Hail to the Chief!

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
"...President Bush, the greatest president this country has seen since Abraham Lincoln."This is a statement I've seen Mr. Knight make more than once, and it's got me to thinking.

It's certainly a little early to compare George W. Bush to others who've held the office, never mind being able to assess his place in history. However, why not have a little fun?

The poll only allows for ten choices, so I've had to make some editing decisions; a bit of a daunting task. Nevertheless, it's quite a list, wouldn't you say?

Discuss.

[subgenius]

But you left off Dubya, so the benighted one can claim millions of supporters would have voted for him.

[renata]

Define greatness. Nixon, for all his faults achieved quite a bit- China, pulling out of Vietnam, etc. JFK, for all his idealism did not achieve too much in office, but did inspire millions with his agenda.

[Malachi151]

LOL, all liberals and progressives so far :p hehe Yes, Teddy was a progressive.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by renata
Define greatness. Nixon, for all his faults achieved quite a bit- China, pulling out of Vietnam, etc. JFK, for all his idealism did not achieve too much in office, but did inspire millions with his agenda.

LOL, listing "pulling out of Vietnam" as an accomplishment of Nixon's is like.... well, I dunno what its like, but the fact is that Nixon said that he didn't want to pull out of Vietnam because he didn't want to be the first president to lose a war. Vietnam was self destructive, it was ony a mtter of time before whoever it was HAD to pull out. Nixon really had little choice in the matter and didn't want to do it. I have to give Nxon credit with China though.

Well, Kennedy cut taxes dramatically, prevented nuclear war, which the US military was calling for, prevented the US military from engaging in a domestic terrorism campaign in order to instigate war with Cuba, he reigned in the CIA a bit, allocated lots of funds to the space race...

He did quite a bit, but he was still an anti-socialist bastard just like the rest ;) Dont' forget Vietnam.

[corplinx]

The president who capitulated to Stalin resulting in genocide beyond Hitler is leading the pack? This is fricken sad.....

America still owes eastern europe a debt because of FDR.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx
The president who capitulated to Stalin resulting in genocide beyond Hitler is leading the pack? This is fricken sad.....

America still owes eastern europe a debt because of FDR.

You should thank FDR that you are not speaking German right now, that is assuming that you or I would have been born at all in a world that used breading programs.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Yes, Teddy was a progressive.


Yes, but the "progressives" today have merely co-opted that label for their own purposes, just like they co-opted the word "liberal" a few years ago. They are nothing like TR. TR was an imperialist and a warmonger.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony



Yes, but the "progressives" today have merely co-opted that label for their own purposes, just like they co-opted the word "liberal" a few years ago. They are nothing like TR. TR was an imperialist and a warmonger.
...and a progressive for his time. Myopia can be cured.
"My future is in the past."

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius

...and a progressive for his time. Myopia can be cured.



How was TR myopic?

But I agree, myopia can be cured, however, todays "progressives" are the epitome of myopic.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony



I agree, but todays "progressives" are the epitome of myopic.
Through those lenses.
Conservatives are in power....name some "progressives" that have any. So why do you care?
Do you know any personally?
Don't ************ me, or yourself.
We were talking about TR, anyway not "today's progressives".
Why did you feel the need to change the subject?
Defensiveness is weakness.

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius


Do you know any personally?


I myself am one.

We were talking about TR, anyway not "today's progressives".
Why did you feel the need to change the subject?

Malachi brought up progressives. If you have a beef with the subject being changed, I suggest you take it up with him/her.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony


I myself am one.

We were talking about TR, anyway not "today's progressives".
Why did you feel the need to change the subject?

Malachi brought up progressives. If you have a beef with the subject being changed, I suggest you take it up with him/her.
I'm not getting this: you are a "progressive", and this is "today" so you are.....not myopic?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony



Yes, but the "progressives" today have merely co-opted that label for their own purposes, just like they co-opted the word "liberal" a few years ago. They are nothing like TR. TR was an imperialist and a warmonger.

What wars did he monger?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ed


What wars did he monger?

