terrible men with alot of power back then. I'd say Beria was perhaps one of the worst.
IMO, Hitler murdered because of ones blood line, Stalin murdered because of ones political belief.
I disagree, Ripsnort. Hitler put anyone, anyone who tried to openly oppose him in the nearest concentration camp. His political enemies were as ruthlessly disposed as Stalin eliminated his.
Only their methodology differed, and that more down to the character of each dictator.
It just so happens that Hitler's race crimes were more visible and perhaps more numerous.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
DMF - there seems to several 'It's a good job Stalin died when he did, because he was about to do this...' theories. I'm not sure how many of them are credible. Although, by all accounts, he was a bit on the insane side of the spectrum at the end.
I mention the Doctor's Conspiracy plot because it's a well-documented one that I've found in several of the books I've got lying around here. It had gotten as far as arresting Stalin's personal physicians and a handful of other doctors, but Stalin died before they could be put on trial. They were released shortly after his death.
Here's a link (http://www.tiac.net/users/hcunn/rus/vrach-ubijca-e.html) to the original Pravda article in 1953 that laid the groundwork for Stalin's plan. Here's a quick quote from it (dated January 13, 1953):
"Investigation established that participants in the terrorist group, exploiting their position as doctors and abusing the trust of their patients, deliberately and viciously undermined their patients' health by making incorrect diagnoses, and then killed them with bad and incorrect treatments. Covering themselves with the noble and merciful calling of physicians, men of science, these fiends and killers dishonored the holy banner of science. Having taken the path of monstrous crimes, they defiled the honor of scientists."
Still not enough to convince you? How about Krushchev himself? In his now famous speech (which you can find here (http://www.trussel.com/hf/stalin.htm)) to a closed-door session of the Communist Congress in 1956, he details Stalin's crimes against the Soviet people. Among them he discusses the groundwork that Stalin laid for the Doctor's Plot. Here's a quote from that:
"Let us also recall the 'affair of the doctor-plotters.' Actually there was no 'affair' outside of the declaration of the woman doctor Timashuk, who was probably influenced or ordered by someone (after all, she was an unofficial collaborator of the organs of state security) to write Stalin a letter in which she declared that doctors were applying supposedly improper methods of medical treatment.
Such a letter was sufficient for Stalin to reach an immediate conclusion that there are doctor-plotters in the Soviet Union. He issued orders to arrest a group of eminent Soviet medical specialists. He personally issued advice on the conduct of the investigation and the method of interrogation of the arrested persons. He said that the academician Vinogradov should be put in chains, another one should be beaten. Present at this Congress as a delegate is the former Minister of State Security, Comrade Ignatiev. Stalin told him curtly, 'If you do not obtain confessions from the doctors we will shorten you by a head.'
Stalin personally called the investigative judge, gave him instructions, advised him on which investigative methods should be used; these methods were simple -- beat, beat and, once again, beat."
And what became of the doctors? Krushchev explains:
"This ignominious 'case' was set up by Stalin; he did not, however, have the time in which to bring it to an end (as he conceived that end), and for this reason the doctors are still alive. Now all have been rehabilitated; they are working in the same places they were working before; they treat top individuals, not excluding members of the Government; they have our full confidence; and they execute their duties honestly, as they did before."
You're definitely right about Stalin losing it at the end, but let's face it... he was always a few cards short of a full deck anyway.
As for the early revolutionary years, you're right that they were far from bloodless. If anything, Lenin established the "rules of engagement" later used so effectively by Stalin against his enemies. However, it's difficult to imagine that even Lenin at his worst could have unleashed such absolute terror and control over the USSR as Stalin did. As well, Stalin masterminded some techniques of his own, namely rewriting history. As Volkogonov observes, Stalin basically "wrote" himself into history as an important actor in the revolution and a close ally of Lenin despite little evidence that this was actually the case. He also perfected the technique of airbrushing those he'd murdered out of pictures in order to erase all records of their existence. In similar fashion, he actually had himself inserted into old pictures with Lenin.
