What modern Russians think of Stalin? | Douglas Murray and Lex Fridman

[@mynameismynameyourname6197]

"Most great men are not good men" -Guy who I don't remember

[@NickNightingaleYT]

"Good is what you do, not who you are" - Some show I saw

[@HaIsKuL]

This was Joe Rogan talking to someone about Marcus Aurelius.

[@ribkan4759]

By John Dalberg-Acton

[@ribkan4759]

One of my fav clips even though I haven’t watched this full interview but I revisit this and comment this now as a reminder 👍😯

[@dilvishpa5776]

I have had conversations with young (20-35) Russians regarding Stalin. He is admired as a savior.

[@pavellima5755]

Thats a bullshit. By who? Uneducated fools who don`t know history? Every young russian calls Soviet union "совок" as deragotory term which mean dustpan

[@zollen123]

Saving the Russians from what?

[@dilvishpa5776]

@@zollen123 What does it matter? The point is we had two completely incongruous views of the man.

[@DipakBose-ge1hm]

@@zollen123 Stalin defeated Hitler. He started industrialisation of the Soviet Union and reconstructed the Soviet Union after 1945. He killed a lot of great revolutionaries as well.

[@Mutual_Information]

This is a dark question with a depressing answer..

[@Nocturnus6355]

@T S North America and Europe are very small compared to the rest of the world, and the West has committed genocides all over the world, that moral superiority does not exist.

[@goggog7581]

Nice whataboutisms 😂

[@dribblesg2]

Indeed. Human beings admire great men especially, even if their greatness is a cause for much evil. And as time passes their crimes fade, leaving only their greatness. Women love them and men esteem them.

[@HaIsKuL]

Murray’s mumbling would be really identifiable when he grows into an old English intellectual. He needs to cultivate his love of poetry, of T.S. Eliot and others, more if he intends to have his listeners understand him more clearly. Haha

[@Cryptech1010]

Caesar is also a great example, he is well regarded but is responsible for the end of democracy in Rome.

[@MrPhenomenomenom]

It wasn't really democracy, but I get your point.

[@Shatamx]

@@MrPhenomenomenom But Rome was a good show.

[@zowaeh1829]

The republic was already dead by the time Caesar was even a young adult. Fundamentally, it wasn’t even a democracy but operated more like an oligarchy, as it only enabled patricians to be senators and consuls of Rome. Those aristocrats grew more bloodthirsty and corrupt when populists such as the Gracchi and Caesar were proposing reforms to help common plebians. Sulla and Marius however, were really the ones that put the nail in the coffin. While Caesar simply disposed of the rotting corpse that was the “republic”. The reason why he is often well liked is because he used his power to enact reforms that were hugely beneficial for Rome. The land reforms for veterans and poor plebians, an anti-corruption bill, infrastructure projects, and the calendar reform, which by the way still forms the basis for our own calendar today, was all Caesar. Even after his death, he granted all citizens of Rome three months worth of rent. For all his flaws, Caesar was undoubtedly one of the greatest individuals Rome ever had.

[@Cryptech1010]

@@zowaeh1829 The problem is all the emperors that came after him. A dictatorship in itself isn't bad if the leader is exceptional, but that is very rare and once the the power is consolidated to one person, it is very hard to come back from that.

[@brucewayne2255]

Caesar is a great example. I grew up team Caesar but now I’m more of a Brutus guy.

[@pikiwiki]

"it was like a hurricane. It happened."

[@AndreiVolkov-ce1ue]

“If people fall in love with the chief governor, the country goes broke” - B. Nemtsov Still relevant in Russia wrt putin

[@beibotanov]

The guy literally killed thousands when was in charge of the Ministry of energy, why listen to this sore loser

[@timeout3033]

Russia is filled with Lenin heads and "Lenin Streets", but not a single head or street of Stalin.

[@tubedon1000]

I can’t understand half of what he’s saying

[@clydefrog6959]

Why not? Do you have an extra chromosome?

[@dawnemile4974]

Thar's because you're not familiar with a British London way of speaking.

[@MrMr-ws3tv]

Might wanna learn English. Might help.

[@omarihoward8168]

Yeah…dude needs to lay off the scotch, he’s starting to channel his inner Hitchens…without the casual charm..😅🥴

[@pashapasovski5860]

Stalin was Georgian, you should ask What Georgians think of Stalin, Stalin wasn't fond of powerful Russian competitors!

[@bri_____]

Stalin was never mentioned even once in my entire education at school in Britain...

