Vladimir Putin: Stalin was no worse than Oliver Cromwell

[T_i_B]

Source: Irish Independent

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.

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

---

[another_liberal]

1. Murder a hundred thousand or so and you're, "The Lord Protector."

One only becomes a monster by murdering millions?

Forced to choose, I'd have to agree with President Putin.

[Kolesar]

20. "The Snowden Protector" eom

[Recursion]

2. Cromwell was pretty bad; ask the Irish

Counting Ireland, you have 250K or so killed out of 4.2 million; estimates of how many Stalin killed vary wildly, but let's go with 8 million out of 150 million in 1927 when he took over. So they're both roughly comparable in killing about 5% of the realm in question.

In some ways that's unfair because Cromwell had a civil war and Stalin didn't, but still...

[another_liberal]

3. There were some sizable rebellions during Stalin's rule.

Not to mention WWII.

[warrant46]

4. It was the continuing quaint English custom of Heads on Pikes

Cromwell died age 59 at Whitehall on Friday 3 September 1658. On 30 January 1661, (the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I), Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of Robert Blake, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. (The body of Cromwell's daughter was allowed to remain buried in the Abbey.) His disinterred body was hanged in chains at Tyburn, and then thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Sounds about right.

That is not a defense of Stalin..

[canoeist52]

6. Evil is evil, fighting over numbers doesn't change that.

[yurbud]

25. yep. Was our genocide of native Americans not so bad because it took centuries instead of the few

years of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges?

[NYC Liberal]

7. Right. So they're both terrible.

[rustbeltvoice]

8. Yes, Cromwell stopped at genocide only because of logistics.

Read what Cromwell did at Drogheda in 1649. For him there were three courses of action in dealing with the native Irish: forced conversion, exile into slavery, genocide. Since the English Civil War was not complete, he had other concerns.

Oliver Cromwell had the title Lord Protector, he was sovereign. The previous sovereign Charles I, he replaced earlier in the year, had his head removed from his body by the English parliament (and therefore Cromwell).

Putin in some of his pronouncements has been correct. He likewise upset gwbjr over the issue of freedom of the press. Putin not keen on the subject, so he pointed back and angered the busheviks when he said (if i remember exactly) in person to gwbjr that gwbjr had Dan Rather removed from employment.

an English nursery rhyme:

Oliver Cromwell lay buried and dead
Hee-haw, buried and dead.
There grew an old apple tree over his head
Hee-haw, over his head.

[freshwest]

12. Putin is well-educated. I've listened to some of his talks. He's a thinker. n/t

[ucrdem]

21. Hard to think of Putin and Stalin as leading the same country.

Stalin for example would not hold annual marathon press conferences but I imagine after this one Putin might be wondering if they're such a good idea.

Seriously though I agree with you. Sharp tack whatever his failings.

[Alamuti Lotus]

9. strange--if apt--comparison

If he was in more of an incendiary mood, the comparison to Churchill would be more interesting--and not in a particularly flattering way to Churchill or Stalin. That great English hero proudly raised the saintly voracious racism of his class to imperial policy, was the first strong advocate of chemical terrorism in the Middle East, architect of mass famine and massacres in India--and yet, celebrated as one of the greatest Englishmen that ever lived, mostly for the act of drinking his way through the rift with Hitler.

The Independent piece doesn't really indicate context--was Cromwell mentioned recently, or was this a seemingly random reference?

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. He's right Oh, except for the matter of a few centuries seperating their actions.

Democracy and human rights didn't have a whole lot of traction back in the mid 1600's.

[7962]

15. Thank goodness SOMEBODY pointed that out!! Lincoln was a Republican, too.

Therefore, all republicans today are like Lincoln, right? Its so easy to point out something that happened centuries ago and equate it to a modern day problem, when there really is no comparison.

[T_i_B]

28. There is an argument.....

....that if it hadn't been for the English Civil war and Cromwell, we would not have been able to move so smoothly from royal rule to parliamentary democracy.

Think of Charles I, who Cromwell replaced, and his belief in "divine right of kings".

The above argument is not one I wholly subscribe to, but is an argument often made in relation to that era of British history.

[24601]

32. Scanned the thread yesterday and was going to post until I saw you had made the point that matters.

We are all shaped by the environments in which we live and comparing people separated by centuries need to account for the varying norms of their times. Generally, as knowledge increases, I'd expect commensurate increases (higher thresholds) for what civilizations judge acceptable.

[pampango]

36. Great point. He might as well have compared Stalin to Attila the Hun or any other

slaughterer of millions in ancient history.

It does say a lot when Putin had to go back so far in English history to find a worthy comparison for Stalin.

[JackRiddler]

42. He could have gone with Churchill.

I'd say he's responsible for crimes that represent a respectable fraction of Stalin's.

First aerial bombings of civilians (in Iraq in the 1920s).

First use of poison gas on civilians.

