Fayadi
Technocrat
I think nobody has yet voted for the greatest leader of the history!I vote for Joseph Stalin ,I find that his five year plan is very ideal!He was great as because of him USSR became superpower .
Best Leader of History?
- Thread starter Fayadi
- Start date
Fayadi
Technocrat
I know100 % somebody is going to say this,the millions of dead people died mostly of FAMINE,is the kulakhs (???Stuffs like that forget to spell) who destroy the farms Stalin was not to blame while the small proportion (not really small numbers) died for opposing him.He is the most creative leader his 5 years plan for industrialising sounds interesting,and worked (but again the farming failed because of Kulakhs ).Russia became superpower of 5 years plan that sounds great....
By the way u havent vote for ur favourtie leader
By the way u havent vote for ur favourtie leader
atawa
Mastered by puppets
Yeah uncle Jozef was a great leader, just before WW2 he killed of most of his senior army staff, resulting in a couple of million more dying on the soviet side, but who cares, becouse after all:
'1 death is a tragedy, 1 million deaths is a statistic' - Jozef Stalin
I perfer Hitler over Stalin, at least he made the German army look smart
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I can't blame Fayadi for thinking Josef Stalin was the greatest leader, I mean, after all, what else are they going to teach you in a communist-state-run school?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
It really depends upon how you define "great", let alone "the greatest". It is, like many of the other polls that plagues us in these times (), a very subjective question. It will require some consideration on my behalf, so I'll sleep on it eventually, and edit it in later this morning.
Now onto the matter of Iosef Vissarionvich Dzugashvili, also known as Koba, or as Stalin. Now, in my opinion, greatness is not necessarily to do with the moral character of the individual, as there are very few individuals in the course of human history who aspired to and achieved great office who were paragons of virtue. So, I class Hitler and Stalin as great, undoubtedly, but at the same time as thoroughly repugnant, despicable and evil.
Now, onto the secondary matter of Fayadi's proposition that Stalin was the greatest leader of history. Firstly, on the matter of the five year plan being "ideal", one cannot really understand what is being said by this. That you think it ideal, or think it good; that you think it worked efficiently; that you think it justified in some context - all of these strike one as potential meanings, so some qualification of it will enable better comprehension of the argument.
His role in the forcible transformation of the USSR into a superpower is undeniable, but the methods employed, and the eventual fatal cost on the nation and the system do subtract from it.
Millions died under the reign of Stalin, and millions were imprisoned, and/or deported to Siberia and the gulags. A nation was terrorized for decades, and the shadow of totalitarianism fell across much of the globe. All of these are undeniable facts, and are supported by evidence both Western and Soviet, to the extent of testimony from the very instruments of his devastation.
The famines killed millions, and were a result of deliberate policy, as was the extermination of the kulaks (de-kulakisation). The harm and death inflicted by the Chekists at the direct orders of Stalin vastly outweighs the effect of any destruction of property by the doomed kulaks themselves. It lead to a huge amount of resentment in the countryside, particularly the Ukraine. Consider how the advancing German forces were initially welcomed as liberators and strewn with garlands of flowers by the populace.
The records and evidence show Stalin was to blame, as he was for Katin forest.
Then we have the terror of the 1930s, as first the party and then the army and general populace were ruthlessly purged. The show trials of the vast majority of Stalin's former Bolshevik comrades comes to mind, but they were all conspiring with Germany and the capitalists
On the charge of him being the most creative leader, he was personally responsible for the stifling of the outburst of creativity that initially followed the Revolution, instead implementing a policy of socialist realism.
But I believe this was more aimed at his creation of the Five Year plan. I hate to ruin the illusion of paternal Comrade Stalin diligently working on the myriad economic details of the construction of the modern state, whilst thoughtfully puffing his pipe, but it was not a work of his hand.
It was thought up by others, based upon the theories of previous individuals, and Stalin only did what he was good at: ruthlessly implement it by destroying whoever was in his way , real or supposed.
The industrialisation plan was partway successful, but when balanced against his destruction of agriculture, and his near disastrous actions in destroying the officer corps of the Red Army, it is a minor thing.
Stalin is in the gallery of great world leaders, but for other reasons: his ability to seize power, and hold it, destroying all opposition, and for his profile as a world leader in tumultuous times (the latter was mainly based upon his taking credit for the works of others, mainly the Soviet people.)
So that is why the argument presented that Stalin is the greatest leader of all time is fundamentally factually flawed, and based upon incorrect premises.
