Great Heros! Geh!

[Fisherking]

No comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7798497.stm

[naut]

Funny too, since he's Georgian and all.

Top Five so far:
Pyotr Stolypin, pre-Revolutionary statesman - 426,300
Alexander Nevsky, medieval warrior prince - 418,200
Alexander Pushkin, poet - 397,100 votes
Joseph Stalin, Soviet dictator - 397,000
Vladimir Lenin, Revolutionary leader - 342,400

Good list apart from Stalin.

[Fragony]

World War 2 was a crazy thing for the russians I can kinda understand this. Russians would have been much worse of under the germans.

[Kralizec]

Funny too, since he's Georgian and all.

Top Five so far:
Pyotr Stolypin, pre-Revolutionary statesman - 426,300
Alexander Nevsky, medieval warrior prince - 418,200
Alexander Pushkin, poet - 397,100 votes
Joseph Stalin, Soviet dictator - 397,000
Vladimir Lenin, Revolutionary leader - 342,400

Good list apart from Stalin.

Apart from Stalin and Lenin.

[JAG]

What the hell was wrong with Lenin? ... A great thinker and leader.

Also Stalin did some of the worst crimes commited by a leader, however he did save the Russian nation from destruction at the hands of the Nazi's. Churchill did some pretty horrendus acts, but we voted him #1 over here, for precisely the same reason. To think everyone who is voting for Stalin are sympathetic to his crimes, is ridiculous, maybe they just understand that he was a great Russian - and I don't think anyone can get away from that. Not to mention as the article states, no one involved in the show are hiding the crimes he commited.

[Fisherking]

What the hell was wrong with Lenin? ... A great thinker and leader.

Also Stalin did some of the worst crimes commited by a leader, however he did save the Russian nation from destruction at the hands of the Nazi's. Churchill did some pretty horrendus acts, but we voted him #1 over here, for precisely the same reason. To think everyone who is voting for Stalin are sympathetic to his crimes, is ridiculous, maybe they just understand that he was a great Russian - and I don't think anyone can get away from that. Not to mention as the article states, no one involved in the show are hiding the crimes he commited.

Yes you could be right!

Aside from being the greatest mass murderer in history, I am sure he could have been a pretty nice chap.

[JAG]

Yes you could be right!

Aside from being the greatest mass murderer in history, I am sure he could have been a pretty nice chap.

~:rolleyes:

[rasoforos]

Aside from being the greatest mass murderer in history, I am sure he could have been a pretty nice chap.



He saved them from the Nazis. Many nations have murderous :daisy: as heroes for the same reason.


The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't.

I find it a bit strange that since you dont have to be ethnic-russian to be on the list, Trotsky doesnt get more votes than Lenin.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What the hell was wrong with Lenin? ... A great thinker and leader.

And responsible for what, three and a half million deaths?

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1g.htm


Also Stalin did some of the worst crimes commited by a leader, however he did save the Russian nation from destruction at the hands of the Nazi's.

So it would've been justified to vote for Hitler since/if he "saved" Germany from the communists? :inquisitive:

I don't think so.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He saved them from the Nazis. Many nations have murderous :daisy: as heroes for the same reason.


Did he save them where someone else wouldn't have?

[Kralizec]

What the hell was wrong with Lenin? ... A great thinker and leader.

He put himself in power with a putsch, executed not only the tzar but also all his children and installed a bureaucratic dictatorship that ended up killing dozens of millions. I consider these to be bad things.


Also Stalin did some of the worst crimes commited by a leader, however he did save the Russian nation from destruction at the hands of the Nazi's. Churchill did some pretty horrendus acts, but we voted him #1 over here, for precisely the same reason. To think everyone who is voting for Stalin are sympathetic to his crimes, is ridiculous, maybe they just understand that he was a great Russian - and I don't think anyone can get away from that. Not to mention as the article states, no one involved in the show are hiding the crimes he commited.

Churchill might have not been the most enlightened figure domestically, but comparing him to Stalin is a "bit" much.

He contributed absolutely nothing personally to the nazis' defeat. His purges of the army's officers, his slow reaction to the German invasion and his policies in general made the Soviet Union a very easy target initially and if he had been any more incompetent, it surely would have collapsed.

[rasoforos]

So it would've been justified to vote for Hitler since/if he "saved" Germany from the communists? :inquisitive:

I don't think so.

Err...hmm....err...Hitler kind of lost :P

I m not saying its justified I am saying it makes sense (in the way mass human psychology makes sense)

[Kralizec]

Come to think of it, I believe the Portugese once elected Salazar (a quasi-fascist dictator) as their greatest countryman. The Dutch picked Pim Fortuyn, not a dictator but a populist politician akin to Berlusconi who was murdered before "his" election. And looking through the web, I found out that in the UK princess Diana was rated at #3, well ahead of Shakespeare, Fleming and generally everyone else who did matter.

Sigh...

[CountArach]

I'm not surprised by this. Stalin put in place many great social welfare programs and healthcare - things that would later serve as the basis for the modern Welfare State. These, unsurprisingly, gave him imense popularity amongst the working class - many of whom form teh new middle class of Russia. These people are now the ones voting in this poll.