Policy caused starvations with millions of deaths in India in the 1930s.

Made the "percentages agreement" with Stalin to give Soviets influence over Bulgaria and Romania, in exchange for UK control of Greece - where the UK had no fucking business.

Initiated the Greek Civil War in 1944, with UK troops turning Athens into a battleground to expel the popular Greek rebel army that had actually liberated the country from the Nazis.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths followed as the UK and then US (newborn CIA) organized a Greek government primarily made up of forces and officials who had collaborated with the Nazi occupation - first new fascist state of the postwar world. They tortured and massacred their way to pacification.

Even UK policy makers were disgusted with the latter.

Great documentary - was actually banned in the UK in the 1980s:

‎

[MFrohike]

56. Or in the 1940s

The "democratic wave" is a phenomenon of the last 20 years, not the last 60.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. I don't agree with that read

It is more like waves that continually roll in but the tide also comes and goes also. The last 20 years may be an incoming tide but the Declaration of Independence is 240 years old now, and the Bill of Rights has already been around for about 225 years. Gandhi did not live and die during the last 20 years, Slavery was not abolished during the last 20 years. The legal rights of women, in the western world at least, have been advancing since the 1800's. Human rights as a concept has continued to evolve since Cromwell's era. Cromwell and Stalin's abuses were about more than just resisting democracy.

[MFrohike]

60. My point

Other than as Cold War slogans, human rights and democracy had little meaning outside the West until the last 20 years or so.

[Javaman]

11. the comparing of monsters proves?

that stalin was okay?

[rustbeltvoice]

13. No.

Complete context is missing here for me, but here is the probable point.

(from Putin's view) Yes, you are quick to point out that Russia had a murderous tyrant in charge. Do not look down upon us, you had your monsters, and Oliver Cromwell is exceptionally comparable to Josef Stalin.

And Churchill had a good deal of blood on his hands too.

[T_i_B]

27. Stalin was only 1 of many tyrants Russia has had

The Tzars weren't exactly the most enlightened of rulers.

[Javaman]

29. in historical context, it would be more apt to computer Ivan the Terrible to Cromwell. And as...

modern historians are more accurately apt to do; compare stalin to hitler.

[MillennialDem]

14. On the other hand, at least Stalin saved the world from fascism. The Soviet Union was

responsible for the vast majority of German KIA/MIA/WIA.

He could have capitulated in 1941 or 1942 and had good reason to do so.

Not that it makes what he did in Ukraine in the 20s/early 30s ok by any means.

[ucrdem]

18. Yeah there's that.

[Javaman]

30. This is true...

but as I said above comparing stalin to cromwell, to me, really isn't correctly in context. I think Ivan the terrible to cromwell, would have been more apt.

[treestar]

48. Exactly. A million light years

Between Russia and the West as far as progress on human rights. Sorry Pootie, your nation lags behind

[Kaleva]

31. But he didn't do that from the goodness of his heart or for love of country.

Stalin was a monster whose main reason for doing anything was so he could remain in power.

In a way, the Western Allies were probably fortunate to have a cold blooded killer in charge of the Soviet Union during that time. A lesser man, for lack of a better phrase, may have decided to try and cut a deal with Hitler early during the war.

[MillennialDem]

33. I didn't say he did it out of the goodness of his heart or love of country. It is an important

fact that is often neglected in the west because of the Cold War and because Stalin was such a monster though.

Had the Soviet Union surrendered, the war would have been over. Germany would control the vast majority of Europe and there wouldn't be a thing the Brits and Americans could do about it. The landings in Normandy and Italy etc would have been doomed to failure.

[Kaleva]

34. But you did say "at least Stalin saved the world from fascism".

That simply was a by product of his own desire to remain in power. I'm just guessing here but I think Stalin wouldn't have cared one bit if Hitler had defeated the Western Allies as long as he himself remained in control of the Soviet Union.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

49. Um, Stalin did cut a deal with Hitler, just before the war started

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

[DavidDvorkin]

35. Cromwell saved the world from the Divine Right of Kings.

[rustbeltvoice]

38. No, Cromwell was the Leviathan.

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes', book came out. The sovereign had absolute power. Cromwell was then the sovereign. In ancient Egypt the pharoa was the only citizen. This was oriental despotism. Dick Cheney advocated the unitary executive. Same power, different term

[DavidDvorkin]

41. Had he managed to establish a dynasty, things might have been different

But as it was, his role in history, intentionally, was to destroy the Divine Right of Kings.

[rustbeltvoice]

43. His son inherited the position, and was not competent to hold it.

Oliver Cromwell was a military dictator (amongst other things). He died (1658) and his son, Richard, inherited the post. Richard was not a military man and could not hold power. The Stuarts returned (1660), the Stuarts turned Catholic, foreign Protestants replaced them. James II (r 1685-8) publicly, and he was not going to relent, and he had a second wife with heirs. After William the Dutchman, and James II Protestant daughters died, a long list of relatives were gone through before they found another Protestant, George I. George never learned English. The royal candidates became more and more only figureheads.

