Best Leader of the Soviet Union

[GMantis]

Well, I wanted to get some answers in regard of who was the best leader FOR the Soviet Union. 

Maybe you should have worded it that way then?  And even then it's not clear.  Are we talking what's best for the PEOPLE of the Soviet Union or what's best for the ENTITY that is the Soviet Union.  If it's for the people, then the answer is clearly Gorbachev.  If it's for the entity, then I don't konw.

Anyway, it certainly couldn't be Stalin, he killed 40 million Soviets.  That wouldn't make him the best FOR the Soviet Union, entity or people.  One would think Lenin would be a good choice, but he was just as big of a monster as was Stalin, he just wasn't as good at it.

I really can't see how it can't be Gorbachev unless you're only criteria for "best" is keeping the Soviet Union afloat.

Considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union created multiple bloody conflicts, extreme outbursts of nationalism,   and was an economic disaster for most of the Republics, it's a bit hard to claim that it was good for the people. As far I know the majority in all but the Baltic states regrets the collapse.
Not to mention that Gorbachev didn't intend to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union - he wanted to reform it. So the collapse was the result of his incompetence, not of any conscious desire. Why should he be honored for that?
And he didn't tear down the wall - he simply made clear he wouldn't interfere in Eastern Europe, which led to the tearing of the wall.
Stalin was certainly not the greatest leader. He murdered millions of his countrymen (not 40 million of course, 20 million is closer to the mark, though probably overstated). And for what?
The country was industrialized, but at an enormous and unnecessary cost. His persecutions did far more damage in the long term than any possible good they might have done. And he ignored all indications that Germany would invade which nearly led to the defeat of the Soviet Union.
The greatest leader was Khrushchev - mainly because the others were so bad. He also made some attempts to reform the system. Andropov also tried to do that but he didn't live long enough.

[GMantis]

Gorbachev.

I'm probably the only Gorbachevist on this forum. But his revisionism did (and does) appeal to me greatly. What he had approached social democracy, unlike all the other rulers, who were statists above all.

Khrushchev was quite a fellow, as his memoirs reveal.

Yes, it's a good philosophy on principle. The problem is, he was 15 years late.

[GMantis]

Vladamir Putin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Dissolution_of_the_USSR

[GMantis]

Vladamir Putin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Dissolution_of_the_USSR

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_is_still_communist_and_evil

What is communism? You seem to have a strange definition, so would you mind sharing.
It's pointless to object, but Russia is not evil. Merely looking out for its interests in a way that makes other countries angry. Like the US.

[GMantis]

     I like how three people voted Khrushchev. Is there any redeeming features about him that I'm forgetting? I associate him with the Berlin Ultimatum & the Cuban Missile Crisis, which were not the USSR's finest hours.

You look from a typical blind western perspective. He did a lot of good things (the Secret Speech is one, as was the liquidization of Beria). As a protégé of Stalin, he was still an old-school Marxist, but he was the best one tere was.

He also attempted to improve Soviet living standarts and to imrove relations with the West. I think he got scared after the Hungarian revolution, which put an end to the promising developments in the early part of his rule. Still, when compared with someone who destroyed the Soviet Union in a bungling attempt to reform it and who was unable to prevent ethnic cleansing even with the control of the Soviet army, it's a bit unfair that he's so far behind and equal with Stalin.

[GMantis]

There were certainly more humane ways to achieve industrialisation and as I've said before, he did far more harm than good. It was thanks to Stalin that the Soviet union almost lost the war.
Khrushchev had at least good intentions (mostly), though he was incompetent in carrying out many of them.

..and you can't talk about Stalin without mentioning the millions he had killed.  I've noticed Stalin apologists like to ignore that part.

Strange that we agree on a Russia related topic.

[GMantis]

A Russian poll had some interesting results:
http://www.rosbalt.ru/2007/04/25/294470.html
Basically, it asked respondents in which time period of the 20th century they would want to live. The current period received 39%, Brezhnev's time 31%, Stalin's rule 6% and the other less than that (Yeltsin's time, pre-Revolution and so on).
A second question asked about the opinion of the direction the direction the country was heading during all the rulers of Russia this century. Only Putin's time received generally positive marks. The opinion about Nicholas II, Lenin and Brezhenev was split 50/50 and for all other periods the direction of development was perceived negatively.
So, as expected, the Russians don't have positive feelings about Stalin, but it's surprising that the rule of a bumbling fool was so well thought of.

[GMantis]

So, as expected, the Russians don't have positive feelings about Stalin, but it's surprising that the rule of a bumbling fool was so well thought of.

Considering all Russian leaders were bumbling fools, that really can't be used as part of the equation.

No, Lenin, Stalin and Andropov were very smart (and Putin is today). Unfortunately Stalin was a murderous maniac, Andropov died too soon and Lenin died too soon and and had poor people skills.

[GMantis]

So, as expected, the Russians don't have positive feelings about Stalin, but it's surprising that the rule of a bumbling fool was so well thought of.

Considering all Russian leaders were bumbling fools, that really can't be used as part of the equation.

No, Lenin, Stalin and Andropov were very smart (and Putin is today). Unfortunately Stalin was a murderous maniac, Andropov died too soon and Lenin died too soon and and had poor people skills.

And was a murderous maniac as well. Though not on quite the same scale as Stalin, obviously.

Not really. True, he was prepared to slaughter (and he did so) his opponents, but unlike Stalin he didn't believe in the benefit of repressions for their own sake. He also distinguished actions taken during war and during peacetime, a distinction Stalin disregarded. He also wasn't a maniac in the clinical sense, which Stalin was.

[GMantis]

Gorbachev, because his policies put the USSR out of its misery faster and more peacefully than hard-line communism would have.

A Russian poll had some interesting results:
http://www.rosbalt.ru/2007/04/25/294470.html

That is not real surprising.  Brezhnev seemed to run the Soviet Union at its most prosperous, and Russians are more free now.  Though I am surprised that Khruschev was not mentioned.

Khrushchev is remembered in Russia mainly as a bumbling fool.

[GMantis]

Gorbachev was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan helped it along, but if Gorbachev's radical reforms hadn't shaken up the whole foundation of governmental power in the USSR, it could've still hobbled along.

Prior to Gorbachev, all political power in the USSR was vertical, the only way to gain power was by gaining the favor of your superior. When actual elections started, and politicians needed to garner the favor of their constituents to hold on to power, the ridiculous structure of the Soviet Union, which helped almost nobody, couldn't hold together.

He was only the best because he provided that terrible empire with a mercy killing, whether or not you consider it to be accidental.

Read up some history before you write such nonsense. As late as April 1991, most Soviet citizens wanted to keep the Union in some form. It was the August coup which brought the decisive change, and even then, the Ukraine was the only republic were there was actually a referendum on secession.
Gorbachev's idea was to create a democratic and prosperous Soviet Union. That instead of this there was a collapse, which led to nearly a dozen civil wars and that the economy of almost all republics collapsed into a depression from which many have yet to recover, shows just what a monumental failure he was.

[GMantis]

I wonder how such a poll conducted in Russia would go. Probably a dead heat between Stalin and Brezhnev and Gorbachov last.