Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Hitler vs Gorbachev vs Yeltsin

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.

.

Hitler
15
43%
Gorbachev
7
20%
Yeltsin
5
14%
other
8
23%
 
Total votes : 35
Post 18 May 2012, 14:20
Which do you hate the most?
Post 18 May 2012, 16:25
Is anyone seriously gonna tell me that they hate Gorby and Yeltsin more than Hitler?
Post 18 May 2012, 16:51
Is this some sort of joke? These polls get loonier and loonier. Anyways, everyone will vote Hitler.
Post 18 May 2012, 17:00
Thinking about this casually, I can tell you that yes, Indigo, I do. Gorbachev directly affected my fate personally much more than Hitler did. Hitler and the entirety of Europe's fascist-allied bourgeoisie could not manage to destroy Soviet socialism. Gorbachev did. We must recall that Hitler's actions were but an extremist realization of the long-standing goals of elements of the bourgeoisie to destroy the USSR. For me, to observe how Gorbachev's liberal political, social and economic reformers ate away at the USSR from within like parasites is probably more disgusting to think about than a direct attack by an open ideological enemy. Ultimately, Gorbachev's counterrevolutionary activity destroyed probably as many, and perhaps even more lives than Hitler, when one takes account not just of the sufferings of Eastern Europe, but also of the immense global setbacks for socialism and even basic social justice which resulted in the 1990s due to the lack of a socialist counterbalance to imperialism.
Post 18 May 2012, 19:32
I agree with S78. Gorbachev suceeded where Hitler failed so miserably. The horror of the holocaust is deceptive and distracts from the huge body count liberalism continues to rack up. Voted other though because I hate them all.
Post 18 May 2012, 21:26
Damnit i meant to vote for Hitler but accidently voted for Gorbachev..

I dont know how one would hate Gorbachev more than Hitler... I think Gorbachev gets to much wrap for the collapse of the Soviet Union..
Post 18 May 2012, 22:03
That's because he literally did it. A disastrous consequence of Soviet hyper-centralization.
Post 19 May 2012, 01:40
Sorry, a Gorby vs Yeltsin poll might have interesting, but this is silly.

soviet78 wrote:
Gorbachev directly affected my fate personally much more than Hitler did. Hitler and the entirety of Europe's fascist-allied bourgeoisie could not manage to destroy Soviet socialism.
Gorby might have been misguided or whatever, but even if you accept the statement that he intended to dismantle Communism on face value, he's not even in the same ball-park as Hitler who consciously intended to either exterminate or enslave most of the human race.

Looking at these things causally can lead to all sorts of absurdities... why not blame everything on people like Fanya Kaplan or Gavrilo Princip?
Post 30 May 2012, 05:07
Soviet192491 wrote:
Is this some sort of joke? These polls get loonier and loonier. Anyways, everyone will vote Hitler.


Nope, I voted for Gorbachev. Gorbachev actually accomplished the task of destroying the Soviet Union, whereas Hitler failed. That's the crucial difference and, ultimately, what really mattered when I cast my vote. Yes, Hitler did his best to achieve the same result, but he at least had the 'excuse' that he was the leader of an openly hostile foreign power, and no one was really surprised when he decided to invade the Soviet Union. Gorbachev, on the other hand, played a crucial role in the deliberate destruction of HIS OWN COUNTRY; what could be more despicable?
Post 27 Jun 2012, 16:40
Other - I hate them all. They were all anti-communists who tried to destroy socialism and the Soviet Union. Hitler by far was the cruelest an inhuman of them all, while Gorbachev and Yeltsin were deceitful and finally successful. However, I don't think one should set off these bastards against those and compare what isn't to be compared.
Post 28 Jun 2012, 01:06
Shigalyov wrote:
Gorby might have been misguided or whatever, but even if you accept the statement that he intended to dismantle Communism on face value, he's not even in the same ball-park as Hitler who consciously intended to either exterminate or enslave most of the human race.

Looking at these things causally can lead to all sorts of absurdities... why not blame everything on people like Fanya Kaplan or Gavrilo Princip?


