TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What was the last great Russian leader since 1917?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

I think that people get so caught up in the horror of Stalin's rule (understandably so) that it's difficult for them to consider the full implications of the position he was faced with leading into world war II. The modernization of the Soviet army and the expansion of their manufacturing and transportation infrastructure is really one of the most incredible achievements of the 20th century. It did not come without an even more incredible price, but we can only speculate as to whether it could have been accomplished without a reign of terror. We can also only speculate as to what might have followed were it not accomplished... but I believe that those consequences could very likely have inspired equal, or even greater, horror.

To do what may be necessary and wonderful but difficult may be what we call great. To do what may be necessary but horrible beyond belief... to me that is beyond moral judgment, and I draw few lines with what I will judge. It is great and terrible, a twisted paradox of causalities and potentialities sufficient to rend most any moral system asunder. I feel the same horror as others when I think about Stalin - but I am also entranced. The will to do the things that he did... how many men could have faced those choices that he did, and, rather than being swept away in the river of time, how many could have instead decided its course - in the face of all that uncertainty, with horrifying potentialities in every direction? Stalin stands out from all those other men - profoundly so. I hesistate to say that it is in greatness, but his will shines brightly through the ages, casting many shadows in the present and, like thousand-year-old light from a distant star, may still be felt even in the distant future.

I can't find words to describe it adequately... it may take a truly exceptional person to fully understand what I am saying. There are so many dimensions to all phenomena that we can only see through their reflections. In that sense, the case of Stalin is a colossal mirror, and anyone who has eyes for that which is distant can't help but feel some awe at what is there to be seen.

Arbiter, let me summarize your post.

From Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone:

"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things�terrible, yes...but GREAT."

--old dude that owned the magic broom shop

quote:

HAHAHA, placed on global pedestal BECAUSE OF SLAVE LABOUR, FORCED INDUSTRIALIZATION that cost millions of people their lives. Yay, what a great achievement, build on people's blood.

I have no problems with that.

quote:

You just admire the communists too much.

I give credit where credit as due, whereas you are so blinded by your hatred because they dragged off your relative somewhere and kicked your dog that you are not willing to acknowledge the incredible feat of building Soviet Union in first 20 years to the level that it was at.

quote:

So now both you and magnetonium have relatives who died in russia in world war II?

I had relatives who died as civilians in WW II, one relative who fought for the Waffen SS and several relatives who fought for the Red Army. Except I don't feel the need to trumpet it in every post.

----------

For those defending Gorbachev and hailing him as some sort of pro-western reformer should know that it was never Gorbachev's intent to dissolve or dismantle the USSR. He wanted to reform economic management and allow some freedom to speak but he absolutely intended to keep USSR as a political entity.

Arbiter is right. Sometimes that is the cost you pay for greatness.

I have a question. Why is FDR considered such a great leader when so many men died in WW II when he was president? And why are the American deaths in Europe during WW II are acceptable?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I give credit where credit as due, whereas you are so blinded by your hatred because they dragged off your relative somewhere and kicked your dog that you are not willing to acknowledge the incredible feat of building Soviet Union in first 20 years to the level that it was at.

Hey, use common sense: United States also went through industrialization, expecially in 1930s during Great Depression to expand industry. Look where they are now. And for Soviets, all their oppressive methods, economic mismanagement, idiotic farming and planning techniques resulting in the absolutely embarassing import of grain from Canada in 1960s, and their terrible mismanagement of production resulting in some much wasted money. My dad worked at a factory in Soviet Union, he saw hundreds of tractors that would sit and rust because too many were built. Idiots were in charge of Soviet economy, communism party members who had little or no knowledge of what they're in to. But the people who were the experts, they were exiled, sent to gulags, imprisoned, or worked low-position jobs with their bright minds. LOL, I saw it, and my dad knows well too. He fought in the Afghan war of 1980s, he knows fully well the shit of the Sovietism.

