Stalin stopped the USSR from going the way of Cambodia. Churchill destroyed his own country rather than accept peace. Mao was a murderous lunatic but his worst crimes were when he had to unleash uncontrollable forces to survive. Reasonable case for Churchill or Mao.
Because he doesn't have unlimited freedom as dictator - he's constrained by consensus. Acts too much against the "pure" left wing position and a coordination point of killing him arises; follow the left wing line and it doesn't and he gradually gains actual control.
-
-
Again, it's not obvious to me that there was a consensus in favour of killing Lenin and terminating the NEP, even if Stalin maneuvered himself to succeed him. Or that Stalin had particular difficulty disposing of political rivals (such as Trotsky et al.)
-
The whole point to the 'iron-fisted dictator' schtick is that, no, actually, you don't have to care about consensus, at least compared with ruling an oligarchy or republic. If Stalin had wanted 40 more years of the NEP and shot the collectivists, I suspect he'd have gotten it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.