Russian Support for Stalin Surges to Record High, Poll Shows

[Shalcker]

Yes, I totally was arguing for this without even saying it! Incredibly insightful of you.

Those were options on the table though. There was no magic kingdom with ponies around, and both monarchists and right-wingers were quite a match, if not beyond Stalin's atrocities during Civil War (at their scales).

Also, Stalin murder millions of his people after WW2.

Nope, that didn't happen even by most suspect Western estimates. All "purges" and "holodomors" were pre-war, check your facts (and consider that you are, indeed, brainwashed into believing that).

The war was over, the threat was done. There was no need to be as sadistically cruel as he was. The fact that you are saying that all of this was acceptable for progress is disgusting.

He wasn't sadistically cruel though; he just wasn't particularly merciful, and didn't consider human life to be intrinsically valuable (like many of his contemporaries).

[The Stormbringer]

Those were options on the table though. There was no magic kingdom with ponies around, and both monarchists and right-wingers were quite a match, if not beyond Stalin's atrocities during Civil War (at their scales).

Nope, that didn't happen even by most suspect Western estimates. All "purges" and "holodomors" were pre-war, check your facts (and consider that you are, indeed, brainwashed into believing that).

He wasn't sadistically cruel though; he just wasn't particularly merciful, and didn't consider human life to be intrinsically valuable (like many of his contemporaries).

You're right about the pre-war thing, I did get that wrong. That literally just makes this just as bad or even worse. There was no war going on and he was KILLING HIS OWN PEOPLE.

I'm done talking to you about this. You cannot, for some fucked up reason, grasp why it's wrong to MURDER YOUR OWN PEOPLE IN THE MILLIONS.

EDIT: Oh, and people continued dying in Gulags for years after the war ended. That only stopped in 1953.

[Pooti]

by putting forward the notion that said dictator and tyrant's political leaning is something people would have favor for today, and such ideals are something they need to follow, while just throwing a napkin over those pesky smell details, like the mass murder of thousands of people.

Millions of people died under Stalin.

[Trassk]

Millions of people died under Stalin.

Still counts but yes

[Pooti]

Still counts but yes

I think this falls under "learn from history or be doomed to repeat it".
( I am agreeing with you, btw! )

[Tiwack]

How do you convince millions of people that a tyrant was good for the country? Even better than the current regime?

Give them something like a tv show to binge-watch and justify the measures into a whitewash. See/look up the show/historical figure called Trotsky. It may be inaccurate and propaganda but it's very clever and gives a good idea of what kremlin thinks and wants the population to think. Power of media.

[Kaleredar]

You are an American right? Do they not teach you about genocide and slavery in school?

Nobody (or at least, very, very few) people in America are singing the praises of slavery and native genocide.



Conservatives seem to be a very odd bunch. Their more degenerate ranks always seem to be praising the groups that lead them to ruin.

Russians praising Stalin, the man that killed millions of their countrymen through spite and neglect, and coopted the revolution they fought for in his own bid for power causing the country to sink into a downward spiral of self-destruction because apparently he stands for what it means to be "Russian."

Southerners praising the confederacy, the treacherous nation that betrayed the United States and waged a war based on slavery that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, because apparently in reflects "American heritage."

Europeans praising fascists, the group that tore Europe apart and caused the entire continent to go up in flames, requiring decades of rebuilding, because apparently they represent "the best interests of Europe."


It would be funny, if it weren't so idiotically tragic.

[Daelak]

How do you convince millions of people that a tyrant was good for the country? Even better than the current regime?

Conservative propaganda mythologizes the past, and when a sufficient portion of the population is uneducated and impoverished, they can be deluded with misinformation of the past. Happens all over the world, including the US, where conservatives here have been deluded by "arguments" of immigrants, states rights, and the founding of the country itself, that are over 150 years old.

[Monster Hunter]

How do you convince millions of people that a tyrant was good for the country? Even better than the current regime?

how is it a record high, im pretty sure support for Stalin was the same level as support for not wanting to be killed in a prison camp under Stalin, and i hope that was pretty high.

[Kaleredar]

They fetishize the Founding Fathers who presided over those things which is exactly what the Russians are doing.

Except Stalin ruled Russia in living memory. Not 250 years ago. Again, nobody is looking on slavery fondly.

Conversely in this VERY thread you have people saying "the millions of people Stalin killed? Well, it was all probably for the best."

They also deify Kennedy who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deformed children in Vietnam.

And now you're complaining about Vietnam. Real original.


Here we see a classic example of Russian whataboutism. "Make Russia a better, less corrupt place that has a higher standard of living for its people and isn't entrenched in a past marked by failure and incompetence? Why do that, when we can complain about the United States!?"

[Zython]

How do you convince millions of people that a tyrant was good for the country? Even better than the current regime?

By being an even worse tyrant. Turns out the worst excesses of capitalism are worse than the worst excesses of communism.

- - - Updated - - -

When your country (or world, or culture) is out of control, or perceived as out of control, having a strongman that promises “law and order” is very psychologically stabilizing in making people feel secure.

That's just it. Russia already has a strongman doing just that. It's just that his particular brand of tyranny is wildly unpopular.

[Shalcker]

You're right about the pre-war thing, I did get that wrong. That literally just makes this just as bad or even worse. There was no war going on and he was KILLING HIS OWN PEOPLE.

He was quite aware of next war coming up. It would be too late to do anything once war started. Again, he had to transform largely peasant country to industrial power in ten years to win it. He didn't have much time.

