Great Heros! Geh!

[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 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.

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

[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

[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/worl...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.

[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.

[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.
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.
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? 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