What the West saw was a result of millions of people's blood, forced labour (gulags were a cheap and easy source of labour to build roads, factories, railroads, schools, military bases, canals, etc.) and when Soviet Union collapsed, the entire house of cards went down as well. Today Russia is barely back to the economic levels before the soviet economic collapse of late 1980s.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Hey, use common sense: United States also went through industrialization, expecially in 1930s during Great Depression to expand industry. Look where they are now. And for Soviets, all their oppressive methods, economic mismanagement, idiotic farming and planning techniques resulting in the absolutely embarassing import of grain from Canada in 1960s, and their terrible mismanagement of production resulting in some much wasted money. My dad worked at a factory in Soviet Union, he saw hundreds of tractors that would sit and rust because too many were built. Idiots were in charge of Soviet economy, communism party members who had little or no knowledge of what they're in to. But the people who were the experts, they were exiled, sent to gulags, imprisoned, or worked low-position jobs with their bright minds. LOL, I saw it, and my dad knows well too. He fought in the Afghan war of 1980s, he knows fully well the shit of the Sovietism. What the West saw was a result of millions of people's blood, forced labour (gulags were a cheap and easy source of labour to build roads, factories, railroads, schools, military bases, canals, etc.) and when Soviet Union collapsed, the entire house of cards went down as well. Today Russia is barely back to the economic levels before the soviet economic collapse of late 1980s.

US has been industrializing since the early 19th century with formation of textile mills. By the time that a trans-national railroad across the US was built in the 1850's - along with the entire Eastern half of US being crisscrossed with rails, the Russians were still deciding if it even was worth building railroads. US invented the telegraph, electrical current and the mass assembly line - all key components of industrialization. So let's not act that Russia was even close to par. It was decades behind in its technological start and Stalin brought it to par in 2 decades. By 1957, USSR put the first man made object in space and by 1961, USSR put the first man in space.

Furthermore, I find it hilariously absurd that you have the gall to blame Stalin for Soviet problems with grain imports, a decade after Stalin has been dead.

Now let's get back to the real issue of Soviet collapse. We started this thread out by arguing for the great leader USSR had ever had. If your choice is Gorbachev then quite possibly he was the worst leader out of that list. Not only was his rule pockmarked by his absolute subservience in the diplomatic arena to the West, but he also presided over one of the largest and messiest collapses of a state in modern history, even though he never intended to break up the Union. How is that exactly a great leader?


So what constitutes a great leader? And I don't mean a leader that the West was the happiest with, but a leader who was the most beneficial to his people?

I stand by Stalin, a man who not only who built a country from a peasant society to a world power in a record amount of time, but a man who restored the country's pride via technological accomplishments, a man who staved off and triumphed over imminent annihilation from the Nazis, thereby saving not only his people, but quite possibly the rest of humanity and a man who lead his people back to pinnacle of global respect.

Now cry to me about your dead. Your tears and lamentations fall on deaf ears. Then cry some more.

If anything good is going to come out of this post, I hope it's that the more moderate lefties here begin to see what the religion of marxism can do to a person's concept of morality. The immense evil that Stalin brought upon the world can be ignored and even justified by some people, because Stalin was a fellow "comrade" in a struggle for a just cause.

The fact that there are intelligent and articulate people here who can praise a man responsible for tens of millions of deaths is proof of just how badly the socialist "faith" twists perceptions.

Personally I don't see much difference between Stalin and G.Bush right now. Is that another proof of how badly the democractic "faith" twists perceptions?

No, unfortunately the differences between them are getting smaller by the day.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Is that another proof of how badly the democractic "faith" twists perceptions?

no. thats just moral relativism, and it's really no way to affect whatever change you want for the greater good aside from just merely sounding like an intellectual.

no offence.

see i don't have to prove anything that democracies are the greatest concepts of self rule, however you have to stretch it pretty thin to convince others that faith in democracies are a detriment to the same.

Stalin really got 8 votes?

I guess that'd be different if you're family was victim of a forced famine.

I find it amusing that you discount Stalin as a leader simply because of his body count.

Yet none of you are willing to define a "great leader".

Was Alexander the Great a great leader? The man presided over deaths of hundreds of thousands for conquest and personal self-glory. He ordered massacres, wholesale slaughter of innocents, sold women and children off into slavery. But we as a people generally regard him as a great leader.

And the same goes for Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne US has been industrializing since the early 19th century with formation of textile mills. By the time that a trans-national railroad across the US was built in the 1850's - along with the entire Eastern half of US being crisscrossed with rails, the Russians were still deciding if it even was worth building railroads. US invented the telegraph, electrical current and the mass assembly line - all key components of industrialization. So let's not act that Russia was even close to par. It was decades behind in its technological start and Stalin brought it to par in 2 decades. By 1957, USSR put the first man made object in space and by 1961, USSR put the first man in space. Furthermore, I find it hilariously absurd that you have the gall to blame Stalin for Soviet problems with grain imports, a decade after Stalin has been dead.