[rory_20_uk]

Although WW2 did help, Stalin was a veteran at killing his own peoples years before it started. And during the war, his acts of burning all crops whilst from the most dispassionate standpoint did stop his enemies eat, also ensured countrymen also starved.

His purges before the wars also ensured that all free thinking and able officers had been killed, ensuring that the army was in almost its worst possible shape for years when facing the onslaught.

His inept handling in 1941 almost lost the Soviets' the war as well as loosing masses of troops who then could not be fed as all the food was burnt.

Ironically he disinterred the concept of "Mother Russia" to help save the Soviet - a concept that few would fight for.

So, a genocidal Georgian is one of the best Russians... :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Countarach, i'm not sure if you meant to offer an explanation or if you meant to raise another plus for the guy- if it's the latter, do a quick google search for "Ukrainian famine" and reconsider.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm sure one of Romania's greatest heroes was probably Vlad the Impaler. Savage, bloodthirsty man... but also a great tactician, and Wallachia prospered under his rule.

[CountArach]

Countarach, i'm not sure if you meant to offer an explanation or if you meant to raise another plus for the guy- if it's the latter, do a quick google search for "Ukrainian famine" and reconsider.
A little of both. I personally don't like Stalin for the reasons stated in this thread, but I do think that some of his social welfare programs were really well-intended and good.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Did he save them where someone else wouldn't have?

I sort of have that reaction to the idea that FDR/Truman lead us to victory in WW2. It was pretty cut-and-dry from the President's seat, I imagine...

[Furunculus]

And looking through the web, I found out that in the UK princess Diana was rated at #3, well ahead of Shakespeare, Fleming and generally everyone else who did matter.

Sigh...

just goes to show quite how stupid the voting public are.

[rory_20_uk]

A little of both. I personally don't like Stalin for the reasons stated in this thread, but I do think that some of his social welfare programs were really well-intended and good.

Mainly for the many reasons mentioned in this thread, and probably thousands of others I can not imagine that Stalin did anything that was for the good of anyone but himself.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

I've always thought Hitler was the greatest martyr for he tried to save us from the evil communist jews and the evil capitalist jews until his unfortunate death. It's just too bad that the germans of his time failed him miserably and he had to take the logical consequences and deprive them of their great leader.
His struggle for the german people and his restlessness in trying to achieve this most noble of goals shall be remembered by those who now suffer under the capitalist crisis.
And by the way, he had to kill a few dissenters left and right who tried to spoil the greater good for everyone else but don't let that get in the way of his great achievements and his noble intentions. :sweatdrop:

Come on, you can spin everyone into a hero if you use enough relativism...

[rory_20_uk]

On a slightly related note, I do think that the UK should never have taken part in WW2 in Europe. There was no winner as either Hitler or Stalin would emerge victorious. Best remain neutral like Spain, Sweden and Switzerland and fight mainly in the Middle East.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

just goes to show quite how stupid the voting public are.

Not stupid - uneducated.

It suits governments of modern democracies to minimise the education of their citizens whilst manipulating the information to which they do have access. Thus, government by sound bite and celebrity culture becomes ever more possible, and a populace untrained in debate and thought easily confused to the point of apathy.

Putin's nurturing of the myth of Stalin is merely a few steps along the road from what already occurs in much of the West. A dumb, blonde clothes horse is as effective a "hero" for the consumerist UK as the hard, ruthless, end-justifies-the-means "hero" is for the KGB-led Russia.

Education is perhaps the most important right of all, after the right to life. Yet how far down government's budget priorities - far below war, bankers, and "security" - do we see it every year?

Ironically, Soviet Russia had a world-leading education system, the recipients of which were repressed from exploiting. Now the citizenry has some kind of democracy, the state education system has been left to rot into a pitiful condition.

Perhaps this is the natural end-state of liberal democracy. By definition, government seeks to govern, and rarely recognises the concept of limits to its power.

[Fisherking]

Not stupid - uneducated.

It suits governments of modern democracies to minimise the education of their citizens whilst manipulating the information they to which they do have access. Thus, government by sound bite and celebrity culture becomes ever more possible, and a populace untrained in debate and thought easily confused to the point of apathy.

Putin's nurturing of the myth of Stalin is merely a few steps along the road from what already occurs in much of the West. A dumb, blonde clothes horse is as effective a "hero" for the consumerist UK as the hard, ruthless, end-justifies-the-means "hero" is for the KGB-led Russia.

Education is perhaps the most important right of all, after the right to life. Yet how far down government's budget priorities - far below war, bankers, and "security" - do we see it every year?

Ironically, Soviet Russia had a world-leading education system, the recipients of which were repressed from exploiting. Now the citizenry has some kind of democracy, the state education system has been left to rot into a pitiful condition.

Perhaps this is the natural end-state of liberal democracy. By definition, government seeks to govern, and rarely recognises the concept of limits to its power.

