Worst Soviet/New Russian leader

[stalin006]

thinking ahead wasnt he.......

 

[Pangur Bán]

Does worst mean "worst morally" or "worst in terms of success brough for the state from the rule of so and so". If the former, I'd vote Stalin, if the latter I'd vote Vladimir Putin.

 

[Bifrost]

Does worst mean "worst morally" or "worst in terms of success brough for the state from the rule of so and so". If the former, I'd vote Stalin, if the latter I'd vote Vladimir Putin.

Are you crazy? Putin has already done at least twice as more as Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenco, and ESPESIALLY!!! Yeltsin

 

[Hitro]

Indeed, how can anyone seriously say that Yeltsin was better for Russia than Putin?
In fact, better than anyone...

 

[stalin006]

i odnt get it ......worst russian leader? stalin was not a bad leader, his leadership was extremely good, even if his tactics were secret police and concentration camps, he was a very strong leader, he took control of the kremlin and no easy-delicate peace loving BAD leader could had done, much less rally the USSR to capture berlin at all costs, he was a great leader, evil but taht should not count here, so just make a new thread like "Most evil and murderous Soviet/New Russian leader", waht do yall think?

 

[Bifrost]

Better start a thread " Most evil and murderous USA leader " , or its impossible because all of them were ideal?

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Bifrost
Better start a thread " Most evil and murderous USA leader " , or its impossible because all of them were ideal?

Better idea still: "Most evil and murderous leader of all time."

 

[stalin006]

most murederous man of al time? mmmmh.......Mao?

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by stalin006
most murederous man of al time? mmmmh.......Mao?

I started a new thread with this subject. Go here!

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
As for the worst Soviet leader, I would go with Lenin. Lenin was the truest ideologue and I strongly suspect that if he'd lived another ten years, we would think of Stalin in much milder terms.

Well, it's really rare (I mean not being on a common opinion with Vrylakas ) but now I vote to Brezhnyev to be the worst. Being the worst for me means to totally misunderstand and miscalculate the country's historical, economic and social settings. As for killing people no one can beat Stalin but he had less errors compared to the actual situation and resources. One can talk about the military mistakes he made, but on the long run he was more successful to run that country (I already can feel some flaming around... )
Brezhnyev on the other hand stopped Khruschev's (man, the English fonetics of these names are so weird!) "reforms" and froze the Soviet Union into a historically misplaced behavior. From the 70s there was no way for the Soviet Union to keep up with the West but they fixated on this even when the system's resources did not make it possible. The economic crisis in the 70s and the domestic problems about the socialist system itself resulted in a different situation and Brezhnyev was not able to be adjusted to it. Gorbachev at least saw the problems, but he didn't have enough time to soften the system.
And unfortunately for them B-man had a very long reign to waste a lot of time.

 

[Vrylakas]

Klazlo wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas

As for the worst Soviet leader, I would go with Lenin. Lenin was the truest ideologue and I strongly suspect that if he'd lived another ten years, we would think of Stalin in much milder terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it's really rare (I mean not being on a common opinion with Vrylakas ) but now I vote to Brezhnyev to be the worst.

Just because I voted for Lenin doesn't mean I think the others are angels. Brezhnev is probably the one who is most responsible for destroying the USSR by not reforming it despite its increasingly crisis-ridden economic state. It is like driving a car with blue smoke pouring out from behind; sooner or later you'd better stop and check beneath the hood. Brezhnev kept on driving until it ran out of oil and the engine seized up fatally.

Being the worst for me means to totally misunderstand and miscalculate the country's historical, economic and social settings. As for killing people no one can beat Stalin but he had less errors compared to the actual situation and resources. One can talk about the military mistakes he made, but on the long run he was more successful to run that country (I already can feel some flaming around... )

Yup. He was a classic apparatchik, a bureaucrat with no imagination and less intelligence. I see the 1964 ouster of Khrushchov as a coup by the Soviet nomenclature who, along with the conventional military, felt their privileged status threatened by Khrushchov's unpredictable reforms. They chose a colorless, thoughtless man to replace him but unfortunately this "Nowhere Man" was mentally unable to take any action when the economy began to show serious signs of deterioration.

