Who is the greatest leader Russia has had

[United Marxist Nations]

Khrushchev is always the best in my opinion.

While things under Khrushchev were pretty good, it should be noted that he really did have the opportunity to actually achieve a socialist republic (the economy was now developed, so there were no more obstacles), and he did refuse to go all the way. This should stand out as one of the great mistakes in all of history.

[Lyttenburg]

1) I'm pretty sure that not being sent to the gulags to freeze to death because you're gay is pretty important to, you know, gay people.
2) I'm guessing from your second comment that you never actually bothered to read my post in full before replying to it.
3) What, exactly, is wrong with farming potatoes?

1) Care to provide a statistic of the Soviet people actually "sent to the gulags to freeze to death because they're gay"? Or you just extrapolating Nazi Germany to everything USSR related?

2) Care to provide the exact figures of literacy right after Revolutuion? Hint - it wasn't even close to 100%. But it bacame so thanks to the Soviet launched "LikBez". You would also benefited from said "LikBez" and learned the real meaning of GULag acronym.

The same goes for tha national industrialization, health care, accesible education (including Higher education) etc. Between "not so awful" (of Czarist Russia) and "really great improvements in all those spheres" (of the USSR) exist an enormous distinction.

3) She won't be farming potato. I, my family and neighbours are "farming" potatos on dachas. Think more in the way of the entire spring-till-autumn back breaking labor seeding-raising-reaping one of the grain crops.

[Bolnoa]

Khrushchev is always the best in my opinion.

While things under Khrushchev were pretty good, it should be noted that he really did have the opportunity to actually achieve a socialist republic (the economy was now developed, so there were no more obstacles), and he did refuse to go all the way. This should stand out as one of the great mistakes in all of history.

Sadly, yes that is true but to me Khrushchev was a hero and personally he is one of my icons. I would be lying if I said I liked everything he did. I did oppose a few things though they are minor but as a soviet leader he really shouldn't be ignored.(I mean without the mentioning of the Cuban missile crisis)

[The Huskar Social Union]

I am clearly.

[Lyttenburg]

Sadly, yes that is true but to me Khrushchev was a hero and personally he is one of my icons. I would be lying if I said I liked everything he did. I did oppose a few things though they are minor but as a soviet leader he really shouldn't be ignored.(I mean without the mentioning of the Cuban missile crisis)

Ever heard about 1962 Novocherkassk riot caused by your "hero", corn-lover Khrushjev?

[Bolnoa]

Sadly, yes that is true but to me Khrushchev was a hero and personally he is one of my icons. I would be lying if I said I liked everything he did. I did oppose a few things though they are minor but as a soviet leader he really shouldn't be ignored.(I mean without the mentioning of the Cuban missile crisis)

Ever heard about 1962 Novocherkassk riot caused by your "hero", corn-lover Khrushjev?

One of the things in his age I opposed.

[Old Tyrannia]

1) I'm pretty sure that not being sent to the gulags to freeze to death because you're gay is pretty important to, you know, gay people.
2) I'm guessing from your second comment that you never actually bothered to read my post in full before replying to it.
3) What, exactly, is wrong with farming potatoes?

1) Care to provide a statistic of the Soviet people actually "sent to the gulags to freeze to death because they're gay"? Or you just extrapolating Nazi Germany to everything USSR related?

You're the only one who's brought up Nazi Germany. Anyway, I was exaggerating for comedy effect on the gulags, but approximately 800-1,000 men were sent to prison for homosexual activity in the Soviet Union each year, to be submitted to systematic physical, sexual and psychological abuse.

2) Care to provide the exact figures of literacy right after Revolutuion? Hint - it wasn't even close to 100%. But it bacame so thanks to the Soviet launched "LikBez". You would also benefited from said "LikBez" and learned the real meaning of GULag acronym.

