Ironic or not?
Lenin is good because he won the war against a part of his people. Hitler is bad because he lost the war with his people to the most powerful and largest countries.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Lenin did not win the war. None at all. Even in a figurative sense.
If the Red Army's victory is attributed to any political leaders, it is Trotsky and Stalin. Which of them is better, I can't say.
Bad and good are subjective and relative ratings. Even in a narrowly military sense.
Attitudes towards people and “political figures” often change and depend on who knows what. Kolchak was shown in the cinema in a good light, and now he is a national hero. They have published Lenin's (Kirov's, Khrushchev's, etc.) signatures under various documents, and they are now bastards.
And the fact that the collected works are in black and white has not affected anyone for a hundred years.
This is ironic.
And the fact that the German soldiers “all under one comb” is also ironic.
Generals, including what is documented.
But no, I'm not silent. Mannerheim did his duty honestly; he did not betray anyone, and he did not do anything wrong in front of any public. And he has merit.
_ _ _ _ _
*this is an exaggeration, yes.
Not irony, but stupidity. Lenin is not good because of this, and Hitler is not bad either. Their main achievements are not in the war, but in ideology: Lenin showed the way to a fair social order in the future, and Hitler tried to build a state on the idea of the cynical biological superiority of his people.
This is a difficult question. And there is no simple answer to it.
Just imagine that there will be a civil war in America, when thousands of blacks and Latinos will take to the streets with weapons and first overthrow the government in one state, and then in 3×5 (like ISIS) and create their own revolutionary governments, and anarchic ones, like Father Makhno. They will destroy all the shops, villas, casinos, clubs for millionaires and strip clubs, etc.. Communications, the economy will be disrupted, unemployment and chaos will begin. Here, like it or not, the people will demand either Pinochet to “persuade” the black part of the people or Allende to “organize” the black part of the people. Both will “wage war” against a part of their own people. And whoever wins, and restores normal life without gangs and violence, will be good.
He risked the lives of some citizens, but restored peace to all others. I won.
And whoever risks the lives of their citizens and loses, it means that their risk will be considered criminal – there was no need to take it.
Lenin was not at war with his people, he was at war with the capitalist class, and this is an insignificant part of the population. These gentlemen called half of Europe to protect their property from the workers and peasants who thought they were the masters of the country.
Hitler led Germany and the Germans to disaster, killing 14 million people in the war. The Nazis killed at least a million of their compatriots. The result of the fascist rule in Germany was the elimination of the German state and statehood among the Germans. Later, the German state was restored, but only because of such a will among the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. And yes, the USSR always insisted on the need for a single state for the Germans, which was supposed to be neutral.
The result of the Bolsheviks ' rise to power was social and scientific progress, and the transformation of Russia into one of the world's leading powers. And yes, the White Guards started the civil war.
Lenin won because he set a huge number of poor people against small groups of people who own the main wealth of the country, turning the peoples of Russia into a hungry and disenfranchised herd that went to war for rations of bread. Hitler was at war with the communist state, his opponent, without sufficient resources and was framed by the states that raised him for this struggle and subsequently betrayed him. These States are doing the same now. Hitler played his part: he did not allow the Communists to turn the whole world into a hungry and impoverished garbage dump, as they did with the USSR.
Look at these facts from the correct point of view, then all this will not seem ironic, but quite natural events.
If someone sincerely and honestly tries to fight against injustice, then he does not care who this person is, a relative, a fellow countryman or a person in general from the other side of the planet Earth. He only cares if it's a good person or a scoundrel.
When a person is a fascist and a racist, it is only important for him that the person is from his country and the same race as him. Even if this person is scum, he will still find him a job (for example, torturing and burning “second-class people”).
Therefore, it did not matter to Lenin whether his associates were Russians, Uzbeks, Tajiks or Americans in general, it was important for him that they were people who were also ready to fight the oppressors for the rights of workers.
And for Hitler's ideologues, it was important to fight for the people of the Aryan race, and kill or enslave the rest.
Hence the difference in their behavior.
The question was posed incorrectly.
