Most evil dictator

PhilOssophy

Fr. Fintan Stack, who would he be like Hitler or one of those mad fellahs. Worse than Hitler, you wouldn't find Hitler playing loud music at 3 o'clock in the morning.

CrankyHaus

riffmongous wrote: »

But without Stalin the Soviet Union/Russia wouldn't have had the industrial capacity to launch and sustain a great enough counteroffensive. A White Russia definitely not, nor would her officers have been that much better than the SU (Russian generals in WW1 were as bad as any of Stalin's, with the exception of Brusilov and super conservative). Now under Trotsky they might have had a better chance alright, but without the massive industrialisation, ability to absorb casualties and political will I'm not sure how much difference good generalship could make for a counter offensive. Any breakthrough would be quickly limited by transport and logistics issues as happened during WW1.

In his left-opposition Trotsky advocated policies quite similar to Stalin's later 5 year plans, though I doubt he had the political will and talents to push anything like them through in the way that Stalin did in the 30s.

Red Army's transport and logistics issues were in large part solved by vast US lend-lease to complement the relatively narrow Soviet industrial base. If Trotsky was in power and pursued permanent revolution (which he kind of exaggerrated his commitment to after he was exiled) perhaps the US and UK would not have been willing to provide lend-lease aid to the same extent or at all.
Tukhachevsky was Trotsky's favoured general, which was part of why he was later purged. Hard to say whether his somewhat grandiose theories of mechanized war would have reached practical reality if he remained a Marshal, though he certainly had a superior vision to the cavalry centric Budyonny and probably Voroshilov too.


Ultimately without Stalin Hitler may never have reached power. The German Communists were directed to focus their efforts against the Social Democrats, to see the Nazis as the lesser evil, and in some circumstances worked with the Nazis against the social democrats. A common left front should have kept the Nazis out.

El_Bee

antix80 wrote: »

Now that Mugabe is in the news, it got me thinking.. He wasn't the worst, was he?

You had Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Genghis Kahn. I'm not even sure he was the worst living dictator seeing as Kim Jon Un is still alive. Moot point now.

So who is the most evil dictator - living or dead - and why?

Drumpf by a wide margin, maybe Boris Johnson in 2nd.

riffmongous

Skylinehead wrote: »

I just don't see how Stalin is the only man who could have achieved what they did. I wasn't arguing White Russia, that's far enough in the past that it's in the realm of utter hypotheticals (would Hitler even have invaded then?). You say most countries would have surrendered under such conditions yet ignore the most relevant example, one which I've already mentioned. I'm not seeing what's special about Stalin that made him unique in ensuring victory. Why would Lenin or Trotsky not bring about mass industrialisation? I reckon they'd be able to stir up the people just as well, which is all Stalin really did, besides occasionally listening to the experts in military matters.

In reality, the Germans were never going to win in Russia. Far too large, far too populous, far too fanatic.

Well the two options for not having Stalin are either the Whites winning or Trotsky. And I think White Russia is very important as it gives a much better glimpse into what Russia was really like at the time, 20 years before in a country as conservative as Russia isn't very long, unless you have a total reconstruction and purge of society like what Stalin did. He didn't just stir up the masses, he completely bound them to him. Would Trotsky have been able to do that? Maybe but it's less likely he would have done the officer purge as he was willing to accept former Whites into the Red Army as technical speciists during WW1.. and without the complete loyalty of the army there is a greater chance of social unrest.

Is 1812 really the most relevant example or just the exception? Crimea, 1905 Japan, 1917, 1920 Poland and the Baltic, 1940 Finland. Without the brutality of Stalin and the complete loyalty to him won through his Purges, if the Germans don't make enough ground to conquer outright a peace treaty is likely imo.

jam_mac_jam

YFlyer wrote: »

The docu drama didn't give it justice. However, Charles J Haughey was ruthless. Nobody knows the full extent.

Again, not a dictator. And probably not really that evil more selfish and corrupt not really comparable to Stalin I would have thought.

