The 'vladmir Putin Rocks' Thread

[BansheeOne]

[wilhelm]

 

 

 

Putin on Putin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10526242/Vladimir-Putin-annual-press-conference-live.html

 

Ive never heard so much narrow minded crap in my life. Yes, Cromwell slaughtered Wexford, which is morally troubling. But contrary to several hundred years of hype, he spared women and Children, and it was standard practice to kill those men who resisted in fortified towns if they didn't surrender, and not just in England. That was a practice that was visited all over Europe.

 

And I've never read such revisionist claptrap.

He did no such thing.

 

Up to 40% of the total people massacred after Wexford was taken (whilst the negotiations to surrender was in process by the way) were non combatants, the vast majority being women and children.

 

I live in Wexford.

You may want to come and visit The Bullring, the historic square (and just one area) where 300 civilians slain (including women and children) in The Sack of Wexford were massacred.

 

You also seem willing to ignore the civilians (women and children included) massacred in The Siege of Drogheda.

You may want to review Cromwells own words in that regard.

 

And let us not forget Cromwells men did the subsequent systematic destruction of foodstuffs and forcible evictions (ethnic cleansing in todays parlance) of families off their land in Counties Clare, Wexford, Wicklow, and Kildare.

 

When Cromwells forces had eventually finished, 40% of Irelands population had either been killed or starved to death.

 

And whilst massacred did happen elsewhere and weren't extremely unusual for the times, to present it as standard modus operandi is nonsense.

 

Like on the other thread about the Boer War Concentration Camps, there seems to be an unwillingness to acknowledge the atrocities, and indeed distasteful revisionism to airbrush them out in certain, but by no means all quarters in the UK.

 

I guess some of the subjugated remember with hate because they were thick and mistaken, and simply couldn't see the benign benevolence, equality, and enlightenment that was the true aim of The Empire.

 

 

Even if every single point you raise about Cromwell in Ireland were correct, its is still an exceptionally long way from the despotic lunacy that was Stalins Russia. I dont advocate the slaughter of innocents, but there was pretty clear evidence related by Professor Richard Holmes about the Wexford siege that illustrated, Women and Children were not killed out of hand. That several hundred years of spin have obscured that fact I do not doubt, but what I do find astonishing in your points is that you completely overlook that Ireland aligned itself with the English monarchy. Now it didnt have to put itself on the warpath against Parliaments forces, but as it did it has in itself no real right to claim it was in unprovoked aggression. It took sides in a civil war and took the consequences.

 

 

 

Like I said, revisionist.

 

It's hardly surprising that you, being British, would rather choose to believe the revisionist history of a British historian, one who served in the British Army, and who was aide-de-camp to the queen and issued with gongs.

 

You can find more than a few eminent British historians excusing various atrocities committed under The Empire on more than one continent.

 

 

Cromwell was a murderous psychopath who's hiding behind religious and cultural differences could barely disguise the glee that came out in his writings of various "punishments" dealt out en masse to the Irish.

 

And I'm personally not comparing Cromwell to Stalin.

 

They were both as bad as each other in relative terms to what they did to people.

 

It's like arguing which psychopath is worse.

Edited December 23, 2013 by wilhelm

[wilhelm]

I get the feeling from this thread that you don't like Vlad, Stuart.

[bojan]

... And you get the impression that old Leonid must have been fun at parties at least...

Edited December 24, 2013 by bojan

[BP]

 

... And you get the impression that old Leonid must have been fun at parties at least...

 

 

"We're just nine wild and crazy guys!"

 

[Marcello]

By contrast, without Stalin, you would have several thousand Poles, several million Ukrainians who would not have starved to death. Oh, and without him, quite possibly the cold war might not have occured at all, which consumed more than a little blood in itself. Not much of an epitaph for someone who trained to be a Priest when you think about it, and it cannot conceivably be said that, unlike Cromwell, any good came of that bloodshed. Far from it.

 

Objectively it must be said that his push for industrialization in the 30's might have prevented a much worse outcome for WW2, be it an Axis victory or the Reich having to be nuked into submission. Nothing else good to say about him but that's not a small detail.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Marcello

[toysoldier]

Funny you should say that about Brezhnev, because i remember reading in a Sputnik* magazine that he had some mad dancing skillz, and thats actually how he made himself noticed by Stalin.

 

*Sputnik was a digest of Soviet press, distributed in many languages, in many countries, prolly in the USA too. By the late 80s, with the glasnost raving, it started adding some historical expose items that prompted the Cuban government to forbid its distribution by 1988 or so.

