Did Stalin have the right to wear a military uniform?

[rupol2000]

Stalin (the real name of Dzhugashvili, Georgian by nationality) always wore a military uniform, and even trousers with stripes, which before the revolution could only be worn by the military aristocracy and the Cossacks.
However, Stalin never held a military weapon in his hands and was never at the front as a military man.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of all the things that Stalin did wrong, and all the crimes he committed, his choice of clothing seems trivial and immaterial.

 

[rupol2000]

Of all the things that Stalin did wrong, and all the crimes he committed, his choice of clothing seems trivial and immaterial.

This greatly influenced his image of a "real man", unfortunately still affects. From the point of view of dirty PR, this is essential.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Of course he had the right to wear the uniform. As a totalitarian ruler he gave himself the right. Case closed.

 

[rupol2000]

Of course he had the right to wear the uniform. As a totalitarian ruler he gave himself the right. Case closed.

In fact, he was not a totalitarian leader, he was simply kept as a scarecrow for the people. He was mentally ill and addicted to alcohol and ballerinas.

 

[Votto]

The only guys I know this obsessed with their dress are gay.

Just say'in

 

[rightwinger]

Stolen Valor

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

He deserved to have a barge pole shoved up his ass and displayed in front of the Kremlin till the birds finished with him.

 

[whitehall]

What difference does it make? Stalin was in charge so he could create his own uniform. You could say that Hitler "deserved" to wear a military uniform having served as a Cpl. during WW1 but it seems he never wore one. Most South American dictators created their own uniforms through the years and the Brits pride themselves for military displays.

 

[Ringo]

Stalin never held a military weapon in his hands and was never at the front as a military man.

What kind of nonsense are you writing? Have you never heard that Stalin was the Supreme Commander-in-Chief?
The trouble is that the Americans' idea of the USSR and Russia was formed from childhood from idiotic and deceitful Hollywood films. Here, for example, is a frame from the movie The King's men (2021). How many people will be able to determine the idiocy of the situation in the frame? And this is 99% of the content of ANY Hollywood film about the USSR.
And you Rupol 2000, add shit to their heads, already burdened with lies and nonsense. Or maybe this is your job?

Here is this episode translated in russian. "Abdication of the tzar Nicolas the II"

https://idiod.video/59m3bh.mp4

 

[rupol2000]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief?

This means nothing. Surely Angela Merkel is also the Supreme Commander. This is an administrative position and not the position of a military officer.

Stalin is not a military man and never was. Even in Tbilisi robberies, he was only an administrator.

 

[rupol2000]

tzar Nicolas the II

This effigy was an impostor, a British field marshal.

But in general, the Russian tsars of the 19th century were military. For example, Alexander 3 began his service in his youth, from low ranks, participated in hostilities and had military awards.

 

[fncceo]

He was mentally ill and addicted to alcohol and ballerinas.

There are worse things to be addicted.

 

[Ringo]

Stalin is not a military man and never was.

During the Civil War, Stalin was chairman of the Military Council of the North Caucasus Military District (June-September 1918), a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Southern Front (September-October 1918), a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic and a representative of the Central Executive Committee in the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense (October 1918)

That is, in the years when Hitler was a corporal, Stalin already had leadership experience in higher military organizations. And in general, the history of revolutions knows many examples when civilians, without any previous military training, became talented generals and marshals. The experience of the Great French Revolution and the Russian Civil War clearly confirms this.

 

[rupol2000]

During the Civil War, Stalin was chairman of the Military Council of the North Caucasus Military District (June-September 1918), a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Southern Front (September-October 1918), a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic and a representative of the Central Executive Committee in the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense (October 1918

These are all commissar positions. It's an office rat

 

[rupol2000]

Stalin was a coward and paranoid. Once, during a speech, it seemed to him that they were aiming at him from a rifle with optics and jumped under the podium. It was the brilliance of theater binoculars. This girl then could not be pulled out from under the podium for a long time. His diagnosis of paranoia was official.

 

[rupol2000]

He couldn't even read tactical military maps.

 

[rupol2000]

In general, he was a very weak, puny man. He could not even hold a small 5-year-old girl in his arms for photography, they put her on the table and then made a montage.

 

[Ringo]

These are all commissar positions. It's an office rat

This is the commissar:

It was the commissars who played a very important role in both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. The need for them was explained by the fact that often the military leaders who remained from the old regimes betrayed, and the new military leaders did not correspond to their posts. Without the commissars, the victory of the revolution could be in question. That's why they appeared. And to consider an office rat a person who, in the difficult years of disorganization, was able to organize logistics and order in the army is simply stupid.

 

[Ringo]

He couldn't even read tactical military maps.

I'm sorry, I forgot I was talking to a fool. Good luck.