The Spanish American War, He instigated and facilitated the Panamanian War of Independence without GASP!!…the permission of congress, and he fiercely advocated early entry into WW1 when Wilson was pursuing a policy of neutrality. He also advocated American expansionism and imperialism. IMO most of these were good things.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by subgenius

I'm not getting this: you are a "progressive", and this is "today" so you are.....not myopic?

[Gregor]

The only people allowed to vote for FDR are those older than 65. Otherwise, we're just getting the 8th grade history-filtered version.

In fact, that applies to all presidents before Nixon.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by corplinx
The president who capitulated to Stalin resulting in genocide beyond Hitler is leading the pack? This is fricken sad.....

America still owes eastern europe a debt because of FDR.

I think it was Truman, not FDR, who capitulated to Stalin (if, by capitulation, you mean that he stood by while Stalin occupied eastern Europe). After all, WE occupied western Europe for a short time. It took some time before it was realized that Stalin had no intention of ever pulling out.

Much of the genocide had already occurred by this point, so was not a result of this.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



Yes, but the "progressives" today have merely co-opted that label for their own purposes, just like they co-opted the word "liberal" a few years ago. They are nothing like TR. TR was an imperialist and a warmonger.

You ye simpleton.

I never said I approved of evrything Teddy did.

See, there is this little thing called dualism that plagues America, everything is seen in black and white, and you are one of the ones who see it that way.

Who was Teddy?

Teddy was an intelligent, liberal man that viewed American interests a priority ovver the interests of other countries.

He, like many other people was multifacited and fits into no group that exists today.

War monger? Yes. Imperialist? Yes.
Friend of the working man? Yes.
Conservationist? Yes.
Secularist? Yes.
Supporter of redistribution of wealth? Yes.
Supporter of the arts? Yes.

See, Teddy was out for whever would make America as a country more successful and better for all American citizens. He took on big business, and he invaded foreign countries too and took territory for America.

I am totally at odds with his approach to foreign countries, and totally in harmony wiht him on domestic issues. It does not change the fact that he was a progressive and that he and Wislon took steps in Liberalizing America. Wilson also engaged in imperialism, though not as much.

BTW Wilson should have been on the poll, I consider him the second best after FDR, as many other historians do as well. Wilson was one of the most intelligent presidents this country ever had, and was a nobel prize winner in econmics, and of course he got us into WWI, and he invaded Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, and was president during the Red Scare. I disagree with the invasion of Russia and and the acts of the Red Scare, but I still think Wilson was a good president, and most people probably see thise things as a good thing anyway.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


I think it was Truman, not FDR, who capitulated to Stalin (if, by capitulation, you mean that he stood by while Stalin occupied eastern Europe). After all, WE occupied western Europe for a short time. It took some time before it was realized that Stalin had no intention of ever pulling out.

Much of the genocide had already occurred by this point, so was not a result of this.

Much of the "genocide" was not genocide at all. It was a case of starvation.

Why did the starvation happen?

Well, Russia had just been invaded durign WWI, then went though a revolution, then civil war and was invaded by 22 countries, tehn Russia gave up its best farmland in a peace treaty, then the beginning of Stalinism, then was invaded again in WWII.

All of Russia's best remaning farmland in in the west where is kept getting beat the hell up during all these invasions. Then, after WWII a drought hit Russia, making it even worse.

No one in the world wanted to help Russia or Stalin of course so Stalin ha no one to turn to, his only alternative was to give up control of Russia and hand it over to foreign authority, yeah right, like that would happen. America was not going to give large amounts of food and assistance to Russia he knew we wanted to invade Russia, so why would he call on us for help.

The result was millions people dying of starvation. Its not the fist time in history that things like that have happened, Irish potato famine, Africa, etc.

Stlain was definatly not one of the "good guys", but the calls of genocide that happened after WWII are overplayed.

In addition, at that time no one was sure what was going on in Russia.

