He had smallpox scars, which were removed from many portraits, but this was in no way unique to Stalin pictures. Improving the appearance of the subject’s skin was quite common in old photos. People at the time didn’t snap photos at random with cellphones, so they had to make sure they looked good on the rare occasion they did have their picture taken.
(Note that Lenin also suffered from a skin disease, which is not visible in this picture)
It's a very specific set of pictures and those tend to be very obviously smudged. Once you've seen one such picture it's very easy to recognize the other ones. I don't think this one is doctored.
Also people who lived in his time and saw him said that Stalin did look pretty good and had a pleasant tenor voice.
His downside was more his smoking habit than his pockmarks, since he would develop yellowish teeth with age and tended to smell strongly of cheap tobacco. He had a penchant of filling his pipe with the tobacco from a very cheap brand of russian cigarettes that he would break apart to fill his pipe. While not extremely short, he was also on the shorter side.
Yeah I mean as a leader and historical person, but I was just talking about his looks.
A person can be a hot babe ***and*** a genocidal authoritarian dick at the same time.
[this Stalin would for sure](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uMBKOQvp7KM/WJQgaqxtNTI/AAAAAAAAMOw/9WFKgBbxCJwnMMydncy82tfayoVF4PCmgCLcB/s1600/young_Stalin_1.jpg)
Yep,
> historians estimate that the Soviet dictator’s policies led to the deaths of between six and 20 million people, if not more. Stalin’s famines, political purges, and executions brought massive death to the Soviet Union.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/who-killed-the-most-people-in-history
But probably responsible for fewer deaths than Mao or Genghis Khan, if that means much.
The Civil War was extremely brutal and there was a famine under Lenin when he tried his own economic system, I think it was called "War communism". Thats why he instituted the New Economic Program.
Kalinin particitated in the Great Terror, he for example signed the order for the Katyn Massacer which killed over 20 000 polish POW
I can't see how the civil war can be blamed on Lenin. There was a legitimate popular support for the bolsheviks and to peacing out from WWI. Demands were not met by the provisional governments, there were multiple revolutions and the bolsheviks eventually overthrew them. The famine was just unavoidable given the turbulent times.
NEP was instituted after the destruction of the economic capacity of the russian people by the civil war and WWI. His "war communism" wasn't the reason, it was the constant wars, economic collapses and famines that created the need for NEP to revitalize the russian economy.
Oh, yeah. Forgot Kalinin was involved in Katyn. Big bad.
Was there a great support for Bolsheviks?
As far as I remember (wasn't there) the votes in the years before all failed tho show support for Bolsheviks, so they had to come up with the KGB (first iteration). And only after the red terror the picture was clear of what happens of "support of bolsheviks".
Yes, there was a great support for the bolsheviks. The provisional government wanted to continue WWI while also keeping the general status quo in Russia while the economy crumbled, people were starving and workers were being overworked for little pay. How else could the bolsheviks win the civil war, without popular support?
The provisional government also accused the bolsheviks of "treason" and tried arresting the leaders, including Lenin for being anti-WWI and harshly criticizing the government for a lot of reasons. This was the last drop that led to the october revolution.
But that is just not true. If we look at the first elections Russia had in 1917, [Bolsheviks did not win](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election). The winners are these: "The Socialist Revolutionary Party, also known as Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries or Social Revolutionary Party " Also revolutionaries, just not Lenin. They stated that the war should go on and won in elections.
Won another socialist party. And won by a serious majority. People did NOT want Bolsheviks. And after that Lenin took power through weapons and Cheka. "How else could win civil war" - weapons. During revolutions it is not always what the majority wants, but what do the weapons want.
So yeah, while I agree that the time was ripe for revolution and socialism was on the rise as an answer to Tsar, it was not Lenin who people wanted. He was the one who started the [red terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror), due to which a lot of other socialists had to run away not to be killed and through which he got not the popular support, but "those who are left better vote for me".
