Whats your opinions on him, as a Soviet leader and in the context he was in?*

I think he was an intelligent man, moreso than a lot of people gave him credit for. He took over in difficult circumstances and did a good job, increased freedoms and developed the economy well. Hungary was badly handled, but he did a good job in Egypt and Cuba. A pretty good job all in all.








*so this means Yeekim, we can assume you dont want him in charge of Estonia now, but how do you think he compares to other soviet and non-soviet leaders of their time?

*so this means Yeekim, we can assume you dont want him in charge of Estonia now, but how do you think he compares to other soviet and non-soviet leaders of their time?
LOL.
Well, I think he was the best (most humane?) of the bunch (this means Soviet leaders).
Let's see, in no particular order of significance.
1) He did not let the Cuban crisis spin into war;
2) He greatly eased the reign of terror instituted by Stalin and put an end to personal cult.
3) He stepped down voluntarily, instead having his opponents just whacked.
4) Soviet economy was probably in best shape during his rule.
5) This is completely anecdotal, but my mother actually thinks pretty well of him (comparatively :D). She told me, that K. once attacked some Estonian scientist in one of his public speeches (or rather the nature of his scientific work), following which the guy wrote him a letter - which lead to public apology on Khrushchev's part (retracted his statements saying he was misinformed). Can't imagine Stalin/Brezhnev doing anything like this.

Yeah that sounds familliar, I think thats true... he always said he was proud of the fact that the rest of the committee could confront him and ask him to step down, compared to Stalin's time this was a big breakthrough...

I think he was an excellent leader, despite the obvious ideological problems. He certainly has far fewer points against him than any other Soviet leader, including Gorby.

He was also lucky enough and managed to destroy the evidence of him actively participating to Stalin's purges.

He was also lucky enough and managed to destroy the evidence of him actively participating to Stalin's purges.
I refuse to condemn him for that. I dare say all if us would actively assist Stalin, simply to keep his attention from focusing on us,

I think he was an excellent leader, despite the obvious ideological problems. He certainly has far fewer points against him than any other Soviet leader, including Gorby.

Agreed, I always liked him better than Gorbachev. Which does not mean he was a good guy; he still handled things in a brutal bolshevik manner, and I don't mean only foreign affairs.

But he had the courage to end the death machine created by Lenin and Stalin, and he deserves alot of credit for that.

i can see someone making a remark about that combined lenin/stalin legacy and a whole great discussion starting.

He was also lucky enough and managed to destroy the evidence of him actively participating to Stalin's purges.

The man was in charge of the Communist Part of the Ukraine, if he didn't participate he was going to participate, if you follow my meaning.

He took over in difficult circumstances and did a good job, increased freedoms and developed the economy well. Hungary was badly handled, but he did a good job in Egypt and Cuba. A pretty good job all in all.

I tend to agree, although there's also the little matter of the Virgin Lands Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Lands_Campaign). Apart from the Hungarian Revolution IMHO that was his biggest failure.

It seems that the general problem with soviet farms, both kolkhoz and sovkhoz, was overfarming. They didn't rotate crops, they just took advantage of the long growing season and only grew wheat, wheat, and more wheat, which is one reason why their farming programs were generally crappy. I don't think that's Krushchev's fault, though it happened under his watch. So it wasn't HIS failure, the program was a great idea, and started out performing excellently, but not rotating crops is generally a stupid thing to do. If it was his idea to only grow one crop, then yes, it is his failure, but if it wasn't, then it isn't.

What hasn't been mentioned yet:
He developed space program. Two great achievements here: first satellite and first man in space.
He presented Crimea to Ukraine.

i can see someone making a remark about that combined lenin/stalin legacy and a whole great discussion starting.
Who is that villain?

From a Soviet point of view, Hungary ended quite well: the satellites broke away in 1989, not 1956.

I have a very low opinion of Khrushchev; I see him as something of a fool. He may have been good intentioned, but he bungled many things, including Cuba, the Virgin Lands program, etc.

Saying that he is the best Soviet leader is not saying much; that's a tallest midget competition. Of the post-Stalin bunch, only Andropov was particularly competent.

Excuse me? How did he bungle Cuba? He got exactly what he wanted form it - a promise from the US not to invade, and the missiles removed from Turkey. Wasn't much else he could have done.

Thats true, Cuba just wasnt the defeat its potrayed to have been fior the USSR. It wasnt the best outcome they could have hoped for, but it wasnt a humiliating backdown

Thats true, Cuba just wasnt the defeat its potrayed to have been fior the USSR. It wasnt the best outcome they could have hoped for, but it wasnt a humiliating backdown
It was fairly close to the best outcome they could have hoped for. The only thing better would have been if they'd actually managed to keep the missiles there.