And as for not knowing about FDR, I'd have to disagree. You can easily learn about FDR if you wish to study him. Corruption, complaints about his system doing more harm than good? Sure, you bet, I've read all that stuff too. Lots of people hated FDR, but a lot more loved him, and he did a lot of good, and as I said, if not for FDR the Republicans would have let Hitler take Europe and Japan take the Pacific. We would be living in fascist hell right now if not for FDR, Russia, and the American liberals such as the Abe Lincoln Birgade, the American Communist Party, and the Anti-Fascist League. It was all the liberlas that were wanting to get into WWII, many o fhte conservatives were either siding with the fascists or were isolationists.

[Tmy]

How could you not go wh Bubba Clinton. 8yrs of fun fun fun, nice economy, budget was OK, world had never been so peaceful!!! Plus he gave the press and pundits plenty of fodder. A good time was had by all.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


You ye simpleton.

I never said I approved of evrything Teddy did.




I never said you said you approved of everything TR did.

See, there is this little thing called dualism that plagues America, everything is seen in black and white, and you are one of the ones who see it that way. :D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151


You should thank FDR that you are not speaking German right now, that is assuming that you or I would have been born at all in a world that used breading programs.

Piss off. Any other president would have joined the war after pearl harbor. I give him no credit for doing the inevitable.

[corplinx]

Not to mention, FDR created that awesome social security program. FDR has to be the most overrated president ever. He got a lot done on his watch, but he left us with the seed of out of control federalism.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Much of the "genocide" was not genocide at all. It was a case of starvation.

Why did the starvation happen?

Well, Russia had just been invaded durign WWI, then went though a revolution, then civil war and was invaded by 22 countries, tehn Russia gave up its best farmland in a peace treaty, then the beginning of Stalinism, then was invaded again in WWII.

All of Russia's best remaning farmland in in the west where is kept getting beat the hell up during all these invasions. Then, after WWII a drought hit Russia, making it even worse.

No one in the world wanted to help Russia or Stalin of course so Stalin ha no one to turn to, his only alternative was to give up control of Russia and hand it over to foreign authority, yeah right, like that would happen. America was not going to give large amounts of food and assistance to Russia he knew we wanted to invade Russia, so why would he call on us for help.

The result was millions people dying of starvation. Its not the fist time in history that things like that have happened, Irish potato famine, Africa, etc.


So Stalin's policy of collectivization and industrialization had nothing to do with it?

:confused:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx


Piss off. Any other president would have joined the war after pearl harbor. I give him no credit for doing the inevitable.

LOL, see, this is what is wrong with US history today :D

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

The McCollum Memo can be viewed here (I strongly advise that you read the entire memo):

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/

Of critical importance in this memo is the portion that reads:

“9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.

B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.

C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.

D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.

E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.

F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.

G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.

H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.

H. McCollum”

What is important to note about this is that FDR began the implementation of all the steps the very next day after receiving this memo.

[rikzilla]

Hey!!!

This poll is rigged!!

Where's the check box for the greatest president of all??

Millard Fillmore!!!!


:D What? Are ya afraid that he'd run away with it all???

-z

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


So Stalin's policy of collectivization and industrialization had nothing to do with it?

:confused:

Yeah, it did, but so did the other conditions too. The point is that Truman and FDR are not to blame for the deaths of the Russians, as corplinx was suggesting. The labor conditions under Stalin were horrible no doubt, but its not the same type situation as Hitler's deal. Stlain was a horribel tyrant, but he wasn't trying to kill these people it was a side effect of his policy and natural famine condition. Stalin did have plenty of peopel intionally killed too, but not what would be called genocide. This is no defense of Stalin I'm just saying he was not committing genocide.

[Gregor]

Wow, I knew Malachi was a communist apologist, but to deny the attrocities of Stalin - whew.

Try reading Harvest of Sorrow or Stalin: Killer of Nations. Both were written by Robert Conquest.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Gregor
Wow, I knew Malachi was a communist apologist, but to deny the attrocities of Stalin - whew.

Try reading Harvest of Sorrow or Stalin: Killer of Nations. Both were written by Robert Conquest.

In shorter format but with all the numbers, National Review has an issue called "The Holocaust We Forgot". The source may be devoutly anti-communist but the numbers are all there. Great piece.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Gregor
Wow, I knew Malachi was a communist apologist, but to deny the attrocities of Stalin - whew.

