Posted on 12/19/2013 8:17:40 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
MOSCOW, December 19 (RIA Novosti) – Soviet leader Josef Stalin may be credited with killing millions of his own people, but current Russian President Vladimir Putin says he was no worse than the “cunning” Oliver Cromwell, who ousted the 17th-century British monarchy.
“What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin? None whatsoever,” Putin said at a press conference Thursday.
Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor as much as the late British lord protector, a “cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history.”
But unlike Cromwell, Stalin has a lack of state-endorsed monuments in his honor, Putin said.
Putin made the comments in response to a question about a Stalin monument possibly being erected in Moscow.
Authorities in the Russian capital recently announced plans to commemorate all Soviet leaders who lived in the city.
Putin said he could not influence the decisions of Moscow’s City Hall. But he cautioned, “We must treat all periods of our history with care.” “It’s better not to stir things up … with premature actions,” he added.
Stalin, who led the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953, is credited with implementing political purges that resulted in the deaths of several million people and the servitude of just as many in gulag prison camps.
Cromwell led a Protestant army to defeat the monarchy in the British Civil War, becoming the ruler of England from 1653 until his death five years later.
Cromwell endorsed the execution of King Charles II, though he never conducted any mass purges.
Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor as much as the late British lord protector, a “cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history.”
>>>Proportionally, population wise, it was far worse for the Irish actually. Some estimates have half or more of the population of Ireland dead through the sword, disease, privation or sold into slavery.<<<
Bingo. Put Cromwell to Red China instead of Mao and we shall see.
They both deserve the same honors. They should dig up Stalin, execute him, cut his head off and stick it on pike, just like they did to Cromwell.
bkmk
Yes.
I wont try and justify what Cromwell did, although I will point out that the Irish then and now exaggerate the death toll of 1649-50, and indentured servitude of prisoners of war was commonplace in Europe. Cromwell also took masses of Scottish Royalists as ‘slaves’. Ironically his army was not English, but an amalgam of English, Welsh and Ulster Scots, perhaps even a few Scots.
I would also remind people that any Cromwellian hate had its roots in the famous 1641 uprising, where the Irish Catholics slaughtered thousands of Protestant English and Scottish settlers, inc women and children.
You can take the man out of the KGB but you can’t take the KGB out of the man
Wasn’t Stalin cremated (after removal from Lenin’s tomb) and bricked into the Kremlin wall?
To diminish the magnitude of what happened to the Irish under English rule is quite disingenuous.
I am an MA in History, thank you. I have probably studied more Irish history than you, both Catholic Irish and Ulster Scot, as well as Anglo-Irish history.
You are accusing me of something that I said clearly in my post I was not going to do, and didn’t.
Well if we are going to go down that route, maybe the Germans should start putting up statues of Hitler.
Nothing about cremation according to that impeccable source, Wikipedia.
Okay, I thought he was behind some brick in the wall.
Tell that to the people of Ireland and Scotland, where Cromwell committed mass murder.
The "Irish" exaggerate? According to you what was the "real" number?
Yes, indentured servitude of prisoners of war was common. The wholesale roundup of men, women and children that were sold into slavery in the Carribean and the New World was not. To deny that this happened is, yes, disingenuous.
"I would also remind people that any Cromwellian hate had its roots in the famous 1641 uprising, where the Irish Catholics slaughtered thousands of Protestant English and Scottish settlers, inc women and children."
So they had it coming. I see.
Apologies if I wasn’t clear, when I said Irish, I was referring to Irish Republicans/Nationalists. Yes, the figures have been exaggerated over the centuries at times for political effect and is till debated over even today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Debate_over_Cromwell.27s_effect_on_Ireland
I did not and will not suggest what he did was justified, my point was how people can use terrible incidents and abuse history for political aims.
As to slavery to the New World, as a Scot, I know exactly what Cromwell did, conservative estimates state he sent 10000 Scots to the colonies.