To me it's a matter of motive. Imagine (hypothetically, of course) that you and your buddies from the local party committee get attacked by the local neo-Nazis, fighting them off with several of your friends suffering bad injuries. It sucks, but the Neo-Nazis' nature makes the whole thing make sense dialectically, right? Now imagine that one of your comrades is working with your country's intelligence service, accusing your group of criminal activity and setting you up for the disbanding of your local chapter and even prison time for some. Which of the two do you hate more? The more I think about it, the more my original 'casual thinking' choice makes sense to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.
Post 28 Jun 2012, 02:17
Enemies are easy to understand because they're the inversion of yourself. Traitors invoke such hate because you thought of them as one of your own, perhaps even liked/loved them, and their betrayal is a mockery of your own feelings and even sense of self. Hell there can even be mutual respect between enemies, but traitors are always hanged.
Post 28 Jun 2012, 09:01
It's a question of emotional responses I suppose, but there is no way (as much as I detest the consequences of Gorby's actions) that I could feel about him the way I feel about Hitler.
While not belittling the suffering that has ensued with the demise of the USSR, I can't even remotely equate that with Hitler's contributions to human suffering.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Traitors invoke such hate because you thought of them as one of your own, perhaps even liked/loved them, and their betrayal is a mockery of your own feelings and even sense of self. Hell there can even be mutual respect between enemies, but traitors are always hanged.
Traitors can be more emotionally hurtful in some respects as nothing ever made us imagine that someone like Hitler would be positive force in the world, whereas some people might have thought that Gorby was a comrade.

For me it comes down to a couple of things ... I don't believe Gorby's statement that he intended to dismantle Communism. I think he tried to reform it (something which it did require) and it simply got away from him.

Saying he meant it afterwards just seems like a cynical political move. In the West, he still has some friends and he knows that's basically what they want to hear. And as I said before even if he did mean it at the time I don't believe that he intended to cause mass murder. If he had there would have been far simpler ways to do it than the convoluted path he choose to trod.

Saying he's worse than Hitler just seems to trivialize everything to do with the GPW and the Holocaust.
Post 28 Jun 2012, 09:16
He's not worse because he's nothing better than a fool while Hitler was a monster. But a monster is to be killed, done and dusted (I <3 you Matt Berry), while a fool who didn't realize enabling liberals would lead to what it did is confusing and hurtful in a way a monster never could be. Plus there is the rawness oftge wound. The holocaust is a black and white memory of people long-since deceased while the demise of the USSR is something even I vaguely recollect (really just the aftermath). And you have to remember that the beast Hitler failed in every conceivable way, the Jew has been made into an powerful international entity, the Red Army demolished his landmarks and statues, Germany was divided and castrated.

It's like Gorby slashed our ailing grandfather's neck. So what if he didn't commit genocide? What he did was bad enough. It's kinda like how I don't really hate Pol Pot more than any western liberal leader even though his crimes were so much more visibly brutal.
Post 28 Jun 2012, 10:57
So it doesn't bother you when Pol Pot is used against you and your Communist ideas?
He's a public relations nightmare as far as I'm concerned. Worse than Stalin even!


Actually that's another reason to hate Hitler. How often do you have to defend Gorby against anti-communists? And how often do you have to explain how Hitler's "National Socialism" has nothing to do with socialism?
We're still being criticised by association with our arch-enemy.
Post 28 Jun 2012, 11:21
Quote:
And how often do you have to explain how Hitler's "National Socialism" has nothing to do with socialism?


That doesn't happen to me.


I vote for Gorbachev, too, if only because Gorbachev seems to have been much more relevant than Hitler as a person. Hitler was only ever a marionette of capital. That's nothing special. Yes, the bourgeoisie starts wars and kills people. They do it all the time. German fascism was a little over the top (but really not much. Numerically the bourgeoisie commits more than one holocaust, every year.) but otherwise nothing special. The dissolution of the USSR was the willful, treacherous destruction of a workers' state. I hate Gorbachev (like Merkel) precisely because he knew better and knowingly turned back the wheel of history to undo an entire century that had had, up to then, worked out quite well for leftists all over the world. In the 70s, most intelligent people in Europe firmly believed that socialism was the future, even if they weren't communists or socialists, because the left doing so well, because the USSR was there to defend leftist interests with state power.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]