Putin vs Stalin in a political struggle to the death, who would win?

Putin vs Stalin in a political struggle to the death, who would win?

Other urls found in this thread:

alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/russian-industrialisation/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Stalin turned an agrarian country into an industrial giant and won a world war practically by himself.

Putin is just a KGB kleptocrat.

Absolutely this. Stalin is superior to Putin every way.

I'm talking about a struggle like trotsky vs stalin, would stalin be able to icepick putin?

Yes?

>industrialisation began in 1928
Why do commies still believe this?

>It took defeat in the Crimean War (1853-56) to expose the empire’s lack of development and the urgent need for Russian industrialisation.
>The reforms embraced by Alexander II in the early 1860s were partly designed to stimulate transitions in the Russian economy. Emancipating the serfs (1861) was not just a social reform, it was also intended to release them from the land and the control of conservative land-owners. Alexander and his advisors anticipated that a large proportion of freed serfs would become a mobile labour force, able to relocate to areas where industrial workers were needed
>In the 1870s the government initiated several large infrastructure programs, particularly the construction of railways. The 1880s saw the emergency of Sergei Witte, a qualified mathematician with a proven track record of achievement, both in the tsarist bureaucracy and the private sector. In 1889 Witte was placed in charge of the Russian railway system, where he oversaw the planning and construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. By 1892 Witte was minister for transport, communication and finance. Identifying a need for capital investment, Witte made it easier for foreigners to invest in Russian industrial ventures. Existing barriers were removed, while foreign individuals and companies were offered incentives if they invested in certain industrial and manufacturing sectors

alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/russian-industrialisation/

After purging the military of a huge amount of officers, killing millions of small-time business owners and farmers, and sending millions of people to the gulags.

But of course, these would never be part of the factors that weakened his country to the point where it seemed like an actual target to the germans.

>Why do commies still believe this?

Because then they would have to own up to the fact that their ideology gives charismatic dictators far too much reign.

Stalin and Hitler should've been impaled on a spire reaching the sky as a message to the rest of the apes on this Earth.

It was necessary

>>industrialisation began in 1928
Nobody says that. But the speed from then on was unparalleled while the rest of the world languished in the Great Depression. Without it the USSR would've been humiliated like Russia was in WW1.

stalin was the revolutionary who lived in poverty while robbing banks and handing all the money over to the bolshevik party.

putin would have been working for the tsar's secret police trying to hunt him down, climbing the ladder of the system.

Neither would be able to kill the other because they would try to avoid each other as much as possible similar to Kai Shek and Mao.

Putin is stalins superior in every way but stalin would have had im killed in his mid 20s when he was a kgb officer for showing any signs of talent.

Putin would be no match for Stalin. The inherent retardation of historical analogies aside, Stalin was (arguably) charismatic and a decent orator, and before the paranoia set in was pragmatic and able to maintain long term goals. Putin is just a jumped up bureaucrat who'said main selling point is being less shit than the alternatives. He is nowhere near the statesman that pretty much any of the old Soviet leaderso where, he's more like a Duterte or a Galtieri, but with nukes.

This, it's an insult to the victims of stalinism to compare him to Putin. Just like when tards accuse any politicians they dislike of being hitler.

That sounds like a Tarantino movie

source

>could a leader of an entire nation hire an assassin
huh, tricky question, i'm going to go with a very careful, "yes."

Stalin was an awful orator and gave very few speeches because he was embarrassed by his Georgian accent. Trotsky was the great orator.

>political struggle to the death
If this is a question about winning political influence, then it's stalin, hands down, he created a nation that didn't instantly rebel after they came up with the idea of the human wave.

>Because then they would have to own up to the fact that their ideology gives charismatic dictators far too much reign.

Bullshit. Had the Tsar or Republic somehow staid in charge, they would benefit from the same low base rate the commies did. It may have even happened sooner, since they were more open to accepting foreign investment.

This.

There was a certain revolutionary spirit to Stalin. A contempt for authority, whether that be his dad or teachers. Putin was the opposite as a child, knowing that he wanted to serve the USSR and as a young kid already wanted to join the KGB.

When speaking to the plebs, all three; Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were liked by the public.

That was not his point.

That said, times have changed. You can't have a Stalin tier terror regime. Putin is the closest, and considering modern times, basically the same.

Probably this. Stalin had passion for what he did whereas Putin is just a paper boy. Both intelligent and talented, no arguing, but Putin is more suitable for secret police than a leader of a nation.

Stalin was an okhrana boy initially (czars secret police).

Putin is more competent than Stalin in every aspect.

From what I've read Stalin was not a particularly talented or prolific speaker,ever. At meetings he used to sit quietly till everyone else had spoken then quickly dictate what was to be done.Usually stealing others ideas along the way.

That's why he robbed bank, huh

>2017
>not using a parliamentary system where the leader is constrained via constiuents
>giving your ruler the power to completely ignore the representatives of the people
What a shame.

>That said, times have changed. You can't have a Stalin tier terror regime. Putin is the closest, and considering modern times, basically the same

>things are different now guise I swear
says literally every generation about themselves. "Not this time, not with us". It's silly at this point.

Putin is not the stalin of 2017. Comparisons like that should not be thrown around that casually.

Putin. He knows judo

>"Not this time, not with us"
Literally no generation ever has said that.

>It's silly at this point.
Yes because progress is an illusion, right? Infant mortality is the same as always? People still die to the bubonic plague en masse? Wars are still a daily occurrence?

>inb4 yes, look at Iraq, Afghanistan and some other shitholes
Wars have become increasingly rarer, that's a fact. In two dozen years there will have been no major war in a century.

