It is really not very clear what does "Which leader of the USSR was the best?" mean. If we look at only all good things that the leader did for USSR and not looking at bad things he did, in this case the best leader will be Stalin, because as Churclill said he got USSR with plough and left it with atomic weapon. His 5 year plans helped to create powerful industry and without it USSR couldn't win WW2. After the war the country was in ruins, the third part of all industry was destroyed, millions of people died, but his new 5 year plan helped to restore that was destroyed and create even more for such a short period of time.
But, if we mean "The best leader" as "all good thing leader did" minus "all bad things leader did", Stalin will not be the best for sure. It is strange to deny existing of GULAGs, as someone here did. But Stalin didn't kill 20 millions of soviet people, for example when Khrushev asked to make him a report about victims of stalinism, the numbers was 3.5 millions became victims of Stalin's repressions, and not all of them were killed. But for sure he killed not one million people.
So if we look in that way who was the best leader, we must look for a person who did much good and less bad. Lenin made October Revolution, when Temporary Government war "overthrown" and Bolsheviks got all the power. And this revolution served to begining the Civil war, where millions died and country was almost destroyed.
After Stalin goes Malinkov. He did almost nothing for a period of time he was a leader. And nowadays less people remembers him, in fact.
Khrushev really was not a good politic and ruler, for example almost all people from ex-USSR ermember his plans about growing corn in Khazakhstan, where giant money were lost. And so wasn't clever his politic about West, as we wanted to show them Kuzka's mother
But what do you guys mean then you say that he was a bloody murder or something like that?
Brezhnev wasn't a leader at all, 'cos he decided nothing, the party ruled him. And enough said about him of this topic before me.
Gorbachev started reforms, and you know there this reforms led USSR. And I know one funny (and sad at once) story when Gorbachev became the best _German_ of the year. Then USSR decided to leave Germany, Gorbachev decided to not to take all the technicks and leave it in Germany. Then Germans asked how much they must pay for this technicks, he said "nothing". And so he presented Germany some stuff on 100 BILLIARDS roubles (same as 100 billiards dollars for that time) or even twice more, I don't remember exactly but it really was hundreds of billiards. So he became best German of the year. But for this in USSR I would put him in a jail for 100 billions years =\
One guy I missed - it is Andropov. No one vote for him, exept me. Someone said he didn't do anything bad/good because he ruled for short time, but it's not like it was. He really ruled very short time, but when he ruled he fought with criminal burocrats as did Stalin, but not by killing them. Even economic raised (but for some less percents. in fact) after going down before him. And he didn't do any reforms that would destroy USSR. So, IMHO, he was the best leader if we mean "The best leader" as "all good thing leader did" minus "all bad things leader did".
And it really confuses me then some people from my country say "Why do you criticise USSR or Russia if you have something worse if your country". We are takling about USSR and anyone can criticise or hail it, no matter what history does his native country have. It's like Stalin killed people but Hitler killed more so don't touch Stalin. And the meteorit that destroyed all the dinosaurs and almost all other life killed much-much more than Hitler did, so don't touch Hitler. That makes no sense. Let's talk about USSR, not about Indians, British colonies, USA in WW2, China or North Korea.