Talk about a "great" leader, eh? :)
-- Todd/DMF
[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]
-
Damn I wish I could go back to 1992 and study some more English in UCLA. Apparently those courses has not been longenough for me as you all seem to misunderstand the meaning I had put into the words of Leader and Great.
Russian Empire had great leaders, some of them had Russian roots and some didn’t. As For example Peter I the Great.. Now there was a truly great warrior and leader.. Alexander III was excellent politician and leader too. Lenin... forget Lenin - this thread was hijacked pretty bad anyway to bring Lenin and his toombgrave in it.
Now bear with me and my poor English… If anyone of you interested in MY opinion take an extra minute to think what I truly meant when I said this: He was a great leader. Stalin wasn’t great as Peter I, that’s different meanings even if words are the same.
Also if anyone here can see even a slightest sign of admiration or worshiping connecting with name of Stalin from my behalf or Boroda's - forgive me for saying this - you are out of your mind.
-
Originally posted by Dmitry:
Russian Empire had great leaders, some of them had Russian roots and some didn’t. As For example Peter I the Great.. Now there was a truly great warrior and leader.. Alexander III was excellent politician and leader too. Lenin... forget Lenin - this thread was hijacked pretty bad anyway to bring Lenin and his toombgrave in it.
The only mention of Lenin's tomb in this entire discussion was in the title of a book I cited as a source. The book itself, a Pulitzer prize winner, covers the roots of the USSR's demise from Lenin onward through the early 1990's. Really a phenomenal read.
Other than that, Lenin was brought up by Boroda first in an attempt to show that Stalin, somehow, was the lesser of various evils. I strongly disagree.
Now bear with me and my poor English… If anyone of you interested in MY opinion take an extra minute to think what I truly meant when I said this: He was a great leader. Stalin wasn’t great as Peter I, that’s different meanings even if words are the same.
The problem in English is that "great" combined with "leader" carries certain connotations to it. It encompasses charisma, skill, leadership ability, administrative expertise, vision, and more. When I hear the phrase "great leader," for instance, I think of Winston Churchill, who for the British excelled when most needed. Historically, Augustus Caesar also comes to mind.
I'm not certain I know what you mean by "great" then. Great how?
Also if anyone here can see even a slightest sign of admiration or worshiping connecting with name of Stalin from my behalf or Boroda's - forgive me for saying this - you are out of your mind.
I didn't argue that you or Boroda either admired or worshipped Stalin. Rather, I responded initially to what seemed to me an apologist line by Boroda that Stalin was "but a schoolboy" compared to Lenin, Trotsky, and others. The evidence simply does not support this assertion, one that was originally made by a longtime Stalin lacky in defense of his deceased master.
As well, Boroda has vociferously argued that any estimates of the number of Stalin's victims by "stalinist 'patriotic' papers here in Russia or in 'democratic' printed elsewhere, is a roadkill." However, numerous secondary and primary sources show that Stalin was directly or indirectly linked to at least several millions of deaths, and quite possibly many, many more. Katan Forest? The Ukraine? The Great Terror? How many more do we not even know about?
-- Todd/DMF
-
Dmitry,
I think the Cold War is to blame for this. The fact that Stalin was also a communist puts him in a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really evil light, since communism was really, really, really, really, really evil.
Seriously, I wonder what would have happened if Stalin had not succeeded in attaining power in the Soviet Union. So much of what the Soviet Union became was a direct result of Stalin's regime. After his death, the Politburo had become warped by his methods, unable to do anything by committee, expecting, needing even, a single powerful head to direct the government. While it is no mistake that Gorbachev came much too late to reconcile the Soviet government with its people, it's an interesting intellectual exercise to imagine his appointment to the highest Soviet office as Lenin's successor, seventy years earlier. I wonder what the Soviet Union would have been then?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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... :rolleyes:
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.
-
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...
-
Boroda, and you obviously studied Soviet history from "Soviet" sources.
:rolleyes:
[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
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..
-
why is it russia ends up with all the duds???
-
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.