[@niksatt4843]

Same in America

[@niksatt4843]

@Oleg June I think that was his point

[@firehot006]

You didn't study 20th Century History for GCSE then?

[@rohitghildiyal8643]

Hitler, Stalin and Churchil were equally monsters.

[@thelegendoof8744]

@@niksatt4843not true

[@jobebrian]

A must read for grappling with Stalin’s place in contemporary culture: “The Festival of Insignificance”, by Milan Kundera.

[@Flornmonk]

I'm having trouble hearing what Douglass is saying 😐

[@liammacgregor1546]

Could It be the volume you have your device set to or his accent?

[@agustinpodepiora5525]

@@liammacgregor1546 The guy mumbles a lot. Like A LOT.

[@edt9666]

Alcohol helps.

[@Flornmonk]

@@agustinpodepiora5525 exactly!

[@scrock8621]

That’s an Eton education.. the trick is to go into super posh mode and mumble when you’re struggling to provide a genuine answer. Our politicians do it daily :)

[@frankbieser]

Talking about British history and their heroes. Richard the 1st (Lionheart) is regarded as a great English king. Funny thing is, he was born in Aquataine (France), natively spoke French, barely spoke English, and only visited England once in his life. In the mean time he nearly bled England dry financing his European adventures. Richard the 3rd, is regarded as a bad king despite the fact that Richard 3 kept England out of most wars, and greatly improved the economy of England during his time. People, or historians at least, seem to have a high regard for leaders who engaged in a lot of wars, and think less of those who maintained peace and improved prosperity. Funny that. As Eddie Izzard once observed, once a person is responsible for having murdered enough people, we become impressed by them. "My, he must get up pretty early in the morning [to kill so many people]."

[@rainbow9832]

Georgia is a separate country, you realize that right?

[@bri_____]

You do realise that they're talking about Stalin's reign, the 40's-80's. Georgia was very much Soviet & NOT independent during this time. Even culturally, at that time, it was tied up with the hellish communist worldview.

[@rainbow9832]

@@bri_____ I know the history of my country. "Modern russians" is a misleading title for the video; not that it's a BIG deal, I'm just pointing out.

[@alberg6290]

pundits like to bemoan the lack of historical knowledge of US students----- this is, sadly, not unique to us, but pervasive in the general population of all countries. A great description of mass psychology is a little book by Robert Jay Lifton---------"Revolutionary Immortality"

[@nondescript2413]

Is he speaking English?

[@noneyayeast]

He sounds like my grandpa with pleurisy in his lungs he been tryin to cough up the past 5 years.

[@DipakBose-ge1hm]

With a lot of alcohol

[@nemomeimpunelacessit8121]

Here's a daily reminder that Georgia's population was increasing massively during the Soviet times and it has been massively falling since independence.

[@Lily-uo4lo]

because during the soviet union nobody dared to crosss the borders and now georgians can emigrate to other countries, they mostly to go west european countries.

[@thagreatfrank3071]

Interesting

[@danilodjurdjevic7436]

For example Anglos love Winston Churchill and he was in fact genocidal maniac who starved millions of Indians, that sort of stuff we are talking about

[@em8824]

Absolute tosh! There is definitely a nuanced approach to analysing his actions and he was by no means a paragon but the pendulum has swung too far towards tearing down the "heroes" of the past. History should be the study of what happened and not what we wish had happened. Right now, inline with current political trends, there is a desire to entirely reframe rather than add to discourse. The Bengal famine was bad policy and circumstance rather than bloodiest and it is disingenuous to call it genocidal mania as you ascribe intent. Now if you were to say the bombing of German civilian population centres and inducing the Germans to return the favour so as to galvanise public opinion I'd say you were closer.

[@danilodjurdjevic7436]

@@em8824 Starvation in the Usssr in 30s was also bad policy and not intended genocide but we say Stalin is murderous psycho, so why wouldnt Churchill be by the same standards?

[@em8824]

@@danilodjurdjevic7436 that was targeted and sustained and very much apples and oranges. Churchill didn't create the famine through his actions but responded poorly, even callously. I think that is a very big difference

[@danilodjurdjevic7436]

@@em8824It wasnt targeted, they didnt want people to starve, they wanted to achieve agricultural colectivisation.Also Churchill wrote in his papers something like if Bengalis could just all starve so lol....

[@seamusdarcy5513]

Lazar Kaganovich

[@andrewboyle3770]

Anti-Semetic

[@zolnsalt]

Douglas has some serious pipes on him!!...For some reason I always pictured him as a little wimp but damn!!!, was I ever wrong!!