There are no official figures on literacy in Russia immediately after the Revolution since the last census was conducted in the Russian Empire in 1897 and the first post-revolution census held in 1920 was incomplete. However, literacy in the Russian Empire was improving prior to 1917, and it is debated whether literacy rates would eventually have reached the same levels in Russia without the Revolution. The "LikBez" was not some sort of communist miracleworking as you seem to believe, even though it probably helped to spread literacy.

Also, I think that you will find that I am very literate and quite well educated. I do happen to know that "GULag" is an acronym for Гла́вное управле́ние лагере́й и коло́ний, i.e. "Main Camp Administration," and that it officially referred to the government agency responsible for running the camps although it eventually came to refer to the camps themselves.

The same goes for tha national industrialization, health care, accesible education (including Higher education) etc. Between "not so awful" (of Czarist Russia) and "really great improvements in all those spheres" (of the USSR) exist an enormous distinction.

You are yet to show any proof that those things couldn't have been achieved under the Romanovs.

3) She won't be farming potato. I, my family and neighbours are "farming" potatos on dachas. Think more in the way of the entire spring-till-autumn back breaking labor seeding-raising-reaping one of the grain crops.

I feel for you, I really do.

[Hirota]

I do wish it was Leon Trotsky on that poll rather than Stalin. He'd have been a better leader.

[United Marxist Nations]

@Old Tyrania:

When the Bolshevik Party came to power in 1917, they faced a crumbling empire infamous for its perceived backwardness and poor education system. In 1917, within the remaining Tsarist territories, an estimated 37.9% of the male population above seven years old was literate and only 12.5% of the female population was literate.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez

[Vetalia]

Hindsight and the fact that the Aral Sea is basically gone tends to cast a poor light on his "lets grow cotton and wheat in central asia" policy.

That wasn't the problem, the problem was they kept growing wheat and cotton without crop rotation and fallow periods and thereby destroyed the soil and created a desert.

[Lyttenburg]

You're the only one who's brought up Nazi Germany. Anyway, I was exaggerating for comedy effect on the gulags, but approximately 800-1,000 men were sent to prison for homosexual activity in the Soviet Union each year, to be submitted to systematic physical, sexual and psychological abuse.

You know what is the biggest mistake people studying such statistics commit? They assume that this number of arrested (no matter whom) are not recidivists, i.e. every time it was a new one arrested. Also:

During the Soviet regime, Western observers believed that 800 to 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121

Some people beleive that the Moon is made of cheese. Or that Holocaust never happened. Never the less, some figures pulled from... ceiling by unnamed "Westerner Observers" are not legit source. Try again. Oh, and what kind of person are "exaggerating for comedy effect on the gulags"? How would you call that person?

There are no official figures on literacy in Russia immediately after the Revolution since the last census was conducted in the Russian Empire in 1897 and the first post-revolution census held in 1920 was incomplete. However, literacy in the Russian Empire was improving prior to 1917, and it is debated whether literacy rates would eventually have reached the same levels in Russia without the Revolution. The "LikBez" was not some sort of communist miracleworking as you seem to believe, even though it probably helped to spread literacy.

Well, you've failed your homework, OT. You don't need a nation-wide census to have figures on literacy, there are a lot of other sources. In 1917-1927 period LikBez activists have taught literacy to 10 mil. adults. Since 1930 there were established a nation-vide mandatory elementary education. As a result, if in 1920 the literacy rate was apprx. 44% by 1939 it was 87%. In no period of Czarist history there were a 2% increase of literacy per year.

Also, I think that you will find that I am very literate and quite well educated. I do happen to know that "GULag" is an acronym for Гла́вное управле́ние лагере́й и коло́ний, i.e. "Main Camp Administration," and that it officially referred to the government agency responsible for running the camps although it eventually came to refer to the camps themselves.

Then, if you are so knowledgeable, you can refrain from using such incorrect westernizm as "gulag(s)".