Skylinehead

riffmongous wrote: »

Well the two options for not having Stalin are either the Whites winning or Trotsky. And I think White Russia is very important as it gives a much better glimpse into what Russia was really like at the time, 20 years before in a country as conservative as Russia isn't very long, unless you have a total reconstruction and purge of society like what Stalin did. He didn't just stir up the masses, he completely bound them to him. Would Trotsky have been able to do that? Maybe but it's less likely he would have done the officer purge as he was willing to accept former Whites into the Red Army as technical speciists during WW1.. and without the complete loyalty of the army there is a greater chance of social unrest.

Is 1812 really the most relevant example or just the exception? Crimea, 1905 Japan, 1917, 1920 Poland and the Baltic, 1940 Finland. Without the brutality of Stalin and the complete loyalty to him won through his Purges, if the Germans don't make enough ground to conquer outright a peace treaty is likely imo.

Maybe numerous setbacks would do it, such as Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad/the Caucasus all falling in quick succession, but I always viewed the invasion of the USSR as doomed from the beginning. Just too vast, too industrialised, too populous to hold for a country like Nazi Germany. I don't think what Stalin did was all that "special".

riffmongous

CrankyHaus wrote: »

In his left-opposition Trotsky advocated policies quite similar to Stalin's later 5 year plans, though I doubt he had the political will and talents to push anything like them through in the way that Stalin did in the 30s.

Red Army's transport and logistics issues were in large part solved by vast US lend-lease to complement the relatively narrow Soviet industrial base. If Trotsky was in power and pursued permanent revolution (which he kind of exaggerrated his commitment to after he was exiled) perhaps the US and UK would not have been willing to provide lend-lease aid to the same extent or at all.
Tukhachevsky was Trotsky's favoured general, which was part of why he was later purged. Hard to say whether his somewhat grandiose theories of mechanized war would have reached practical reality if he remained a Marshal, though he certainly had a superior vision to the cavalry centric Budyonny and probably Voroshilov too.


Ultimately without Stalin Hitler may never have reached power. The German Communists were directed to focus their efforts against the Social Democrats, to see the Nazis as the lesser evil, and in some circumstances worked with the Nazis against the social democrats. A common left front should have kept the Nazis out.

Tukhachevsky is quite interesting since in the end it was to some extent his doctrines that were used to defeat the Germans.. further developed (and often poorly implemented) by Voroshilov? But even so, without the trucks which they would have been unlikely to have as you say, counter-offensives would stutter.

Tony EH

Greentopia wrote: »

He betrayed Marxist ideology by not advancing a classless society. He created a powerful elite with himself at the helm. That is fundamentally at odds with Marx who believed all are crested equal. He also called for the army to be abolished, another thing Stalin ignored.
So no, he did not follow his texts "to a T".

Stalin created his very own version of dictatorship and moved far away from Marxism during his time. In fact, he had moved well beyond what Lenin had envisioned for the country too and even Lenin admitted that it would have been impossible to implement Nineteenth Century Marxism with the realities of the twentieth Century.

Lenin would have been appalled if he'd lived to see what Russia became under Stalin and he probably suspected Joe of being a bit of auld bollocks, which is why Trotsky was his de facto successor and he wanted Stalin removed from the position of Secretary General. Although Lenin had some issues with Trotsky, as well, in the early 20's.

After 1924, Stalin went about eliminating any opposition, or perceived opposition, and pursued a position of absolute, unquestioned, power. Something that Lenin (and Marx) never assumed would be state of being for a Marxist society.

Tony EH

Mad_maxx wrote: »

99% of what marx said was fantasy due to the fact humans are greedy and self centred, star trek isn't the real world

Not all humans.

blinding

Tony EH wrote: »

Not all humans.

A percentage that is probably impossible to stand in the way of . :eek:

Tony EH

blinding wrote: »

A percentage that is probably impossible to stand in the way of . :eek:

I don't agree. If this were the case, we'd all still be living in trees. Human beings ascended to the primary position on the planet due to our ability to work together and care for our less well off.

If human beings were simply made up of self centred. greedy, individuals, our entire history would be very different indeed.

Are there shitty humans? Of course. But, they are not the majority.

blinding

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't agree. If this were the case, we'd all still be living in trees. Human beings ascended to the primary position on the planet due to our ability to work together and care for our less well off.