Oh! That was so, so good and TRUE!!!:2thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

Russian nationalists, as nationalists everywhere, love their strongman. As nationalism is big in russia nowadays, it's hardly surprising that a strongman(Stalin) is on such a list.

Stalin made Russia great on the international scene, fought back an invasion and won a war. Of course a nationalist is going to love that.

This ties in nicely with their recent love for the last tzar, as much a murdering scumbag as any other monarch/despot, which they've now turned into a saint, and made his very justified execution a "war-crime"...

It would surprise me if they don't end up as yet another dictatorship soon. They've done monarchy and communism, I wonder what's next? Religious fascism, perhaps?

[CrossLOPER]

It would surprise me if they don't end up as yet another dictatorship soon. They've done monarchy and communism, I wonder what's next? Religious fascism, perhaps?
We're thinking about electing actual rats.

Also, as much as I agree with most of the people here, the article "sounds" very paranoid. "Stalin's profile on the poll's website does not shy away from his crimes" would be much more fitting if a picture like this had been used:

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/stalin_to_communism.jpg

[Vladimir]

Really; who else do these people have to choose from? Stop looking for the best person and realize the least worst wins.

[InsaneApache]

Not stupid - uneducated.

It suits governments of modern democracies to minimise the education of their citizens whilst manipulating the information they to which they do have access. Thus, government by sound bite and celebrity culture becomes ever more possible, and a populace untrained in debate and thought easily confused to the point of apathy.

Putin's nurturing of the myth of Stalin is merely a few steps along the road from what already occurs in much of the West. A dumb, blonde clothes horse is as effective a "hero" for the consumerist UK as the hard, ruthless, end-justifies-the-means "hero" is for the KGB-led Russia.

Education is perhaps the most important right of all, after the right to life. Yet how far down government's budget priorities - far below war, bankers, and "security" - do we see it every year?

Ironically, Soviet Russia had a world-leading education system, the recipients of which were repressed from exploiting. Now the citizenry has some kind of democracy, the state education system has been left to rot into a pitiful condition.

Perhaps this is the natural end-state of liberal democracy. By definition, government seeks to govern, and rarely recognises the concept of limits to its power.

Another nail hit squarely on it's head. Great post. I'm utterly appalled at the lack of education the young 'uns get these days. In fact it's bordering on criminal. The best bit is that the government is touting the rise in GCSE results as a vindication of it's education policies, when in fact what in reality is happening is that the pupils are acheiving even more worthless pieces of paper.

When 20-25% of school leavers are functionally illiterate and innumerate it should be a badge of shame, not celebration.

Anyway, not wanting to hi-jack the thread, I'll take JAGs advice and shut up.

[Banquo's Ghost]

When 20-25% of school leavers are functionally illiterate ...

Including myself, it appears. :embarassed:

[Fisherking]

Really; who else do these people have to choose from? Stop looking for the best person and realize the least worst wins.

That is much too true, not just of Russia but of most of the western world, including elections.

[Kralizec]

Not stupid - uneducated.

It suits governments of modern democracies to minimise the education of their citizens whilst manipulating the information to which they do have access. Thus, government by sound bite and celebrity culture becomes ever more possible, and a populace untrained in debate and thought easily confused to the point of apathy.

Putin's nurturing of the myth of Stalin is merely a few steps along the road from what already occurs in much of the West. A dumb, blonde clothes horse is as effective a "hero" for the consumerist UK as the hard, ruthless, end-justifies-the-means "hero" is for the KGB-led Russia.

Education is perhaps the most important right of all, after the right to life. Yet how far down government's budget priorities - far below war, bankers, and "security" - do we see it every year?

Ironically, Soviet Russia had a world-leading education system, the recipients of which were repressed from exploiting. Now the citizenry has some kind of democracy, the state education system has been left to rot into a pitiful condition.

Perhaps this is the natural end-state of liberal democracy. By definition, government seeks to govern, and rarely recognises the concept of limits to its power.

As an inhabitant of a modern democracy who has major gripes with the education system, I don't think that the burden of fault falls entirely on the government, much less that it's a conscious effort to turn the electorate into sheep.
When I was in high school I resented the fact that I had to learn things wich were of absolutely no relevance to the occupation I intended to fulfill later - yet now I regret that I forgot a lot of them. Personally I always liked history and even in my time the timeframes and material covered were poorly selected, but I imagine that a lot of people don't acknowledge historical knowledge as being useful either.
Most politicians aren't so much out to screw people, but they screw things up when nobody's paying attention to what they're doing.

(I vaguely remember an editorial wich lambasted Tony Blair for practically deifying princess Diana for his own political purposes, if so that's seperate)


Really; who else do these people have to choose from? Stop looking for the best person and realize the least worst wins.

