Vladimir Putin: Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was no worse than Oliver Cromwell

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was no worse than 17th century English dictator Oliver Cromwell, Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed at a press conference.

Stalin has been blamed for the deaths of millions of people while Cromwell slaughtered thousands in Ireland and allegedly sent Irish Catholics into slavery in the West Indies.

But the scale of the carnage did not seem to matter to the Russian leader.

“What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin? None whatsoever,” Mr Putin said on Thursday, according to news service RIA Novosti.

Mr Putin made the comments at a press conference after he was asked about a monument to Stalin being put up in Moscow.

The city said recently that it planned to commemorate all Soviet leaders who had lived there.

The president said that Stalin was just as deserving of a statue in his honour as that “cunning fellow” Cromwell who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history”.

However Mr Putin also added a note of caution.

“We must treat all periods of our history with care. It’s better not to stir things up… with premature actions,” he said.

A statue to Cromwell was put up outside the House of Commons in 1899, although it has occasionally attracted controversy due to his actions in Ireland and his opposition to the monarchy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-soviet-leader-joseph-stalin-was-no-worse-than-oliver-cromwell-9016836.html

Is this an apt comparison?

Dunno what to make of the guy, his macho hijinx bring to mind the Emperor Commodus but then he's made quite a few astute statements, such as that the demise of the Soviet Union was a great catastrophe.(I suspect that the end of Party rule was not the reason for this assessment, still.)

Is this an apt comparison?

Dunno what to make of the guy, his macho hijinx bring to mind the Emperor Commodus but then he's made quite a few astute statements, such as that the demise of the Soviet Union was a great catastrophe.(I suspect that the end of Party rule was not the reason for this assessment, still.)

Just from my take: Cromwell did not have a party organization like the USSR's Communist Party. Cromwell, essentially let an army and managed control by its auspices, again, my take. Stalin, on the other hand, was secretary of the Communist Party, and as such, did not "control" things in the same manner. There is a big difference between a leader who leads through the approval of a huge, civilian party apparatus and one that leads from the head of an army. But if you take the West's view of Stalin, and of Cromwell, then the comparison is more apt. Debating within the confines of Western definitions, this is maybe the best one can do...

Just from my take: Cromwell did not have a party organization like the USSR's Communist Party. Cromwell, essentially let an army and managed control by its auspices, again, my take. Stalin, on the other hand, was secretary of the Communist Party, and as such, did not "control" things in the same manner. There is a big difference between a leader who leads through the approval of a huge, civilian party apparatus and one that leads from the head of an army. But if you take the West's view of Stalin, and of Cromwell, then the comparison is more apt. Debating within the confines of Western definitions, this is maybe the best one can do...

It is a pretty crude generalization and obviously one meant to smart, not particularly erudite but adequate to it's purpose.

I don't think the comparison is particularly valid at all. I think that they had to make a monster out of Stalin as part of a massive and multi-faceted effort to shift the discussion about fascism and, in particular, Hitler and the Nazis. I think their "narrative" has very little bearing on reality other than the "reality" of virulent anti-communist propaganda.

What's more, I think it is undeniable by any non-propaganda measure that Stalin was one of the towering figures of the 20th century. He bears as much credit as any individual for saving the world from the fascists AND for creating a Soviet superpower.

Well, both men headed revolutionary regimes and were compelled to take harsh action to preserve said regimes. That's about the end of it. We know of Stalin's situation, Cromwell had legitimate reason to invade Ireland, the Catholic gentry were allied to the Royalists, that the Irish peasantry took the worst of it was par for the course. If that gentry had not been dispossessed it probably never have become an issue in bourgoise discourse.

Wonder what compelled Putin to throw out that particular bon mot, for all of it's inaccuracy it was a good zinger to piss off the West.

Well, both men headed revolutionary regimes and were compelled to take harsh action to preserve said regimes. That's about the end of it. We know of Stalin's situation, Cromwell had legitimate reason to invade Ireland, the Catholic gentry were allied to the Royalists, that the Irish peasantry took the worst of it was par for the course. If that gentry had not been dispossessed it probably never have become an issue in bourgoise discourse.

Wonder what compelled Putin to throw out that particular bon mot, for all of it's inaccuracy it was a good zinger to piss off the West.

Well, no one in the west can deny the murderous excess of Cromwell - regardless of the exigencies. That would make most shallow westerners nod and say, "Well, Margo, he isn't wrong about old Cromy." The problem is that the view of Stalin that this juxtaposition espouses is historically inaccurate - it only works through the veil of western propaganda...

Just from my take: Cromwell did not have a party organization like the USSR's Communist Party. Cromwell, essentially let an army and managed control by its auspices, again, my take. Stalin, on the other hand, was secretary of the Communist Party, and as such, did not "control" things in the same manner. There is a big difference between a leader who leads through the approval of a huge, civilian party apparatus and one that leads from the head of an army. But if you take the West's view of Stalin, and of Cromwell, then the comparison is more apt. Debating within the confines of Western definitions, this is maybe the best one can do...

Cromwell was certainly the head of a revolutionary party - the party of the British bourgeoisie. The military versus civilian discussion is overstated, I think, as is the formality of the organization Cromwell led.

Cromwell was "dictator" because he had overwhelming support, as did Stalin (or Lenin, for that matter... or Robespierre). The idea of a political dictator who rules without the consent of the ruling class is a philistine idea. This goes triple for a revolutionary leader. Slicing and dicing how many "voted" is more philistine crap. It befuddles a far more important question: "For which class?"

In this sense, Putin's comparison is true on the face of it.

If Putin admires Stalin, he might ask himself in whose interest Putin acts.

Cromwell was certainly the head of a revolutionary party - the party of the British bourgeoisie. The military versus civilian discussion is overstated, I think, as is the formality of the organization Cromwell led.

Cromwell was "dictator" because he had overwhelming support, as did Stalin (or Lenin, for that matter... or Robespierre). The idea of a political dictator who rules without the consent of the ruling class is a philistine idea. This goes triple for a revolutionary leader. Slicing and dicing how many "voted" is more philistine crap. It befuddles a far more important question: "For which class?"

In this sense, Putin's comparison is true on the face of it.

If Putin admires Stalin, he might ask himself in whose interest Putin acts.

I get the impression that Putin is primarily a nationalist though of course there is a faction of the new rich whose interest he serves. One thing for sure, he get the prize for 'Statesman of the Year', he's had it all his way.