Let's see if I can fit the biggest(or most important) ones on here.
For me it's Tito(Josip Broz). Close second is Stalin, because he was so silly. ~;)
Printable View
Let's see if I can fit the biggest(or most important) ones on here.
For me it's Tito(Josip Broz). Close second is Stalin, because he was so silly. ~;)
i dont know why, but i just love pol pot
hes so cuddley :heart: :daisy: :love:
Fidel - he's kept Cuba together, despite American attempts at causing havoc. A charismatic leader that will probably be irreplacable.
Stalin wasn't much of a Communist ruler. He may have claimed he was, but he was not. Someone who enforces such extreme state control and militarism is hardly a great communist.
Trotsky... if only he'd suceeded...
Trotsky, if he only had succeded in getting power after Lenin things might have been different. Maybe Communism wouldnt have... gone straight to hell.
And he wasnt Mad, like Stalin so clearly was.
Edit: someone actually voted Pol Pot?.... ~:eek:
Stalin, because he beat the Nazi's.
I'll be greatful to him for that always, but
HE WAS SICK IN HIS HEAD. HE KILLED HALF OF HIS OWN PEOPLE
so I'm not sure I chose the right one
Mine would be Karl Marx. You forgot to include him in your list. Somehow I think that is not a coincidence.
well was Marx really a "leader"? not in a political way atleast ~:)
Yay, and I think the next poll should be "Who was your favorite nazi leader ?"
I don't know some of them, but almost all the other managed to kill a whole lot of their own people. And I don't think Trostky would have been very different from Stalin. He was as militarist as Stalin, and he liked power at least as much as everyone else.
My vote would go for Gorbatchev, thanks to who the whole eastern block crumbled in Europe.
Oh, and most of them were just as bad as Pol Pot.
My votes for Ho Chi Minh, for invading Cambodia and kicking Pol Pot & his Khmer Rouge out of most of the country.
Not saying he was a clean cut hero, but at least he did one nice thing.
www.mekong.net/cambodia/jan7.htm
Fidel!
I love the idea that a shmuck like him can defy and completely piss off nine consecutive American Presidents.
Fight the machine!
Except that Ho Chi Minh had been dead since 1969.Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidGibbon
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Out of the ones given though it is Mr Castro.
I just don't understand how can you judge Stalin in such way , in my opinion it only shows your incompetence in this question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
voted Stalin. Just love his methods.
Tito...
In a crowd of bad and worse he seems to at least have been only partially bad. And he did choose to stand outside the normal sphere of east-west, and the society was much more open. Also he managed to keep the various groups from killing each other, with harsh rules correctly, but much less harsh than most.
Quote:
Except that Ho Chi Minh had been dead since 1969.
Ermmm... Whoops :embarassed:
Whats next? Who is your favorite dictator? which is really what this thread is about also - most of the names listed are actually despots - who ruled under the communist banner.
So lets all decided that a mass murder is our favorite communist leader. Pick one - several on the list are responsible for the death of at least a million of their own countrymen.
Mods- Would it be acceptable to post a "Your Favorite Nazi" thread?
If not then I see no reason why this is acceptable. Communism was 10 times worse than nazism and simply because some spoiled brats who have never lived under communist rule idolize it does not take away from its brutality and offensiveness.
You mean dead ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Live under the ones you have voted for - you might have a change of heart ~:)
He was a philosopher, not a leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
He didn't lead a country, but he led a movement together with others. Marx sat on the Council of the First International.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
I voted Mao Zedong :charge:
I am currently a bit busy with real life issues so I do not have the time to give detailed comments about the meaningfulness of this poll.
For the time being I expect everybody to behave in this thread :whip:
out of the options castro
I don't see why you think you can't. The question is, would you really want to. You have many times said that you hate Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Whaaa? Don't assume people haven't lived under those regimes. I was born 1 year after the leader died and communism fell(1985) but that doesn't mean that a year later the whole country was free like America. Hell it was 99% communist until the early 90's.Quote:
If not then I see no reason why this is acceptable. Communism was 10 times worse than nazism and simply because some spoiled brats who have never lived under communist rule idolize it does not take away from its brutality and offensiveness.