They could have picked Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago) or Gorbachov, two men wich I both admire but wich obviously stand no chance. They also could have picked Yuri Gagarin or even marshall Chukov, who unlike Stalin actually was instrumental in defeating the nazis. Lack of choice is not the problem.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As an inhabitant of a modern democracy who has major gripes with the education system, I don't think that the burden of fault falls entirely on the government, much less that it's a conscious effort to turn the electorate into sheep.
When I was in high school I resented the fact that I had to learn things wich were of absolutely no relevance to the occupation I intended to fulfill later - yet now I regret that I forgot a lot of them. Personally I always liked history and even in my time the timeframes and material covered were poorly selected, but I imagine that a lot of people don't acknowledge historical knowledge as being useful either.

Obviously, personal dedication has much to do with it, but the education system and the culture wherein education is valued and young people made aware of that value - by coercion if necessary - is laid at government's door - even if privately delivered. In countries where education is hard to find, and clearly leads to a better life and more personal choices, incredible efforts are made to obtain it, and oddly, the children so favoured work very, very hard to get the best from their chance.


Most politicians aren't so much out to screw people, but they screw things up when nobody's paying attention to what they're doing.

I admire your optimism. In my experience, they are very, very much out to screw people and spend inordinate amounts of time planning how to do it more effectively. I find it hard to believe the kind of outcomes one sees are by happy coincidence born of genial incompetence.

But I recognise that old age brings much experience cynicism.

[Sarmatian]

Alexander Nevsky voted the greatest - click (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200812291606.htm).

It seems that whether it's a communist or medieval prince doesn't matter much to Russians - as long as he's beating the Germans :laugh4:

[Ironside]

Obviously, personal dedication has much to do with it, but the education system and the culture wherein education is valued and young people made aware of that value - by coercion if necessary - is laid at government's door - even if privately delivered. In countries where education is hard to find, and clearly leads to a better life and more personal choices, incredible efforts are made to obtain it, and oddly, the children so favoured work very, very hard to get the best from their chance.


Then again, is that group any different from the group that gets through the current system fine? Ignoring the rich lane of course.

In Russia's case, the more worrysome part is the current top led "more patriotic education", coupled with a certain discurage to question that infomation. That is a more recent problem though, although older things, like the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) might have given Stalin a bit rose tinted glasses.

[CountArach]

Not stupid - uneducated.

It suits governments of modern democracies to minimise the education of their citizens whilst manipulating the information to which they do have access. Thus, government by sound bite and celebrity culture becomes ever more possible, and a populace untrained in debate and thought easily confused to the point of apathy.

Putin's nurturing of the myth of Stalin is merely a few steps along the road from what already occurs in much of the West. A dumb, blonde clothes horse is as effective a "hero" for the consumerist UK as the hard, ruthless, end-justifies-the-means "hero" is for the KGB-led Russia.

Education is perhaps the most important right of all, after the right to life. Yet how far down government's budget priorities - far below war, bankers, and "security" - do we see it every year?

Ironically, Soviet Russia had a world-leading education system, the recipients of which were repressed from exploiting. Now the citizenry has some kind of democracy, the state education system has been left to rot into a pitiful condition.

Perhaps this is the natural end-state of liberal democracy. By definition, government seeks to govern, and rarely recognises the concept of limits to its power.
Woah... I've never seen my own reasons for being jaded by the current Democratic system put so succinctly. Bravo sir :bow:

[Kralizec]

I admire your optimism. In my experience, they are very, very much out to screw people and spend inordinate amounts of time planning how to do it more effectively. I find it hard to believe the kind of outcomes one sees are by happy coincidence born of genial incompetence.

But I recognise that old age brings much experience cynicism.

Rigging the education system so that future voters would be easier to mold would only yield results after 12 years, probably more. While many (or most, if you prefer) politicians are corrupt in the sense that they look after themselves rather well, I doubt that they plan that far ahead to ensure success for their party after- I'm somehow reminded of masonic conspiracy theories.

Using myself as an example wasn't meant to prove that most kids don't like school- they're not able to vote, in any case. What I meant to say was that even many adults couldn't care less that school curriculums are reduced to bare minimum of "knowledge that really matters"
Apache hinted at another factor: the performance of individual schools, as well as the education system as a whole are often measured by the percentage of pupils who actually receive a diploma upon leaving. It's known that setting quotas from up high in practice causes the people further down to hollow out the criteria. Political short-sightedness and the instinct of self-preservation below causes this, not political masterminding.

Also, while the Soviet Union had a very accessible education system and thus good literacy rates I'd be careful about praising it. Unlike "our" systems it was definitely regarded as a tool of indoctrination. Physics and chemistry didn't suffer partly because it wasn't likely to collide with the party's ideology and because they were vital for the military, but many other areas did.

[CrossLOPER]

Also, while the Soviet Union had a very accessible education system and thus good literacy rates I'd be careful about praising it. Unlike "our" systems it was definitely regarded as a tool of indoctrination. Physics and chemistry didn't suffer partly because it wasn't likely to collide with the party's ideology and because they were vital for the military, but many other areas did.
General history classes tend to be platforms used to show how awesome the country you're in is. That is, in terms of which regime currently runs your country.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Err...hmm....err...Hitler kind of lost :P

Fortunately, yes he did. I was talking about the 1933 election.