As to 1641, the contemporary sources clearly show that the 1641 killings were upmost on the Cromwellian mind, and that a great deal of the ruthlessness in 1649-50 can be traced back to it. I didn’t say or suggest that 1649-50 was justified by 1641. Nor would I.
(I would point out though that 1641 is of course ignored and/or even justified by Irish Republicans/Nationalists. And tends outside Ulster to be forgotten by the British and Irish public. It is little taught or not taught in history on the UK mainland, few books and TV/radio has been done on it, and its dosent have the public attention of other parts of Irish history. Cynics might say because it dosent fit the narrative of brutality towards the ‘native’ Irish)
You know I am not justifying anything, I am merely explaining why they happened. So please stop s*it-stirring and have a proper historical discussion with me on the issue.
The link that you provided does not support your case and you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a source.
While there is little debate as to what Cromwell did there is debate as to whether he was directly responsible for all of the atrocities that occurred. I hold that as the supreme military commander and ruler of England that he was ultimately responsible for all.
Conservative estimates have Ireland losing a quarter of her population due the sword, disease, privation, forced starvation, banishment and transport into slavery.
More realistic, in my view, estimates hold that Ireland lost well over half of her population during the Cromwell campaign.
For the sake of argument we'll split the difference and call it a third. By any historical standard this is horrific.
Were these depredations fueled partly by revenge for the killings in the 1641 uprising? No doubt. Using that same argument the killings of 1641 were fueled by the oppression of the centuries old rule by the English. Also the number of English, Scots Protestant settlers killed at this time is also open to debate. We're the actual numbers inflated for political purposes?
Indentured servitude was established by contract between the indentured (or his guardians) and the master. In exchange for transport to the New World and / or learning a trade the indentured would work for the master for a fixed period, often 4-7 yrs.
The Irish of this time were not indentured servants, they were slaves. They were captured and sold as slaves. They were valued less than African slaves as they did not fare well in the tropical climate and they were hated by the Protestant masters for being Papists. They had no fixed term of servitude and no hope of freedom.
Now please answer my previous question. How many Irish died or were sold into slavery?
I can’t speak for whether Cromwell committed purges or not (he did ultimately do purges towards Irish and Scottish people, though in his defense, he did have to put up with an uprising earlier so he wasn’t entirely unjustified in his response.). But I WILL say this much: Stalin should NOT be compared to Cromwell. Aside from the fact that Cromwell didn’t have nearly as much of the baggage that Stalin, or Lenin for that matter, did, such as random executions and arrests of completely innocent people, or even those who had confirmed loyalty to them either out of paranoia or simply for a kick, there’s also the fact that Cromwell, while not Catholic, was still ultimately a Christian, while Stalin was explicitly an Atheist (the closest he got to being Christian was during World War II when he helmed the ROC, and even that was purely a cynical attempt at bolstering morale enough to fight off the Nazis, and once that was done, he went right back to persecuting and destroying them). And I’m not even fond of Cromwell since, aside from my being of Irish heritage (though my family moving to America had absolutely nothing to do with him), he also was indirectly responsible for the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution’s acts of regicide in the name of the people. Though at least he still was a Christian and made sure Christianity was still practiced in some form, unlike those events where they tried to genocide Christianity and pretty much any religion in France and Russia.
Probably the one silver lining, if it can be called that, is that Cromwell was still a practicing Christian, so he’s still better than Robespierre and especially the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao where they were atheists and slaughtered any and all religions to show that religion was meaningless.
As far as Mandela, you’re right, they’re not in the same league, if anything Mandela was even WORSE.
Cromwell had my ancestor, a well known Anglican clergyman beheaded for treason. He had been chaplain to the King and after the King’s execution dared to pray “for one known to us but across the sea” Although unnamed in the prayer it was assumed go be Charles I son, Charles II. Cromwell isn’t popular in our family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.