Stalin killed close to 60 million people. Why would he be considered the greatest Russian leader of all time? You could argue that the man led the Soviet Union through WWII but that is not the sign of a great leader, but his military cabinet.

-

You are missing the whole point. Its not him personally saying that Stalin is the greatest Russian leader of all time nor anyone in the school. Its a thing for school where you have to talk about "x". He just needs to come up with points that can be argued for his favor in these kind of situations. It's called "a debate".

As an input, maybe talk about Stalin making women's life a little bit better? In theory in Stalin's time women could apply for the same jobs as men (in theory). And although he made divorcing harder, he paid some money to families who had children.

stalin killed communism he's a pussy ass bitch

he was georgian doesnt count

Thanks for the clarification? Still a stupid topic, there are plenty of better Russian Leaders. Like Sviatopolk the Accursed, he brought Eastern Orthodoxy to Russia and bought the peoples love and affection with packages of money. And, you know, didn't kill 60 million people......

you ever think he could have been assigned this topic and didnt make it up himself? ur contribution to this thread seems to just be arguing lol

i was assigned the topic, i did not come up with it myself

Sure. Well, you just sometimes have to do something that you don't feel like doing / don't agree with. At least on my studies I've had plenty of this kind of assignments, where I have to defend something I don't agree on.

I've never been to college but I have studied military history on my own for the better part of 15 years as my hobby. I read every single night and have learned a lot. I find it difficult to believe the only agenda or guideline for this debate is 1 sentence? "Stalin, the greatest Russian leader of all time?" Maybe I am wrong and the teacher wants ppl to be creative but are there no other instructions or clarification?

The reason I ask is because the question is in such a general statement. There are many ways to measure "greatest" and without some form of reference it might make the task more difficult. Greatest Military Leader? Economic and Domestic leader?, etc.

That said, I would think that there has to be a clear case for Stalin being in the discussion, if not the clear choice. Perhaps the main accomplishment you can set your research/debate around could be that he did lead the country from the brink of defeat to a world super power. Naturally there is a lot more involved in that statement but saying he wasn't a great leader for killing 60 million people is not really focusing on the entire argument.

Great leaders can come in many forms and dispositions, being labeled as an "evil man" does not automatically make someone a "bad leader". They all sanction acts that one would consider "evil" to further their own goals and ambitions but the ability to lead a country (good or bad) is the main question.
----For example, how many Roman Emperors are hailed as great leaders? Under each of their rule, untold numbers of slaves were killed throughout the empire for any reason their owners wished. Those deaths were "legal" for the time but do those deaths make the Emperor a bad leader? It is a complex argument/debate and probably why your teacher is making you do it.

edit: waiting for Marxist dissertation on this subject :)

the only person qualified to talk about this subject on this forum is Marxist

This is only a age 16-18 debate, i think a question only concerning military prowess or similar wouldn't make very interesting debate for two three person teams, for a 30 minute debate. The organisers like broad questions with room for elaboration. Other topics have included "Capitalism is the root of all modern rage," and the rather lopsided "The European settlers brought more harm than good to the Americas."

I mean if you want it simple and want to really fuck with the other in the room.

Stalin pulled Russia through WW2, but not only that he also transformed a piss poor broken country into a world power in less then 10 years.

And if deaths are really an issue in history then ask about Alexander the great because he was an absolute tyrant and killd millions but is regarded as an amazing figure in history. Same with the Mongols and the Kahns, they killed ~10% of the entire human population at the time, but the empire they created and the culture they spread is largely seen as a good thing.

The only reason people care about the death toals right now is because there are still people that were apart of that shit so it is very emotional. Give it 150+ years and its not unreasonable to argue that point at all.

Average TFTV level discussion here :ok_hand:

theresa may better leader than stalin

InternetIntellectual here. I see the question that has arose, and in order to prepare my mind to answer this question, I have done the following: eat chicken, rice, and broccoli for every meal of the day, watch 4 Jordan B. Peterson lectures, intake 4 doses of Super Male Vitality, and to conclude, practice my knowledge of logical fallacies on my custom Quizlet set. Now, my answer to this question? It depends.

