Is Nikita Kruschev "overrated"?

[marathag]

Was anyone really going to trust a Soviet leader in 1956 if he said "hey, let's call the whole thing off!"?

Eisenhower did offer Open Skies, and did warn of both the Military-Industrial Complex as well as the Scientific-Technological elite.

He was the best chance for lasting peace, much in the way only Nixon could have gone to China, Ike was the one for sweeping changes in the US/USSR relationship.
Next in line was RR and Gorby, but that's as the USSR was swirling down the drain, 30 years too late- as that's when the USSR really needed Peace, not a ramping up Cold War with boastful threats ti make ICBMs like sausages

 

[David T]

The Sino-Soviet split may have been inevitable but IMO Khrushchev made it worse than it had to be.

For example: In a public speech in Poznan on July 18, 1958, Khrushchev recalled the Soviet experiment with communes during the period of "War Communism." He "remarked that those who had wished to set them up had a poor understanding of what communism is and how it is to be built.'" Now what was Khrushchev's purpose in bringing up this matter? Obviously it had nothing to do with Poland where he was speaking (and which never even collectivized most agriculture). And it was ancient history for his own country. It was quite obvious that Khrushchev's purpose was to attack China's communes. This was said at the very moment when the CCP Central Committee was meeting in Lushan to reconsider the communes program. https://books.google.com/books?id=FQIB3M-_C5sC&pg=RA1-PP10 In other words, it was a quite blatant attempt to intervene in the internal affairs of China, and naturally it made Mao furious...

 

[Sam R.]

And least we forget, he ordered the crackdown on the Hungarian Revolution after the revolutionary government vowed to leave the Warsaw Pact. Said crackdown resulted in the government's leadership being executed, so to call him a progressive leader is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Well Kadar wasn’t executed. And neither was Lukacs.

And as dealt with prior this was a cabinet decision with the anti party bloc as decisive.

 

[Scerus]

Another area where I think we haven't discussed is the violent nature of his anti-religious campaign.

 

[Sam R.]

Another area where I think we haven't discussed is the violent nature of his anti-religious campaign.

If we are evaluating Khrushchev against the maintenance and expansion of nomenklatura rule and the stable growth of the value-form (ie: the Soviet metric equatable to GDP) isn’t this campaigns violence a good thing.

 

[Scerus]

If we are evaluating Khrushchev against the maintenance and expansion of nomenklatura rule and the stable growth of the value-form (ie: the Soviet metric equatable to GDP) isn’t this campaigns violence a good thing.

Have is violently repressing religion a good thing?

 

[Sam R.]

Have is violently repressing religion a good thing?

That big bit where rabbis, patriarchs and imams pose a counter power over workers and the potential to block an increase in the rate of profit achieved by the party? You know that good thing when posed from the perspective of Khrushchev’s class interest in exploiting workers? Then there’s the counter power ideologically which is threatening given how limp party culture was compared to the variety of soviet working class cultures. You know, the bit where religions were actual or latent threats to the ruling class?

 

[marathag]

That big bit where rabbis, patriarchs and imams pose a counter power over workers and the potential to block an increase in the rate of profit achieved by the party? You know that good thing when posed from the perspective of Khrushchev’s class interest in exploiting workers? Then there’s the counter power ideologically which is threatening given how limp party culture was compared to the variety of soviet working class cultures. You know, the bit where religions were actual or latent threats to the ruling class?

So it's good to send them off to the Gulag, because they were a possible threat, or not?

 

[Sam R.]

I can’t tell if you’re functionally illiterate or a troll. Value judgements do not exist independent of moral frame works. This is why I have repeatedly contextualised the statements above as being from Khrushchev’s perspective. Basic historiography is normally taught as a specialist subject in 4th year in 3+1 systems so there are a lot of textbooks available for conducting the history of ideas and values other than those you yourself hold. Reading with empathy is taught in all first year classes.

 

[TonyA]

I can’t tell if you’re functionally illiterate or a troll. Value judgements do not exist independent of moral frame works. This is why I have repeatedly contextualised the statements above as being from Khrushchev’s perspective. Basic historiography is normally taught as a specialist subject in 4th year in 3+1 systems so there are a lot of textbooks available for conducting the history of ideas and values other than those you yourself hold. Reading with empathy is taught in all first year classes.