I m not saying its justified I am saying it makes sense (in the way mass human psychology makes sense)

Right then.

[Watchman]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

[Fisherking]

Rigging the education system so that future voters would be easier to mold would only yield results after 12 years, probably more. While many (or most, if you prefer) politicians are corrupt in the sense that they look after themselves rather well, I doubt that they plan that far ahead to ensure success for their party after- I'm somehow reminded of masonic conspiracy theories.

Using myself as an example wasn't meant to prove that most kids don't like school- they're not able to vote, in any case. What I meant to say was that even many adults couldn't care less that school curriculums are reduced to bare minimum of "knowledge that really matters"
Apache hinted at another factor: the performance of individual schools, as well as the education system as a whole are often measured by the percentage of pupils who actually receive a diploma upon leaving. It's known that setting quotas from up high in practice causes the people further down to hollow out the criteria. Political short-sightedness and the instinct of self-preservation below causes this, not political masterminding.

Also, while the Soviet Union had a very accessible education system and thus good literacy rates I'd be careful about praising it. Unlike "our" systems it was definitely regarded as a tool of indoctrination. Physics and chemistry didn't suffer partly because it wasn't likely to collide with the party's ideology and because they were vital for the military, but many other areas did.

That is usually done at a lower level, where textbooks with a political agenda are adopted. Teachers also tend to express their political views in class rooms.

Government programs can also be launched for cynical reasons, targeting particular groups. In other words legislative bodies do take the long view.

[Furunculus]

Anne Applebaums traditionally acerbic commentary on all matters russian:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4015983/The-sinister-resurrection-of-Stalin.html

[Ironside]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

Thankfully, with what appears to become the new history book at Russian schools (it's in the draft sended to the teachers), they don't need to longer ignore that little detail. To ignore things, you actually need to heard about them first...

[CrossLOPER]

Thankfully, with what appears to become the new history book at Russian schools (it's in the draft sended to the teachers), they don't need to longer ignore that little detail. To ignore things, you actually need to heard about them first...
Not quite sure with what you are trying to say, but let's be frank. How many general history books have you come across that went into great detail of every single key figure?

[HoreTore]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

[Ironside]

Not quite sure with what you are trying to say, but let's be frank. How many general history books have you come across that went into great detail of every single key figure?

Well, they usually doesn't contain lines indicating that Stalin's purges improved the efficiency. From what I understand, it goes downward from there (can't read russian os only second hand sources).

I'm refering to "The Modern History of Russia 1945-2006. A teachers guide" (Novejsjaja istorija Rossii 1945-2006 gg. Kniga dlja utjitelja), by Aleksandr Filippov and History of Russia and the World in the 20th Century, by Nikita Zagladin.

I was wrong, appearently is the second book is already used.

[rvg]

Funny too, since he's Georgian and all.

Top Five so far:
Pyotr Stolypin, pre-Revolutionary statesman - 426,300
Alexander Nevsky, medieval warrior prince - 418,200
Alexander Pushkin, poet - 397,100 votes
Joseph Stalin, Soviet dictator - 397,000
Vladimir Lenin, Revolutionary leader - 342,400

Good list apart from Stalin.

Yeah, not a bad list at all, apart from Stalin. I'm actually pleasantly suprised to see that Stalin isn't in the top spot.

[Kralizec]

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

Trivia: the image of Russian troops being sent against the enemy unarmed and expected to pick up weapons from the slaughtered comrades that preceded them is actually based on reality. Except that it was during WW1.
Trotsky left behind a reasonably modern and capable Red Army when he got exiled. The real reason why it nevertheless performed so horroribly in the first months of the German invasion has been pointed out several time now.

[Sarmatian]

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

[rvg]

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

During the Winter War of 1940 the Red Army didn't exactly shine either.

[rory_20_uk]

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

If Russian soldiers were so great, then why did Napoleon slaughter those armies that were sent out, and the Ruskies retreat over most of their own country; and again millions were captured by the Nazis - the country was almost bled dry due to the truly appalling tactics that were employed.

Russian soldiers were first in the army for life, then for 25 years. Service was brutal and most wouldn't live much longer than their service. They were deeply religious. The armed forces were also unable to make decisions unless commanded by senior echelons. You there have soldiers that know death is coming, and that's not such a bad thing - difficult to break the army, but inflexible on the battlefield.

Well equipped? They used muskets way beyond almost all other forces in Europe.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

During the Winter War of 1940 the Red Army didn't exactly shine either.

True, but reasons for that were mentioned several times in this thread so I didn't think there was need to repeat it...


If Russian soldiers were so great, then why did Napoleon slaughter those armies that were sent out, and the Ruskies retreat over most of their own country; and again millions were captured by the Nazis - the country was almost bled dry due to the truly appalling tactics that were employed.


In which battle did he slaughter them? Borodino? There he had numerical advantage and the losses were similar on both sides. It may appeared to be a Russian defeat from a tactical point of view, but strategically, it was great victory. At the beggining of WW2, due to purges and modernization, army was in a pretty bad state and suffered terrible defeats. Nevertheless, it was reorganized in very short time and managed to fight German army to a standstill and to drive them back. Pretty good if you ask me... Especially when you consider the excellent state of German army in 1941, great commanders, great morale, technological advantages...