It might have been the best outcome for the USSR, but it was certainly not the best outcome for him. Getting the missiles removed from Turkey was great, but when you can't actually tell anyone about that it doesn't do much to strengthen your political position.

Shame really.

Khrushchev was a brash, arrogant nekulturni with a temper problem, an unsophisticated way of handling politics, and a bad disposition to butchery.

Between his work as Stalin's hangman in the Ukraine, and again at Stalingrad, his invasion and brutal massacres in Hungary, his UN shoe incident, and his appaling appaling virgin lands programme, he was a bit short on substance.

The Turkish missiles is laughable. It was a compromise the Us was only too happy to make, as the missiles they had in Europe made the sites pretty much obsolete.

However, he was the perfect intermediary after Stalin's death; his programme of deStalinisation, personified by his speech at the 40th party congress, brought the Soviet union out of its complacent, fearful and unassuming state, and brought it back into the modern world in being.

Also his UN shoe incident, him taking the Pepsi Challenge, shooting Beria, and his allowing Solzhenitsyn to publish were pretty cool.

Khrushchev was a brash, arrogant nekulturni with a temper problem, an unsophisticated way of handling politics, and a bad disposition to butchery.

Between his work as Stalin's hangman in the Ukraine, and again at Stalingrad, his invasion and brutal massacres in Hungary, his UN shoe incident, and his appaling appaling virgin lands programme, he was a bit short on substance.

The Turkish missiles is laughable. It was a compromise the Us was only too happy to make, as the missiles they had in Europe made the sites pretty much obsolete.

However, he was the perfect intermediary after Stalin's death; his programme of deStalinisation, personified by his speech at the 40th party congress, brought the Soviet union out of its complacent, fearful and unassuming state, and brought it back into the modern world in being.

Also his UN shoe incident, him taking the Pepsi Challenge, shooting Beria, and his allowing Solzhenitsyn to publish were pretty cool.

Make your mind up about the shoe incident...

Make your mind up about the shoe incident...
What exactly was the shoe incident? I have this image of a Pole throwing a shoe at Krushchev.

What exactly was the shoe incident? I have this image of a Pole throwing a shoe at Krushchev.

Supposedly, Khruschev nearly threw his shoe at the Phillipno ambassador to the UN, thought its never been proved

Supposedly, Khruschev nearly threw his shoe at the Phillipno ambassador to the UN, thought its never been proved
That would be even better than the Bush shoe-throwing incident. Head-of-state > journalist.

That would be even better than the Bush shoe-throwing incident. Head-of-state > journalist.


He definitely called him a prick and an american stooge though. Now that I think of it Khruschev and Chavez arent that different

He definitely called him a prick and an american stooge though. Now that I think of it Khruschev and Chavez arent that different
Fantastic. I thought it was Chavez that got insulted, not the other way around?

Fantastic. I thought it was Chavez that got insulted, not the other way around?


He calls Bush a prick several times a day

Supposedly, Khruschev nearly threw his shoe at the Phillipno ambassador to the UN, thought its never been proved

Umm, afaik he was not given word during UN assembly, so he used his shoe to bang on a table to get attention. :)

He calls Bush a prick several times a day
Even now?

@Yeekim: Not as awesome, but still sweet.

Umm, afaik he was not given word during UN assembly, so he used his shoe to bang on a table to get attention. :)


thats a seperate incident

Supposedly, Khruschev nearly threw his shoe at the Phillipno ambassador to the UN, thought its never been proved

I'm talking about the incident where he ripped his shoe off and started smashing his table with it in the UN.

I'm talking about the incident where he ripped his shoe off and started smashing his table with it in the UN.

We'll show you "Kuzkinu mat'!" :lol:

And old Nikita once said "we will bury you" to the capitalist world; and that is always handy to make fun of communists.

And old Nikita once said "we will bury you" to the capitalist world; and that is always handy to make fun of communists.

I think "we will bury you" is the translation of "we will show you Kuzkinu mat' ", which is not exactly accurate, but close enough :)

I'd translate it as "we will give you a good bashing"

Didn't he also make a promise that Soviet Union will reach true Communism in 1984 (or was it 1988? I may be mistaken).
While ago I was thinking of PM-ing luceafarul that apparently this promise coming to truth is more likely than him completing his long-awaited history quiz, but didn't get around to it...:lol:

Yes, 1980 IIRC
But he was displaced, that's why it didn't happen!!!

who are ye to critisies him? Get out... out into the Ash heap of history where ye belong

And old Nikita once said "we will bury you" to the capitalist world; and that is always handy to make fun of communists.


