Talk Elections

Vladimir Ivashko doesn't count because his only action was to oversee it's dissolution.

And if you select Gorbachev, I'd ask for a reason other than "he listened to Reagan and tore down that wall."  It's not required, but encouraged.

     Glasnost & Perestroika were nice too.

Obviously Gorbachev, since he democratized the evil empire. Asking for us to exclude that answer is like asking who the best President of the 20th century was and then saying "Well if you select FDR, give a reason other than the New Deal and winning World War II" :)

But if you're counting raw ability to build the state and increase its power then Stalin.

Thirdly, the one who was able to somewhat humanize the state as well as preside over its heyday, Khruschev. But what he did was easy, more a function of when he came to power and what situation he inherited than his actual achievements. The break with China, Virgin lands campaign and Cuban missile crises were fiascos.

Well, I wanted to get some answers in regard of who was the best leader FOR the Soviet Union.  Causing his nation to collapse does not technically qualify as great leadership although it was very good for the Western world.

Gorbachev, because he listened to Reagan and tore down that wall.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

But seriously, in some respects, Lenin has to rate, as he, more than anyone else, was the founder and the driving force behind the actual establishment of the Soviet Union itself, and set the philosophy by which the Soviet Union existed for a generation.

Maybe you should have worded it that way then?  And even then it's not clear.  Are we talking what's best for the PEOPLE of the Soviet Union or what's best for the ENTITY that is the Soviet Union.  If it's for the people, then the answer is clearly Gorbachev.  If it's for the entity, then I don't konw.

Anyway, it certainly couldn't be Stalin, he killed 40 million Soviets.  That wouldn't make him the best FOR the Soviet Union, entity or people.  One would think Lenin would be a good choice, but he was just as big of a monster as was Stalin, he just wasn't as good at it.

I really can't see how it can't be Gorbachev unless you're only criteria for "best" is keeping the Soviet Union afloat.

Best leader from my perspective: Gorbachev
Best leader from a Soviet perspective: Stalin

I voted Stalin.

I'm not sure how causing one of the greatest famines in recorded history to happen on your watch AND because of your policies was all that great for the Soviet Union.  Neither were the millions of Soviets he had killed in Gulags (not the kind you find in Cuba) or the millions he had executed because they disagreed with him or the millions that died when he forced different peoples to move around his empire like he was playing some board game.  Stalin was almost certainly the worst leader of the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev.

I'm probably the only Gorbachevist on this forum. But his revisionism did (and does) appeal to me greatly. What he had approached social democracy, unlike all the other rulers, who were statists above all.

Khrushchev was quite a fellow, as his memoirs reveal.

Considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union created multiple bloody conflicts, extreme outbursts of nationalism,   and was an economic disaster for most of the Republics, it's a bit hard to claim that it was good for the people. As far I know the majority in all but the Baltic states regrets the collapse.
Not to mention that Gorbachev didn't intend to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union - he wanted to reform it. So the collapse was the result of his incompetence, not of any conscious desire. Why should he be honored for that?
And he didn't tear down the wall - he simply made clear he wouldn't interfere in Eastern Europe, which led to the tearing of the wall.
Stalin was certainly not the greatest leader. He murdered millions of his countrymen (not 40 million of course, 20 million is closer to the mark, though probably overstated). And for what?
The country was industrialized, but at an enormous and unnecessary cost. His persecutions did far more damage in the long term than any possible good they might have done. And he ignored all indications that Germany would invade which nearly led to the defeat of the Soviet Union.
The greatest leader was Khrushchev - mainly because the others were so bad. He also made some attempts to reform the system. Andropov also tried to do that but he didn't live long enough.

Yes, it's a good philosophy on principle. The problem is, he was 15 years late.

Vladamir Putin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Dissolution_of_the_USSR

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_is_still_communist_and_evil

Hey, they're not communist!  More of an Oligarchy.

What is communism? You seem to have a strange definition, so would you mind sharing.
It's pointless to object, but Russia is not evil. Merely looking out for its interests in a way that makes other countries angry. Like the US.

You can't fault him for that, though. Andropov could've been a great leader had he lived. And Brezhnev would have been great had he remained the same person Khrushchev liked so much.

The only leader who came into the office with no potential whatsoever was Chernenko.

Xahar, you know and I know that Yuri, despite himself once being a KGB man and being tough against Soviet dissents could have been an excellent leader of the Soviet Union had he lived much longer than his fifteen month tenure as General Secretary of the Communist Party, much better than his abysmal successor Konstantin Chernenko. Judging from what I have read about the Soviet Union, in particular from 1953-1991, Yuri Andropov probably would have undertaken similar Gorbachev reforms earlier than in RL 1985, not to mention groomed Mikhail Sergeyevich as his preferred successor to undertake those reforms, however Yuri was succeeded by Chernenko don't get me started on him!

No such thing.

Then think of this question in "like finishing first in the special olympics, you're still retarded" terms.