And during all that time you were just a child - without an understanding of the politics or the society in which you lived. And now that you are in Canada - are you dreaming of going back to those same conditions that you experienced as a child. WHere you were primarily sheltered of the harsh realities by your parents. (Because this is what all parents attempt to do in their own way.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I just want you to be aware of the true history of communism and that making this poll means the same to many Eastern Europeans as making a poll about your favorite Nazi leader.
If you understand the men you are talking about and the feelings of those who had families slaughtered by them and you are fine with that then have fun. As I had family killed in soviet prison camps I wont be participating. ~:)
Oh get off your high horse, you have posted equally bad, if not worse, threads / polls.
Which would those be?
OK - my view on this thread.
1) Generally I have no problem with a poll about e.g., the most influential communist leaders, as this would be a meaningful discussion, IMO
2) To answer PJ's question - neither would I have a problem with a poll that is meant to discuss e.g., the most inluential Nazi leaders in the Third Reich as this could also lead to an interesting historical discussion (I might actually move it to the "Monastery" just to torture Gregoshi ~;) ~D )
However, I consider this particular thread here to be pretty borderline as it is
a) asking for the favourite communist leader while presenting a list that includes a number of people that are guilty of genocide
b) some comments in the poll options and the first post already imply that this poll is not meant to start a serious discussion about communist leaders.
For the time being I will leave this poll open, as there is still some hope that a meaningful discussion evolves - however, depending on how the discussion evolves I might still decide to close it.
For the future my suggestion would be, that whoever starts such a poll, should try to start it in a way to inspire a meaningful discussion (e.g., appropriate title and a first post that actually reflects a meaningful opinion)
khrushchev khrushchev khrushchev!!
best name, best table banger.
https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9...Khrushchev.jpg
@ PJ & JAG
In the past we had numerous polls/threads - started by various people from all political camps - with topics that might be considered offensive by individual people. However, such threads were within the forum rules and often spawned meaningful discussions.
I expect the discussion about who started what kind of threads in the past not to be continued in this thread.
Ahh you gave him a cop-out. Now he doesnt have to prove what he said. :no:
I was being semi-fascitious just so it's a little kinky. I didn't mean to say that people actually had these people as heros. I always get in trouble for this even though I only do it for humor. Sure some people don't get it, but I do it anyways and that where I'm quilty. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Also I must object in your use of the word genocide, since it misrepresents the types of crimes some of them commited.
I am very aware some of them are criminals, you can tell the jokey ones because I have parenthesis with my opinion of them. But you can't tell me that people shouldn't be allowed to choose which one of the good ones(Castro, Tito etc.) they like the most.
So you think Genocide is something to joke about?
How noble of you.
Is that the best you can come up with Redleg?
Really that's a pathetic comeback. Considering that none of them commited genocide per se your comment is quite non-sensical.
Kim Jong Ill would be ashamed. :embarassed:
Actually I think this topic must be reviewed by someone who LIVED in those countries , not by those who heard about it.
Half of the people on that list should have been choked immediately after birth. It turns my stomach that people would praise Stalin or Pol Pot especially.
some of the others are just politicians working within the rules of their nation.
I voted for Gorbachev. I wrote a paper on russia in the late 80'ies in university, and I got to respect what I percieved he was trying to do - bring the Soviet Union into the modern day without making it disintegrate. Unfortunately (both for him and in my view many soviet citizens) it couldn't be done. Too bad that modern day russians see him as such a loser and chose a crazy drunk like Jeltsin in his place.
He made enemies on both sides of the political spectrum, so at least he was trying to walk the middle road.
I'll give Fidel an honorable mention, but only because anyone annoying the US must be doing something right ~D
Naw it wasn't the best - just a observation, based upon your last response. My other comments concerning your statement would of necessated (SP) Ser Clegane placing a warning on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
However your creditablity for liberial thinking comes down another notch considering how you want to idealize these individuals.
Your the one that talks about the Iraq War being illegal and causing over 100,000 deaths, Your the one that uses hatefilled rethoric when discussing this issue along with George Bush - but it seems that its okay for some to honor and believe that mass murdering dictators who also committed genocide against their own people in the name of communism is perfectly acceptable. Yep again how noble of you.
You might want to actually check what genocide means. Your lack of understanding of history is beginning to show through once again.