There are times I think this site could use a "Don't Like" button...

 

[Gukpard]

I can’t tell if you’re functionally illiterate or a troll. Value judgements do not exist independent of moral frame works. This is why I have repeatedly contextualised the statements above as being from Khrushchev’s perspective. Basic historiography is normally taught as a specialist subject in 4th year in 3+1 systems so there are a lot of textbooks available for conducting the history of ideas and values other than those you yourself hold. Reading with empathy is taught in all first year classes.

There are times I think this site could use a "Don't Like" button...

Stop fighting guys, let's jump that matter.

To be honest I think this discussion is mostly concluded, so just comment if you really want to add something.

 

[CalBear]

I can’t tell if you’re functionally illiterate or a troll. Value judgements do not exist independent of moral frame works. This is why I have repeatedly contextualised the statements above as being from Khrushchev’s perspective. Basic historiography is normally taught as a specialist subject in 4th year in 3+1 systems so there are a lot of textbooks available for conducting the history of ideas and values other than those you yourself hold. Reading with empathy is taught in all first year classes.

Fortunately, as a Mod, I have access to the Troll Detector 9000 app. This greatly eases in the identification of troll posts.

The Troll 9000 meter pegged in the Red when this post was scanned.

Kicked for a week.

 

[TonyA]

Fortunately, as a Mod, I have access to the Troll Detector 9000 app.

Admit it CB, you made that up...

Never thought he could hit the curve ball...seemed like a phony to me.

I guess since I'm in the middle of this BS thread, I owe an explanation of my original post...back when I was in comint, Nicky was the Head Bad Guy, so he was entitled to some gravitas, but, it just wasn't happening. The guy had a certain cartoon villain quality that no amount of table pounding, with a shoe, no less, could overcome. Most of the analysts that I worked with called him "Porky Pig" (occasional "Elmer Fudd") and professed sadness for the plight of Mrs. K. Respect for the Russian Army, PVO and SRF, but the cuddly commissar was seen as Inspector Clouseau to that Keystone Kop Air Force and Navy of theirs. Not my favorite monster...

 

[fasquardon]

Eisenhower did offer Open Skies, and did warn of both the Military-Industrial Complex as well as the Scientific-Technological elite.

He was the best chance for lasting peace, much in the way only Nixon could have gone to China, Ike was the one for sweeping changes in the US/USSR relationship.
Next in line was RR and Gorby, but that's as the USSR was swirling down the drain, 30 years too late- as that's when the USSR really needed Peace, not a ramping up Cold War with boastful threats ti make ICBMs like sausages

I am very dubious that at a time when McCarthy was respected even Eisenhower could have treated the Soviets as anything other than an enemy.

I guess since I'm in the middle of this BS thread, I owe an explanation of my original post...back when I was in comint, Nicky was the Head Bad Guy, so he was entitled to some gravitas, but, it just wasn't happening. The guy had a certain cartoon villain quality that no amount of table pounding, with a shoe, no less, could overcome. Most of the analysts that I worked with called him "Porky Pig" (occasional "Elmer Fudd") and professed sadness for the plight of Mrs. K. Respect for the Russian Army, PVO and SRF, but the cuddly commissar was seen as Inspector Clouseau to that Keystone Kop Air Force and Navy of theirs. Not my favorite monster...

I totally get that. But it's no surprise that a man who survived Stalin in part due to his rigorous and almost technical employment of buffoonery didn't start to play a serious monster when he became boss.

One of the stories about him is that when he got home, he and his wife would go through all the jokes he'd told in a day and check how long Stalin laughed - anything that didn't make him laugh long enough would not be repeated and new variations of the things that made him laugh longest would be tried the next day.

And in any case, coming across as a cuddly funny guy helped him get one over domestic rivals and foreign leaders due to them underestimating him.

fasquardon

 

[Gukpard]

I am very dubious that at a time when McCarthy was respected even Eisenhower could have treated the Soviets as anything other than an enemy.



