Best Soviet Leader?

The people of course!

I must say Lenin, he brought socialism to Russia. Although I do not belive the liars who call Stalin a mass-murderer

Quote:

You do know that his "real" name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov?

Well Stalin's real name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, infact Stalin is Russian for steel. So it wasn't just Lenin.

Oh and Comrade Vasili, I noticed your signature. Surely comrade Kirk was better than comrade Picard.

I think Stalin was the best leader ever.
VOTE FOR STALIN ON: -I didn't read the forum rules!-171

Stalin.

@winga: Lenin did NOT make communism a reality.

Although Brezhnev let the Jews free from Soviet Union, which showed that USSR was taking steps towards integration into the world community, he became quite pro-stalin and had an idiotic obsession with medals. Khruschev was better based on the fact that he wished to advance the Soviet Union and possesed many ideas for freedom and justice .

Quote:

Khruschev was better based on the fact that he wished to advance the Soviet Union and possesed many ideas for freedom and justice.

Care to elaborate what you mean by this? "Wished to advance the Soviet Union"... what leader would admit to any aims to the contrary? Even Gorby didn't deliberately break up the Union. And what are these "many ideas for freedom and justice" that you speak of - I can't find anything in the '62 programme that strikes me as particularly impressive.

Quote:

Although Brezhnev let the Jews free from Soviet Union,

... which opened the door for a mass migration of ex-Soviet refusniks into Israel and allowed the radical right-wing in that country to gain the ascendancy, making Israel more overtly hostile to the USSR and pushing it closer to the US in international affairs. I don't see how you can view this as a positive development for Soviet interests.

Quote:

"Wished to advance the Soviet Union"...

I believe it was the Virgin Lands campaign and Khrushcheva's. Just trying to raise the standard of living.

I [heart] Lenin!!!

I would say Stalin, although Lenin is really the only one I liked.

Andropov as he had a cool hat, ribbon and a stiff wave. He was also a reanimated corpse for his stint in office.

After comrade Lenin, Stalin was the last socialist leader of the USSR. The system fell after Stalin. This was merely a good thing; an imperialist toy saw its destruction.

He solved so many disputes & conflicts within USSR & also other countries. But yes, just like Mao he was a human and had his mistakes. As a whole however, Stalin is one of the greatest leaders in the communist movement. He was so feared by the west that such moronic lies about him are so widespread so that we won’t be able to recognize the ascendancy and immensity we had during his time.

It's surprising that we can agree on some subjects Roam. Although, I don't agree with you about the USSR after Stalin. I believe that after Stalin is when it started on the downward spiral which resulted in Gorby and the collapse, bit it wasn't beyond repair. Its core Socialist values remained intact. They just needed to be brought to the foreground again.

The way that Maoism has dealt with the USSR is something I really despise, especially given the way China went.

Quote:

Its core Socialist values remained intact.

No! USSR lost it's "purpose" and became yet another imperialist nation after Stalin, more or less.

I am seriously tempted to ask how else would you have dealt or helped repair the situation in USSR if you were in Mao’s shoes.

Quote:

No! USSR lost it's "purpose" and became yet another imperialist nation after Stalin, more or less.

I agree about the the USSR losing its purpose (at least to a point), but the rest is simply crap. Could you give me some examples of how the USSR became "imperialist" post Stalin.

Quote:

I am seriously tempted to ask how else would you have dealt or helped repair the situation in USSR if you were in Mao’s shoes.

Maintained serious diplomatic relations and exert whatever influence I had to try keep the Soviets on the right path. And I would have actively encouraged people such as Andropov to assert themselves.

Roam, if I was in Mao's shoes, I think I would have done a lot of things differently, things that hopefully would have avoided China's present status as just another Capitalist country (more or less).

Quote:

Could you give me some examples of how the USSR became "imperialist" post Stalin.

Ever since Khrushchov seized the leadership of the Party, he pushed through a whole series of revisionist and anti- Stalin policies.

To put it out in a simple way; one could argue that the USA is not imperialistic, although it's spreading its presence all over the world for economical reasons - which is exactly what the USSR did.
Soviet Union also installed/was installing Soviet friendly governments all over the place. Puppet-regimes, Satellite-states.
Some examples are; the Tudeh Party in Iran, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the Greeks (which ironically were later on screwed) etc, etc… were all nominally independent, but in fact they were ideologically identical to Soviets & compeletly dependant and backed by the Soviet Union.
Many of the European movements that are still around today were once organized and their orders given to them by Moscow.


"Socialist in words, imperialist in deeds."

Quote:

Maintained serious diplomatic relations and exert whatever influence I had to try keep the Soviets on the right path. And I would have actively encouraged people such as Andropov to assert themselves.

And do you know what the PRC did?

Quote:

Roam, if I was in Mao's shoes, I think I would have done a lot of things differently, things that hopefully would have avoided China's present status as just another Capitalist country (more or less).

lol wut?