From http://www.preventgenocide.org/genoc...ficialtext.htmQuote:
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
and the elements of the crime
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/elements.htm
Now notice how many on your list of great Communist Leaders are on the Genocide List.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
The worst genocides of the 20th Century
[b]Jozef Stalin[b] (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Mao Tze Dong (China, 1966-69) 11,000,000 (cultural revolution)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians WWII)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghitsu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915) 1,200,000 Armenians
Charles DeGaulle (Algeria, 1954-1962) 1,000,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, 1976-98) 600,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1971) vs Bangladesh 500,000
Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (vietnamese civilians)
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama bin Laden (worldwide, 1991-2001) 4,000
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala) 2,000
Marcos (Philippines) ?
There goes any credibility you had. Osama binLaden commited genocide... riiiiiihgt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
A genocide is:Quote:
but it seems that its okay for some to honor and believe that mass murdering dictators who also committed genocide against their own people in the name of communism is perfectly acceptable.
murder of an entire ethnic group: the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this
Political dissidents are neither national, ethnic, or religious group necessarily. You are so wrong on this.
And it should be noted that seemingly political killings were also supposed to be included in this definition of genocide - with the Soviet Union prohibiting that from happening...Quote:
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
Good point - it would be interesting to hear some views from people who actually lived in the countries that were led by those leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
My understanding is that you are from Russia, IliaDN. What would your take on this topic be?
i can't hardly see through this fog of righteous indignation.. good thing i voted when i did.
anyway, why is it important whether a mass murderer is genocidal or not?
What? The term genocide was [Mid-20th century. Coined from Greek genos “race” + -cide .]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
How are political killings race-related? These people were killed from all over not because of the way they born but because they chose to cause instability.
You might want to check out who Stalin had killed. And when there is mulitple sources that state Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim Sung have committed genocide - which is nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
And yea your right the author of the web sight was reaching in his logic about Osama - but it had the most concise list available. But here are some more just for you.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/stalin_famine.htm
Quote:
Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands.
The Ukrainian independence movement actually predated the Stalin era. Ukraine, which measures about the size of France, had been under the domination of the Imperial Czars of Russia for 200 years. With the collapse of the Czarist rule in March 1917, it seemed the long-awaited opportunity for independence had finally arrived. Optimistic Ukrainians declared their country to be an independent People's Republic and re-established the ancient capital city of Kiev as the seat of government.
Speaking of Pol Pot
There is even more there BP - and while I believe that the author placing Osma on the list is a reach - he does sort of fit into the description of wanting to committ genocide. murder of an entire ethnic group: the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do thisQuote:
Ethnic groups were attacked including the three largest minorities; the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cham Muslims, along with twenty other smaller groups. Fifty percent of the estimated 425,000 Chinese living in Cambodia in 1975 perished. Khmer Rouge also forced Muslims to eat pork and shot those who refused.
Stalin killed many ethnic groups in Russia simply because of their ethnicities.
It isn't - but it's convenient to argue about semantics when you cannot argue the issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
[QUOTE]Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own handsHow does this arrogant ahistorian know the motives behind Stalin's starvation of all those people. Even in Social Studies class here in Canada we are taught that he sold all that grain to the west to purchase new modernized equipment to make the country more efficient.Quote:
.
i laughed out loud when i read that, which, since i am getting over a cold, sent me into a coughing fit.. thanks a lot! :furious:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
So the problem actually lies in the Canadian education system.. Id be very interested to see one of the history books from up there. :inquisitive:Quote:
How does this arrogant ahistorian know the motives behind Stalin's starvation of all those people. Even in Social Studies class here in Canada we are taught that he sold all that grain to the west to purchase new modernized equipment to make the country more efficient.
[QUOTE=Byzantine Prince]Now that is a weak arguement - questioning the historian's understanding of Stalin's motive's as a defense against the factual evidence that Stalin committed an act that is considered Genocide by many historians.Quote:
Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands
How does this arrogant ahistorian know the motives behind Stalin's starvation of all those people. Even in Social Studies class here in Canada we are taught that he sold all that grain to the west to purchase new modernized equipment to make the country more efficient.
How do you know if the historians that wrote your textbooks understood Stalin's motives?
[QUOTE=PanzerJager]Mods- Would it be acceptable to post a "Your Favorite Nazi" thread? [QUOTE]
Oh oh! I want one!