[rory_20_uk]

Stalin took an early lead in trying to loose the war with his purges, and Nazi Germany made good use of this.
Germany then caught up for lost ground having delayed the attack too late, splitting targets, no winter preparations (the winter does help when the enemy guns don't work) and finally copying Russian tactics of holding strategically unimportant ground for no reason; the persecution of the locals was a genius move, not only loosing masses of potential troops but also requiring massive garrisons to protect the captured land. This helped reduce an armoured fist to three weak increasingly infantry based forces

The tenacity of the Russians isn't in doubt, and the war did show about the only time that Communism works with its fixed command economy.

Against Napoleon I think the Russians did so well as they were not breakable as other armies were. But I don't see how you can discount the use of the weather when the Russians retreated, only to advance after the winter had set in.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

It's simple math really. The Russians were by default used to the vicious inner Eurasian winter, since they lived through it every year; wannabe invaders from the warmer western parts of Europe... weren't. (Note that playing the winter card didn't normally work against others used to similarly mean seasons, like the Scandinavians, Polish-Lithuanians, any bunch of smelly horsemen from the inner steppes...)

Ergo, mass frostbites and freezings, guns and motors freezing solid, and what-have-you fun and games. The Russians weren't stupid; they knew they had ample amounts of real estate they could afford to yield if necessary to buy the time needed for the other guy's logistics to get totally screwed up. And the snows to come.
Oh, and then there's the infamous raspustsina(sp?), when the roads turn into so much bottomless mud. Does something interesting to logistics and mobility.

Tended to work like a charm much of the time, although that trading ground for time thing wasn't always done in a very voluntary and organised fashion (eg. with the Germans).

[Husar]

Of course they used the winter, most european invaders were not used to those really cold temperatures which gave them a considerable disadvantage, not only the normal soldiers who's fingers are freezing, making the use of his gun harder but also tanks or carriages getting stuck in mud, plane engines that cease working (the Russians had some tricks to get their own planes in the air, the rest was target practice) etc.
Of course it was the fault of the invaders to consider that but saying it had no impact and russian soldiers were just superior is plain wrong IMO.

[Sarmatian]

No one said it didn't have any effect. Term "General Winter" (and sometimes "General Snow" - Russians sometimes refer to it as "General Mrazov") refers to excuses by various armies, most notably French and German that they were defeated by Russian winter. They weren't defeated by Russian winter, they were defeated by Russian army which used climate, among many other things, to its advantage. It's only logical - if your troops are trained to fight at night and enemy troops aren't, you'll try to fight at night, if you have superior cavalry, you'll try fight in a terrain that suits cavalry, if your army is better suited for winter warfare, you'll try to engage enemy in winter etc etc... It's what armies did since the ancient times.

It's not like those armies tried to invade Ethiopia and were surprised by sudden and very cold winter. That would be a valid excuse. But in the case of a country like Russia or some country in Scandinavia, it's just silly. Who would imagine snow and cold winter in Russia or Scandinavia, really...

In fact, the winter during Napoleon's invasion (1812-1813) was one of the mildest winters in years, not to mention that Grande Armee was pretty much defeated before the winter (Borodino was on 7th September)...



Oh, and then there's the infamous raspustsina(sp?)

Rasputitsa (Cyrillic - распу́тица)...

[CountArach]

In fact, the winter during Napoleon's invasion (1812-1813) was one of the mildest winters in years, not to mention that Grande Armee was pretty much defeated before the winter (Borodino was on 7th September)...
Errr... no... The French won that battle...

[Husar]

No one said it didn't have any effect. Term "General Winter" (and sometimes "General Snow" - Russians sometimes refer to it as "General Mrazov") refers to excuses by various armies, most notably French and German that they were defeated by Russian winter. They weren't defeated by Russian winter, they were defeated by Russian army which used climate, among many other things, to its advantage. It's only logical - if your troops are trained to fight at night and enemy troops aren't, you'll try to fight at night, if you have superior cavalry, you'll try fight in a terrain that suits cavalry, if your army is better suited for winter warfare, you'll try to engage enemy in winter etc etc... It's what armies did since the ancient times.

It's not like those armies tried to invade Ethiopia and were surprised by sudden and very cold winter. That would be a valid excuse. But in the case of a country like Russia or some country in Scandinavia, it's just silly. Who would imagine snow and cold winter in Russia or Scandinavia, really...

In fact, the winter during Napoleon's invasion (1812-1813) was one of the mildest winters in years, not to mention that Grande Armee was pretty much defeated before the winter (Borodino was on 7th September)...

Or in other words, if you cannot fight very well you wait until the enemy makes a mistake and is rendered unable to fight well, whether that makes you a great soldier/fighter/general depends entirely on definition, if the one who wins in the end is always the greatest, then yes, but doesn't mean he can hit the side of a barn at 200 yards using a sniper rifle, he may just have to wait for termites to eat a hole into it. And that's what others would not call a great soldier. :dizzy2:
And no, I'm not trying to say Russians can't shoot, but that they were somehow greater or better equipped just because they could fight better during winter is a bit far-fetched IMO.