In Japan at the time, the Emperor had become a figure head. People thought him divine. Only after World War II, did some people stop believing this.

The matter is who reigns, and who governs. This Divine Right of Kings is only words.

After Alexander of Macedon died, and his general Ptolemy became pharoa, (this is a little theatrical, but accurate) he was told that pharoa was a god, he said he was a man. He was told, if you want to be pharoa you must be a god. Ptolemy I Soter said, "O.K".

[DavidDvorkin]

45. Yes. That's why I said "had he managed to establish a dynasty"

He didn't, fortunately for England.

[MFrohike]

57. No he didn't

Cromwell tried to be king without actually claiming the title. He was a tyrant and a genocidal maniac. The only difference between today's religious fanatics and Oliver Cromwell is that Cromwell was far, far more capable.

The divine right of kings fell apart because those kings couldn't maintain their powers. It was not because of a bloodthirsty scumbag whose ability to murder was only limited by the technology available.

[Marrah_G]

16. They were both assholes

[geek tragedy]

17. Except Cromwell came 300 years before Stalin.

I guess if one wants to say that Stalin was as bad as England's worst monster from the 1600's, go for it.

[Arkana]

19. Trying to rehabilitate Uncle Joe's image, Vlad?

Good luck with that.

[Kolesar]

22. Having read the Gulag Archipelago, I say Putin is full of shit

I read the Gulag Archipelago 2, for that matter.

There are some headlines about what Putin did to his "rival" Khordokovsky in the news lately.

[yurbud]

23. Do Brits have an at all favorable opinion of Cromwell?

I was struck that he wasn't discussed more in America during the rise of the religious right as a cautionary tale, and used as a more optimistic example when discussing Iran to show that regimes based on religious extremism tend to wear thin with the subject peoples.

[truebrit71]

24. There is a statue of him standing right outside of the Houses of Parliament...

...not sure if that equates to 'favourable opinion' or not...

Either way Putin is full of shit...

[dipsydoodle]

26. He disapproved of Ska and Reggae

so fuck him.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. Oh my, he talks like a Tea Bagger.

[Enrique]

39. am i the only one

who only has a vague idea who Oliver Cromwell was?

[DavidDvorkin]

40. He was an extraordinarily important historical figure

About whom everyone should have more than a vague idea.

He and the events of his time fed into the philosophy of America's Founding Fathers.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

[uriel1972]

44. Doesn't make either of them, or Putin look any better to me...nt

[truthisfreedom]

47. lil' boots killed 100 times more civilians thank Cromwell.

I think the wrong comparison is being made.

[warrant46]

53. Yes a sleazy murdering War Criminal

[Dash87]

50. Classic downplaying and excusing of a murderer.

The "they (or we) do it too!" excuse is constantly used. Just because one side did something doesn't make the other side doing it any less responsible. How many times have I heard, "We should all just shut up about (event or person) because the US did (something we did or are doing)."

The fallacy lies in the idea that someone can't be against both. It's a silly (and classic) attempt at excusing wrong behavior.

[Deep13]

51. Well that's a ringing endorsement.

Stalin: no worse than Cromwell, Assad, Saddam Hussein, Pinochette, Pol Pot, or Hitler.

[libdem4life]

52. American History books/classes are generally divided up/chaptered by war. Poltical history is from

war to war. Civilization almost always progresses in the long run, or short...based on acquiring other lands, peoples, minerals, seaports, cultures, taxes. The Crusades led into the Renaissance, for instance.

War technology emerges out of the pressing cultural needs to manufacture new and more deadly weapons/killing machines before the other side figures it out.

It is not how many murdered, or how terrible the events (as we know them, as we don't know about many), or cultural and religious bigotry...it is "Me and Mine vs. You and Yours"..."We Want/Need What You Have"...however it might emerge historically. Might and Power and Control. Upon that premise, civilization is based, transferred and continues. The Children's Playground Game is called King of the Hill.

There are always justifications at the time, and some even persist, such as American Exceptionalism. America has invaded other lands 120 times since the Civil War in 1865. That is truly exceptional...but millions have died for our Empire.

[ozone_man]

54. Worst was our invasion at home

the holocaust of Native Americans over 400 years.

[libdem4life]

55. I see Colonialization as a bit different from World Empire.

One is to inhabit and settle, the other to control the foreign government/inhabitants politically. Both murder innocents. Never has the US entered into warfare/killing for defense, ever, despite our "Department of Defense".

Have we "kept the world safe"? Only for our friends, I reckon.

[DeSwiss]

58. ''What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin?''

- VOLUME! VOLUME! VOLUME!

''How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does it is murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is not murder... Only get enough people to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take?''

~Adin Ballou, 1845