My vote: Heydrich. He was so silly! ~D
Lol, that was well placed and yet so sarcastic...
Anyway I do not think we should have threads like this, if only because it stirs up feelings best left hidden.
Anyway don't mind me, I'm just the resident anti-communist here ~:cheers:
Time to go read some Anti-Communist literature before the KGB get me! :book:
That Nietzsche book you said you had? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Ah some more on Stalin had the forced famine
http://www.faminegenocide.com/2003-c...-genocide.html
quoting selective passages -
Now this one gets very baised in its accountQuote:
During the 1920's, Ukraine experienced its first cultural and political freedom in over 200 years. In 1917, The Czarist Russian Empire fell, Ukraine broke away and re-claimed its independence. At the same time, a shift in power took place in Russia and in 1917 the Bolsheviks took control. Lenin started to re-claim former Czarist occupied territories, focusing on Ukraine to the south which is rich in resources and highly productive, fertile land. In the fall of 1920, Ukraine was forcibly incorporated as one of the Soviet Republics of the USSR. Lenin, afraid of losing control of Ukraine, was forced to allow her freedom as a temporary tactic of appeasement.
Lenin died in 1924 and as Stalin, a ruthless and cunning prot6g6 of Lenin's gained power, Stalin's fear of a strong Ukrainian nation increased. By 1928, Stalin had become the unquestionable authority of the Soviet Union eliminating all opposition in the Politburo. Russian nationalism was injected throughout the USSR. Stalin now focused on ending Ukraine's freedom. In 1929, he began purging the Ukrainian intelligentsia. Mass arrests engulfed the country. Tens of thousands were deported, shot or sent to the gulags. "For Ukrainians, communism came to be just another name for Russian imperialism, one even more oppressive than Czarist imperialism".1
Firstly, "Stalin abandoned Lenin's New Economic Policy. Stalin's first Five-year Plan (1928 to 1932), was intended to industrialise the Soviet Union. The corner stone was the forced collectivisation of agriculture.''2 However, progress was considered too slow. Capital needed to be raised to pay for Western machinery and technology required for this industrialisation. This capital was obtained from requisitioning immense quantities of grain and dumping it on western markets at low prices - grain being the most important resource available for export. This grain was to be taken from Ukraine's fertile lands. Collectivisation was introduced in order to maximize agricultural export. In 1932, Stalin's henchmen Viacheslav Molotov and Lazar Kaganovich, a trusted lieutenant of Stalin, were demanding that Ukraine increase its grain yield by 150%.3 The state seized all land from the independent farmers, their livestock, grain and equipment. Farmers were forced to work for the state like factory workers. In order to force farmers to join these collective farms, unrealistic food quotas or taxes were set for all farmers who owned land. This state-imposed quota kept deliberately increasing - eventually, up to three times the quota of a collective farm. If the quota was not met, the farmer would be tried and labeled a kurkul (kulak or rich peasant). The kulak, however, was no more than a Party construct, impossible to define. A kulak was anyone deemed in opposition to collectivisation or against communist rule. Communist activists were sent to homes, taking families away. 1,000,000 farmers were deported in sealed boxcars and sent to remote regions. Property and food were seized at will by communist brigades. Farmers revolted. "The collective farm was widely perceived to be the reinstitution of serfdom''4. Grain was burned, livestock killed. Farmers refused to work. Collective farms were sabotaged. Authorities were attacked and property was taken back. Communist troops were sent in from the cities to end rebellions, often shooting at groups of protestors. By 1932, collectivisation was largely completed in Soviet Ukraine. Now Stalin began to implement the Famine-Genocide.
Secondly, Stalin began to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry as it made up 80% of the republic's population and was the backbone of the intelligentsia-led national revival. "Food is a weapon," stated Maxim Litvinov, Stalin's Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs. Stalin raised the quotas even in the collective farms. On Stalin's orders, Pavel Posteshev, with an army of secret police from Russia,- and 112,000 militiamen were sent to supervise and subdue the countryside. The cities were flooded with farmers willing to sell precious heirlooms, watches and gold for bread.
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/unknhol.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhis...ide/stalin.htmQuote:
During the bitter winter of 1932-33, mass starvation created by Kaganovitch and OGPU hit full force. Ukrainians ate their pets, boots, belts, bark, and roots. Cannibalism became common; parents even ate infant children.
