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

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

This was Joe Rogan talking to someone about Marcus Aurelius.

By John Dalberg-Acton

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

Saving the Russians from what?

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

Why not? Do you have an extra chromosome?

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

Might wanna learn English. Might help.

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

@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.

Nice whataboutisms 😂

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.

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

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

Alcohol helps.

@@agustinpodepiora5525 exactly!

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 :)

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

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.

@@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.

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

@@MrPhenomenomenom But Rome was a good show.

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.

@@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.

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

Same in America

@Oleg June I think that was his point

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

Hitler, Stalin and Churchil were equally monsters.

@@niksatt4843not true

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

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.

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.

@@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?

@@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

@@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....

Anti-Semetic