Stalin was a mass-murderer, and yet you hear some regards of him as otherwise. Can someone explain this to me?
2007-02-17 17:16:20 · 6 answers · asked by jdevans3 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
mass-murdering = "iffy method"
can't say i agree with that
2007-02-17 17:29:53 · update #1
Equate Stalin's death toll (20 million seems to be a rough consensus) to civilian and military causalities in Iraq (a consequence of removing, ironically, a Stalin-esque dictator) and Afghanistan (a rather successful military campaign that removed a oppressive theocratic entity) (for arguments sake, lets compare the VERY liberal number of 62,000). I can't say I agree with that.
2007-02-17 17:41:36 · update #2
I suppose there might be someone. After all inner circle people had enormous privileges while Stalin had his reign of terror. There are some who also are nostalgic about the "old days" when the Soviet Union was widely feared and respected. But make no mistake, Stalin was a butcher of the first rank. We shall never know just how much. It is myth that he built the Soviet Union into a modern state. Anything but, capitalism brought his creation down. Uncle Joe never existed, he even had his own family killed and/ or imprisoned.
Side note: Did you know that Kruschevs son is a US citizen, teaches at Stanford I believe
2007-02-17 17:22:21 · answer #1 · answered by bigjohn B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was one of the most monstrous leaders of all times although a few people have said that Osama Bin Laden exceeds even him and Hitler in terms of goulishness and cruelty.
Most of the favorable views of Stalin are due to the fact that he was one of the victors in World War II along with Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britian and President Franklin Roosevelt of the United States. In wars, everyone loves a winner and despises a loser. That's the way human nature tends to be. Although Stalin was a Marxist toatlitarian who had nothing in common with Roosevelt and Churchill, he was still on the winning side. Hitler and the Japanese, on the other hand, lost and in any war the loser is always a dog.
History gives us examples of other unsavory characters too who are somewhat popular today because they were good at winning wars including Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and Suleiman The Magnificent.
2007-02-17 20:01:43 · answer #2 · answered by Brennus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stalin is regarded favorably for the same reason that some people think Elvis is alive.
2007-02-18 10:11:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Papa Stalin, industrialized Russia, plus, what powerful leader on a power trip doesn't kill? George Bush kills a lot of people every day, and some people (31%?) love him still.
2007-02-17 17:20:18 · answer #4 · answered by FaceFullofFashion 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He killed a lot of people. Instead of blowing his brains out, he died on his couch in a pool of piss. Counts as success for the lickers of this world.
2007-02-17 18:11:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He brought capitalism to its knees. Even if his methods were iffy, anyone who deals a blow to capitalism gets my support.
2007-02-17 17:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