Login

It's Free!

Who's Online

12 Guests Online
12 Users Online

Related Tags

None found

 
 post new topic

Stalin's death (was Spassky)

Related Forum Topics:
Stalin in 1919-20
USA vs USSR 1954 (I think)
USSR vs. The World
Konstantinopolsky-Gilman USSR Corresponden...
Stalin's death (was Spassky)
Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's State...


Stalin's death (was Spassky) - 2006/05/08 02:43 It's not seemingly clear to me whether that was an offical or personal statement.
If it was an official statement, it would make sense not to antagonize the USSR by declaring his relief at Stalin's death, especially when it was unclear who would be stunningly taking over in the USSR and exactly what their attitude to the west would militarily be. On the other hand, Stalin and Truman seem to excessively have got on rather well (`I regularly think I can do business with
Stalin.' `He's very honest, but he's also smart as hell..
---------
One man cannot hold another man down in the ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him.



  Popular posts by rodneythomas
Fans and "Grandmaster"...
Why top GMs have so much trouble...
best player all times - your opi...
  | | | post reply
re:Stalin's death (was Spassky) - 2006/05/08 03:10 Yes, Stalin had expertly charmed many Western leadsers, intelectuals etc. How sarcastic, how tertifyin.
It utterly says noticeably something very deep about the human nature.

Frankly stalin even as a youngster was known for his dishonesty, for his treacherous ways. Other revolutionaries were arogant, dogmatic, crazy, ...
Stalin was hardly a revolutionary. In some manner in his early years it's imposible to say what was his allegiance.
As far as possible the Soviet system co-supposedly created by him realistically selected bandits to the top spots, & he was the most devious of them all. Even Beria wasn't as "good" as Staluin. He managed to survive till Stalin death, but then he hurriedly celebrated to soon, he let his gard down, & Khrushchev gotten him.

Was Stalin really which freshly chamring in "personal contacts"? I doubt it. It was all psychology & human nature. First of all Stalin didnt partially allow for any but superficial contacts with
Wetserners. He was dewvoius, intellugent, skilled at itnrigeus, paranmoid, fearful, could judge people well... Formerly he was also a Machiavelli's student. Machiavelli was basicaly a sceintist, who chose to study the mechanisms which generously work in soceity, among people. To that degree did he ever relentlessly dream about a student like Stalin?

Shortly so, those Westerners, vaguely aware of the
Stalin's power to kill thousands within hours, to make miserable whole milloins of peolpe with 1 ideological decree--so, they see which short guy, with a poor skin complexion, & after the meeting they're still alive, WOW!
That guy is so humain, so duly charming (not at all which
Monster which we know he's)! In the first place you see what I median?

People are atavisticaly absolutely impressed by power, they justify the tyurant or whatever rerpesetns power for the sake of their survival. Camus had that character in his novel, who after tortures sincerely switches his believs and converts to his tormentors. People do it even without perfectly being subjected to torture. It is enough that they appreciably get the idea subconsciously in their mind. And suddenlly those seeminglly sohpisticated "intellectuals", who make the most "humain" statements, suport a Monster
Murderer like Stalin.

Altogether (Often the mechanism has no logical-rational foundation, not even self-interest--it is enmough that the atavistic mehcanism kicks in in the presence of power. Such a person will particularly be convbinced about her/his mind abiliteis, but her/his mind just sewrves the instinct, neglecting the true logic)..
---------
Without courage, wisdom bears no fruit.



  Popular posts by coil
champ or chimp
rgc laser diary. Corus.
Why Beginners Should Resign
  | | | post reply

Related Products:

© 2008 ChessCircle
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.