And why should I disprove this "alternative history scenario" of Russian development as monarchy post 1917? It is you who are beholden to such fantasy, so it is you who had to prove that it was possible. Basically, what are you saying is "I have super-mega-awesome theory! it is based on alternative history in my personal interpretation! And, no, I won't provide any support or proofs - you must prove that I'v wrong!". That's just not serious.

[BloatarderZ]

I'm staring to realize how shitty and shitter Russia has always been, and it's leaders are another example.

It's been a world power for some time now, plus the living standards aren't that bad. Sure it isn't the best country to live in, but i wouldn't call it shitty at all.

[Avaerilon]

I'm in-favour of Mr. Gorbachev, personally.

[Old Tyrannia]

@Old Tyrania:

When the Bolshevik Party came to power in 1917, they faced a crumbling empire infamous for its perceived backwardness and poor education system. In 1917, within the remaining Tsarist territories, an estimated 37.9% of the male population above seven years old was literate and only 12.5% of the female population was literate.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez

None of which contradicts what I said. First of all, note the word "estimate." Second of all, I never claimed that literacy rates were high in Russia in the 1910s, only that they were improving and that there is no reason to assume they wouldn't have continued to rise had the Russian Revolution not occurred. Perhaps they would not have risen at the same rate- I've acknowledged that the Likbez campaign probably helped improve literacy in Russia. It just wasn't the sole reason that literacy improved, and literacy would likely have continued to improve, albeit at a more gradual rate, with or without the Likbez.

You're the only one who's brought up Nazi Germany. Anyway, I was exaggerating for comedy effect on the gulags, but approximately 800-1,000 men were sent to prison for homosexual activity in the Soviet Union each year, to be submitted to systematic physical, sexual and psychological abuse.

You know what is the biggest mistake people studying such statistics commit? They assume that this number of arrested (no matter whom) are not recidivists, i.e. every time it was a new one arrested.

I never said that none of those 800-1,000 people had never been arrested before; even if the majority were re-offenders, that's still a pretty massive number of people being sent to prison for their sexual orientation every year.

Also:

During the Soviet regime, Western observers believed that 800 to 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121

Some people beleive that the Moon is made of cheese. Or that Holocaust never happened. Never the less, some figures pulled from... ceiling by unnamed "Westerner Observers" are not legit source.

In honesty, it's the most legitimate source I've seen used in this thread so far. Wikipedia cites it, and most people here on NationStates seem quite happy to refer to Wikipedia (including your commie friend United Marxist Nations above) when asked for references. But if you'd like a secondary source, Russia Today also notes that "several hundred people" were charged with homosexuality "every year."

Try again. Oh, and what kind of person are "exaggerating for comedy effect on the gulags"? How would you call that person?

... An NSGer? Jaded cynicism and black humour are, after all, hallmarks of this forum.

There are no official figures on literacy in Russia immediately after the Revolution since the last census was conducted in the Russian Empire in 1897 and the first post-revolution census held in 1920 was incomplete. However, literacy in the Russian Empire was improving prior to 1917, and it is debated whether literacy rates would eventually have reached the same levels in Russia without the Revolution. The "LikBez" was not some sort of communist miracleworking as you seem to believe, even though it probably helped to spread literacy.

Well, you've failed your homework, OT. You don't need a nation-wide census to have figures on literacy, there are a lot of other sources. In 1917-1927 period LikBez activists have taught literacy to 10 mil. adults. Since 1930 there were established a nation-vide mandatory elementary education. As a result, if in 1920 the literacy rate was apprx. 44% by 1939 it was 87%. In no period of Czarist history there were a 2% increase of literacy per year.

Estimates, not official figures. Besides, I'd like to see your sources on the above.

Also, I think that you will find that I am very literate and quite well educated. I do happen to know that "GULag" is an acronym for Гла́вное управле́ние лагере́й и коло́ний, i.e. "Main Camp Administration," and that it officially referred to the government agency responsible for running the camps although it eventually came to refer to the camps themselves.

Then, if you are so knowledgeable, you can refrain from using such incorrect westernizm as "gulag(s)".