If human beings were simply made up of self centred. greedy, individuals, our entire history would be very different indeed.

Are there shitty humans? Of course. But, they are not the majority.

Maybe you are right but the many failures of socialism and its like , don’t paint a good picture .

CrankyHaus

Tony EH wrote: »

Stalin created his very own version of dictatorship and moved far away from Marxism during his time. In fact, he had moved well beyond what Lenin had envisioned for the country too and even Lenin admitted that it would have been impossible to implement Nineteenth Century Marxism with the realities of the twentieth Century.

Lenin would have been appalled if he'd lived to see what Russia became under Stalin and he probably suspected Joe of being a bit of auld bollocks, which is why Trotsky was his de facto successor and he wanted Stalin removed from the position of Secretary General. Although Lenin had some issues with Trotsky, as well, in the early 20's.

After 1924, Stalin went about eliminating any opposition, or perceived opposition, and pursued a position of absolute, unquestioned, power. Something that Lenin (and Marx) never assumed would be state of being for a Marxist society.

The appalling shock for Lenin would have been what it was for Trotsky, and the other Bolsheviks that found themselves on the wrong side of Stalin in the 30s. That Stalin applied the same techniques of Red Terror against Bolsheviks as the Bolsheviks themselves had applied against their enemies: from Whites, Mensheviks and "Former Persons" to any peasants, workers or even Kronstadt sailors who stepped out of line.

All of them advocated Red Terror against any enemies of the party, they just thought party members should not face the same treatment. It was naive to think they could normalise such methods and not risk being on the receiving end of them eventually. Maybe a one party state that justified crushing any dissent through such means could have become something better than what Stalin made it, but I doubt it.

As far as economic policies go Stalin shifted from centre to right (with Bukharin) to win the leadership struggle in the 1920s before shifting to left policies similar to those Trotsky had earlier espoused and forcing through collectivisation and industrialization in the 1930s. Trotsky's major criticism of Stalin at the beginning of the 5 year plans was that he was an opportunist of insincere commitment to such policies.

Tony EH

blinding wrote: »

Maybe you are right but the many failures of socialism and its like , don’t paint a good picture .

All political systems can fail, depending upon who is in charge.

This is usually the key point missing from a lot of the "Socialism is bad" types.

It's easily arguable that, say, Communism under Stalin was bad and it can be demonstrated quite succinctly. But then, one could also point to Western European Socialism and show a very different outcome that has had huge benefits for societies in that sphere.

The fact remains that there is a very wide net regarding Socialism/Communism that can often be rather elastic. No political system is set to absolute and rigid confines and there's no reason why certain Socialist policies could work.

The NHS, for example, is a Socialist concept and is generally accepted as one of the greatest achievements that Britain has ever accomplished.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Tony EH wrote: »

Not all humans.

Pretty much everybody.

blinding

Tony EH wrote: »

All political systems can fail, depending upon who is in charge.

This is usually the key point missing from a lot of the "Socialism is bad" types.

It's easily arguable that, say, Communism under Stalin was bad and it can be demonstrated quite succinctly. But then, one could also point to Western European Socialism and show a very different outcome that has had huge benefits for societies in that sphere.

The fact remains that there is a very wide net regarding Socialism/Communism that can often be rather elastic. No political system is set to absolute and rigid confines and there's no reason why certain Socialist policies could work.

The NHS, for example, is a Socialist concept and is generally accepted as one of the greatest achievements that Britain has ever accomplished.

But socialism / communism has failed so many times and then the excuses that it was the wrong type of socialism / communism or the wrong leaders .

There is something inherently wrong with a system that fails so many times over and over again .

Re . The British NHS . There is very long waiting times for many treatments . Expensive treatments will be long waiting times if they are available at all . The government takes the people money and then distributes it to provide health care . Are governments all that good at gathering peoples money and respending it wisely with good results ?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Tony EH wrote: »

All political systems can fail, depending upon who is in charge.

This is usually the key point missing from a lot of the "Socialism is bad" types.