Lenin is not good because he “won the war against a part of his people.” Lenin is good because for the first time in the history of mankind, he gave rights to the entire population of the country and made the population of the largest country in the world feel like people. He is also a good person, because in a difficult, one might say critical situation for the country, he became the only politician who did not lose his head and was not afraid to take on difficult and painful decisions.
Hitler is bad not because he lost the war, but because he started the war specifically to destroy several hundred million people on the basis of nationality. This was spelled out as the goal of the whole country.
So no, not ironic)
And who, in fact, calls Lenin “good”, except the most stubborn communists? He destroyed his country, plunged it into famine and chaos, destroyed millions of people, created a misanthropic ideology, the first concentration camps, a system of hostages, initiated the red terror, advocated the execution of children, and unleashed a civil war. He was a real psychopath.
There is no irony… Lenin is good not only because he won the war, but by putting the ideas of the great philosophers of the XIX century into practice, he created the world's first state of universal brotherhood, equality and good! And Hitler is bad not only because he lost the war, but also because he destroyed tens of millions of people (including Germans) on the battlefields and in concentration camps because of his inhuman ideology!
And why exactly Lenin, and not Denikin, Kolchak, Alekseev, Kornilov and others? After all, it was the Whites who unleashed the civil war, brought foreign interventionists to our land, while the Bolsheviks already took power, and almost bloodlessly.
They were different people, they were busy with different problems – this is a comparison of different things.
I am not saying that Lenin did not fight either his people or their units.
Hitler (with his people lost the war (to anyone)) bad FOR WHOM?
I LIKE him FOR THIS VERY REASON! I'm not a German, I'm a Russian, and what he did with his people to lose doesn't concern me!
Conclusion: This is not a question, but an indigestible porridge.
It depends on your perception. Lenin is a good man, not because he “won” the civil war, but because he turned the means of production to the benefit of society as a whole.
This is the stupidest question I've ever asked! The person who set it has the intelligence and concept of an embryo at 25 weeks. Uterine thinking at the level of “good-bad” expressed using the Russian alphabet.
It's not irony, it's ignorance. First, try to prove that Lenin was at war with his own people. And then, why don't you compare Hitler to J. R. R. Tolkien?Washington, for example? Or with A. Lincoln? These gentlemen also ” won the war against a part of their own people.”
Take off your slanted glasses and look at things soberly. Weren't German communists, Jews, and gypsies part of the German people?What about the virtually unarmed Volkssturm that Hitler threw under Soviet tanks in the now virtually useless defense of Berlin?
If you don't go deep into the history of the question, because it is absurd, or rather it is incorrectly set and does not take into account the real state of affairs. But here are a couple of examples.
1. Lenin is good because he is an internationalist, and Hitler is bad because in his ideology, one nation is better than another.
2. Lenin is good, because he wanted to give power to you personally (meaning the people of the Russian Empire, and in the foreseeable future the whole world, just did not grow together), and Hitler wanted to sterilize you and make you a slave .
Hitler is Fascist Europe, it's not just Germany, and he was more powerful than the Naglo-Saxons and the USSR, it's just statistics, but you can see for yourself the population of Europe and the USSR, we were less, the economy of Europe was three times larger, he was not a jerk when he fought on 2 fronts, he understood that he could win, and the fact that he
It was not Lenin who won the war, but the Bolsheviks, with the support of most of their own people.By offering the World an alternative path of development that has not been rejected to this day. It was not Hitler who lost the war,but Nazism and German chauvinism.There is a certain irony in this….. the average person is alien to any Ideas, if they need to pay a Great Price for them!
The question is incorrect in terms of declaring the war as a good or bad win or loss, respectively. Lenin is good at proclaiming humanistic principles (freedom, equality, etc.) as the foundation of the state. It is bad not to understand that 1. people are not angels (utopian), and 2. the development of a country requires a selection from many samples (personal initiatives) – competition (and not DICTATORSHIP), and 3.the lack of economic incentives to work requires compulsion to work by universal fear (repression). Hitler is bad for primitive racism, which dictates 1. suboptimal political actions in the country and in the world. and 2. mass executions for racial or genetic reasons or political reasons.