Try reading Harvest of Sorrow or Stalin: Killer of Nations. Both were written by Robert Conquest.

Perhaps you don't know what genocide is, or perhaps Stalin did something that I'm unaware of, but genocide is the intentional extermination of a given race or ethnic group. To my knolwedge Stalin did not target any ethnic group for exterminiation in Russia. Keeping facts straight is hardly being an apologist.

[Globert]

I voted TR, though Regan had me thinking.

I read somewhere the effect of:
Great men are simply Ordinary men thrust into Extraordinary situations.

(Probably used by every biographer of great men
;) )

[Tmy]

Is it fair to vote for a president that served before your lifetime. History is often viewed through rose colored glasses. You miss the annoying little things that presidents do.

[Gregor]

I do, and you don't know your Stalin.

Ukrainians were a separate cultural group - and they certainly consider themselves a separate ethnic group. I'm not an anthropologist and can't say whether that's correct. Stalin intentionally starved them to death.

[renata]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Perhaps you don't know what genocide is, or perhaps Stalin did something that I'm unaware of, but genocide is the intentional extermination of a given race or ethnic group. To my knolwedge Stalin did not target any ethnic group for exterminiation in Russia. Keeping facts straight is hardly being an apologist.


I recommend Archipelag Gulag by Solzhenitsyn

I would also like to point out that Stalin did root out and transport ethnicities and subgroups to various places in Siberia. Although he did not have designated deathcamps in the Treblinka mold, he did have concentrations camps for which survival rate was negligible, rendering them effective death camps. Chechens, Volga Germans, religious Russians and Ukrainians- whole villages were resettled. There is also some evidence that before his death he had planned to exile Russian Jews to Birobijian, the infamous Doctor trials appeared to be precursors to wide resettlement.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, genocide is defined as


gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.


Certainly, entire political groups were exterminated. Kulaks for example were summarily executed and their entire families sent into exile.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Gregor
I do, and you don't know your Stalin.

Ukrainians were a separate cultural group - and they certainly consider themselves a separate ethnic group. I'm not an anthropologist and can't say whether that's correct. Stalin intentionally starved them to death.

Most of the people Stalin killed were actually Marxists and Bolsheviks. Stalin was anti-Communist, its a confusing matter.

The Bolsheviks took power in order to start Socialism in Russia, Stalin took power from them, and then had them all killed, then Stalin set about being a tyrant and was relaly dothing not that correspoended with Marxism at all or had anything to do with promoting Communism. Stalin was just a tyrant dictator using Communism as an excuse. Thats why he killed all the Bolsheviks and killed so many Jews. The Bolshevik Jews were THE Marxist communists.

Yes, the as for the matter of the Ukraine, that was a horrible incident and millions died and Stalin was to blame. The problem with it today is trying to figure out fact from fiction, the whole thing is a confused mess.

At the time Communsits in Russia opposed Stalin. Non-Communsits in Russia opposed Stalin. Non-Communsits opposed the Bolsheviks for their role in "bringing Stalin to power", which they actually didn't do intentionally, he took control from them against their will.

Then you had the communits from the West, like America often sided with Stalin because they didn't know what was really going on.

Then you have teh anti-Communists in the West, who sided with Stalin because they knew we has killing the Bolshekivs, this was like Hitler and Churchill and such.

Then you had anti-Communsits in the West who were sayinh that Stalin was who represented Communism, and then you anti-Communsits who did know what was going on saying that Stalin was anti-Communist.

Today we now have access to all the information and the writings of the Bolshevisk and we see that indeed, Stalin was anti-Communist while claiming to be communist. His biggest enemies were the Bolsheviks and Marxists.

Its a confusing mess to say the least. Even today most anti-Communsits still say that Stalin was a communist, while most Communsits say that Stalin was anti-Communist.

Stalin screwed over the Comitern, made treaties with Hitler, killed milions of Bolsheviks, killed all the Marxists in Russia, and killed millions in the Ukraine as you say. He was all around horrible for everyone.