[urbanoid]

Breznhev was Khrushchev's man for most of his career (since the 30's, when Khrushchev noticed him as a ruler of Ukraine and started to look after his career), but I doubt he was somehow 'noticed' by Stalin. He became a Politburo candidate only in 1956, three years after Stalin's death, and a full member a year or two later.

[Marcello]

 

You are assuming that a Russian Democratic Government, which had good ties with the West, couldnt have achieved exactly the same thing, or even better. After all, we stand by the belief that economically Democracy and Capitalism is a far better system than Communism (and despite China muddying the waters, it is). Why do we assume that such an economic leap couldnt have been achieved with foreign investment? After all, Germany did, and their economy was very little better off in 1918.

Looked at like that, Stalin might actually have been a retardation on progress, rather than responsible for the Soviet victory, as apologists like Putin would imply. After all, it nearly happened. It was not an assured outcome that the Communists would take power when the Tsar was deposed. There was at least 2 occasions (three if you count the civil war) when they could have been passed over for a Democratic regime.

 

A democratic Russia since WW1 would have been preferable of course and with it you might perhaps manage to skip a lot of nastiness; provided of course it can be made to work which given the social conditions of czarist Russia I doubt, but I am digressing. However Stalin was not the main leader of the bolshevik revolution or the main cause of of bolshevik victory in the civil war, he was simply the winner of the internal power play in an already established règime which was anti-capitalist and anti-democratic in character. And by the 30's the world economy was in the doldrums; whoever was in charge by that point had to build up the MIC, and fast.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Marcello

[urbanoid]

And by the 30's the world economy was in the doldrums; whoever was in charge by that point had to build up the MIC, and fast.

Even in worst times of financial crisis the standard of living was much better than in Worker's Paradise™. Post-WWI democratic Russia would have had as good a chance as anybody else to build up proper MIC and bolster her defenses.

[Mikel2]

I don´t think 1919 Germany makes for a good comparison. They may have been broke and starving, but there were many millions of Germans with a highly technical education who would have rebuilt the nation in short order. Even firebombed 1945 Germany, with whatever remaining machinery being shipped off to the Soviet Union or France. 1917 Russia was far more limited in that human capital. It takes much longer to give a man a technical education.

 

I do agree that Stalin´s forced industrialization probably held Russia back. So much of what was done was incredibly costly and wasteful, not to mention unnecessary in many cases. A Russian population free to pursue their own profit and open to foreign investment would have done far better, and without the unimaginable bloodshed. But of course, czarist Russia was not the best starting point.

[Marcello]

 

Even in worst times of financial crisis the standard of living was much better than in Worker's Paradise™. Post-WWI democratic Russia would have had as good a chance as anybody else to build up proper MIC and bolster her defenses.

 

 

 

 

Provided you could start from 1919 it is certainly possible and there is also a good chance that Hitler or some equivalent might be butterflied away. But in the 30's options were narrower and the soviet system could not be undone by fiat: most likely any leader trying to pull off a return to capitalism would have found plenty of comrades willing to put him in front of a firing squad. Even Gorbachev had to deal with a coup.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Marcello

[urbanoid]

Provided you could start from 1919 it is certainly possible and there is also a good chance that Hitler or some equivalent might be butterflied away. But in the 30's options were narrower and the soviet system could not be undone by fiat: most likely any leader trying to pull off a return to capitalism would have found plenty of comrades willing to put him in front of a firing squad. Even Gorbachev had to deal with a coup.

 

There was NEP in the first half of 1920's, which allowed elements of market economy into the Soviet system, but that was undone by Stalin, despite it's good effects - it was simply seen as a danger to the communist rule, and rightly so. In the 30's options were wider, as Stalin was already an absolute ruler and no one would dare to defy him - by then the Soviet establishment knew the price of doing such thing. Unfortunately, returning to a normal economy and abandoning terror was never on his agenda.

 

If we start in 1919 (White's victory in the Civil War) it would of course be much easier. Newly independent Poland had much less industry than Russia proper, including military industry, but until 1939 we managed produce tanks, fighters, bombers, artillery etc. Russia would have had both better starting point and economy of scale.

[toysoldier]

Gee, idk about that alt-hist capitalist Russia... uneducated masses plus stupid, inbred hereditary elites do mess a nations development.

Edited December 24, 2013 by toysoldier

[Marcello]

 

There was NEP in the first half of 1920's, which allowed elements of market economy into the Soviet system, but that was undone by Stalin, despite it's good effects - it was simply seen as a danger to the communist rule, and rightly so. In the 30's options were wider, as Stalin was already an absolute ruler and no one would dare to defy him - by then the Soviet establishment knew the price of doing such thing. Unfortunately, returning to a normal economy and abandoning terror was never on his agenda.