Unless something radically changes this will remain a trend.

>Putin is not the stalin of 2017
I think you are unaware of just how bad his regime is. They have literally bombed their own civilians to false flag a war on their own citizens in another part of the country. They LITERALLY assassinate their political rivals from the opposition. Not only that, also media people.

I know Russia might seem not so different from America, since they also have McDonalds and BMW, but that's just because of two things: 1) there's no active propaganda war against Putin as there was against the Communists and 2) it's currently unfolding, meaning you don't get to read all the declassified documents 70 years after the fact as you do with Stalin.

Death toll wise of course his regime is nothing, but that's why I said that Putin is Stalin only relatively, when taken into account modern possibilities. Even so, you're vastly underestimating the amount of crime done by their government.

Honestly thats the way one should govern

Both are/were mediocre statesmen. Probably stalemate.

>Nobody cares

The people that spam the "nobody cares about Stalin" meme certainly care.

Stalin has been out of circulation for the better part of a century now, still, I think as the prince of deception and treachery he would trounce Putin.

Doesn't mean he could get ahead politically. Stalin was dumb but he was good at isolating his opponents.

Such a retarded meme. Everyone associates Stalin with genocide. It's been this way since 1956 with Khrushchev's secret speech.

FFS the Soviet's actively encouraged the "Stalin = genocidal" thing from then onwards to justify their change in policy.

>practically by himself
Gaining nearly countless supplies from the West is not "practically by himself"
>Stalin turned an agrarian country into an industrial giant
Industrialism of Russia was originally Trotsky idea
While he did do it at the cost of countless people
>industrial giant
debatable.

>>practically by himself
>Gaining nearly countless supplies from the West is not "practically by himself"
Dummy dumb, your pic proves only that USSR and Russia never tried to deny the American help during WW2. But that's it, help. Not the main role like Americans like to claim.

>literally no generation has said that.
Not in this exact wording, but many had the same notion that they progressed enough that certain things wouldn't occur again. It's like generational "exceptionalism".

>In two dozen years there will have been no major war in a century.
On our soil. I wouldn't necessarily co ngratute ourselves at that just yet, especially when it's only been a few decades. Periods of long relative peace have existed before. Pax americana, pax britannia, pax romana, etc.

>They have literally bombed their own civilians to false flag a war on their own citizens in another part of the country.
I don't remember that one. I don't disbelieve you, I genuinely cant remember. You don't mean the apartment bombing of '99? Link?

>assassinations
Yeah I can't deny there has been a lot of convenient disappearances/accident. I don't think or intend to suggest that Putin is a good guy, so you know.

>Death toll wise of course his regime is nothing, but that's why I said that Putin is Stalin only relatively
But the death toll is precisely related to why he's so controversial. And the death toll is directly linked to his totalitarian gulag-style method of governing. Some assassinations and some mediocre propaganda is not stalin-tier. Period. Plenty of assholes are doing just the same now or are doing even worse . Sure they aren't doing it in a country as relevant as russia, but in terms of ebil practices he's far from alone.

If people keep abusing words openly in the media/public like fascist, commie, hitler, stalin, etc - hen those words will lose any meaning and won't carry the same weight when the real deal shows up.

>Even so, you're vastly underestimating the amount of crime done by their government.
Quite possibly, I just don't think he's worthy of being compared to stalin. Histrionics serve no purpose.

>I don't remember that one. I don't disbelieve you, I genuinely cant remember. You don't mean the apartment bombing of '99? Link?
not him but i assume he meant the apartment bombings that heated up the chechen war

yeah as we all know WW1 and the Russian civil war did absolutely no damage to Russian industry and infrastructure

>but many had the same notion that they progressed enough that certain things wouldn't occur again
And more often than not this has been true.

Never has cavalry been used in direct combat en masse since WWI. Never have entire nations been sold to slavery after a defeat since like what, Mongols? Never has there been massive amounts of knowledge lost since the sacking of Baghdad. Never has there been a plague that would wipe the majority of humanity off since the bubonic plague.

We are talking of measurable linear progress spanning from half a millennia to longer timespans, depending on what exactly you are looking at.

You're just focusing on the few times when the 'notion' hasn't been true. Care to give any specific examples though?

>On our soil.
No, on our planet. By a major war I mean a conflict where both participants are major powers. Last such an event was WWII.

>You don't mean the apartment bombing of '99?
I do.

>convenient disappearances/accident
No, we're talking literal assassinations. I'm by no means even close to being knowledgeable about Russian politics but names like Anna Politkovskaja and Boris Nemtsov come to mind.

>won't carry the same weight when the real deal shows up
Top fucking KEK. That's the EXACT POINT of using those words. TO AVOID THE REAL DEAL COMING UP. Because spoiler alert: once it does, NO words will have ANY weight.

The entire idea of comparing people to evils of the past is to show the path they would lead us to, the trends. It is only then that words matter. After you're under another Stalin, they count for shit.

Comparing Putin to Stalin is absolutely justified. He is as authoritarian as possible under the current circumstances. Russia is a borderline totalitarian state under Edinaja Russia. The reason he isn't gulaging people by the millions is not because he's "less evil" than Stalin, but because doing so would mean an immediate removal of his leadership by the world.

Nothing he said contradicted that.

The Soviets couldn't even conquer Finland after Stalin's purges, people like Zhukov did the real lifting of the war.

thats exactly how it should be

Do you hate commies so much that you are actually willing to say Russia was actually industrialized before they pushed it foreward. Attempts were made as you describe but they were largely unsuccessful. Say what you will about Stalin and his tactics but his 5 year plan, however brutal, was an amazing feat.