I read this post and was ready to unleash my usual Putin-apologetics, pointing out that it's genuinely true "that Putin restored Russian strength . . . despite American efforts to isolate the country" and Russian textbooks might as well say so, but when you get to stuff about Josef Stalin being "the most successful leader of the USSR" (at killing people, I guess) we really are in troubling territory.
« Sardines: Tastier Than You Think | Main | The Unitary Executive »
Officially Creepy
20 Jul 2007 03:45 pm
Comments (14)
Interesting that you concede this:
....it's genuinely true "that Putin restored Russian strength...despite American efforts to isolate the country" and Russian textbooks might as well say so...
But fail to see how using the same criteria for success, one could argue that Josef Stalin was the most successful leader of the USSR and Russian textbooks might as well say so.
Now if you wanted to inject other criteria (normative, moral, etc.) into the mix, then Putin and (to a much larger degree) Stalin could be rightly criticized, and such credentials and achievements called into serious question. That's an understatement.
It's also far from clear that _Putin_ (as opposed to rising oil prices) has done that much to really strengthen Russia. According to recent studies corruption is as high or higher now than in the last part of Yeltsin's term, for example, and many basic aspects of life (the health care system, the education system, etc.) are in a continual decline with little, if anything, being done. A different group of criminals is at the top now, but it's not clear that this has really made Russia stronger in any interesting sense. You really ought to read more (both in volume and depth) before you comment on this sort of stuff since it makes you look not very serious.
In 1920 the Soviet Union sued for peace and made territorial concessions so that an invading Polish army would leave Soviet territory.
By his death, Stalin controlled most of Eastern Europe, and left the Soviet Union one of the 2 most powerful nations in the world.
He might actually be history's greatest monster (tough competition there), but he was successful.
Stalin was a total drunk paranoid cock who established a viciously repressive authoritarian regime, appeased Hitler and... mobilized a creaky, sprawling Russia to defeat the Axis in WWII, whilst FDR played twister with the US isolationists and Churchill played "hate you more" with a daisy. (Soft underbelly, indeed!) Stalin only defeated Hitler because he had to, but he had to and did.
10,700,000 USSR military deaths alone, according to wikipedia. UK? 382,600. US? 407,300. Germany? 5,533,000. Add the European principles up and it's not even close. Behind only Poland in Lithuania in % population killed (13.44%). Remember these numbers when you appraise Stalin's Russia.
Stalin was the Russian leader when the Nazis launched the largest land war in human history, with the express aim of enslaving/eradicating the Slavic 'races' in their entirety, which was obviously a period of tremendous stress for everyone involved. That Russia survived at all was due to the superhuman sacrifices of the Russian people, rather than anything Joe did, but as the leader at the time he gets the reflected glory. Of course, if Joe hadn't colluded with Hilter to divvy up Poland, the country might never have gotten into that pickle, but I suppose it must have looked like a bargain at the time.
Matt, welcome to common sense. I am pleased that you have finally stopped with the pro-Putin stuff you've always fallen back on over the past year or so. Just because the Russians have some legitimate grievances does not excuse what is going on now. The only reason why it is not worse is because Russian capabilities remain limited; the intentions of those running the Kremlin are definitely czarist/ imperialist.
Hitler attacked Russia with over 100 divisions and his entire air force. If he had attacked Great Britain instead, the English might have been forced to give Hitler their navy and colonial bases in a peace agreement. That might have made our world today a much different place.
Get over it. They were our allies and at the time we were damn glad to have them.
Number of victims
Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence. Their estimates range from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.[4][54] When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin; another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed] or other causes in the Gulags; and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.
Debate continues, however,[55] since some historians believe the archival figures to be unreliable.[56] Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete, since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.
Thus, while some archival researchers have posited the number of victims of Stalin's repressions to be no more than about 4 million in total,[57][58][59] others believe the number to be considerably higher. Russian writer Vadim Erlikman,[60] for example, makes the following estimates: executions 1.5 million, gulags 5 million, deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POWs and German civilians 1 million - giving a total of about 9 million victims of repression.
Some have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine.[61][62][63] In this case, historians differ as to whether the famine was deliberate - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization. (See also: Droughts and famines in Russia and the USSR).
Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims. Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest,[64] meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct.[65]
He might actually be history's greatest monster (tough competition there), but he was successful.
Yeah, but only because Hitler was stupid. Had he attacked 5 weeks earlier as planned, it might well have been over for the USSR before autumn, perish the thought.
History's greatest monster also had history's most monstrously depressed and disorganized country to whip into shape. Not like the Germans were the only ones who suffered after WWI. And the Germans have many natural infrastructural/cultural advantages, even barring Jew-scapegoating (which the Russkies availed themselves of as well).
In the last 100 years, Russia's fortunes have fluctuated with the price of oil. One could even argue that it was $10/bbl oil that destroyed the Soviet Union more than anything else. And, quite frankly, anyone who admits to being a Putin apologist needs to be bitch slapped back to reality - Putin is Stalin without the mass graves, only because mass graves cant be spun by the worst spinmeisters.
Putin is Stalin without the mass graves
If it turns out that way, Putin will be one of the most famously (not infamous) successful people in the history of the world. I mean, the chief objection to Stalin (not that there aren't many) are the tens of millions of dead, right?
Get over it. They were our allies and at the time we were damn glad to have them.
Oh yes, I'll get right over those 20 million deaths because he defended himself successfully against hitler's aggression. One must never question the domestic policy of an ally of the US.
Comments closed August 03, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Who would be the most successful then if not Stalin? Lenin, I guess? Successful does not equate to stand up guy. I'm genuinely curious to know who might be considered more successful.
Posted by Mike | July 20, 2007 3:55 PM