 

As far as I can tell it was not just Stalin who saw it as something to be done away ASAP and the main reason Stalin had the absolute power he had was precisely because he was a control freak and had people shot left, right and center. Had he somehow stopped doing that and started to undo the system it is quite possible that his turn in front of the firing squad would have come fairly soon. Beria's proposals for trying to end the Cold War did not earn him anything good for instance, though no doubt the man reaped what he had sown.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Marcello

[Roman Alymov]

No its not. Its ignoring each individual in the context of their time. Cromwell was bloody, but arguably no worse than anyone else who fought in the English civil war, or indeed anywhere in Europe at that time. Stalin was exceptional in that he killed more than Hitler, who himself was exceptional in his bloodiness in his own time.

 

Stuart, just my humble note: Look how different is your view of Cromwell (who is part of your national history after all, sure you know him well) from the view of Cromwell by your neighbor Wilhelm, and you will get two ideas:

1. How different may be your view of Stalin (and Putin by the way) from Russian one (if it is possible to have single opinion on something for whole nation)
2. How different may be the view of the same history from, for example, Russian and Polis sides.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Roman Alymov

[Roman Alymov]

Stuart, you have nothing to apologize - just keep in mind how often “one of the cornerstones of one’s country's history” is viewed like “just another mass murderer” from another country. It is not specific for Russia or Britain – but part of human nature I think.

[urbanoid]

As far as I can tell it was not just Stalin who saw it as something to be done away ASAP and the main reason Stalin had the absolute power he had was precisely because he was a control freak and had people shot left, right and center. Had he somehow stopped doing that and started to undo the system it is quite possible that his turn in front of the firing squad would have come fairly soon. Beria's proposals for trying to end the Cold War did not earn him anything good for instance, though no doubt the man reaped what he had sown.

 

 

I guess that Stalin wouldn't have to establish any sort of democracy, choosing what we call now a 'Chinese Path' would be sufficient to improve the economic situation. I think that was the way Beria wanted after Stalin's death, as he was quite an intelligent guy and realized that letting go of terror immediately would be deadly for the Soviet power apparatus, including himself. The system might have gradually evolved from that point. Not an ideal solution, but still a better one.

[shep854]

Stuart, I was in no way trying to infer a correlation between Cromwell and Stalin. I was referring to the disagreement you were having with Wilhelm about Cromwell as a historical figure. Like Mandela, he has some harsh, ruthless actions to account for, but finally did good for his country. The relative weighing of his actions is, like Mandela's subject to strong debate.

Stalin, OTOH was a monster, pure and simple. The modernization of the USSR could have been accomplished without the horrific death toll.

Edited December 26, 2013 by shep854

[bd1]

I prefer Vlad the Impaler. At least he seemed to enjoy what he did.

 

This is the big thing that strikes me about Putin trying to build a cult of personality. He really doesnt have a personality. I mean, take away the bear wrestling and the Goose Migration, you probably have the dullest Russian leader since Breznev. And you get the impression that old Leonid must have been fun at parties at least. I mean, can you see Vlad sticking his bum on the photocopier at the Kremlin Khristmas Party? No.

 

just for you

 

[bd1]

I still say Leonid looked more cheerful.

 

Vlad by contrast has the perpetual look of someone who has found their favourite empire drowned. Then remembering they did it themself.

fixed it for you.

[shep854]

Stuart, I see both sides of the Mandela issue. I haven't come to a personal conclusion, except that I'm glad I wasn't there, and hope the S. Africans do indeed work through their issues peacefully.

[Roman Alymov]

 

As for Stalin, I can see a reoccurring tendency in Russia to have a 'strong man' to achieve marked change, or be strong against external enemies. Thats a theme that seems to have resonated over time (even when they got a 'Strong Woman' in Catherine the Great).

Actually what you see is reoccurring tendency of historians (and public) to focus on “strong man” of the past, not noticing complicated processes and surroundings they were integral part of. And, again, it is true not only for Russian history – people often know only “key figures” and not their surroundings. How many people outside US know details of Civil War or Independence War? But they know Lincoln and Washington……

The same for Russia – you know Peter the Great, but do you know that his reforms were in fact started not by him but by his father, Aleksey Mikhailovich the Calmest, who actually laid the foundation of Peter’s success? And first European-style military units in Russia were created by Peter’s grandfather….. Even most Russians are unaware of it.

[X-Files]

Vladimir Putin has vowed to saddle up his personal bear and pursue terrorists to their “total annihilation”, in his first public comments since the Volgograd suicide bombings.

 

[X-Files]

Beta Stephanopoulos questions Putin on how to be an Alpha.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/01/forget-spinning-heres-how-vladimir-putin-stays-in-shape/