Returning to the original proposition, it is not an easily answered question: hundreds of names come to mind - Napoleon, Asoka, Augustus, Bismarck are but a few. History does not lend itself to easy generalisations.
), a very subjective question. It will require some consideration on my behalf, so I'll sleep on it eventually, and edit it in later this morning. Now onto the matter of Iosef Vissarionvich Dzugashvili, also known as Koba, or as Stalin. Now, in my opinion, greatness is not necessarily to do with the moral character of the individual, as there are very few individuals in the course of human history who aspired to and achieved great office who were paragons of virtue. So, I class Hitler and Stalin as great, undoubtedly, but at the same time as thoroughly repugnant, despicable and evil.
Now, onto the secondary matter of Fayadi's proposition that Stalin was the greatest leader of history. Firstly, on the matter of the five year plan being "ideal", one cannot really understand what is being said by this. That you think it ideal, or think it good; that you think it worked efficiently; that you think it justified in some context - all of these strike one as potential meanings, so some qualification of it will enable better comprehension of the argument.
His role in the forcible transformation of the USSR into a superpower is undeniable, but the methods employed, and the eventual fatal cost on the nation and the system do subtract from it.
Millions died under the reign of Stalin, and millions were imprisoned, and/or deported to Siberia and the gulags. A nation was terrorized for decades, and the shadow of totalitarianism fell across much of the globe. All of these are undeniable facts, and are supported by evidence both Western and Soviet, to the extent of testimony from the very instruments of his devastation.
The famines killed millions, and were a result of deliberate policy, as was the extermination of the kulaks (de-kulakisation). The harm and death inflicted by the Chekists at the direct orders of Stalin vastly outweighs the effect of any destruction of property by the doomed kulaks themselves. It lead to a huge amount of resentment in the countryside, particularly the Ukraine. Consider how the advancing German forces were initially welcomed as liberators and strewn with garlands of flowers by the populace.
The records and evidence show Stalin was to blame, as he was for Katin forest.
Then we have the terror of the 1930s, as first the party and then the army and general populace were ruthlessly purged. The show trials of the vast majority of Stalin's former Bolshevik comrades comes to mind, but they were all conspiring with Germany and the capitalists
On the charge of him being the most creative leader, he was personally responsible for the stifling of the outburst of creativity that initially followed the Revolution, instead implementing a policy of socialist realism.
But I believe this was more aimed at his creation of the Five Year plan. I hate to ruin the illusion of paternal Comrade Stalin diligently working on the myriad economic details of the construction of the modern state, whilst thoughtfully puffing his pipe, but it was not a work of his hand.
It was thought up by others, based upon the theories of previous individuals, and Stalin only did what he was good at: ruthlessly implement it by destroying whoever was in his way , real or supposed.
The industrialisation plan was partway successful, but when balanced against his destruction of agriculture, and his near disastrous actions in destroying the officer corps of the Red Army, it is a minor thing.
Stalin is in the gallery of great world leaders, but for other reasons: his ability to seize power, and hold it, destroying all opposition, and for his profile as a world leader in tumultuous times (the latter was mainly based upon his taking credit for the works of others, mainly the Soviet people.)
So that is why the argument presented that Stalin is the greatest leader of all time is fundamentally factually flawed, and based upon incorrect premises.
Returning to the original proposition, it is not an easily answered question: hundreds of names come to mind - Napoleon, Asoka, Augustus, Bismarck are but a few. History does not lend itself to easy generalisations.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Fayadi, you gauge power wrongly.
A great nation is not rated on military power,
Armed force is a tool of the state.
Real power is the nations culture and the people's growth and sucess, not to mention happiness and pride.
Stalin's reign of doom maybe made the USSR into a powerhouse (for a while).
But is was done at a tremdous cost,of life and no matter how you argue that the benefits were good,
the massive human suffering stains Stalins cursed name for all time.
Stalin ruled with fear and torture (carried out personally sometimes)
And lived in a world of paranoia and fear for his own life.
Hardly the hallmarks of a great leader...
Great leaders, Fayadi?
Think of Simon Bolivar,
think of Martin Luther King,
maybe peaceful Ghandi,
or the inspired FDR,
The learned Hummurabi
Julius Gaius Caesar,
or wily Von Bismarck...
They are great leaders whose hands were free of the blood of millions of thier own people. But still weilded great POWER.
A nation with great power weilds not a sword of iron but a mind of compassion and knowledge...