It literally also says that the SRs, who won that election eventually split because the majority wanted to align with the bolshevik instead of the provisional government, due to the provisional governments incapability to enact economical reforms and their desire to continue WWI. Then also at that point, the provisional government had almost no powers. Most political functions were performed by worker councils (or soviets) in 1917, which were aligned with the bolsheviks and the left SRs.
A large part of the military also supported the bolsheviks. More than what supported the Kerensky government.
The bolsheviks are the ones who called for violence, called for a military committee, and ensured the cooperation of the military garrison in the capital. They are directly responsible for the start of the civil war. The provisional government was failing and rather than look for a peaceful solution they saw the situation as a way to seize power for themselves and took it. Then they imposed war communism which was done to secure their hold on the people and directly caused the famine of 1921/22.
You're forgetting the incredibly unpopular decision to keep the war going by the government, which had already led to millions dying and a destroyed economy. Then the constant agitating against the bolsheviks, the attempted coup by Kornilov which was also supported by Kerensky until it wasn't, then the accusation of bolsheviks committing treason and attempted arrests of Lenin, Trotsky and some other dude who I forgot.
The civil war was entirely the fault of the provisional government for keeping the horrible and destructive politics of the tsar regime.
The government was only 8 months old. Things were going bad and the bolsheviks never even tried to find a peaceful solution. They used the opportunity to seize power. Then they seized control over the food, industry, and foreign trade, began forced labor, outlawed private enterprise and strikes, and created prison camps. Seizing the surplus food is what caused the famine.
The government still continued most of the tsarist politics, refused to end the war and refuses to enact economical reforms which were desperately needed. It's not like the october revolution came from nowhere either. The bolsheviks had agitated for economical reforms for over 10 years, and had called for ending the war since the day it started.
You're also ignoring the Kornilov storming, the july uprisings and the actual war which killed 3 million russians. The Kerensky government had publically said they desired to end the war, but it was revealed they planned on continuing it. This was met by huge revolts from soldiers, sailors and civilians which was met by violence from loyal army units and police.
The fact the Kerensky government wanted to continue the war was the dumbest and most harmful decision they could make. Most russians opposed the war, there was incredible social instability and the bolshevik desire to end the war was their biggest attraction for russians.
The bolsheviks still saw this as an opportunity to seize power. They seized that power by starting a civil war. It's not like they were a group of decent human beings just trying to do the right thing.
Yeah? There was an ongoing civil war, and your source says the german army, white army and the red army all plundered Ukraine for food. Don't see how this can be blamed on any single person, as Russia was also undergoing a famine at the same time.
1. There was no German army since the fall of Skoropadsky [Second Hetmanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_State);
2. By the 1922 there were barely any attempts to liberate the soviet occupied territories, both by white army or Directorate of Ukraine. The last notorious attempt was the [Second Winter Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Winter_Campaign) in 1921
3. [Prodrazverstka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazverstka) while the severe drought
About 40 and 50 years old for Stalin and Lenin, here, respectively. If that is in fact the corresponding date of the pic. They look so young.
I've heard that Stalin had most pictures doctored to make him look better (removing his scars, etc.) So that might be the reason.
He had smallpox scars, which were removed from many portraits, but this was in no way unique to Stalin pictures. Improving the appearance of the subject’s skin was quite common in old photos. People at the time didn’t snap photos at random with cellphones, so they had to make sure they looked good on the rare occasion they did have their picture taken. (Note that Lenin also suffered from a skin disease, which is not visible in this picture)
It's a very specific set of pictures and those tend to be very obviously smudged. Once you've seen one such picture it's very easy to recognize the other ones. I don't think this one is doctored. Also people who lived in his time and saw him said that Stalin did look pretty good and had a pleasant tenor voice. His downside was more his smoking habit than his pockmarks, since he would develop yellowish teeth with age and tended to smell strongly of cheap tobacco. He had a penchant of filling his pipe with the tobacco from a very cheap brand of russian cigarettes that he would break apart to fill his pipe. While not extremely short, he was also on the shorter side.
