Most of the scenarios with the USSR being a pleasant place or reforming into a libertarian socialist model usually ends with a longer Kruschev government and a Kruschevist sucessor replacing him, and many threads here has questions similar to "What if Kruschev succeded" or "No Brezhnev coup", showing that at least on this forum Kruschev is seem as a more positive leader for the USSR. A lot of this come for he disclosing the crimes of Stalin, and how he is seen as a revisionist of the soviet system The thing is that most of the people here (me included) usually didn't made any real research on Nikita and has this vision of him built by newsreels like above and other people commenting about how "awesome" he was. Some people already have showed that Kruschev had in fact many problems, we had the 1957, 1963 and the 1965 famines at the same time he was sponsoring pro soviet rebels on the whole world and he had failed (at least on the soviet perspective) to gain western Berlin. Based on this I ask: Is Nikita Kruschev "overrated"? Do we see him usually as a "good" reformist when he was in fact more of the same?