I dont blame Stalin. I blame the Soviet system. There were rarely any professionals in charge of the vital industries, but only the senior communist party members because of loyalty. Soviet Union spent ridiculous amount of money for military, and little for health care, roads, industry - many people like my family waited for years, some even decades for a skyrise flat!!! Cars were a luxury, while in the States anyone could buy one. And thats just some examples. In 1988, a pair of jeans cost 80 roubles, the amount of what an avergae worker made in a month. LOL
Yeah, great achievements ... while when Soviet Union collapsed, all these holes became evident. Thats why the life expectancy was so low. Medicine was poorly funded, though education was mandatory and strong. Thats why when the Soviet Union fell, many of thse brilliant people left the country for a real life. Imagine the computer Soviet scientist who invented Tetris - he was unable to even have decent living because intellectual property was restricted. He could not make profits, sell his game. In the West companies made huge money, while he lived in a small flat in Soviet Union. And there's many other examples ...
YAY, HAIL THE AMAZING SOVIET UNION! Hail the forgotten innocent deaths ... hail the fact that most of the criminals got away ... hail hail the success of the Soviet Union 50 years later!

quote:

Now let's get back to the real issue of Soviet collapse. We started this thread out by arguing for the great leader USSR had ever had. If your choice is Gorbachev then quite possibly he was the worst leader out of that list. Not only was his rule pockmarked by his absolute subservience in the diplomatic arena to the West, but he also presided over one of the largest and messiest collapses of a state in modern history, even though he never intended to break up the Union. How is that exactly a great leader?

Gorbachev was an idiot. The only decent Soviet leader was Trotskiy, and thats why he was exiled and later killed. Lenin was a cheat, liar and control freak. He was so good speaking, lying to the people through his teeth to get control, power.

quote:

So what constitutes a great leader? And I don't mean a leader that the West was the happiest with, but a leader who was the most beneficial to his people?

AlexANDER II was the last great Russian leader. He wasnt perfect, but he managed to juggle between reforms in one hand, and Russia's expansion, prestige and development in the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia

quote:

I stand by Stalin, a man who not only who built a country from a peasant society to a world power in a record amount of time, but a man who restored the country's pride via technological accomplishments, a man who staved off and triumphed over imminent annihilation from the Nazis, thereby saving not only his people, but quite possibly the rest of humanity and a man who lead his people back to pinnacle of global respect. Now cry to me about your dead. Your tears and lamentations fall on deaf ears. Then cry some more.

And thats the whole point. Dictators are justified by Stalin. Stalin is an inspiration to other dictators like Saddam Hussein. Stalin is immortalized by many, and the results are obvious. Stalin pillaged, murdered, oppressed the country. Progress is possible using his method: point a gun to someone's head and they'll do anything. There's no freedom or rights whatsoever. You dont understand how many people have lost their relatives, homes, lives ruined forever. You dont have fucking pity. You're pathetic. You are ignorant to believe that people who had their families, lives RUINED by the assholes would later say YAY, STALIN WAS AN AMAZING LEADER ... WAIT, WHAT DO I HAVE TO SHOW FOR IT TODAY??????

You will happy living in Stalinist distatorship. I dont give a shit for development at the cost of millions of people's lives. No excuse. Did America force people, millions murdered to achieve their prowess? If today the American economy will collapse, there will be foundation left. In Soviet Union, it was mostly military industry, and when Cold War ended, it was all a big waste. And there was hardly anything left to continue building on.

To the day there are thousands of factories closed and rusting all over the country left over from the militaristic era. Noone needs 1000 tanks a year anymore. They cant feed people, give them jobs, security, health benefits. Soviet Union was FORCEFULLY held together by a series of tyrants. When their reign of terror ended, the country collapsed in a puff of smoke, because people decided they didnt want to continue like that anymore, showing how forcefull methods do not lead to success, but to inevitable, and horrific failure, resulting in massive suffering of Russian people in the 1990s and somewhat to the day.

Oh I'm sorry. Who do YOU think was the greatest leader out of that list?