     I like how three people voted Khrushchev. Is there any redeeming features about him that I'm forgetting? I associate him with the Berlin Ultimatum & the Cuban Missile Crisis, which were not the USSR's finest hours.

The Cuban Missile Crisis saw the removal of US missiles from Turkey that were a major strategic threat to the Soviet Union. Not a bad trade-off, especially given that some of those missiles could have hit Moscow in about twenty minutes.

You look from a typical blind western perspective. He did a lot of good things (the Secret Speech is one, as was the liquidization of Beria). As a protégé of Stalin, he was still an old-school Marxist, but he was the best one tere was.

     Hmm, interesting. It's nice to see the guy did something worthwhile. :P At any rate, I'm not at all surprised that Gorbachev is winning right now.

Perestroika was actually an example of monumental incompetence, like a lot of what Gorby did. If he had followed the Chinese Model established by people like Deng, we'd still be talking about the Evil Empire. Of course that means we are probably very lucky he screwed up.

The writing had been on the wall for the Soviet Union for decades before Gorbachev took power. His actions speeded up the course of events somewhat and (hey, I'm feeling in a charitable mood right now) probably made them less bloody and painful than would otherwise have been the case.

No doubt, they were dependent on aid after all. However, it's very obvious that what Mikhail did was nowhere near what he set out to do.

Perhaps. I suppose we could have wound up with nukes winding up with renegade groups or full scale civil war.

He also attempted to improve Soviet living standarts and to imrove relations with the West. I think he got scared after the Hungarian revolution, which put an end to the promising developments in the early part of his rule. Still, when compared with someone who destroyed the Soviet Union in a bungling attempt to reform it and who was unable to prevent ethnic cleansing even with the control of the Soviet army, it's a bit unfair that he's so far behind and equal with Stalin.

Stalin, once he fully embraced collectivization, did wonders with the Soviet economy.  I don't see how anyone, communist or capitalist, cannot recognize some merit in the advancements made by the Soviets before and during World War II and their spectacular recovery afterwards.  Ultimately his autarkic policies stimied the ability of the Soviet Union to grow at the pace of the U.S., certainly, but that wasn't soley of his own doing.

Khrushchev was awful, though.  His agricultural programs were complete disasters.  It's not as if central planning in this area was doomed to failure; he simply ignored any consideration of environmental sustainability whatsoever.

Stalinist Lysenkoism was hardly better than later agricultural policies.

..and you can't talk about Stalin without mentioning the millions he had killed.  I've noticed Stalin apologists like to ignore that part.

There were certainly more humane ways to achieve industrialisation and as I've said before, he did far more harm than good. It was thanks to Stalin that the Soviet union almost lost the war.
Khrushchev had at least good intentions (mostly), though he was incompetent in carrying out many of them.
Strange that we agree on a Russia related topic.

Neither of us like to see innocents suffer.

Preston on the other hand.....

A Russian poll had some interesting results:
http://www.rosbalt.ru/2007/04/25/294470.html
Basically, it asked respondents in which time period of the 20th century they would want to live. The current period received 39%, Brezhnev's time 31%, Stalin's rule 6% and the other less than that (Yeltsin's time, pre-Revolution and so on).
A second question asked about the opinion of the direction the direction the country was heading during all the rulers of Russia this century. Only Putin's time received generally positive marks. The opinion about Nicholas II, Lenin and Brezhenev was split 50/50 and for all other periods the direction of development was perceived negatively.
So, as expected, the Russians don't have positive feelings about Stalin, but it's surprising that the rule of a bumbling fool was so well thought of.

Consider the alternatives

Considering all Russian leaders were bumbling fools, that really can't be used as part of the equation.

No, Lenin, Stalin and Andropov were very smart (and Putin is today). Unfortunately Stalin was a murderous maniac, Andropov died too soon and Lenin died too soon and and had poor people skills.

And was a murderous maniac as well. Though not on quite the same scale as Stalin, obviously.

Not really. True, he was prepared to slaughter (and he did so) his opponents, but unlike Stalin he didn't believe in the benefit of repressions for their own sake. He also distinguished actions taken during war and during peacetime, a distinction Stalin disregarded. He also wasn't a maniac in the clinical sense, which Stalin was.

Stalin lost his touch after the mid-1930s, I think. The Great Purges crippled Russia militarily, and the war was nearly lost due to his paranoia.

Some sources (incl. Wikipedia) list Georgy Malenkov as Soviet Leader for one or two years as well.

In terms of human rights, Gorbachev.

But in terms of making the Soviet Union strong, I'd have to say Stalin. He was a murderous bastard, but in terms of building up the state and making it strong, he was unparalleled. (Which isn't to say I think he was *good*).

Ah, but Malenkov never had any real power.

My friend who is in the Marines was obsessed with the Soviet Union. He thought Stalin was quite a figure... Khruschev was a ballsy bastard.