Well, I am a Westerner. It makes sense, therefore, that I should use "westernisms" from time to time (note the s rather than z). I'm not sure how failing to capitalise three letters is somehow a damning indictment of my education level, particularly since the version "gulag" is widely used in the Anglophone world, and I've never encountered anyone before who has kicked up a fuss about its use.

And why should I disprove this "alternative history scenario" of Russian development as monarchy post 1917? It is you who are beholden to such fantasy, so it is you who had to prove that it was possible. Basically, what are you saying is "I have super-mega-awesome theory! it is based on alternative history in my personal interpretation! And, no, I won't provide any support or proofs - you must prove that I'v wrong!". That's just not serious.

I've never tried to claim that I know what would have happened if the Russian Empire had survived past 1917. I've only argued that there is no reason that Russia's achievements under the USSR couldn't have been achieved without the Russian Revolution occurring.

I do wish it was Leon Trotsky on that poll rather than Stalin. He'd have been a better leader.

I highly doubt it. At least Stalin's pragmatic ideology of "Socialism in One Country" helped to avoid conflict with other major powers; Trotsky's commitment to global revolution would have made cooperation with other governments near enough impossible, and would likely have led to a bloodbath.

[Lyttenburg]

I never said that none of those 800-1,000 people had never been arrested before; even if the majority were re-offenders, that's still a pretty massive number of people being sent to prison for their sexual orientation every year.

For a country of 250+ million people? Barely a drop. Also, this so called "bare" statistics do not show if this alleged number of people were senteced for "sodomy" alone. Maybe, some of them were also guilty of something and investigation "outed" them. Or they were even not homosexualists at all, and this was a way to discredit them.

In honesty, it's the most legitimate source I've seen used in this thread so far. Wikipedia cites it, and most people here on NationStates seem quite happy to refer to Wikipedia (including your commie friend United Marxist Nations above) when asked for references. But if you'd like a secondary source, Russia Today also notes that "several hundred people" were charged with homosexuality "every year."

First of all - "people here" can trust Wikidorkia all they want. Second - why did you call UMN "commie"? Did you, handshakable Westerner, also call LGBTs "faggies"? Or they are more kosher then people with political views you don't like?

Third - just because I'm Russian I won't trust everything said by RT - especially, becasue this article do not cite a source for the claim of "several hundred people" were charged with homosexuality "every year". So far you have provided: 1) Pulled from the ceiling number by "Western observers" (without any sources for such "beleif") 2) Equally un-supported claim in some RT article.

Try again.

Estimates, not official figures. Besides, I'd like to see your sources on the above.

1920 Census didn't cover the territories where the Civil War was still going, true - but it covered the central, most urbanised territories of RSFSR, where, according to previous census people were the most literate. Even that number gives us 44.1% of literate people. According to 1897 census literate were apprx. 21% of all population (largest concentration of illiterate people was, by the way, in territories where in 1920 there were still fighting going on, like Caucasus, Central Asia (3.3 % literate), rural Ukraine, Belarus, etc.).

After the War USSR had to deal with all illiterate people living everywhere. The census taken in 1926 (after less then a decade of LikBez program) showed literacy level at 56.6 %. That is impressive.

The end figure - 81.6% literacy by 1939 comes also from census.

Well, I am a Westerner. It makes sense, therefore, that I should use "westernisms" from time to time (note the s rather than z). I'm not sure how failing to capitalise three letters is somehow a damning indictment of my education level, particularly since the version "gulag" is widely used in the Anglophone world, and I've never encountered anyone before who has kicked up a fuss about its use.

Because there is correct usage of GULag (Glavnoye Upravleniye Lagerej), and the wrong one, preferred by large number of ignorant Westerners - to call any prison in USSR "gulag" (with lower case letter, sometimes plural). Just because Mighty "Anglophone world" is so accustomed to this wrong usage, doesn't meant it is right.