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but i just wanted to comment on this before I leave:

quote:

Did America force people, millions murdered to achieve their prowess? If today the American economy will collapse, there will be foundation left. In Soviet Union, it was mostly military industry, and when Cold War ended, it was all a big waste. And there was hardly anything left to continue building on.

Uh yeah, it did. They built the country on SLAVE LABOR for 200 years. Also, they broke countless treaties with the Indians, stole their land, massacred them by the thousands and continued to lie, connive, murder and steal from them in order to marginalize them to fringes of society all in the name of Manifest Destiny.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but i just wanted to comment on this before I leave: Uh yeah, it did. They built the country on SLAVE LABOR for 200 years. Also, they broke countless treaties with the Indians, stole their land, massacred them by the thousands and continued to lie, connive, murder and steal from them in order to marginalize them to fringes of society all in the name of Manifest Destiny.

In 1700s/1800s every worldpower did that. British, Americans, Russians, French, especially Spanish ... i mean, serfdom only ended in Russia in 1861 (thanks to Alexander II). Its everyone to blame for that. In 1900s, however, Soviets committed more crimes against humanity than the rest of the world combined, LOL. Especially if you dont consider Hitler ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium In 1700s/1800s every worldpower did that. British, Americans, Russians, French, especially Spanish ... i mean, serfdom only ended in Russia in 1861 (thanks to Alexander II). Its everyone to blame for that. In 1900s, however, Soviets committed more crimes against humanity than the rest of the world combined, LOL. Especially if you dont consider Hitler ;-)

Oh I see what you did there. So you're giving US a free pass on genocide, exploitation, slavery and concentration camps (Nisei detainment in WW2) because "everyone else was doing it". You're a real humanitarian there. I guess for you it's just fine when people suffer and are being exploited for YOUR cause.

I also like how you quantified the Soviet crimes against humanity. basically it was something like this "I know that Americans did it, but the Soviets DID EVEN MORE!!!". I guess in your mind there is a certain body count benchmark that you need to surpass to be considered evil, otherwise exploitation and murder is fine.

If you are so adamantly against what the Soviets did, then you should be condemning US just as much, but you are not. Which leads me to formulate an even more accurate profile of you: Let's see - a biased, lying, deceitful offspring of Cossack traitors who is prejudiced against the Soviet state and is willing to lie and twist facts in order to condemn the Soviets as much as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Oh I see what you did there. So you're giving US a free pass on genocide, exploitation, slavery and concentration camps (Nisei detainment in WW2) because "everyone else was doing it". You're a real humanitarian there. I guess for you it's just fine when people suffer and are being exploited for YOUR cause. I also like how you quantified the Soviet crimes against humanity. basically it was something like this "I know that Americans did it, but the Soviets DID EVEN MORE!!!". I guess in your mind there is a certain body count benchmark that you need to surpass to be considered evil, otherwise exploitation and murder is fine. If you are so adamantly against what the Soviets did, then you should be condemning US just as much, but you are not. Which leads me to formulate an even more accurate profile of you: Let's see - a biased, lying, deceitful offspring of Cossack traitors who is prejudiced against the Soviet state and is willing to lie and twist facts in order to condemn the Soviets as much as possible.

Oh for Christ's sake, you're the one's who biased. I am trying to stick to my topic. I dont justify any murder or destruction of environment. All crimes against humanity are evil, and many criminals got away, especially the Soviets who have inspired so much more violence around the world. This is about Russia/Soviet Union, pardon me for my "sharp" cut-off the point you were leading to.

EDIT: You cant even fucking read my previous post properly. Just because I said "everyone was doing it" I didnt justify it. Stop being an idiot, answer me properly my big post about Soviet Union's mismanagement before all your whining today. You seem to ignore my strong points, and try to pick on the objective statements. Get over it, Soviets were evil and their accomplishment mean nothing to me, because they severely damaged my culture (Russian culture), my people, history, religion. Fuck communism. Most problems today in Russia are rooted from communist disease.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Oh for Christ's sake, you're the one's who biased. I am trying to stick to my topic. I dont justify any murder or destruction of environment. All crimes against humanity are evil, and many criminals got away, especially the Soviets who have inspired so much more violence around the world. This is about Russia/Soviet Union, pardon me for my "sharp" cut-off the point you were leading to

Oh really? And how did the Soviets "inspire so much more violence around the world"? I'd like to hear this.

Also, it would be great if you can tell me who you voted for in this poll - that would be stellar. Thanks.

