Some people in Russia could only remember what they want to, or were allowed to remember about Stalin.
If you grow up hearing how Stalin saved their country from the invading Nazi hordes, you might have a more
favorable opinion of Stalin. Especially if the KGB never mentioned except from time to time what brutal atrocities
Stalin committed. Thankfully we didn't have to grow up like that.

Miko?...Nice to see you here. Evidently there is nothing to stir up on the BE or Realignment board. Good to have you. Your skills are welcome here.

(03-20-2013 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One day someone will think Hitler was fine chap.

He was.

(03-20-2013 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One day someone will think Hitler was fine chap.

Maybe not that far, but I'd imagine one day folks will say it wasn't his fault that he turned into a mass lunatic. They will find some event in his past, not of his own doing, that made him kill millions of folks. That, in their minds, will make him less evil and a victim.

(03-20-2013 08:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One day someone will think Hitler was fine chap.

It will never happen - at least not universally. Hitler tried to eradicate a group of people based on nationalistic ideals. Stalin killed more people, but it was for the betterment of the worker... It's the thought that counts, not the result...

That is just foolishness. It may have been the official party line, but he had them killed because they were not enthusiastic enough about his "leadership." He feared certain groups, just like any other totalitarian leader.

Far left historians can delude themselves all day and twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain how Stalin was just misunderstood. Those with a clear view of things know the truth. Young students in our schools are not so discerning and may fall for the revisionism from skilled propagandists. Therein lies the danger.

(03-21-2013 02:36 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One day someone will think Hitler was fine chap.

It will never happen - at least not universally. Hitler tried to eradicate a group of people based on nationalistic ideals. Stalin killed more people, but it was for the betterment of the worker... It's the thought that counts, not the result...

That is just foolishness. It may have been the official party line, but he had them killed because they were not enthusiastic enough about his "leadership." He feared certain groups, just like any other totalitarian leader.

Far left historians can delude themselves all day and twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain how Stalin was just misunderstood. Those with a clear view of things know the truth. Young students in our schools are not so discerning and may fall for the revisionism from skilled propagandists. Therein lies the danger.

No doubt. Of course in Stalin's world the workers were not treated much better than when they were peasants under the czars...

The historical reputations of both Stalin and Mao are somewhat protected (compared to Hitler's) due to 2 main facts. First, because Russia and China were (in those days) much more distant and remote from the Western academic/media class than Germany, so Stalin's and Mao's genocidal crimes were less documented by Western media at the time they occurred, compared to Hitler's genocidal crimes. And secondly, because there is a faint but lingering belief among many members of the Western academic/media class that Communism was -- at some level -- a more rational and reasonable response to actual living conditions in Russia and China, than Hitlerism was in Germany.

(03-21-2013 02:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Of course in Stalin's world the workers were not treated much better than when they were peasants under the czars

They were treated far worse under Stalin, in fact.

(03-20-2013 08:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One day someone will think Hitler was fine chap.

Am sure there are still a couple of Nazis around that have always thought he was a fine chap, plus some others that have their own way of thinking.

(03-21-2013 03:26 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The historical reputations of both Stalin and Mao are somewhat protected (compared to Hitler's) due to 2 main facts. First, because Russia and China were (in those days) much more distant and remote from the Western academic/media class than Germany, so Stalin's and Mao's genocidal crimes were less documented by Western media at the time they occurred, compared to Hitler's genocidal crimes. And secondly, because there is a faint but lingering belief among many members of the Western academic/media class that Communism was -- at some level -- a more rational and reasonable response to actual living conditions in Russia and China, than Hitlerism was in Germany.

Also in addition to other things, the winners tend to write the history.

The Russians remembered enough to give Stalingrad its old name again - St. Petersburg...

Of course, there's evidence that Peter the Great wasn't any better - unless you want to count giving Russians a seaport, taken from another nation by force, as great...

I always thought Peter the Great was pretty interesting by being such a renaissance person.

(03-21-2013 06:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  I always thought Peter the Great was pretty interesting by being such a renaissance person.

You have to remember, history is written by the winner, and he won...

Forced reforms and atrocities go hand in hand: Peter “The Great” of Russia (1672-1727)

(03-21-2013 06:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  I always thought Peter the Great was pretty interesting by being such a renaissance person.