[Sarmatian]

Errr... no... The French won that battle...

Familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?


Or in other words, if you cannot fight very well you wait until the enemy makes a mistake and is rendered unable to fight well, whether that makes you a great soldier/fighter/general depends entirely on definition, if the one who wins in the end is always the greatest, then yes, but doesn't mean he can hit the side of a barn at 200 yards using a sniper rifle, he may just have to wait for termites to eat a hole into it. And that's what others would not call a great soldier. :dizzy2:
And no, I'm not trying to say Russians can't shoot, but that they were somehow greater or better equipped just because they could fight better during winter is a bit far-fetched IMO.

I didn't say they were greater or better (or in any other way inherently superior to other armies), where did you read that? :inquisitive: I've said they were very adaptable and used every possible advantage they had over their opponents, and that's what you do in war. Like Germany used Stalin's purges and fed him false information in order to further destabilize Russian army. It's not like German generals said: "Hey, why are we doing this? Let's help them reorganize and fight them when they're at their strongest"...

My initial reply was directed to HoreTore stating that Russian just used to throw hordes of unarmed peasants at the enemy. That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...

[HoreTore]

My initial reply was directed to HoreTore stating that Russian just used to throw hordes of unarmed peasants at the enemy. That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...

Spot the mistake, Sarmatian ~;)

[Watchman]

That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...Those are quite real. Large-scale warfare has always been above all about logistics - to put it bluntly, keeping your soldiers fed, clothed and generally supplied and alive.

Which gets pretty difficult when the supply columns (and for that matter, combat troops) can no longer move owing to the roads having turned liquid, engines and pack animals freezing, men and beasts starving and losing bits to frostbite, heck, even weapon mechanisms freezing solid on a bad day.

Just as an example, when the Germans were checked at the gates of Moscow a very important factor was their logistical chain pretty much collapsing in the early winter weather. Hard to keep fighting at peak efficiency when the fuel and ammunition and w/e plain isn't getting through because the supply trucks and carts are stuck in cold mud, tanks refuse to start in the cold, lubricants freeze in guns and soldiers keep having their fingers fall off...
(Similarly, in the monumental cock-up that was the Soviet first-phase invasion of the Winter War the hapless Red Army troops trapped in the forests of Finland suffered at least as direly, as their supply lines were flatly cut and the winter was of record ferocity.)

On the same vein Napoleon's army more or less starved and froze to death under him. Not that the Russians weren't only too happy to add to the misery and attrition by stepping up their raids and harassement the second they realized the French were screwed...

Comparable cases can be dug up from any number of wars. The cold may be absent owing to geography, but the overwhelming importance of keeping armes supplied - one way or another - remains.

[Sarmatian]

Those are quite real. Large-scale warfare has always been above all about logistics - to put it bluntly, keeping your soldiers fed, clothed and generally supplied and alive.


It seems we are running around in circles here. Climate is a factor, especially harsh climatic conditions, like you would find in Russia. I'm saying it's not an excuse. It's not an excuse in case of German or French invasion on Russia, it's not an excuse in case of Soviet invasion on Finland. What did you expect, that you would need suntan lotion in Finland in winter??? That winter wouldn't have any effect on logistics? If you're mounting an attack in that situation, you have to be prepared for that... Not being prepared is no excuse

It is often used as convenient excuse to why certain armies failed in Russia. It is especially evident in case of French invasion under Napoleon. This diagram represent strength of the French army during its invasion.

EDIT: Sorry, removed because it's hotlinked. Please host it yourself. BG

As you can see, French army lost half of its troops in the first two months of the campaign, before the battle of Borodino, which was on 7th of September. That means that half of the French troops were lost in the summer (August and July).

If you're not adequately prepared, it's not excuse. Like, gee I would have won but I wasn't prepared... An idiotic excuse. It's like saying that you would have won against UK but you didn't have a navy, so all your troops drowned when you ordered them to march across the channel. It's an island, of course you need a navy - it's Russia, of course you need to prepare for winter warfare...

P.S. Happy New Year to everyone...

[CountArach]

Familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?
Indeed I am. I do not believe that Borodino was one, though Napoleon certainly could have used the extra men. Still, without the winter being present Napoleon would have reached Moscow.

[Sarmatian]

Indeed I am. I do not believe that Borodino was one, though Napoleon certainly could have used the extra men. Still, without the winter being present Napoleon would have reached Moscow.

It's a matter of opinion, yes, but if an army wins a battle and a short time later has to abandon the campaign without any other battle in between, I'd call it a Pyrrhic victory.

And, anyway, Napoleon did reach Moscow and he did it before the winter.

But, we strayed too much off topic. Maybe we should continue this in the monastery...

[Caius]

So, why do they choose Stalin? Because he was a communist or he was a tyrant?