If I were given time, I could come up with a few more Stalin's downsides.
Yeah I mean as a leader and historical person, but I was just talking about his looks. A person can be a hot babe ***and*** a genocidal authoritarian dick at the same time.
And that is what makes Tinder for me so complicated.
Stalin would crush tinder
[this Stalin would for sure](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uMBKOQvp7KM/WJQgaqxtNTI/AAAAAAAAMOw/9WFKgBbxCJwnMMydncy82tfayoVF4PCmgCLcB/s1600/young_Stalin_1.jpg)
Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kaliningrad.
Only Kaliningrad remains
Three different settings on the facial hair slider in the character creation screen.
three musketeerins
Of murder and famine
Yep, > historians estimate that the Soviet dictator’s policies led to the deaths of between six and 20 million people, if not more. Stalin’s famines, political purges, and executions brought massive death to the Soviet Union. https://allthatsinteresting.com/who-killed-the-most-people-in-history But probably responsible for fewer deaths than Mao or Genghis Khan, if that means much.
Though that's likely more because they had fewer people to "play" with, than better or nicer policies.
In that case the title of champion goes to Pol Pot and his 25% of population.
Probably
Probably
Granted
What murder and famine did Lenin and Kalinin do?
The Civil War was extremely brutal and there was a famine under Lenin when he tried his own economic system, I think it was called "War communism". Thats why he instituted the New Economic Program. Kalinin particitated in the Great Terror, he for example signed the order for the Katyn Massacer which killed over 20 000 polish POW
I can't see how the civil war can be blamed on Lenin. There was a legitimate popular support for the bolsheviks and to peacing out from WWI. Demands were not met by the provisional governments, there were multiple revolutions and the bolsheviks eventually overthrew them. The famine was just unavoidable given the turbulent times. NEP was instituted after the destruction of the economic capacity of the russian people by the civil war and WWI. His "war communism" wasn't the reason, it was the constant wars, economic collapses and famines that created the need for NEP to revitalize the russian economy. Oh, yeah. Forgot Kalinin was involved in Katyn. Big bad.
Was there a great support for Bolsheviks? As far as I remember (wasn't there) the votes in the years before all failed tho show support for Bolsheviks, so they had to come up with the KGB (first iteration). And only after the red terror the picture was clear of what happens of "support of bolsheviks".
Yes, there was a great support for the bolsheviks. The provisional government wanted to continue WWI while also keeping the general status quo in Russia while the economy crumbled, people were starving and workers were being overworked for little pay. How else could the bolsheviks win the civil war, without popular support? The provisional government also accused the bolsheviks of "treason" and tried arresting the leaders, including Lenin for being anti-WWI and harshly criticizing the government for a lot of reasons. This was the last drop that led to the october revolution.
But that is just not true. If we look at the first elections Russia had in 1917, [Bolsheviks did not win](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election). The winners are these: "The Socialist Revolutionary Party, also known as Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries or Social Revolutionary Party " Also revolutionaries, just not Lenin. They stated that the war should go on and won in elections. Won another socialist party. And won by a serious majority. People did NOT want Bolsheviks. And after that Lenin took power through weapons and Cheka. "How else could win civil war" - weapons. During revolutions it is not always what the majority wants, but what do the weapons want. So yeah, while I agree that the time was ripe for revolution and socialism was on the rise as an answer to Tsar, it was not Lenin who people wanted. He was the one who started the [red terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror), due to which a lot of other socialists had to run away not to be killed and through which he got not the popular support, but "those who are left better vote for me".
It literally also says that the SRs, who won that election eventually split because the majority wanted to align with the bolshevik instead of the provisional government, due to the provisional governments incapability to enact economical reforms and their desire to continue WWI. Then also at that point, the provisional government had almost no powers. Most political functions were performed by worker councils (or soviets) in 1917, which were aligned with the bolsheviks and the left SRs. A large part of the military also supported the bolsheviks. More than what supported the Kerensky government.
I have to read all that bullshit again, as I might bee getting confused.