Brezhnyev on the other hand stopped Khruschev's (man, the English fonetics of these names are so weird!)

My best guess is that English-speaking journalists in the USSR didn't understand Russian well enough to know that in print the Russians often don't use the umlauts ("..") over their letter e (yaw), so they read the names as "Khrushchev", "Gorbachev", "Kiev", etc. As far as I know everyone outside the English-speaking world has got it right...

"reforms" and froze the Soviet Union into a historically misplaced behavior. From the 70s there was no way for the Soviet Union to keep up with the West but they fixated on this even when the system's resources did not make it possible. The economic crisis in the 70s and the domestic problems about the socialist system itself resulted in a different situation and Brezhnyev was not able to be adjusted to it. Gorbachev at least saw the problems, but he didn't have enough time to soften the system. And unfortunately for them B-man had a very long reign to waste a lot of time.

We are not not in agreement. It is, as you say, a matter of how one defines "worst" - in terms of how many they killed or imprisoned, in terms of negative effect on the economy or living standard, in terms of competence - it all depends.

I remember an American political cartoon from the early 1980s with two panels; the first showed American advisors poking Ronald Reagan with a stick and asking, "Is he dead? It's so hard to tell!" while the next panel showed Soviet advisors poking Brezhnev with a stick and saying, "Is he dead? It's so hard to tell..."

Hey Laci - did you do anything for the 20th?

 

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by u-gene


We, Ruskies, are a bit confused. It's difficult to choose. Stalin was by all means the most cruel one. But he dragged the young SU out of backwardness. BTW, that applies to Peter the Great, too. Stalin was not a fool. His charisma was quite OK.

Maybe it's easier for you to decide, 'coz you're 'outside'.

Probably, I'd vote for Chernenko. He did absolutely nothing.

About the Baltic states, can you mention any country where ex-SS soldiers are allowed to march through the centre of the capital, where monuments dedicated to Red Army soldiers are destroyed and where citizens, who fought against the Germans, are insulted and declared outlaws, where the V-Day is almost a Sorrow-Day? No? I can. Three of them. Try to guess?

Chernenko only lasted about a year in office, before his death. Same falls for Andropov. But, I agree, Chernenko was worthless. Andropov, at least, looked into an incentive initiative for the Russian people, so that they would work harder, and more importantly, have something to work hard for.

As for everyone else, I don't know. I'd say the Soviet Union would have been drastically different if Lenin lasted a few more years. Say, up to 1930. Sino-Russian relations would have been improved, and China, could have quite possibly, become a vassal of the SU. 'World revolution' could have spread to Germany, which would have probably destroyed any chance of Hitler coming to power. The monarchies west of Russia would have crumbled, and probably would have joined Russia in it's cause. That's my what-if on that.

Anyway, I'd have to say that the 2nd worst would probably be Breznhev. His military determination was mainly the cause of economic disruption. While he meant no harm(as he was very peaceful, and wanted to live life that way), he did distort the overall big picture in the USSR.

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
It is, as you say, a matter of how one defines "worst" - in terms of how many they killed or imprisoned, in terms of negative effect on the economy or living standard, in terms of competence - it all depends.
I remember an American political cartoon from the early 1980s with two panels; the first showed American advisors poking Ronald Reagan with a stick and asking, "Is he dead? It's so hard to tell!" while the next panel showed Soviet advisors poking Brezhnev with a stick and saying, "Is he dead? It's so hard to tell..."
Hey Laci - did you do anything for the 20th?

Yes, as you've said it - it all depends. The cartoon is funny though, I remember a ton of jokes about Brezhnev's death (like the battery ran out and so on), but for us as students the best consequence was that we had to watch his funeral on tv in the classroom and it was instead of chemistry class so I was quite happy, although I had to be seem as very sad...
I didn't do too much around the 20th because I was coming back from Chicago and I had to find my luggage that disappeared somewhere in Pittsburgh... But my fellow Hungarians had a lot of flood that cancelled the famous fireworks also.

 

[SKILORD]

Lenin?

yeah Lenin......

could you other Lenin protesters help me out in the Most Murderous Leader poll?

 

[stalin006]

lol bringing the war here, w/ allies