My issue was in blaming Truman or FDR for "capitualing" to these things. I don't blame Truman or FDR for their attitude toward Stalin, it was a very complex matter at the time and it still is.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Is it just me, or has every president been a WASP male with the exception of FDR and Truman?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Is it just me, or has every president been a WASP male with the exception of FDR and Truman?

FDR and Ruman were not? FDR was an Episcipalian(ap?) I think, and he was white and a male :p

Don't forget JFK.

[crocodile deathroll]

Yes I voted Bill Clinton but in spite of his version of the White House being far naughtier the its namesake here (http://www.whitehouse.com/) (I am not making any direct link into any of its sexier pages), he was still a far safer president to have for the world then the current one.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Yes I voted Bill Clinton but in spite of his version of the White House being far naughtier the its namesake here (http://www.whitehouse.com/) (I am not making any direct link into any of its sexier pages), he was still a far safer president to have for the world then the current one.
CDR! Where the hell have you been! I was afraid we had lost another good-un.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky

CDR! Where the hell have you been! I was afraid we had lost another good-un.

I just went out on a mission lookin' for all those good-uns in infidels.org

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by renata



I recommend Archipelag Gulag by Solzhenitsyn

I would also like to point out that Stalin did root out and transport ethnicities and subgroups to various places in Siberia. Although he did not have designated deathcamps in the Treblinka mold, he did have concentrations camps for which survival rate was negligible, rendering them effective death camps. Chechens, Volga Germans, religious Russians and Ukrainians- whole villages were resettled. There is also some evidence that before his death he had planned to exile Russian Jews to Birobijian, the infamous Doctor trials appeared to be precursors to wide resettlement.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, genocide is defined as


gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.


Certainly, entire political groups were exterminated. Kulaks for example were summarily executed and their entire families sent into exile.

Here is a good article on the matter:

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?s=&postid=224025#post224025

New research using from actual records.

This research puts the total numbers much, much lower, around 2 million.

Not that that is acceptable, but its still a much different number. The article is very detailed, I sugest you read it if you are actually curious about this.

[renata]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Here is a good article on the matter:

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?s=&postid=224025#post224025

New research using from actual records.

This research puts the total numbers much, much lower, around 2 million.

Not that that is acceptable, but its still a much different number. The article is very detailed, I sugest you read it if you are actually curious about this.


Are you kidding me with this? Have you read Solzhenytzyn?

You are referring me to the site of the paper that was a mouthpiece of a corrupt government and to an internet post of a guy who has "For Motherland, For Stalin" under his nick?
I am not an expert, but I know BS when I see it, and that post was BS.

I read some of his past posts. Some quotes from him:


-Zionists collaborated with the Nazis in the destruction of their own people for political reasons
-Russian Communist Party was over-represented, perhaps, grossly so, with "Jews"
-Why do you think Jews are periodically persecuted throughout recorded history? Is it because of their natural inclination towards financial wizadry ie usury
-Along with Jews and Poles such as Dzerzhinsky and Menzhinsky, Latvians played a role in forming that fearsome instrument of Red terror, the Cheka
-Jews practise eugenics, practically invented it.


After looking at that forum for about twenty minutes, I saw about a dozen of virulently anti-Semitic threads.


Read the books, they are meticulously researched.


Here are my qualifications
1. I grew up in USSR, I speak the language and know the history from the inside.
2. I read Archipelag Gulag, as well as other anti Soviet literature
3. My grandparents spent 5 years each in work camps in Siberia. They got Beria amnesty, you see, they were originally sentenced for 10. Their crime was believing communist propaganda and going to Russia from Romania- they were communists. They crossed the border and went to the local police station. They were tortured for a few months and then sent to camps. Of the group they crossed with, they are the only ones who survived.

So I know something about it- from a personal level as well as overall level.



Don't link to a post in a random board by someone with an obvious agenda. Read the book, if you are interested in discussing the subject. People are arguing about the numbers because so many undocumented people were killed in WWII, in camps, through starvation. Estimates range from low 2 million to as high as 20 million. Truth probably is found in between, but you shall not find it on that internet board.