It's easily arguable that, say, Communism under Stalin was bad and it can be demonstrated quite succinctly. But then, one could also point to Western European Socialism and show a very different outcome that has had huge benefits for societies in that sphere.

The fact remains that there is a very wide net regarding Socialism/Communism that can often be rather elastic. No political system is set to absolute and rigid confines and there's no reason why certain Socialist policies could work.

The NHS, for example, is a Socialist concept and is generally accepted as one of the greatest achievements that Britain has ever accomplished.

To be more exact, since socialism is often called the first stage of communism, I tend to use social democracy for these Western European societies. Which did work of course.

Even Stalinism was better than feudalism in the end.

Tony EH

blinding wrote: »

But socialism / communism has failed so many times and then the excuses that it was the wrong type of socialism / communism or the wrong leaders .

Reasons are not excuses.

There are very clear problems with the leaders of 20th Century Communist countries that have led to the failures that we see. The theoretical system, or parts within, are sound in many ways. However, if that system is used by nefarious parties, then it is never going to be an ideal situation.

But this can be said for any system, including Democracy and Capitalism. Corrupt individuals will always seek a way to corrupt a system to the benefit of themselves (and their cronies) and Communism isn't alone in that.

In the case of Communism which, in and of itself, promises much to the benefit of society as a whole and is very appealing to the larger dynamic, it becomes easier to get people "on side", as it were, and thus, if a leader is of a mind to, it becomes easier to manipulate the system to an advantage that isn't beneficial to the masses in the end.

Arguably, if we look at the major Communist leaders, they have all used Communism to promise populations everything, but used that good will to game the system to their own ends.

blinding wrote: »

Re . The British NHS . There is very long waiting times for many treatments . Expensive treatments will be long waiting times if they are available at all . The government takes the people money and then distributes it to provide health care . Are governments all that good at gathering peoples money and respending it wisely with good results ?

After years of destructive attempts by the Tories, going all the way back to the 80's, it's no wonder that there are dents in the NHS. However, these nightmare stories shouldn't overshadow the fact that, in general, the NHS serves the people of Britain very well and in principle is a highly valuable asset to any society.

Irrespective of whatever problems the NHS faces today (and there's hardly going to be none), in the post war period, when Attlee's government brought it in, it was a resounding success and absolute a crowning triumph of British politics.

It's modern challenges, notwithstanding, it's still a fantastic institution and one which the British are rightly proud of.

Tony EH

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

To be more exact, since socialism is often called the first stage of communism, I tend to use social democracy for these Western European societies.

It's the same thing really. Just a little rebranding involved in an attempt to move away from the "Communist" stigma.

I tend to call it what it is. Which is, essentially, Socialism.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Tony EH wrote: »

It's the same thing really. Just a little rebranding involved in an attempt to move away from the "Communist" stigma.

I tend to call it what it is. Which is, essentially, Socialism.

Social democracy and mixed economies are not the same as the communism, and they have different roots and histories.

Montage of Feck

What have Hitler and Mao in common? Cat memes.

Danzy

Skylinehead wrote: »

Maybe numerous setbacks would do it, such as Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad/the Caucasus all falling in quick succession, but I always viewed the invasion of the USSR as doomed from the beginning. Just too vast, too industrialised, too populous to hold for a country like Nazi Germany. I don't think what Stalin did was all that "special".

Maybe No Stalin would have meant no Eastern Front, the Ussr and Nazi Germany were allies nations.

Might have carried on with their joint plan to sweep all down to the Balkans and go halfsies.

Danzy

Tony EH wrote: »

It's the same thing really. Just a little rebranding involved in an attempt to move away from the "Communist" stigma.

I tend to call it what it is. Which is, essentially, Socialism.

Like having a cut finger and needing a stitch to finding out you have Ebola and Aids.

Same thing kind of same thing.

Raconteuse

El_Bee wrote: »

Drumpf by a wide margin, maybe Boris Johnson in 2nd.

I don't like either of them but they are not dictators.

Still waters

Gerry G wrote: »

My missus

Dictator, not dicktaker

Tony EH

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Social democracy and mixed economies are not the same as the communism, and they have different roots and histories.

I didn't say it was the same as Communism.