B4 you call PRC “capitalist” you need to keep in mind that what works out for a country. The PRC had far different material conditions compared to USSR. This is why many things which worked for USSR (and a few others) didn’t work for China.

This is also why Great Leap Forward, for instance failed, since China was in a far worse shape than Mao had anticipated.
A NEP was what China desperately needed. Note that the USSR had a NEP period of which everything was basically rapidly industrialized. The PRC didn't go through this and after the revolution the PRC was still semi-feudal and had almost no proletariat to begin with. (until a NEP was introduced which is still under effect.)

Roam wrote:

Ever since Khrushchov seized the leadership of the Party, he pushed through a whole series of revisionist and anti- Stalin policies.

To put it out in a simple way; one could argue that the USA is not imperialistic, although it's spreading its presence all over the world for economical reasons - which is exactly what the USSR did.
Soviet Union also installed/was installing Soviet friendly governments all over the place. Puppet-regimes, Satellite-states.
Some examples are; the Tudeh Party in Iran, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the Greeks (which ironically were later on screwed) etc, etc… were all nominally independent, but in fact they were ideologically identical to Soviets & compeletly dependant and backed by the Soviet Union.
Many of the European movements that are still around today were once organized and their orders given to them by Moscow.

I really can't be bothered making a proper reply to this crap. It's just the same old rhetoric used to justify a wholly unnecessary split between the World's two most powerful and influential Socialist States in the world at the time.

It's exactly the sort of reply I expected. No links or documentation at all, just Maoist spin (which funnily enough, I would expect to read in any Western history book).

Why don't you have a read of Soviet192491's comments in this thread:

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=44673&start=50

He's on the right track.

And just for curiosity sake, do you think the PRC is imperialist? Such an argument can be made for it as easily as it can for the Soviet Union.

Quote:

And do you know what the PRC did?

Well enough to know that it made the greatest mistake (IMO) of any Socialist movement, ever.

Quote:

lol wut?

B4 you call PRC “capitalist” you need to keep in mind that what works out for a country. The PRC had far different material conditions compared to USSR. This is why many things which worked for USSR (and a few others) didn’t work for China.

This is also why Great Leap Forward, for instance failed, since China was in a far worse shape than Mao had anticipated.
A NEP was what China desperately needed. Note that the USSR had a NEP period of which everything was basically rapidly industrialized. The PRC didn't go through this and after the revolution the PRC was still semi-feudal and had almost no proletariat to begin with. (until a NEP was introduced which is still under effect.)

Ahh yes, the China's experiencing its own version of the NEP argument. I have to admit, I've made this one myself in the past. I would very much like this to be true, and maybe it is (there is some evidence to back this claim up). I'm not going to hold my breath though.

I presented you with an argument which you failed to respond to.

What “links”? ROFL. I already replied there. I even gave examples. If you are curious you have to go and investigate it for yourself before insulting me, my intellect or Mao for that matter.

What I was trying to say was that; expansionism isn't necessarily just a trademark of the west, it's been a big part of USSR foreign policy for ages. Accepting and excusing it when it's conducted by the USSR whilst denouncing it when it's conducted by the west makes one a hypocrite.

The USSR was going 2 install Soviet friendly governments all over the place. How on earth can someone excuse THIS but on the other hand, criticize USA for doing the same thing in Iraq, Afghanistan etc?
It just sounds like a double standard to me.

Quote:

It's just the same old rhetoric used to justify a wholly unnecessary split between the World's two most powerful and influential Socialist States in the world at the time.

Why was it unnecessary? Politically speaking, they claimed the USSR was revisiounist and social-imperialist.
China never accepted the puppet-regimes USSR was installing and thus they always supported people’s national liberation against any imperialist aggression, be it USSR or USA.

Quote:

And just for curiosity sake, do you think the PRC is imperialist? Such an argument can be made for it as easily as it can for the Soviet Union.

No, that's not right at all!

Quote:

Well enough to know that it made the greatest mistake (IMO) of any Socialist movement, ever.

Why, did you avoid my question?

Anyway, it was Khureshchev who was first trying to dismantle treaty of Sino-Soviet alliance which was concluded between Stalin & Mao.
Khureshchev was denouncing Stalin and his actions, whereas Mao was supporting Stalin ideologically as well as politically.
I just can’t understand how one could support the USSR under the yoke of state-capitalism & denounce China under the revolutionary leadership of Mao!

Lenin, because he was a genius. It seems to me that he had the best understanding how to earn support from the people and rule the country. I wonder how the war would have been with his leadership, or if there even would be a world war.

Quote:

Anyway, it was Khureshchev who was first trying to dismantle treaty of Sino-Soviet alliance which was concluded between Stalin & Mao.

What treaty? I've never heard of any treaty. Do you honestly believe that the Sino-Soviet split is soley Khrushchev's fault?