I totally get that. But it's no surprise that a man who survived Stalin in part due to his rigorous and almost technical employment of buffoonery didn't start to play a serious monster when he became boss.

One of the stories about him is that when he got home, he and his wife would go through all the jokes he'd told in a day and check how long Stalin laughed - anything that didn't make him laugh long enough would not be repeated and new variations of the things that made him laugh longest would be tried the next day.

And in any case, coming across as a cuddly funny guy helped him get one over domestic rivals and foreign leaders due to them underestimating him.

fasquardon

Polítics build a persona, Churchill was not really the drunk nobleman that he is usually seen, but he liked to have that image as he profited from it. That's populism and it is being well used, as for what I can understand some people liked the idea of a sometimes goofy leader.

 

[TonyA]

I am very dubious that at a time when McCarthy was respected even Eisenhower could have treated the Soviets as anything other than an enemy. fasquardon

I just recently had had my memory triggered of a Jewish couple, Julius and Ethel, that got involved with some Soviet attempts to filch some atomic recipes. For their trouble, they had their heads shaved and asses strapped into a contraption that looked like something out of a Frankenstein movie...as bloodthirsty as everyone was, surprised nobody suggested eating them after they were cooked. Anti-Russian feelings ran real high in those times, guess we've evolved where they're concerned...

 

[marathag]

I just recently had had my memory triggered of a Jewish couple, Julius and Ethel, that got involved with some Soviet attempts to filch some atomic recipes. For their trouble, they had their heads shaved and asses strapped into a contraption that looked like something out of a Frankenstein movie...as bloodthirsty as everyone was, surprised nobody suggested eating them after they were cooked. Anti-Russian feelings ran real high in those times, guess we've evolved where they're concerned...

Julius was an agent, proven by the Venona decrypts, and she his accessory from later Soviet information.

No attemps, they were successful in getting classified info to the USSR.
Don't feel sorry for them, they could have named names like others did and avoided death in exchange for a prison sentence. They wanted to be Martyrs.

 

[Zheng He]

Julius was an agent, proven by the Venona decrypts, and she his accessory from later Soviet information.

No attemps, they were successful in getting classified info to the USSR.
Don't feel sorry for them, they could have named names like others did and avoided death in exchange for a prison sentence. They wanted to be Martyrs.

And their kids still admire them for standing up for their principles.

 

[BBadolato]

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?

He was a reformist but had at times really fucking short-sighted ideas. He did kill the state terror of Stalin, and Stalin's tendencies to screw over allies, and even tried to create the Warsaw Pact as a genuine forum for the Second World. But could be really reckless. His plan for agriculture was completely short-sighted. Going along with putting Missles in Cuba caused the Cuban Missle Crisis, and had a tendency to get a temper that did not help in diplomacy.

I once heard that the Sino Soviet was inevitable, because to be in the soviet bloc you needed to be under the soviet influence and so as soon China recovered and began to surpass the USSR they would claim to be the "true" center of communism. Maybe Kruschev cannot be really blamed for the split per se, but by making it happen sooner.

No, Stalin basically told China it was responsible for East-Asia the Sino-Soviet Split is unclear where you place the faults, although this is from someone who has issues with the current historiography. Personally I place the faults in the very fact China had to take its own path to revolution because there were too many systematic differences between them and Russia. Stalin basically not giving a shit about the CCP until they were winning could have helped save relations.

 

[Gukpard]

He was a reformist but had at times really fucking short-sighted ideas. He did kill the state terror of Stalin, and Stalin's tendencies to screw over allies, and even tried to create the Warsaw Pact as a genuine forum for the Second World. But could be really reckless. His plan for agriculture was completely short-sighted. Going along with putting Missles in Cuba caused the Cuban Missle Crisis, and had a tendency to get a temper that did not help in diplomacy.



No, Stalin basically told China it was responsible for East-Asia the Sino-Soviet Split is unclear where you place the faults, although this is from someone who has issues with the current historiography. Personally I place the faults in the very fact China had to take its own path to revolution because there were too many systematic differences between them and Russia. Stalin basically not giving a shit about the CCP until they were winning could have helped save relations.

Some people argue that he won the missile crisis as it made the USA remove their missiles from turkey.