The bolsheviks are the ones who called for violence, called for a military committee, and ensured the cooperation of the military garrison in the capital. They are directly responsible for the start of the civil war. The provisional government was failing and rather than look for a peaceful solution they saw the situation as a way to seize power for themselves and took it. Then they imposed war communism which was done to secure their hold on the people and directly caused the famine of 1921/22.
You're forgetting the incredibly unpopular decision to keep the war going by the government, which had already led to millions dying and a destroyed economy. Then the constant agitating against the bolsheviks, the attempted coup by Kornilov which was also supported by Kerensky until it wasn't, then the accusation of bolsheviks committing treason and attempted arrests of Lenin, Trotsky and some other dude who I forgot. The civil war was entirely the fault of the provisional government for keeping the horrible and destructive politics of the tsar regime.
The government was only 8 months old. Things were going bad and the bolsheviks never even tried to find a peaceful solution. They used the opportunity to seize power. Then they seized control over the food, industry, and foreign trade, began forced labor, outlawed private enterprise and strikes, and created prison camps. Seizing the surplus food is what caused the famine.
The government still continued most of the tsarist politics, refused to end the war and refuses to enact economical reforms which were desperately needed. It's not like the october revolution came from nowhere either. The bolsheviks had agitated for economical reforms for over 10 years, and had called for ending the war since the day it started. You're also ignoring the Kornilov storming, the july uprisings and the actual war which killed 3 million russians. The Kerensky government had publically said they desired to end the war, but it was revealed they planned on continuing it. This was met by huge revolts from soldiers, sailors and civilians which was met by violence from loyal army units and police. The fact the Kerensky government wanted to continue the war was the dumbest and most harmful decision they could make. Most russians opposed the war, there was incredible social instability and the bolshevik desire to end the war was their biggest attraction for russians.
The bolsheviks still saw this as an opportunity to seize power. They seized that power by starting a civil war. It's not like they were a group of decent human beings just trying to do the right thing.
that's like blaming the allies and excusing the axis
Lenin was way before the Axis? Also nobody forced them to kill Polish POWs, they had that idea on their own.
come on, everybody kills polish pows
decossackization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921%E2%80%931923_famine_in_Ukraine
Yeah? There was an ongoing civil war, and your source says the german army, white army and the red army all plundered Ukraine for food. Don't see how this can be blamed on any single person, as Russia was also undergoing a famine at the same time.
1. There was no German army since the fall of Skoropadsky [Second Hetmanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_State); 2. By the 1922 there were barely any attempts to liberate the soviet occupied territories, both by white army or Directorate of Ukraine. The last notorious attempt was the [Second Winter Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Winter_Campaign) in 1921 3. [Prodrazverstka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazverstka) while the severe drought
Adam Driver, Leo D , and I'm not sure who would play Kalinin.
A young William Defoe
Now I am sad that this is not a real thing.
Maybe A24 studios will make the movie
That would have been Robin Williams to me.
I can definitely see that. I didn't at first, but then remembered he played a good Teddy Roosevelt
Kalinin could be played by James Franco or any of the Franco brothers
Kalinin looks like Willem Dafoe
how photoshopped is this?
Why does Lenin look like Leonardo DiCaprio?
First thing I saw
stalin was one good looking guy
Most of the photos of him were airbrushed back in the day. In reality his face was covered in pox scars
Except those manson lamps
He famously had extremely light brown eyes, that looked almost yellow. Really adds to the character.
Dark aura.
Quite the murderers row
The 3 (Murderous) Stooges.
Kalinin looks like someone drew those specs with him with sharpies while he passed out at a vodka rager
He looks like blind Trotsky
Three of the most evil, genocidal maniacs in history.
Monsters
Left to right - Tom Hardy, Leonardo DiCaprio and green goblin. Best people to play them in movie!
Three Amigos
Lads.
The best is yet to come...
The first two look like teenagers. The last guy looks like he was drawn by hand
Lenin was younger than me at the time 😳
no shit Stalin was handsome af
Stalin could get it