There were management errors and other mistakes along the way. He even fucked up with start of German offensive - despite having all the information from spies and defectors, he insisted on "ignoring provocations".

But in the end, he won. The country he created during those ten years won.

I'm done talking to you about this. You cannot, for some fucked up reason, grasp why it's wrong to MURDER YOUR OWN PEOPLE IN THE MILLIONS.

You cannot, for some fucked up reason, grasp why "good of the many" is better then "good for a few".

Why winning against genocidal maniac, even at great cost, is better then being defeated by one.

History is immutable. We had Stalin, he did his thing, some good, some bad, won WW2 and made USSR into post-war superpower.

Did more people get killed then strictly necessary? Probably. Was the final result worth it? Definitely.

EDIT: Oh, and people continued dying in Gulags for years after the war ended. That only stopped in 1953.

Gulags existed for long time past that; plenty of people lived through them as well, it was labour system, not death camps.

And most of people in gulags were criminals, not political prisoners.

[Charge me Doctor]

During his rule USSR survived WW2. It's not hard to pitch Stalin as best boi, especially considering current Russian politics in office.

[Wilian]

It's a two-fold matter. Was he good for the people? No, he was a oppressive tyrant who subjugated terror on his people and caused the deaths of millions, tens of millions. Was he good for the country? Arguably, prior to him Russia was very much a rural backwater shithole. Under him it became industrialized powerhouse that could rival US.

I'd say he is a monster. Effective nationbuilding monster.

[Kaleredar]

During his rule USSR survived WW2. It's not hard to pitch Stalin as best boi, especially considering current Russian politics in office.

"Didn't let his country fall to Germans by sending millions of soldiers into a meatgrinder, and then killing millions more of his own countrymen through starvation both malignant and through gross mismanagement."


The Russian bar for leadership isn't very high, it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say he is a monster. Effective nationbuilding monster.

So was Hitler, if that's the caliber we're going on.

[Charge me Doctor]

Ah, I see. So, it's okay to murder millions upon millions of innocent people if it raises your country to a higher status and improves society. I'm learning so much!

I mean, you accuse others of being brainwashed, yet you throw words, like "killed", "murdered", "millions", "innocent people" and such, appealing to emotions without actually knowing much about this topic.

- - - Updated - - -

"Didn't let his country fall to Germans by sending millions of soldiers into a meatgrinder, and then killing millions more of his own countrymen through starvation both malignant and through gross mismanagement."


The Russian bar for leadership isn't very high, it seems.

Better than losing the war, isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

It's a two-fold matter. Was he good for the people? No, he was a oppressive tyrant who subjugated terror on his people and caused the deaths of millions, tens of millions. Was he good for the country? Arguably, prior to him Russia was very much a rural backwater shithole. Under him it became industrialized powerhouse that could rival US.

I'd say he is a monster. Effective nationbuilding monster.

USSR started being a thing after Lenin, not Stalin. All Stalin is credited for is ruining USSR, yet making it survive WW2. That's it.

Some people like him, because it's easy to think, that Stalin just ordered to shoot any dissident, and it's easy to imply that it'll work today, and it's easier than trying to actually understand issue and try to solve it. Imagine that there was a guy in power during history of your country, why allegedly solved all problems by executing anyone who was against his will? Now imply that you and him have same goals, thoughts and goals (basically, put his theoretical "power suit" on yourself, because, you know, you are always right and know what to do, you just need his political power to carry out your will, and since, you know, you are always right, you expect Stalin to execute those, who you personally don't like and disagree with, not vice-versa)

I hope that'll help you all to understand that "people actually like Stalin in Russia" phenomenon. Short story is - they don't. Either they don't like him and don't want him back, or they are delusional about him and only heard half-stories.

It's also easy to blame Stalin for everything, and close your eyes on what NKVD did and people like Ezhov or Beria. Why no one EVER remember these guys when Stalin is brought up?

[Doctor Amadeus]

It always depends on where you stand and who you are to have an ignorant opinion about anyone. If on the surface you feel or think Stalin served the interest of what you care about then this poll makes sense.

National pride, culture, and Identity, for better or worse. In the U.S look at us, we worship the mob, many of our shows and tv series are about truly fucking awful people by all accounts, from Jesse James to Wild Bill, or Al Capone to John Gotti. Some of the most well revered films like The GodFather or Goodfellas.

Let's also not forget Winston Churchill, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, even JFK these were men, not gods, or saints.

Personally I would say the over all body of ones work in the end positive more than negative is what counts, but depending on where you sit that can mean something different to different people.

[Wilian]

So was Hitler, if that's the caliber we're going on.

He most definately was. We can all pile on Hitler for all the right reasons but to say he wasn't effective in terms of building Germany up would be a lie.

[Kaleredar]

I mean, you accuse others of being brainwashed, yet you throw words, like "killed", "murdered", "millions", "innocent people" and such, appealing to emotions without actually knowing much about this topic.

It wasn't so much "murder" as it was targeted, specific neglect to oppress political opponents and dissidents on a massive scale.

Better than losing the war, isn't it?

Post hoc reasoning right there.

[Wilian]

USSR started being a thing after Lenin, not Stalin. All Stalin is credited for is ruining USSR, yet making it survive WW2. That's it.

You do understand that there's difference between whenever USSR started and the beginning of it's real industrial revolution that happened during and after WW2. During his rule.