I think Khrushchev gets a bad rap. He was trying to play a tricky hand
The soviet union needed in order to compete with America to adapt to having a more educated workforce and away from a purely industrial economy. This wasn’t feasible with the systems and institutions as set up by Stalin when the biggest priority was rightly building the nations industrial capacity, modernising the infrastructure and getting rid of the counterrevolutionary elements. He also struggled to reform these elements that had been necessary but had become a hindrance without getting ousted by hardcore Stalin loyalists so the only option he had that he could think of was to get rid of Stalins image. Unfortunately this threw the baby out with the bathwater and disilusioned a lot of people with Communism in general
he fucked up but he had a difficult job to do and he was trying his best
I don’t know what Hexbear’s general opinion of Furr is, but I’m currently reading through his book “Krushchev Lied” and it’s an interesting picture. I don’t think you’re wrong, the USSR was absolutely at a tricky point and needed to adapt to stay competitive, but (assuming Furr is even sort of correct, I need to read other historians (and probably learn some Russian as well)) he was pretty damn shady in undermining Stalin’s image.
And for the record, I do think he handled the Missile Crisis pretty well, all things considered.
In literally every single international event Khrushchev either did the right thing, or did the wrong thing for reasons that were so understandable that basically anyone else would have done the same.
Kruschev was smart enough to get himself into trouble but never quite smart enough to get out of it. Tragically Beria was capable of running the Soviet Union post Stalin but was on a personal level a monster.
Like how Henry the 8th was the one to break the political power of the dukes and barons thus enabling England to modernise but was also a serial killer
Which policies of Berias in particular do you support? or think were needed to continue the USSR and how did they differ from Khrushchev?
Because his actions while in power were exactly the sort of things Khrushchev have been criticized for here to my mind. Destalinization and liberalising. Add in possibly selling off parts of the USSR for a Marshall plan.
he did a particularly neat job with the unification of countries in a similar situation to Germany unlike the absolute mess that was the East / West Germany situation and its exacerbation of the cold war
I think Khrushchev gets a bad rap. He was trying to play a tricky hand
The soviet union needed in order to compete with America to adapt to having a more educated workforce and away from a purely industrial economy. This wasn’t feasible with the systems and institutions as set up by Stalin when the biggest priority was rightly building the nations industrial capacity, modernising the infrastructure and getting rid of the counterrevolutionary elements. He also struggled to reform these elements that had been necessary but had become a hindrance without getting ousted by hardcore Stalin loyalists so the only option he had that he could think of was to get rid of Stalins image. Unfortunately this threw the baby out with the bathwater and disilusioned a lot of people with Communism in general
he fucked up but he had a difficult job to do and he was trying his best
I don’t know what Hexbear’s general opinion of Furr is, but I’m currently reading through his book “Krushchev Lied” and it’s an interesting picture. I don’t think you’re wrong, the USSR was absolutely at a tricky point and needed to adapt to stay competitive, but (assuming Furr is even sort of correct, I need to read other historians (and probably learn some Russian as well)) he was pretty damn shady in undermining Stalin’s image.
And for the record, I do think he handled the Missile Crisis pretty well, all things considered.
Learning about him in Blowbacks Cuba series made me see him more sympathetically.
In literally every single international event Khrushchev either did the right thing, or did the wrong thing for reasons that were so understandable that basically anyone else would have done the same.
I’m the fucking Khrushchev stan.
Kruschev was smart enough to get himself into trouble but never quite smart enough to get out of it. Tragically Beria was capable of running the Soviet Union post Stalin but was on a personal level a monster.
Like how Henry the 8th was the one to break the political power of the dukes and barons thus enabling England to modernise but was also a serial killer
Which policies of Berias in particular do you support? or think were needed to continue the USSR and how did they differ from Khrushchev? Because his actions while in power were exactly the sort of things Khrushchev have been criticized for here to my mind. Destalinization and liberalising. Add in possibly selling off parts of the USSR for a Marshall plan.
he did a particularly neat job with the unification of countries in a similar situation to Germany unlike the absolute mess that was the East / West Germany situation and its exacerbation of the cold war