[Incongruous]

@Jag

Are you for real? Lenin had no respect for the people of Russia, he killed them just as easily as he embraced them.

[CrossLOPER]

So, why do they choose Stalin? Because he was a communist or he was a tyrant?
Of all the people who live and lived in the world, Stalin is among the last ones I would see as being so flat.

There were a few posts in the beginning which explored why Stalin's actions in life may have caused him to be so high in the list. Look them over.

[Spino]

So, why do they choose Stalin? Because he was a communist or he was a tyrant?

Because Stalin did what no Russian leader before or after has been able to accomplish; he brought Russia's empire (a.k.a the Soviet Union) closer to the coveted 'Alpha' position than anyone in history. In terms of land mass, raw materials, population and above all, military power, the Soviet Union was one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. Shortcomings aside the Soviet Union inspired fear and loathing in all their enemies and everyone knew that with the exception of the United States, they could probably beat all comers in a conventional conflict. At least this was the understanding before the Soviet Union's military was exposed for the paper tiger it really was in Afghanistan. But since Afghanistan was considered a campaign and region of little concern few nationalistic Russians are willing to take seriously the terrible lessons learned there.

[CrossLOPER]

At least this was the understanding before the Soviet Union's military was exposed for the paper tiger it really was in Afghanistan.
That's a gross misrepresentation of what went wrong there.


But since Afghanistan was considered a campaign and region of little concern few nationalistic Russians are willing to take seriously the terrible lessons learned there.
The eighties were not a good time for the USSR. They tend to be disregarded as an anomaly.

[Furunculus]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly? :dizzy2:

[LittleGrizzly]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly?

I think his point was something like it would be similar to basing US military power on thier defeat in vietnam, rather than taking into consideration other factors...

[Watchman]

Meh. The Eighties was just when the chronically dysfunctional Soviet system finally began approaching the end of its self-made leash.

[CrossLOPER]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly? :dizzy2:
I can bring up a mountain of ifs, but it is futile. What happened, happened.

[Caius]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly?
One word: Perestoika.

[Kralizec]

The Soviet Union would have collapsed without it as well sooner or later. Perestroika was too little, too late, and the paper framework of the economy was to weak to stomach such reforms.

[Watchman]

The way I usually see it narrated, Gorby just went through with what Kruschev planned to (and got thrown out by his peers as a result). Both wanted to rescue the Soviet system from its own failures; the first time around, the rest of the top brass just still cared and/or believed in the cause enough to realize the system was structurally dependent on those selfsame flaws...

Build a house with crappy foundations, and it's going to fall down eventually.

[Furunculus]

In other news, is russia about to suffer complete economic collapse?

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/33100

[Sarmatian]

In other news, is russia about to suffer complete economic collapse?

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/33100

Nah. Wishful thinking by some. Russia's economy is suffering from the effect of global recession, like everybody else, that's it... 2009 isn't going to be very enjoyable for any of us, but developing countries will feel its effects more than developed...

[Watchman]

...so which group does Russia count in...?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Second World.

Russia's economy is still shaky and so is its society, neither has deep or settled foundations and th ecenomic slide may topple both. If Putin makes the right decisions Russia will prosper, if not it will be in the same state it was two decades ago.

Of course, the failure of democracy in that country means that it will be difficult to replace Vlad I if he fails. On another note, I wish he would just proclaim himself Tsar, I'd have more respect for him then.

[Sarmatian]

...so which group does Russia count in...?

Developing.

Economic growth of developing countries is still largely influenced by western capital. So in case of Russia, crisis not only impacted the buying power of the western markets, it also limited the amount of western capital flowing to Russia through investments. Also, less foreign currencies enter Russia due to oil prices drop. Good thing for Russia is that natural gas has some lag before it catches up with the oil prices, so the price of gas will still be relatively high during the winter, but if this thing with Ukraine continues, Russia will lose a huge amount of money. Western European countries, the biggest consumers of Russian gas will use reserves for the winter and fill them up in the spring or summer when the price of gas significantly drops.

2009 is going to be really hard on Russia, it is questionable whether their economy will have any growth. In a normal situation they would have 7-10%. But, in the long run, Russian economic perspective is bright. Due to industralization of many large countries, like China and India, energy and raw materials will be in high demand for the foreseeable future. There will be ups and downs regardless, of course.

[Caius]

The Soviet Union would have collapsed without it as well sooner or later.
Would the SU still be standing if the stalinism process would had continuated? What were the differences between Stalin and the governations of Kruschev and Gorbachev?

[Watchman]

Well for one Nikita and Gorby didn't think a good way to ensure your continued domestic popularity is a few-year orgy of runaway police-state terror that nearly tore said state apart from the inside... and oh yeah, dumping thousands after thousands of people into prison camps. (GULAG got run down pretty fast after Stalin kicked the bucket.)

[Caius]

One more question, some said here (IIRC you were Watchman) that the system would fall eventually. Why is that, because the ones in power loved power, they were too incompetent to run a store or the system won't let the country grow? Did some country grow under comunism?