Author Topic: Putin wants in Nato  (Read 2351 times)

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2001, 08:47:00 AM »
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.

Offline Dmitry

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2001, 12:11:00 PM »
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...

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2001, 01:00:00 PM »
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.

Offline fd ski

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
      • http://www.northotwing.com/wing/
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2001, 01:12:00 PM »
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" ?

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2001, 01:15:00 PM »
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.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2001, 01:23:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mrfish:


he had good hair....in a mike ditka sorta way.

ROTFLOL!!!  Thks for my SWOM today! (Spewing Water On Monitor)

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2001, 01:30:00 PM »
Quote
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?

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2001, 01:32:00 PM »
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.

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2001, 02:23:00 PM »
Quote
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

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2001, 02:42:00 PM »
<S> DMF, agree with your post.  IMO, Hitler murdered because of ones blood line, Stalin murdered because of ones political belief.

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2001, 03:03:00 PM »
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.

 
Quote
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.
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2001, 03:24:00 PM »
Quote
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 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) 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 ]

Offline Dmitry

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2001, 09:21:00 PM »
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.

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2001, 09:55:00 PM »
Quote
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.

 
Quote
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?

 
Quote
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

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Putin wants in Nato
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2001, 10:13:00 PM »
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?
ingame: Raz