The precise number of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin's custom-made famine and Cheka firing squads remains unknown to this day. KGB's archives, and recent work by Russian historians, shows at least 7 million Ukrainians died. Ukrainian historians put the figure at 9 million, or higher. Twenty-five percent of Ukraine's population was exterminated.
Six million other farmers across the USSR were starved or shot during collectivization. Stalin told Churchill he liquidated ten million peasants during the 1930's. Add mass executions by the Cheka in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; the genocide of 3 million Muslims of the USSR; massacres of Cossacks and Volga Germans. In total, Soviet industrial genocide accounted for at least 40 million victims, not including 20 million war dead.
Quote:
Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers. Among those farmers, were a class of people called Kulaks by the Communists. They were formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres, or had employed farm workers. Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at "liquidating the Kulaks as a class."
Declared "enemies of the people," the Kulaks were left homeless and without a single possession as everything was taken from them, even their pots and pans. It was also forbidden by law for anyone to aid dispossessed Kulak families. Some researchers estimate that ten million persons were thrown out of their homes, put on railroad box cars and deported to "special settlements" in the wilderness of Siberia during this era, with up to a third of them perishing amid the frigid living conditions. Men and older boys, along with childless women and unmarried girls, also became slave-workers in Soviet-run mines and big industrial projects.
Back in the Ukraine, once-proud village farmers were by now reduced to the level of rural factory workers on large collective farms. Anyone refusing to participate in the compulsory collectivization system was simply denounced as a Kulak and deported.
These people weren't Communists. They were dictators in Communist drag. :bow:
Trotsky would have rocked.
Damn that reminds me, I gotta find that now :P I feel like reading it suddenly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Hmm, all the people on the list seem to be dictators. Coincidence? I think not.
Pray tell, what communist leader wasn't a dictator? After all, Stalin in his purges and famine was just collectivizing the farms in Ukraine and doing other communistic things, and the only way he could enforce it was to resort to drastic measures.Quote:
These people weren't Communists. They were dictators in Communist drag.
And do you not find it telling that no country has become communist through democracy, but always through violence and forced overthrow of the legitamite government?
And do you not find it telling that communism always reduces the workers to slavery- they are forced to work in the factories for nothing?
Trotsky was just as cold blooded as Stalin, and would have killed and terrorized many more than he had if he had had the chance. What would have 'rocked' about that?Quote:
Trotsky would have rocked.
Crazed Rabbit
And do you not find it telling that no country has become communist through democracy, but always through violence and forced overthrow of the legitamite government?
Thats quite funny Rabbit , because when countries have elected govrnments with communist leanings they ssem to have had a habit of being overthrown by foriegn backed right-wing dictatorships . Strange isn't it . ~;)
Only when they are in South or Central America - however it seems that twice communist countries also attacked into other nations to overthrow other governments. Its actually more then three - but I will keep it simple for those who lack the historical facts of how many there actually are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Neither ideological view has its hands clean now does it?
I just can't believe Pol Pot got 5 votes. ~:eek:
Expect more ~D
Seems old Fidel is winning...
Just going to mention who my 2nd and 3rd choices would be - Gorbachev, then Krushchev. For providing a moderating influence on the USSR.
Trotsky is one I wouldn't expect to be well respected - he would have been more active than Stalin in promoting the "World Revolution", not a good thing in my book. He'd have probably succeeded at least partway - can you imagine it now? If he'd been in charge, we'd could have had a hot war, rather than the cold - with nuclear weapons being used, either that or possibly Communist Europe...
I have a great deal of respect for the man's abilities, but I would not have liked him to have been able to use them fully.
The Cuban cigars have given Fidel Castro a better image than he deserves.....
Yes, I admit I voted for him due to the cigar....
Neither ideological view has its hands clean now does it?
Rabbit seemed to think so .
Exactly. Of course almost all "Communist" leaders are bad. So are a whole lot of capatlist ones.
That doesn't make Communism evil, any more than it makes capatlism evil.
Actually it shows that the communist ideolog is more dangerous then Capitialism in how it is implemented by humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
If you’re going to have a communist state you must accept the totalitarianism that it must entail. This is no option. Hence the rogue’s gallery we see here.