Those of us of a certain age will remember the 1970s and 1980s as television's era of the "miniseries". Basically an attempt by the networks (in a time when most viewers got <8 channels) to do something "exciting" with a big budget. I remember one such miniseries was titled "Peter the Great" and starred the Austrian actor Maximilian Schell as the Russian czar. NBC heavily promoted it at the time, and as miniseries went, this one was solid from the standpoint of mere entertainment. No doubt that, in terms of actual history, a lot of Peter's less-noble attitudes and actions were downplayed or skipped over completely.

(03-21-2013 06:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Russians remembered enough to give Stalingrad its old name again - St. Petersburg...

Of course, there's evidence that Peter the Great wasn't any better - unless you want to count giving Russians a seaport, taken from another nation by force, as great...

He actually retook it from Sweden that had taken it from them years before. He traveled in Europe and was well educated. He modernized Russia, and set up shipbuilding and a navy for them. He did have St. Petersburg built and some people lost their lives doing it. Was a lot better than Stalin.

Simply (on a not so simple subject), someone will eventually state that Russia did not through the stages needed to get to communism/socialism and that is why it failed. Under some variation of this argument, there will be a movement to try again.

(03-22-2013 06:54 AM)chess Wrote:  Simply (on a not so simple subject), someone will eventually state that Russia did not through the stages needed to get to communism/socialism and that is why it failed. Under some variation of this argument, there will be a movement to try again.

The communists - I believe those of the 4th international - have called Stalin's tenure as a "deformed worker's state". And of course, during the time when Lenin and the Bolsheviks first seized power the communists in Europe thought he would fail since Russia went from a feudal system straight into communism. The theory was the revolution wouldn't work if there were no workers exploited by the bourgeoisie. But Lenin thought it would work because the peasants were similar to workers and the nobles were like the capitalists. I think what the communists worried about was how it would work since Russia was not very industrialized. Maybe the idea was it was without the means of production already in place, how will the theories be implemented? I don't know, just speculating.

Regardless, Marxists will always have an excuse for why this or that area failed - normally the biggest being "the workers were simply not ready for change since they were not exploited by the capitalists enough yet to be upset"...

(03-21-2013 10:04 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 06:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Russians remembered enough to give Stalingrad its old name again - St. Petersburg...

Of course, there's evidence that Peter the Great wasn't any better - unless you want to count giving Russians a seaport, taken from another nation by force, as great...

He actually retook it from Sweden that had taken it from them years before. He traveled in Europe and was well educated. He modernized Russia, and set up shipbuilding and a navy for them. He did have St. Petersburg built and some people lost their lives doing it. Was a lot better than Stalin.

Yes. Peter the Great did a lot of good for Russia. But he did a lot of things in his reforms that would be considered evil in order to reform Russia, and anyone who stood in his way was forcibly removed...

I take it you didn't read this...

Forced reforms and atrocities go hand in hand: Peter “The Great” of Russia (1672-1727)

(03-22-2013 09:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 10:04 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 06:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Russians remembered enough to give Stalingrad its old name again - St. Petersburg...

Of course, there's evidence that Peter the Great wasn't any better - unless you want to count giving Russians a seaport, taken from another nation by force, as great...

He actually retook it from Sweden that had taken it from them years before. He traveled in Europe and was well educated. He modernized Russia, and set up shipbuilding and a navy for them. He did have St. Petersburg built and some people lost their lives doing it. Was a lot better than Stalin.

Yes. Peter the Great did a lot of good for Russia. But he did a lot of things in his reforms that would be considered evil in order to reform Russia, and anyone who stood in his way was forcibly removed...

I take it you didn't read this...

Forced reforms and atrocities go hand in hand: Peter “The Great” of Russia (1672-1727)

No, had never read that. Doesn't mention any atrocities. Was hard for him to travel incognito since he was so tall, especially for the times he lived. Doubt one out of 500 people were are tall as him then. Him taking over the Turkish fort was just an armistice, but gave him a chance to attack the Swedes. Russia's upper class hated him pretty much because he made them shave their beards and dress like Europeans. Lot of people did die building a city out of a swamp. But overall was really good for Russia. Do not see a correlation between him and Stalin except both were overly strong leaders.

The "Miniseries"

There was one about World War II with Robert Ludlum. I remember one about the first Olympics. Lonesome Dove. Those are some good times with the family around the TV. I think there was one about Mt. Vesuvius too.