Also a great people do not live with the spectre of terror hanging over them...
A great nation is not rated on military power,
Armed force is a tool of the state.
Real power is the nations culture and the people's growth and sucess, not to mention happiness and pride.
Stalin's reign of doom maybe made the USSR into a powerhouse (for a while).
But is was done at a tremdous cost,of life and no matter how you argue that the benefits were good,
the massive human suffering stains Stalins cursed name for all time.
Stalin ruled with fear and torture (carried out personally sometimes)
And lived in a world of paranoia and fear for his own life.
Hardly the hallmarks of a great leader...
Great leaders, Fayadi?
Think of Simon Bolivar,
think of Martin Luther King,
maybe peaceful Ghandi,
or the inspired FDR,
The learned Hummurabi
Julius Gaius Caesar,
or wily Von Bismarck...
They are great leaders whose hands were free of the blood of millions of thier own people. But still weilded great POWER.
A nation with great power weilds not a sword of iron but a mind of compassion and knowledge...
Also a great people do not live with the spectre of terror hanging over them...
What about the best military leader?
Zjukov was the real reason WWII was won anyway, Stalin was very ignorant, a typical example of how power can consume your mind. WW2 would have been won more easily if he did'nt execute almost all his generals.
Zjukov was the real reason WWII was won anyway, Stalin was very ignorant, a typical example of how power can consume your mind. WW2 would have been won more easily if he did'nt execute almost all his generals.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Originally posted by atawa
I perfer Hitler over Stalin, at least he made the German army look smart
Yep those smartly dressed Wehrmacht and Waffen SS, butchering countless people, Hmmmm.
I can see it now..
Paris 1940...
"Our homes have been crushed by a German Panzer army!"
"My family have been fragged by a Einsatz SS platoon!"
"Hey, but look at those uniforms, very nice!"
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Yeah, Dictators are dumb.
In WW2 the Generals made all the best moves.
Not the power-mongering despots...Adolf and Joe couldn't run a charity shop!
)
Just one small point, Julius Caesar's Gallic campaigns were particularly bloody, just that it took place so long ago, only few could even remember them.
Fayadi
Technocrat
This is a state of short sightedness and narrow mindedness,China is no communist,they are capitalism who call themselves Communist.To be frank I was not born in China ,I am Indonesian Born Chinese who study in Singapore,I study history,I have been China only ONCE (Shanghai I luv it)u have no basis i am brainwashed.Stalin is great if not for him,USSR will not become a major player in international.USSR Must have a big military,it is such a big country which touches border with 12 countries and what it have border problems with 12 countries?
REMEMBER IF NOT FOR STALIN ,GERMANY WILL NOT BE DEFEATED
I am talking about favourite leader,all of u has been saying Stalin is bad,u all havent vote for ur own.I fav Stalin because USSR became superpower in such a short time.
Stalin's Uniform with his generals was cool in "Big Three" conference in Yalta
Wherea China may no longer be Communist, those who are in power still subscribe to Communism, otherwise they would have no ideological basis for their undemocratic control of the country. And they'll do whatever necessary to keep that control, Communist or not. They are totalitarianist, more than communist.
And FYI, Russia had ALWAYS been a big international player since the days of Napoleon or even earlier. Where did you think Napoleon got his first major disastrous defeat? Who did you think Germany feared prior to WW1 (encirclement by hostile nations to the West AND the East)? Tsarist Russia was industrializing well prior to the Soviets (it was the 6th largest industrial producer and one with a very high growth rate). Were it not for WW1, Tsarist Russia would never have fallen and the Commies would never have come to power.
Fayadi
Technocrat
Russia during Soviet Union can be able to confront the first world superpower , I didnt know too much about Russia history but I know 1 thing for sure Russia is well more prepared for Germany in WW2 than WW1.Russia has great chances of falling to Germany if not for Stalin industrialising idea
BY THE WAY VOTE FOR UR FAV LEADER!
BY THE WAY VOTE FOR UR FAV LEADER!
Ah, UKK our only true dictator...Originally posted by Juize
UKK. His diplomatic actons... Ok nobody here really knows WTH I'm talking about so I propose Augustus.
He really chewed the Ceasars empire into shape.
(btw, excellent and most creative comment, Simon DS!)
Well Stalin was kinda powerful in the fact that he died of natural causes. Natural causes meaning really natural causes not natural causes of Soviet politics.
My vote for most powerful leader goes for Innocentius III, a pope.
Similar threads