In 1928, one of Stalin’s goals was to rapidly develop a heavy industry. Stalin wanted to make the Soviet Union an industrial fortress and a strong nationalistic state. He figured to make Russian communism succeed industrial power was immediately needed. This was to be achieved by creating a command economy, which had meant that the industry was being forced to industrialize. Lenin had previously destroyed the power of private businesses to create a manageable industry. Therefore, when Stalin came into power, most of the major industries were already in government hands. Stalin had stated that stated that the Soviet Union was behind advanced societies, and that they had to industrialize quickly before ‘enemies’ would crush them. Heavy industry was essential for defense and for supplying agricultural tractors and combines. Stalin had believed that equality and democracy had to wait until the Soviet Union had a thriving industrial economy. In 1928, Stalin replaced Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) by the first Five-Year Plan. Where within a five-year period, each business was given a target that it must reach. The punishments for failing to meet the target were extremely severe. Many people were forced to work against their own will but Stalin felt that the policy was essential. The first three Five-year Plan from 1928 to 1941 increased production about 400%. By the mid-1930s Russia had surpassed the 1913 production figures of iron, coal and oil. There was no country ever known to industrialize so quickly. As a result, unemployment had been abolished. As Stalin was industrializing the country, he felt it was necessary to collectivize the farms of the country.

As heavy industry developed, agriculture was to be collectivized. In 1929, collectivization began. There would be no more individual farms, and no more individual farmers selling their goods independently. The farmers were required to hand over a certain amount of produce to the state each year. The young, large-scale, socialized agriculture, growing now even faster than big industry, had a great future and could show miracles of growth. Collectivization was mainly directed against the kulaks, which were the rich peasants who owned their own land. Basically, Stalin would take land from the people who had owned it since 1861. Many peasants were forced to work for the state as a part of a collective commune. Some peasants and many kulaks resisted collectivization. They slaughtered their own cattle rather than to turn it over to the government. As a result, they were killed or sent to labor camps called the ‘gulags’. By 1934, 70% of all the farms in Russia were collectivized and the kulaks were eliminated as a class. On the collective farms, peasants would be paid wages in return for handing over the produce to the government.

Under Stalin’s power, the Soviet Union became more involved in international affairs. During the WW1, Russia did not play a major role in the Great War. They didn’t have a strong military and their economy was weak. Even in the past, Russia was not active in international affairs as they were under Stalin’s control. In 1934, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations and made diplomatic agreements. This made Russia’s defense stronger than the German oppression. Before WW2, both the axis powers and the democracies realized that the balance of power in Europe depended of which side Russia joined. If they joined Britain and France, Hitler would be forced to fight a two-front war. Both sides entered negotiations with Russia, but Stalin and communist Russia had been distrusted by both sides in the past. On August 23, 1939, Stalin and Hitler signed a non-aggression treaty. This Nazi-Soviet pact was shocking to all countries, but Russia had stated that it was for national self-interest only. Stalin wished to avoid war until, at least Russia was prepared. But later, Stalin was aware that Germany might eventually attack his country. On June 1941, German troops invaded Russia. Hitler’s invasion on Russia, convinced the Soviet Union to join the ‘Grand Alliance’, which consisted of only Great Britain and the United States. Then later 26 other nations signed the Atlantic Charter, which was the beginning of the formation of the United Nations. By February 1943, Russia successfully stopped the German advance, which had attacked Stalingrad. Russia’s military, as a result, became stronger.

Therefore, although people had died through Stalin’s cruel methods of making Russia powerful, he deserves the title of the ‘Father of the USSR’, because he successfully industrialized the country, collectivized the farms and made the Soviet Union more active in international affairs. Within ten years, a primarily feudal country changed into an industrialized one. He also collectivized the farms for the good of the people as a whole. He leaded Russia into gaining more victories for the country by becoming more involved in worldwide affairs. Like a father, he guided his child, the USSR, to become stronger and more powerful among others. By setting crucial goals for the country, the Soviet Union became stronger than it was before Stalin was in power. The only question that concerns many is, were there any other alternatives of achieving his goals, without killing millions?

To answer this question, we are able to compare Stalin to another infamous man who is known for killing millions: Adolf Hitler. Both the Nazis and the Soviets thought globally but acted regionally. The men and women who made the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 had dreamed of a world revolution, but they had to concentrate instead on making a Eurasian state. After the workers of the world failed to unite, Russia’s revolutionaries built a regime around their own revolution, the Soviet Union, whose task was to embody “socialism in one country.”

In the 1920s and 1930s, thought Stalin, the British fleet presided over an imperialist world of global free trade; all that remained for him was the selfcolonization of the USSR.1 This meant above all the control and exploitation of fertile lands in Ukraine and southern Russia, where a surplus could be extracted and used to finance industrialization and defense. Stalin was particularly concerned about Soviet Ukraine, since it had to be simultaneously mastered by violence and protected from the influence of the capitalist states on its western border, such as Poland. He feared that Ukraine might be lost to the imperialists of the capitalist world, but he only slowly grasped the specific German threat.