Here is at least one article that shows sources. http://web.qx.net/jon/stalin.html
It calculates 14.5 million dead 1930-37, 3 million during Great Terror, and many more

[Malachi151]

He didn't write the article, he just poseted it.

Are you going to waste time attacking the poster or the article?

Edit: also wouldn't 14.5 million be about 10% of the entire Russian population? I bit high don't you think?

I hate Stalin myself, I'm just saying that many figures about this incident came from Cold Warriors who had an agenda.

[renata]

Originally posted by Malachi151
He didn't write the article, he just poseted it.

Are you going to waste time attacking the poster or the article?

He did not link to the source of the article

You see, I do not need to attack the article.

I do not have the capacity to check his numbers or where he got the article from. However, I see it is not sourced, I see his pasts lovely posts- tells me all I need to know about reliability of the info. I will not waste my time with this. I would also not waster my time on a Neo Nazi forum arguing with someone who claims Hitler was misunderstood- not worth my time.

How about you go read Archipelag Gulag and leave ramblings by Stalin sympathizers and Anti Semites out of the discussion.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by renata


He did not link to the source of the article

You see, I do not need to attack the article.

I do not have the capacity to check his numbers or where he got the article from. However, I see it is not sourced, I see his pasts lovely posts- tells me all I need to know about reliability of the info. I will not waste my time with this. I would also not waster my time on a Neo Nazi forum arguing with someone who claims Hitler was misunderstood- not worth my time.

How about you go read Archipelag Gulag and leave ramblings by Stalin sympathizers and Anti Semites out of the discussion.

Well, if you would care to take it to another thread I'd be happy to as a means for discussion. I certianly do not claim to be an authority on this topic, though I'd like to learn more on it, or you can just tell me to go read that book again ;)

BTW, one last link:

http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-343/index4.html

Any comments on it? I'm asking seriously.

[Regnad Kcin]

May I respectfully ask that we stay on topic, please?

Thank you. :)

[Thumper]

Wilson was a complete racist. He was president of Princeton University, which was the northern-most university that did not allow blacks. He stumped for "The Birth of a Nation", a completely fictional account of the 'blessedness' of the KKK and how they 'protected' the honor of the 'white virgin'. During his tenure, the number of blacks employed by the government in the South dwindled to zero.

(Take it or leave it. I am too lazy to find citations. Sorry.)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Most of the people Stalin killed were actually Marxists and Bolsheviks. Stalin was anti-Communist, its a confusing matter.

Stalin did kill many communists but not because he was anti-communist. Hitler likewise killed many fascists but not because he was anti-fascists.

Stalin merely killed marxists who were trotskyists, from another socialist non-marxist/lenninist/stalinist group(the Bolsheviks in general did likewise), threatened his power, who's deaths would be useful and/or who he was paranoid/jealous of.

Stalin did believe in the marxist idea however and did work towards this, with collectivized farming, increasing industrial output, improving education, getting rid of crime and homelessness/unemployment and creating more equality for women.

Stalin believed ultimately that the end justified the means and much of his ideas and methods can be traced to Lennin's war socialist views i.e. socialists are at war with capitalists, thus socialists must adopt a military structure.

Though Stalin did abuse and mutate much of Marxist theory when conveniant, and did abandon some major tenets of it.

Like I said Stalin felt that the ends justified the means. He however failed to realize that establishing lousy means can ultimately lead to lousy ends.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by renata
Define greatness. Nixon, for all his faults achieved quite a bit- China, pulling out of Vietnam, etc. JFK, for all his idealism did not achieve too much in office, but did inspire millions with his agenda.

That's why I voted for Nixon.

And where was Grant, Garfield and Coolidge - a triumvarite of greatness in this nations grand history IMO.

[aggle_rithm]

No one voted for Lyndon Johnson? He did more for civil rights than any other president. Is it the Vietnam thing? Because I can explain...

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
No one voted for Lyndon Johnson? He did more for civil rights than any other president. Is it the Vietnam thing? Because I can explain...

Shouldn't you have at least voted for LBJ before posting this complaint? ;)