Gorby deserves some recognition because he did his best to reform the tattered USSR.

Overall, though, I think Lenin was the best.

Trotsky might've been interesting had he not lost his power struggle.

Gorbachev, because his policies put the USSR out of its misery faster and more peacefully than hard-line communism would have.


That is not real surprising.  Brezhnev seemed to run the Soviet Union at its most prosperous, and Russians are more free now.  Though I am surprised that Khruschev was not mentioned.

Khrushchev is remembered in Russia mainly as a bumbling fool.

Gorbachev was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan helped it along, but if Gorbachev's radical reforms hadn't shaken up the whole foundation of governmental power in the USSR, it could've still hobbled along.

Prior to Gorbachev, all political power in the USSR was vertical, the only way to gain power was by gaining the favor of your superior. When actual elections started, and politicians needed to garner the favor of their constituents to hold on to power, the ridiculous structure of the Soviet Union, which helped almost nobody, couldn't hold together.

He was only the best because he provided that terrible empire with a mercy killing, whether or not you consider it to be accidental.

Great Comrade Stalin.

Read up some history before you write such nonsense. As late as April 1991, most Soviet citizens wanted to keep the Union in some form. It was the August coup which brought the decisive change, and even then, the Ukraine was the only republic were there was actually a referendum on secession.
Gorbachev's idea was to create a democratic and prosperous Soviet Union. That instead of this there was a collapse, which led to nearly a dozen civil wars and that the economy of almost all republics collapsed into a depression from which many have yet to recover, shows just what a monumental failure he was.

Mikhail Gorbachev.


POST NUMBER 400

I wonder how such a poll conducted in Russia would go. Probably a dead heat between Stalin and Brezhnev and Gorbachov last.

Look's like it would be Stalin to me. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7798497.stm)

Read up some history before you write such nonsense. As late as April 1991, most Soviet citizens wanted to keep the Union in some form. It was the August coup which brought the decisive change, and even then, the Ukraine was the only republic were there was actually a referendum on secession.
Gorbachev's idea was to create a democratic and prosperous Soviet Union. That instead of this there was a collapse, which led to nearly a dozen civil wars and that the economy of almost all republics collapsed into a depression from which many have yet to recover, shows just what a monumental failure he was.
[/quote]

I wasn't claiming the citizens of the USSR voted for dissolution of the Union; obviously that was a decision taken by Russian, Ukranian and Belerusian representatives on their own. What I am claiming is that when power was devolved to the regions and local representatives began wielding real power, their interests were different from the interests of the central leadership of the USSR. This conflict of interests among the different centers of power is what led to the collapse of the soviet union.

The baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, seceded once legislatures were elected and political elites saw that to maintain their power it was more important to placate the citizens of their Republic than to placate soviet leaders.

Many other Republics who didn't secede passed laws declaring their own supremacy over their own territory and assuming many duties that the central government used to be responsible for, stripping the central government of its authority.

All the "autonomous oblasts" in the USSR, such as South Ossetia and Chechnya, were given full Republic status, which severely irked nationalists in the proper Republics that had contained these oblasts.

Groups (ethnic minorities, republics, oblasts) who felt like they'd been given a raw deal in the USSR demanded more from the system, wheras ones who felt like they'd been supporting the poorer ones wanted to keep their resources for themselves.

All these problems didn't exist when there was a central power structure. When power was devolved, the new political elites who relied on local support for their power, in an effort to keep their power, could not conform to the old standards.

That's not the ONLY reason the USSR broke up, indeed the coup was very important, as was the Chernobyl disaster, as were lots of other things. But the coup wouldn't have happened without Gorbachev's radical reforms. And without Gorbachev's reforms these problems could've been kept from exploding just as they had for decades past.

Lenin probably, simply because he got the whole thing started, led the revolution, and left what used to be a quagmire on good footing.  In terms of overall accomplishments, I'd say Stalin.  No other Soviet leader came close to matching the huge accomplishments of industrializing the formerly agricultural Soviet Union, defeating Nazi Germany practically single handedly, liberating Eastern Europe from the yoke of Western imperialism, and making the Soviet Union a world super power.

If subsequent leaders were more like him.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, in regard to Gorbachev: 

I just don't see how anyone could consider him to be a good leader.  I can understand liking him for his distastrous policies which in the end destroyed the Soviet Union, but that simply doesn't make him a good leader.  His job was to LEAD, not to destroy the Soviet Union.  Let's say someone gets in a car and accidently runs over someone you hate.  Would you be glad he ran over the person?  Perhaps.  Would you call him a good driver?

No.  It would be patently absurd to do so.

Khrushchev, for his shoe slapping, 'We will bury you' antics.

you toady of american imperialism!

He was an endearing, amusing bumpkin, who also managed to keep the economy moving at a decent clip, got rid of the Stalin personality cult and relaxed much of the brutality seen during Stalin's reign, as well as loosened up the political and artistic atmosphere.