Leaders Of Soviet Union

I don't think you're talking about the same banks.

I am sorry GarryB but thats not true.
From the begining is purpose was to end the communism.
Willy Brandt, leader of the social Democratic Party, after a meeting with Gorbachov(ONE MONTH after being president of the Soviet Union),"I have see a lot of things in my life", "but i haven´t seen yet an anti-communist in charge of kremlin".

Gorbachov to Spiegel " my politic sympatys belong to social-democracy"..."like Federal Germany"

He was not communist and made everything to destroy communism in the Soviet Union.

GarryB wrote:

He was never intending to reform himself out of a job.

After, he try to be on job with a lot of partys.
He don´t try the communist, for obvious reasons.

Regards

Stalin is being more popular these days...

https://www.rt.com/politics/328908-public-opinion-on-stalin-improves/

In Russia, public support for Joseph Stalin’s personality and approval for his policies have increased, but the attitude to Stalinism in society remains balanced, according to the latest research.

Surprised to see Lenin so high. I always thought that he did more harm than good to Russia.

He was not a Soviet, but if only Stolypin would not have been murdered...

George1 wrote:Putin: Lenin to Blame for Soviet Union Collapse

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Soviet revolutionary Vladimir Lenin and his flow of thought led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — During a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education in the Kremlin, one of the participants quoted a work by Russian writer Boris Pasternak, analyzing Lenin's revolution and his ability to manage his flow of thought.

"Controlling the flow of thought is the right thing, but it is necessary that this thought led to correct results, not like in the case of Vladimir Iliyich [Lenin]. Because this thought in the end led to the collapse of the Soviet Union…There were many thoughts, autonomization and so on. They put a nuclear bomb under the building which is called Russia, and it exploded. We did not need a world revolution. That’s what the thought was," Putin said at the meeting.

Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary and the leader of the Bolshevik party and of the October Revolution. He was the first leader of the USSR and the government that took over Russia in 1917.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160121/1033519789/putin-lenin-soviet-union.html#ixzz3xvPtTf9s

Putin is completely right. But no Western MSM will show this, as it contradicts their "Putin is a communist who wants to rebuild the USSR" myth.

George1 wrote:Putin: Lenin to Blame for Soviet Union Collapse

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Soviet revolutionary Vladimir Lenin and his flow of thought led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — During a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education in the Kremlin, one of the participants quoted a work by Russian writer Boris Pasternak, analyzing Lenin's revolution and his ability to manage his flow of thought.

"Controlling the flow of thought is the right thing, but it is necessary that this thought led to correct results, not like in the case of Vladimir Iliyich [Lenin]. Because this thought in the end led to the collapse of the Soviet Union…There were many thoughts, autonomization and so on. They put a nuclear bomb under the building which is called Russia, and it exploded. We did not need a world revolution. That’s what the thought was," Putin said at the meeting.

Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary and the leader of the Bolshevik party and of the October Revolution. He was the first leader of the USSR and the government that took over Russia in 1917.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160121/1033519789/putin-lenin-soviet-union.html#ixzz3xvPtTf9s

It's a pretty out-there theory if you ask me. Lenin created the USSR - so without his ideas and practice, it would never have existed in the first place. The idea that Imperial Russia would have endured is pretty far fetched. Without the revolution, WWI would likely have continued to drain Russian resources to the point where the country would have been bankrupted and ended up like China, carved up between Japan and European powers - which was effectively already in progress ever since the Russian-Japanese war.

The Soviets ultimately did more for Russia (and all the republics, and ultimately, the world) than anyone else, and a lot of it come down to Lenin laying the framework, Stalin holding it together through WW2 (despite an awful lot of issues - Stalin may or may not have killed 20m people, but the purges of most of the USSRs greatest minds and the gulag system is a simple historical truth), and Khrushchev doing more than any other to bring it to fruition - efforts tragically curtailed by politics.

I think Putin's view on autonomy in the USSR is also short sighted. Not only was it absolutely necessary to prevent civil war in a such a diverse nation, the system of the SSR republics was fundamental to the very ideals of the USSR as a socialist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial project. The irony is that many people who do have sympathy for post-soviet Russia often do so with a similarly anti-imperialist ethos, both reasoning that Russia acts as a counterweight, preventing total western hegemony, but also out of historical sympathy for the USSR, which openly and explicitly stood against such things and supported movements for autonomy and self-determination (and by and large made good on it's word).