This is not ironic, although who knows, maybe someone “at the top” and laughed The point is that history is written by the winners. This is the truth of life. We can assume that it would be if, but as if…. The irony is even more interesting that a lot of things go back to the old days. At least a system of government. No one sees the crown, but it materializes out of the void.
What utter nonsense…Afftar vysera should come to Israel and loudly repeat this in front of the monument to German Jews sent to Buchenwald and other similar institutions.
The historical regularity and “irony” of history, if this history is personified-write with a capital letter, such as: History, Revolution, Man,Justice, i.e. give the concepts a deliberately mystical meaning.
Horses and people were mixed up in a heap…
Lenin is good, because all his activities were aimed at creating a system in which the maximum number of people around the world could live well. The surgeon cuts the patient to cure or even save a life. Should we accuse the surgeon of animal husbandry and sadism?
Hitler is bad, because all his activities were aimed at unleashing war in order to create a system in which it would be good to live chosen on racial grounds. At the same time, many peoples were deprived of the right to life altogether. Jews, Gypsies, untermensch Slavs…
In general, Lenin's role is greatly exaggerated. Very photogenic portraits were obtained 🙂
For 5 years, Lenin took part in the leadership of the country as “the first of equals”. He was not a general secretary, generalissimo, Fuhrer, or leader-a successful Swiss lawyer who led through letters and resolutions was simply very suitable for canonization in the absence of saints .
Hitler started out as a leader-Fuhrer, a completely different style.
IMHO, Hitler got burned precisely on racial theory, opposing himself to 2 billion “untermensch”, and plunged into anti-Semitism-to win from 2 billion people supported by Jewish capital, he had no options…
Well, he would even have conquered the USSR-half of the German army was not on the eastern front before, but in the occupied territories. The capture of the USSR would leave Germany without an army-half lost, the remaining half somehow fighting off the partisans and guarding prisoners. How to fight with Britain and the United States?
The author deliberately posed an incorrect and provocative question. Comparing Civil War and War between States. And everyone fell for it. Who fought for what? What was their motivation, etc.
You're definitely confusing something. Historical concepts are unambiguous. I can't even understand when I read your question whether to speak a scientific language or chew up concepts and terms. I'll try to keep it simple.
Lenin as a historical figure is ambiguous. His cult was created in the USSR, but even the population perceived him not only as a leader, but also as a dictator, the head of a revolutionary gang (especially those who were supporters of monarchism).
As for Hitler. Wars were won and lost by many rulers. But the negative attitude that many countries feel towards Hitler is a negative attitude towards a criminal who destroyed people not only in the course of military operations, destroyed cities, but also created concentration camps where he destroyed people, conducted inhuman experiments on them, and even sought to destroy entire nations, which he declared second-class nations.
The irony is who and how you compare. V. Lenin is the founder of the theory of building socialism and its practices. Behind it is the idea of freedom, equality and fraternity. A. Hitler is the ideologue of Nazism in Germany, according to which peoples are built in a hierarchy, and in relations they are offered a master's servitude. They are compared by their ideas! Which, apparently, it is necessary to specify specifically. They are diametrically opposed.
And here bad or good. The leader is made by the retinue. Some distribute land to the peasants, the factories to the workers. Others promise living space and slaves in the east.
It's up to you to draw conclusions.
The winner writes the story. Therefore, the one who won the war (no matter who) is always good in history, and the one who lost the war (again, no matter who…) is always bad in history. Conclusion: history is not a science.
What? This is the first time I've ever heard that Hitler is considered bad because he lost the war to “the most powerful and largest countries.” In fact, Hitler is criticized for the measures of conducting this very war, which violated all written and unwritten norms of morality (this is very general, without going into details). And Lenin is considered good not because he won the war against “a part of his people”, but because he was one of the main organizers of the revolution in Russia. The super-duper question is narrow and straightforward. It's like analyzing” War and Peace ” only inserts in French and drawing some conclusions from this. In general, I put the question dislike