Well, not really, he was obviously wrong in his prediction. Can you think of any times capitalist or fascist leaders have been wrong in a prediction so I can use it to make fun of you?

Well, not really, he was obviously wrong in his prediction. Can you think of any times capitalist or fascist leaders have been wrong in a prediction so I can use it to make fun of you?

Making fun of me because of something a fascist said is like making fun of you for something a muslim fundamentalist said.

But usually "capitalist leaders" don't say stuff like "we will bury you" to half of the world.

Making fun of me because of something a fascist said is like making fun of you for something a muslim fundamentalist said.

But usually "capitalist leaders" don't say stuff like "we will bury you" to half of the world.

That's right, they tell the largest country on earth that they're an evil empire.

That's right, they tell the largest country on earth that they're an evil empire.

Well played sir

We will bury you. In a literal way.

But well, how could post-Soviet Russians like him? The Crimea issue is driving Putin nuts!
For Ukrainians, not really.

That's right, they tell the largest country on earth that they're an evil empire.

Which it was... and today they rather outcompete each other on how to please the chinese more.

But there are no "capitalist leaders" in the sense that there were "communist leaders". Capitalism is not a movement like communism was, there are no "capitalist revolutionaries".

What is more, capitalists don't look at any "capitalist leaders" for guidance. The leaders of the Soviet Union, OTOH, were very much the "presidents of communism". Communists throughout the world were loyal to Russia, usually more than to their own countries, for much of the existence of the USSR (it later grew discredited, obviously, but during WW2 communists from Europe, Latin America and the USA usually followed whatever Stalin told them like serfs - "Germany is evil! Oh no, Germnay is peaceful, Britain and France are evil warmongers! Hey wait, Germany is the ultimate evil, it must be stopped by any means!"

A good communist does not have an opinion, he should follow the Party line. So when the Party or its leader says something moronic like Kruschev did, we humans with an opinion of our own are entitled to mock the communists. Capiche?

this story sounds shocking, luiz!

Which it was... and today they rather outcompete each other on how to please the chinese more.

But there are no "capitalist leaders" in the sense that there were "communist leaders". Capitalism is not a movement like communism was, there are no "capitalist revolutionaries".

What is more, capitalists don't look at any "capitalist leaders" for guidance. The leaders of the Soviet Union, OTOH, were very much the "presidents of communism". Communists throughout the world were loyal to Russia, usually more than to their own countries, for much of the existence of the USSR (it later grew discredited, obviously, but during WW2 communists from Europe, Latin America and the USA usually followed whatever Stalin told them like serfs - "Germany is evil! Oh no, Germnay is peaceful, Britain and France are evil warmongers! Hey wait, Germany is the ultimate evil, it must be stopped by any means!"

A good communist does not have an opinion, he should follow the Party line. So when the Party or its leader says something moronic like Kruschev did, we humans with an opinion of our own are entitled to mock the communists. Capiche?


I wish you had told all the communists that, we could have avoided the billion or so splits that have plagued the socialist movement since its first inception.

I sort of make you look stupid here, dont I?

he doesnt need you.

And old Nikita once said "we will bury you" to the capitalist world
He did? That just makes that line so much better. I never realized it had a historical background when playing Red Alert 2. BTW, anybody remember what unit says that?

He did? That just makes that line so much better. I never realized it had a historical background when playing Red Alert 2. BTW, anybody remember what unit says that?
Rhino Tanks do, but they modify it to "We will bury them". RA2 is one of my favorite games of all time. :D

I wish you had told all the communists that, we could have avoided the billion or so splits that have plagued the socialist movement since its first inception.

I sort of make you look stupid here, dont I?

No, you just demonstrate your poor reading skills. Which is kind of understandable. Note the use of the term "good communist". Obviously not all communists were good; some refused to follow party line. And for that they were ostracized (when not murdered) and accused of being fascists, imperialists, baby killers and whatnot.

What I said applies entirely to mainstream communism, as exemplified by the Communist Party of the USA, of Brazil, and basically everywhere. They did first portray Germany as evil, then as innocent peace-lovers attacked by evil imperialistic France and Britain, and then as the ultimate evil the world ever saw as soon as they attacked their Moscow masters.

Having an opinion of your own was not exactly something that Lenin and Stalin wanted in their minions.

As a sidenote, does holy king ever add anything to a discussion? Really, has he ever?

i add to the discussion the view that your view of "communist zombie drones all around the globe" is ridiculous.

isnt that something?

I wonder how might history have been different had the virgin lands program been handled properly and actually worked?