P.S. Don't worry about the cut-off, I wasn't leading to a point - the point had already been made by me.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Oh really? And how did the Soviets "inspire so much more violence around the world"? I'd like to hear this. Also, it would be great if you can tell me who you voted for in this poll - that would be stellar. Thanks.

Cuba, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East. Who do you think funded Syria, Ethiopia, Iraq and others? Yeah, Soviets gave weapons and money to all these and other countries because they cared about freedom, human rights, better situation for their own people (who worked hard while the government wasted the money on other nations, while inside the country people didnt have cars, house, luxuries, etc.)

Who do you think Saddam Hussein, Kim Of North Korea, Turkmenbashi - who were they looking up, who they took examples from, who supported them, when they put up the portraits around their country claiming how great they were, committing genocides, building gulags ... G-D BLESS COMMUNISM/dictatorSHIP .. CAPITALISM IS VERY EVIL ... I AM THE OUTMOST POWERFUL, FAIR LEADER .... WELCOME TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF KOREA!

Seriously, do you even know what you're talking about???

quote:

And thats the whole point. Dictators are justified by Stalin. Stalin is an inspiration to other dictators like Saddam Hussein. Stalin is immortalized by many, and the results are obvious. Stalin pillaged, murdered, oppressed the country. Progress is possible using his method: point a gun to someone's head and they'll do anything. There's no freedom or rights whatsoever. You dont understand how many people have lost their relatives, homes, lives ruined forever. You dont have fucking pity. You're pathetic. You are ignorant to believe that people who had their families, lives RUINED by the assholes would later say YAY, STALIN WAS AN AMAZING LEADER ... WAIT, WHAT DO I HAVE TO SHOW FOR IT TODAY??????

Actually, if you point a gun to someone's head, it's not guaranteed that they will do anything. Typically, that's the problem. I dont know how to answer, do you want me to cry with you? Hold your hand? Give you a hug? We're talking about greatest leaders here, not about your great grand half-uncle who was taken to Siberia and a lost a shoe.

Yes, he was an amazing leader. And Russia has much to show for it today. Still one of the top space programs in the world, military superiority over 99% of the world., etc. Then again, we shouldnt judge leaders by what their successors do. The fact that Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world only to have his country be a scrap of dung 2300 years later does not detract from Alexander's greatness as a leader.

quote:

You will happy living in Stalinist distatorship. I dont give a shit for development at the cost of millions of people's lives. No excuse. Did America force people, millions murdered to achieve their prowess? If today the American economy will collapse, there will be foundation left. In Soviet Union, it was mostly military industry, and when Cold War ended, it was all a big waste. And there was hardly anything left to continue building on.

I think I answered this already. America has been enslaving and exploting people for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to b uild the country.

Next.

quote:

To the day there are thousands of factories closed and rusting all over the country left over from the militaristic era. Noone needs 1000 tanks a year anymore. They cant feed people, give them jobs, security, health benefits. Soviet Union was FORCEFULLY held together by a series of tyrants. When their reign of terror ended, the country collapsed in a puff of smoke, because people decided they didnt want to continue like that anymore, showing how forcefull methods do not lead to success, but to inevitable, and horrific failure, resulting in massive suffering of Russian people in the 1990s and somewhat to the day.

- But they needed 1000 tanks a year during Cold War. So what's your point?
- Believe it or not, even America can't feed people, give them jobs or health benefits. That's why there are plenty of homeless, unemployed and sick in US. If you want to use that argument, then qualify it.
- Forceful methods don't lead to success? Then why did they elect Putin twice? Apparently forceful methods do in fact lead to success.

And you can't deny that economically, the Russian people were better off under USSR than they are right now under capitalism, where the tiny fraction of nouveau Russians have consolidated all wealth and natural resources, leaving their countrymen starving.

quote:

EDIT: You cant even fucking read my previous post properly. Just because I said "everyone was doing it" I didnt justify it. Stop being an idiot, answer me properly my big post about Soviet Union's mismanagement before all your whining today. You seem to ignore my strong points, and try to pick on the objective statements. Get over it, Soviets were evil and their accomplishment mean nothing to me, because they severely damaged my culture (Russian culture), my people, history, religion. Fuck communism. Most problems today in Russia are rooted from communist disease.

You don't have any strong points. That's the problem. Most of the time you don't even have a point at all.

