Nikita Kruschev

Was he genuine socialist who fought imperialism, a capitalist who did nothing for the Soviet Union or the cause of socialism, or some combination of the two?

I think that he did some good, but he also did some bad. In the end though i think the good slightly outweighed the bad.

He was actually a capitalist who basically destroyed all what Stalin had did for the USSR

I actually find that he was more capitalistic than many socialists, but too much socialistic for many capitalists to bear. He tried defending his ideals in violent harangues (outbursts), and got pissed off to easily which made him look like an angry, bald, fat guy in the world's eye.

He was more of a moderate who wanted to bring change to a pretty much broken system. The problem was that the change came too fast, and led to the downfall of the USSR.

Riddler wrote:

He was actually a capitalist who basically destroyed all what Stalin had did for the USSR

But Stalin did nothing for the USSR.

Agreed

oligarch wrote:

Riddler wrote:

He was actually a capitalist who basically destroyed all what Stalin had did for the USSR

But Stalin did nothing for the USSR.

Stalin did nothing for the U.S.S.R.? What about his defeat of Nazi Germany? What about his reconstruction? Industrialization? Surely one of these must be a good thing.

kahnsguard wrote:

Stalin did nothing for the U.S.S.R.? What about his defeat of Nazi Germany? What about his reconstruction? Industrialization? Surely one of these must be a good thing.

The reconstruction and industrialization don't count because of famine and oppression that were inflicted in order to achieve them.

Riddler wrote:

He was actually a capitalist who basically destroyed all what Stalin had did for the USSR

your a fuck tard you probably don´t even know how he is.

oligarch wrote:

The reconstruction and industrialization don't count because of famine and oppression that were inflicted in order to achieve them.

The authoritarian policy of Stalin wasn't a good thing, however it was necessary for the reconstruction of Russia/USSR which wasn't in a very good condition after the WW I and the Civil war.

mattabesta wrote:

your a fuck tard you probably don´t even know how he is.

I'm sure you know about Stalin more than I do, though you don't seem to understand text longer than half a page

Riddler wrote:

oligarch wrote:

The reconstruction and industrialization don't count because of famine and oppression that were inflicted in order to achieve them.

The authoritarian policy of Stalin wasn't a good thing, however it was necessary for the reconstruction of Russia/USSR which wasn't in a very good condition after the WW I and the Civil war.

mattabesta wrote:

your a fuck tard you probably don´t even know how he is.

I'm sure you know about Stalin more than I do, though you don't seem to

humm all true but fanime and mass murder can´t be justifide.

oligarch wrote:

Riddler wrote:

He was actually a capitalist who basically destroyed all what Stalin had did for the USSR

But Stalin did nothing for the USSR.

lol True.

Except winning WWII, his biggest feat if you ask me.

Liche wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Riddler wrote:

He was actually a capitalist who basically destroyed all what Stalin had did for the USSR

But Stalin did nothing for the USSR.

lol True.

Except winning WWII, his biggest feat if you ask me.

not really his feat, the t's saved them + the 200 million nation against 85 million and allied with nearly the entier world.

mattabesta wrote:

not really his feat, the t's saved them + the 200 million nation against 85 million and allied with nearly the entier world.

Why the fuck do we have to go always off-topic and repeat the same fucking topic again? Damnit there are already threads on this topic... there's a thread for Stalin, and another for WWII and its impact in USSR. Taking into account they already don't have much posts I assume a consensus was made there, if not post about them THERE. Here's to talk about Khrushev and his feats or mistakes.

My views on Khrusev: If he sincerly tried to be socialist, he was mediocre, if not, he achieved to make USSR more capitalist thus weakening it.

He knew his Math and Public relation, but he had little vision, and Wasn't much inspiring - Neutral here

oligarch wrote:

kahnsguard wrote:

Stalin did nothing for the U.S.S.R.? What about his defeat of Nazi Germany? What about his reconstruction? Industrialization? Surely one of these must be a good thing.

The reconstruction and industrialization don't count because of famine and oppression that were inflicted in order to achieve them.

The famines incurred by collectivization are over exaggerated through Western scholarship. Even neo-conservative theorists like Robert Conquest have to revise their numbers down from absurd limits due to recent evidence defeating any comparison between Stalin and Hitler. Remember, Conquest and other Westerners were trying to claim Stalin's repressions resulted in the deaths of 25 million people. People actually bought this nonsense without figuring out the improbability of such numbers. World War 2 devastated Russian infrastructure; the Nazi war machine led to the deaths of approximately 20-25 million people within the Soviet Union. There is no way the USSR could have restocked itself to become the second largest economy in the world after 1945 if ~25% of the population was killed.

I view Khrushchev as a neutral character. The Khrushchev Thaw was a period of rabid socialization and consumerism, but it's very likely Khrushchev's main reason for stamping out the worser cases of cencorship was his hopes for people to criticize Stalin. Although growth tempered off from the 40s and 50s, it was still substantial. Unfortunately, Khrushchev and the Politburo had to juggle consumer items and military spending, which inevitably led to the decline in Soviet aerospace technology (relative to America). In the early 1950s many French and British observers noted the astounding computer power, saying that it was likely the USSR could catch up to the USA's within ten years. Of course, the Soviets did take a lot of their knowledge away from Germany.

Khrushchev was too much of an idealist, unfortunately. He thought the USSR would turn communist by the 1980s. However, I would have gladly seen him continue as premier through Brezhnev's awful career.

25million is about 1/16 not 25%

stalin "killed" 2-5 million with his absurdly poor leadership,
the natzis killed 23 million soildiers (10 million "missing")
+ the natzis killed around 11 million in genocides.
that's 36 million.
in around 1920-30 the soviet union was viwed as a low power incapable of defending it self properly.
AKA the soviets sucked ass before industrialisation.
but satalin put up thousands of factoryes and the USSR'S wealth soared.
they could have lost 50 million and still made simular progress.

krushchev was a capitalist who believed leninite dogma bullcra

mattabesta wrote:

25million is about 1/16 not 25%

stalin "killed" 2-5 million with his absurdly poor leadership,
the natzis killed 23 million soildiers (10 million "missing")
+ the natzis killed around 11 million in genocides.
that's 36 million.
in around 1920-30 the soviet union was viwed as a low power incapable of defending it self properly.
AKA the soviets sucked ass before industrialisation.
but satalin put up thousands of factoryes and the USSR'S wealth soared.
they could have lost 50 million and still made simular progress.

You're misquoting me. I was combining the alleged death toll placed on Stalin's feel and the death toll incurred from World War 2. The two are separate.