Adolf Hitler’s quite different vision of ideological transformation was also global in principle but regional in practice. In his view the Jews were Germany’s misfortune, not only at home, but abroad. They had, he believed, created the heartless British and American finance capitalism that dominated the world. In the long run, Germany must rescue the world from pernicious Jewry. In the meantime, destroying the Soviet Union, which Hitler also alleged was dominated by Jews, would make Germany a continental power capable of fulfilling its global destiny. German modern industrial accomplishment would be balanced by establishing a new agrarian colony in Eastern Europe, above all Ukraine.

theres no way in hell im reading all that shit

Holy fuck dude.

DUDE MASS MURDERS LMAO

IT'S OKAY WHEN COMMUNISTS DO IT

What in the absolute fuck is this question? Should the legitimate efforts of other leaders who had strained for democratic values, liberties and human rights be neglected simply because they do not have the tag of villainous infamy tied to their name? Why must this infamy be distorted and perverted into glorification of monsters? Why are we being soft fucking apologists? Holy shit.

That's okay, not everyone was born to be a thinking man. The average man, such as yourself, is satisfied spending your hours reading John Green books, or watching contemporary television. For me? I like to re-watch Fight Club and document my journey through NoFap. You are a part of society like everyone else, and you can be a big part, or a small part, but that is not up to you. What matters is that you are doing your best, and maybe for you, doing your best so far is racking up more expenses on Mom and Dad's electricity bill through heavy computer usage for your extended leisurely activities, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some trees will grow hundreds of feet high and stand for hundreds of years, some trees will be struck by lightning within 5 years of growth. Some trees won't pierce the skies as well as their peers, and there is nothing wrong with that. If (the hypothetical) God doesn't have a plan for us, Nature does.

Best,
InternetIntellectual
clintonfoundation@nuke.africa

Andrey Arshavin, for me.

basically this is why you need another 150 years to talk about it

why are they making you defend stalin

A leader so great that children were exploited to report their own parents to the authorities if they overheard them say negative things about the regime.
A leader so great that he can only achieve national development through the executions and imprisoning of tens of millions, whereas many other war-torn nations achieve it without loss of human rights.
A leader so great he "accidentally" tried to genocide the Ukrainian people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Anyone can be called great if they have supreme totalitarian power and complete disregard for human life. Was Pol Pot a great leader? Or Mao Tse Tung? Hell, are we gonna start saying the Kim dynasty was composed of great leaders? Real greatness comes from those who achieve prosperity without needing to install an oppressive reign of terror upon the very same people they swore to serve. Greatness does not come from whatever fetish for brutality you secretly bear within you. Ask the old oppressed peoples of the Soviet Union if they thought Stalin was the greatest leader. Ask the crowds who tore down the Berlin wall if they thought Stalin and his USSR successors were great leaders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmRPP2WXX0U

Even Lenin himself didn't want Stalin in power, but here we are trying to defend this man who would have you put into a permanent labor camp until you died from the cold Siberian winter, a psychopath who would not only kill you but also erase your memory from history. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin2.jpg/1200px-Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin2.jpg

Ask yourself which time period of Russia you would rather live in.

I don't see why that is really a factor. In 150 years, you will have the same breakdown of the facts as you have right now. If you are saying that emotional attachments and personal reasons cloud judgement then that person should not truly be involved in the discussion IMO.

In mostly every case, you have a human being that did both "good" and "bad" things in their life. Some great individuals do "exceptionally good" and "exceptionally bad" acts in their life. Why would any logical debate / argument or discussion completely ignore anything "good" just because of the exceptionally bad?

I'm not saying it evens out, I am saying that in order to objectively look and dissect a topic, you must take into account everything from both sides. Stalin was a tyrant and many believe he was worse than Hitler. I think that is true only because Germany lost against Russia and Stalin had more time after the war to do more evil than Hitler since he was dead.

IMO , the question to ask and more to the OP's class assignment is:
Does being an evil man, like Stalin, automatically make you a bad leader or not the greatest leader?

It's a school assignment... Not a real debate. No reason to get overly triggered about it.

paging marxist, please wait

Would love to have been in the room to listen to that last one.

So If greatness comes from not fucking with people or killing people, has there ever actually been a "Great" empire or ruler in history then? Because by that measure, every ruler, from Caesar to Attila to Charlemagne or Napoleon were all objectively bad. No one is arguing, (at least I don't think anyone is) that the deaths didn't happen, or that the deaths were not bad, we are arguing that the deaths do not exclude Stalin from being called great, just like the deaths do not exclude all the other vast empires of old from being great.