How did the Soviets "inspire so much more violence around the world"? So much more violence than whom?

quote:

Cuba, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East. Who do you think funded Syria, Ethiopia, Iraq and others? Yeah, Soviets gave weapons and money to all these and other countries because they cared about freedom, human rights, better situation for their own people (who worked hard while the government wasted the money on other nations, while inside the country people didnt have cars, house, luxuries, etc.)

Yeah, that's great. I like how you position it in such a way that it seems that the Soviets were the only ones to do that. From 1798 to 1993, U.S. has used force abroad in at least 234 instances. Should I also rattle off the list of dictators and regimes that U.S. sponsored as well? Or are you embarassed enough that I don't have to bother bringing up U.S. sponsorship of extermination squads, their sponsorship of genocide, multiple instances of toppling a legitimately elected democratic government, weapons sales, etc?

In case you didnt notice, coommunism only became a success after Soviets violently took over, in fact, they overthrew the government and installed their own harsher version of dictatorship and authoritarian government, not "liberated it from capitalist oppression" as communists claimed. The goal of the Soviets was the spread of communism around the world. And we all saw the methods they were going to use to implement their changes, LOL ... Kill off one tenth of the population, instigate dictatorship, force population to build palaces, tanks, everything for you. If you dont, you'll be shot. This model has been attempted and done by many leaders.

I voted for Putin. I know you're going to criticize Putin, but he is the only decent leader of the country since Alexander II who achieved reforms, brought the country together, paid off most of foreign debt, improved economy marginally, etc.

One more time: life in Soviet Union - no democracy, no freedom of speech, waiting years for cars, homes, no future outside the membership of communist party (with membership you can get higher standards than 90% of population), poor funding of hospitals/health care, industry, no intellectual property, everything controlled by the state, terrible maintenance of infrastructure due to lack of funds, oppression of minorities, terrible conditions in the army (from my father's testimonies), mismanagement of agriculture industry other sectors, murder of millions of people based on no proof, forbidden travel abroad with exception to senior members of communist party, waiting in lines for food, food rations, lack of funds for technological development, etc. And much more listed in my replies.

Its pointless arguing you. You can believe Stalin and the communists were great. Same as saying a thief, murderer, bully is great. I beat you up, I murder your family members, I put you in gulag to build my country - I am great. Another great analogy is I stole your money, earned my living, spent it all up, got bankrupt and I was great!!! Greater than you! While communist party members were driving bullet-proof Mercedes-Benz's, having Swiss bank accounts, and me ... well, I had my old Lada car, well, yeah, working at a factory 48 hours a week, earning meek 80 roubles a month, living in a small apartment with 4 kids. Store shelves half empty ...

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I find it amusing that you discount Stalin as a leader simply because of his body count. Yet none of you are willing to define a "great leader". Was Alexander the Great a great leader? The man presided over deaths of hundreds of thousands for conquest and personal self-glory. He ordered massacres, wholesale slaughter of innocents, sold women and children off into slavery. But we as a people generally regard him as a great leader. And the same goes for Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, etc.

Look these people can't be compared to your average person. No one on this board could achieve what any of these leaders have done. They have changed human history by the numbers of people they killed and the wonders they created, add to that the expansion of thier land.

Like I said don't listen to what anybody says bad about Stalin. Body count doesn't matter.

EDIT:Why doesn't Leonid have any votes? He was a better leader than Gorbachov. The reason people on this board voted for Gorby was because he "brought" down the USSR. That is it.

body counts don't matter?
it's people like you that are poisoning the world, total disregard for human life. self-absorbed in his own ego and tribe mentality. read a history book man, isn't it time we stopped killing each other?

i have no respect for any leader who has such an ego that he views people as just numbers. i bet you'd feel different if you were living in the soviet era and Stalin decided to kill your whole family because your cousins grandfather didn't support the party.

so detatched from reality aren't you. with such fucked up values.

and you morons are arguing over whether he killed 20 or 2 million? 1 life is enough. it isn't? pretend it's your mother. what then?

A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic -- Joseph Stalin

Death is relative. Every president in U.S. history has caused the death of people, every ruler of Russia has done the same. The actions of just about notable leader in the world have resulted in deaths.

If your moral absolutes immediately make you condemn any leader who has caused death then we have no great leaders at all. And that's just not true.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.