I've never tried to claim that I know what would have happened if the Russian Empire had survived past 1917. I've only argued that there is no reason that Russia's achievements under the USSR couldn't have been achieved without the Russian Revolution occurring.

This is very bold claim. People devote their entire lives to studing this period of history, sourcematerial, statistics etc. before making statements less bold then yours. Have you studied the history of Russia in early XX century? How can you support your claim, which is still "what if?" AH-scenario?

[United Marxist Nations]

Just want to make something clear that may not have been fully evident before: for us in the west, using "gulags" incorrectly may be just fine, but you have to remember that for Russian speakers, hearing or reading someone misuse their language can be pretty annoying. I know it would probably get irritating pretty quickly if someone were to refer to prisons in the US as "Departments of Corrections". Thus, if we know the correct usage of something we should probably use it for clarity's sake.

[Finland SSR]

Rurik Rurikid?

It's definitely Peter the Great.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Napoleon.

If only, if only.

Anyway, Catherine.

[Old Tyrannia]

I never said that none of those 800-1,000 people had never been arrested before; even if the majority were re-offenders, that's still a pretty massive number of people being sent to prison for their sexual orientation every year.

For a country of 250+ million people? Barely a drop. Also, this so called "bare" statistics do not show if this alleged number of people were senteced for "sodomy" alone. Maybe, some of them were also guilty of something and investigation "outed" them. Or they were even not homosexualists at all, and this was a way to discredit them.

So your argument is? If you're trying to defend the Soviet Union, arguing that most of the people sent to prison for homosexuality were actually sent for other reasons and homosexuality was simply used as a way to discredit them is not the best argument to make. The fact remains that people were being sent to prison to suffer in horrendous conditions, nominally because of their sexual orientation. And 800-1,000 a year is still a significant number of people.

In honesty, it's the most legitimate source I've seen used in this thread so far. Wikipedia cites it, and most people here on NationStates seem quite happy to refer to Wikipedia (including your commie friend United Marxist Nations above) when asked for references. But if you'd like a secondary source, Russia Today also notes that "several hundred people" were charged with homosexuality "every year."

First of all - "people here" can trust Wikidorkia all they want. Second - why did you call UMN "commie"? Did you, handshakable Westerner, also call LGBTs "faggies"? Or they are more kosher then people with political views you don't like?

I'm beginning to realise that you don't appreciate humour very much. Is this trait endemic in Russians? Do I need to remember not to laugh if I visit Moscow, in case people unfamiliar with the sound assume I'm choking to death?

Third - just because I'm Russian I won't trust everything said by RT - especially, becasue this article do not cite a source for the claim of "several hundred people" were charged with homosexuality "every year". So far you have provided: 1) Pulled from the ceiling number by "Western observers" (without any sources for such "beleif") 2) Equally un-supported claim in some RT article.

Try again.

You know, for someone who keeps bitching about my sources, you've utterly failed so far to produce any counter-sources. If you can find a more reliable source that contradicts my own, then I'll concede; but until then, my two sources are the only external data we have, so we'll go with them, thank you very much.

Estimates, not official figures. Besides, I'd like to see your sources on the above.

1920 Census didn't cover the territories where the Civil War was still going, true - but it covered the central, most urbanised territories of RSFSR, where, according to previous census people were the most literate. Even that number gives us 44.1% of literate people. According to 1897 census literate were apprx. 21% of all population (largest concentration of illiterate people was, by the way, in territories where in 1920 there were still fighting going on, like Caucasus, Central Asia (3.3 % literate), rural Ukraine, Belarus, etc.).

After the War USSR had to deal with all illiterate people living everywhere. The census taken in 1926 (after less then a decade of LikBez program) showed literacy level at 56.6 %. That is impressive.

The end figure - 81.6% literacy by 1939 comes also from census.

