History of communism

[esaima]

I made a poll about contemporary history. You can see-the question is simple.
The term "best" is, of course, discussable, so it would be nice if you comment your opinions.
btw, added Malenkov to the list- I think there is no reason to ignore him.

[safinator]

Communism sucks...

[Eldritch]

Father Sunshine FTW!


Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.


Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.


In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance.


The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.


It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

:thumbs

[Äike]

I made a poll about contemporary history. You can see-the question is simple.
The term "best" is, of course, discussable, so it would be nice if you comment your opinions.
btw, added Malenkov to the list- I think there is no reason to ignore him.

There's nothing good about the USSR nor communism. When looking at those leaders then we can use terms "very bad", "Satan personally" and "bad".

I'd say that Gorbatschov was the least bad, as he did destroy the USSR. I'm not going to vote in the poll, though, the word "best" is just so wrong. Terms like "least bad" would be better.

[esaima]

Terms like "least bad" would be better.
You're right.The polls title is , how to say, somewhat consciously provocative.

[Humanophage]

Neutral:
1. Gorbatschov - lacked misanthropy, anti-intellectualism, and anti-Americanism. Presided over the USSR in a disastrous state.
2. Malenkov - threw out the Georgians, took progressive steps against totalitarianism, lowered taxes. Hard to evaluate, a murky period. Might have been the architect of the Thaw.

Controversial:
3. Lenin - might have turned out more tolerable than Stalin. Quite bright and very progressive in many areas, if unnecessarily brutal.
4. Khruschev - didn't abolish Malenkov's positive political turns, but the economic policies and diplomacy were a failure.

Negative:
5. Brezhnev - Suslov, rather. Seems to have marked the death of social and economic progress. Actively engaged in armed oppression.
6. Chernenko - sycophantic and overly conservative in the Soviet way. Worthless by the time he came to rule.
7. Andropov - implemented harsher measures during his rule. Of KGB extraction to boot.
8. Stalin - did much harm to most Europeans, including indirectly. Destroyed culture and purged the brighter economists. Turn industrialisation into a nightmare. Left a sad political legacy.

[Joe McCarthy]

Clearly Stalin. A master of political realism whose deft statecraft transformed the Soviet Union into the leading European power. The Richelieu of his era.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I despite the USSR, I'm glad it's gone today. I admire Tito mainly because he outmaneuvered Stalin and managed to keep Yugoslavia out of Soviet bloc.

http://www.inventingeurope.eu/invent/files/display/95/fullsize

[Joe McCarthy]

I despite the USSR, I'm glad it's gone today. I admire Tito mainly because he outmaneuvered Stalin and managed to keep Yugoslavia out of Soviet bloc.

http://www.inventingeurope.eu/invent/files/display/95/fullsize

There were a lot of people that hated Richelieu as well, but for France he was a great leader as he destroyed domestic factionalism and made France Europe's leading power with cunning diplomacy.

[poiuytrewq0987]

There were a lot of people that hated Richelieu as well, but for France he was a great leader as he destroyed domestic factionalism and made France Europe's leading power with cunning diplomacy.

I didn't mean to compare Tito with Richelieu but now that you bring it up. Tito could be too compared with Richelieu since he managed to preserve the union of the Yugoslav peoples for the sake of unity and brotherhood of South Slavs, transformed Yugoslavia into an economic and military power. That was nothing short of impressive since we were occupied by a foreign non-European power for nearly 500 years. At one time we were 4th strongest country militarily behind US, Soviet Union, UK and France during the Cold War.

ITVCJY2BYxI

Just look at sheer discipline of marching soldiers and air groups!

Economy-wise, it was one of the leading nations in Europe. For a nation who had just freed itself from Ottoman yoke and experienced the ravages of WW1 and WW2 we managed to rebuild so fast and came out as a relatively prosperous nation... actually much more prosperous than Poland as we were on the road to joining the EEC (European Economic Community, the precursor of the EU) hadn't the Yugoslav civil war broke out. I think if Reagan and other Americans hadn't undermined Yugoslavia and it had held together then we wouldn't have to fear another Ottoman conquest of the Balkans in the near future. Yugoslavia was indeed the last bulwark against Turkey and now with Greece collapsing like house of cards... there is essentially nothing stopping Turkey from reconquering the Balkans for a neo-Ottoman Empire.

Q19c4zF_xbY

[Joe McCarthy]

I was actually comparing Richelieu to Stalin in that both enhanced national power while being hated by enemies foreign and domestic. But I agree that Tito was a good European Communist leader as Communist leaders go.

[esaima]

Stalin has more votes than others, no surprise.

[esaima]

I'd say Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev and Gorbatshev are more significant than others.
Stalin, of course, is the most notorious but we shouldn't forget Lenin who created the Jesuit-like organisation- the Bolshevik party- which was the main pillar of the whole regime.