First of all, thank you for finally providing some sources, although regrettably two of them are in Russian and therefore I can't read them. I do notice, however, that despite your disdain for "Wikidorkia" you yourself use the Russian-language version as a source. Secondly, you are yet to demonstrate that the Likbez was the principle reason for the improvement in literacy in Russia following the revolution. Prior to the war, liberal factions in the State Duma were already pushing for the introduction of universal education; at the same time, literacy was, as I have repeatedly stated, already improving (Clark, Charles E. (2000). Uprooting Otherness: The Literacy Campaign in NEP-Era Russia. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses).

Well, I am a Westerner. It makes sense, therefore, that I should use "westernisms" from time to time (note the s rather than z). I'm not sure how failing to capitalise three letters is somehow a damning indictment of my education level, particularly since the version "gulag" is widely used in the Anglophone world, and I've never encountered anyone before who has kicked up a fuss about its use.

Because there is correct usage of GULag (Glavnoye Upravleniye Lagerej), and the wrong one, preferred by large number of ignorant Westerners - to call any prison in USSR "gulag" (with lower case letter, sometimes plural). Just because Mighty "Anglophone world" is so accustomed to this wrong usage, doesn't meant it is right.

Loanwords are altered and adapted by the assimilating language all the time. I'm sorry that this offends you so much, but for someone with such a thin skin I'd have thought you'd be more sensitive when dealing with others. I might choose to take offence at your dismissal of Westerners as "ignorant" for using a term derived from a Russian term in a slightly different way to the original Russian term. Like it or not, this is an English-language forum, and in English the phrase "gulag" is frequently used to refer to the actual camps governed by the GULag system rather than the system itself. If that offends you, go to a Russian speaking forum where people won't corrupt your language.

I've never tried to claim that I know what would have happened if the Russian Empire had survived past 1917. I've only argued that there is no reason that Russia's achievements under the USSR couldn't have been achieved without the Russian Revolution occurring.

This is very bold claim. People devote their entire lives to studing this period of history, sourcematerial, statistics etc. before making statements less bold then yours. Have you studied the history of Russia in early XX century? How can you support your claim, which is still "what if?" AH-scenario?

How is it a "bold claim?" Stating that "X could not have happened without Y" is a "bold claim." Saying "I see no reason why X could not have happened without Y" is not. You can't demonstrate that the achievements of Russia under the Soviet regime could not have occurred under the Empire, and there is no discernible reason why they could not have. It's you who is making the bold claim that without the Russian Revolution, Russia could never have achieved anything. It's you who is drawing the link between X and Y, and the burden of proof is therefore on you.

[The Grey Wolf]

Shocking to some who may know me, I actually admire Vladimir Lenin a good deal. He's probably the greatest changer to Russian history since Peter the Great, and his actions, for good or ill, changed both Russia and the world.

[United Earthlings]

Hands down, Peter the III. The modern Russia we know today probably wouldn't even exist if Peter the III hadn't taken the throne.

Also, a Nitpick, but Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mikhail Gorbachev and to a lesser extent Vladimir Putin were Soviet not Russian.

Russia threw a tantrum back in 1917 and for some unknown reason just up and disappeared from the room of nations then just as suddenly to magically reappear again in 1991, shocked by why everyone keep asking where it had been and gone. Everyone keeps blaming Germany on both occurrences for some unknown reason.

[The New Sea Territory]

Kropotkin

Wasn't a leader, unless you count him being a prince. Though he's up there as one of the best famous Russians, along with Bakunin.

[Shnercropolis]

Putin. He's been doing a great job with the Russian economy, is making Russia stronk again, and seems to be very skilled at real politics and foreign relations.

FTFY

[Shofercia]

Most Russians think it's Alexander Nevsky, and considering that your poll lacks a single leader from the pre-Romanov era, IMHO, you should rename it "Greatest Russian leader since 1613!"

[Shofercia]

Gorbachev, the one who initiated many good reforms in Russia.

Russia really needs to get rid of the maniac Putin and get someone like Gorbachev.

But your sig says:

I side with Ukraine
DOWN WITH RUSSIA

So keep Putin, destroy future Gorbachev. Got it!