The Most Evil Men in History Muscovite khan Ivan the Terrible

[Litwin]

the first time i am 100% agree with Discovery....why are so many similarities between Ivashka the Terrible and Koba Dzhugashvili ?
Ivan the terrible´s very own "NKVD":

just his sadism , rape, bestiality, brutal killings

"Historic sources present disparate accounts of Ivan's complex personality: he was described as intelligent and devout, yet given to rages and prone to episodic outbreaks of mental illness. In one such outburst he killed his groomed and chosen heir Ivan Ivanovich. This left the Tsardom to be passed to Ivan's younger son, the weak and intellectually disabled Feodor Ivanovich. Ivan's legacy is complex: and trade, ...he is also remembered for his paranoia and arguably harsh treatment of the nobility."

 

[Mac1958]

Looking forward to seeing how many crazies nominate Trump or Obama.

 

[Litwin]

Looking forward to seeing how many crazies nominate Trump or Obama.

and Soros, Clinton with Nuland ...

 

[pismoe]

thanks Litwin , pretty interesting .

 

[Litwin]

thanks Litwin , pretty interesting .

you are welcome , here some more great readings , pure evil Oprichniki (NKVD_SMERSH)

"
Modern theories suggest that the motivating purpose for the organization and existence of the Oprichniki was to suppress people or groups opposed to the Tsar. Known to ride black horses and led by Ivan himself, the group was known to terrorize civilian populations. Sometimes called the "Tsar's Dogs"[by whom?] because of their actions and blind loyalty,[citation needed] they dressed in black garb, similar to a monastic habit, bearing the insignia of a severed dog's head (to sniff out treason and enemies of the Tsar) and a broom (to sweep them away). The dog's head was also symbolic of "nipping at the heels of the Tsar's enemies".[citation needed]

The Oprichniki were ordered to execute anyone disloyal to Ivan and used various methods of torture to do so, including tying each limb to a different horse and riding in opposite directions, death by boiling,[citation needed] impalement, and roasting victims tied to poles over an open fire.[citation needed]

When Ivan declared himself the "Hand of God", he selected 300 of the Oprichniki to be his personal "brotherhood" and live in his castle at Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda near Vladimir. At 4 a.m., these select Oprichniki attended a sermon given by Ivan, then performed the day's ritual executions. The Oprichniki sought to lead an externally ascetic lifestyle, like the monks they emulated, but it was punctuated by acts of cruelty and debauchery. Ivan sang while his Oprichniki ate, eating only when they had finished. At 9 p.m. he went to bed, listening to stories told by three blind men.[citation needed]

In the Novgorod incident, the Oprichniks killed an estimated 1500 "big people" (nobles), although the actual number of victims is unknown.[3] By 1572, the Oprichnik had become a destabilizing force and were disbanded by Ivan. It became a capital offense to say or discuss "Oprichnina".[c"

Oprichnik - Wikipedia

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Pretty much every Communist leader in history should be at the top of everyone's list.

 

[Litwin]

Pretty much every Communist leader in history should be at the top of everyone's list.

Ivan IV's penchant for cruel repression also received a qualified approval from the Soviet dictator. Anastas Mikoyan in his memoirs:

Stalin(koba) said that Ivan Groznyi killed too few boyars, that he should have killed them all, and then he would have created a truly united and strong Muscovite state earlier.

 

[Litwin]

"
Stalin likewise critiqued artistic depictions of Ivan IV that he felt drifted too far from what had emerged as the orthodox interpretation of the Muscovite past. Most famously, the Soviet dictator criticized the second part of Eisenstein's biopic which delved into the Tsar's repression of the boyars. In his personal review of the screenplay in 1943, Stalin noted:

Comrade Eisenstein has proved himself equal to the task. Ivan Groznyi as a progressive force for his time, and the oprichnina as his expedient instrument, have come out not badly. The scenario should be put into effect as soon as possible.

But when the Stalin screened a print of the film in 1947, both he and Beria were deeply disappointed with the Eisenstein's portrayal of the oprichniki, which according to Stalin were too much like the Ku Klux Klan, and the irresoluteness of Ivan IV. Stalin directed Eisenstein to make Ivan into a more determined figure and the oprichniki as a progressive army. Other figures in Stalin's entourage chimed in. Molotov noted that repression should be contextualized and explained clearly, and in the case of Ivan IV, shown to be necessary. Stalin also pushed for the film's final scene to be the victory in the Livonian war, which was the original screenplay's ending, showing that Ivan IV's actions had a larger context.

Two things stand out in these critiques of Eisenstein's film. Firstly, Stalin still saw film and other fictional depictions of the tsarist past in didactic terms. Not only did historical biopics like Ivan Grozniy have to conform to Marxist-Leninist precepts about historical development (which acquired a Stalinist gloss in this period), but they also served an educational vehicles. Secondly, Stalin's critiques suggest he was also sensitive to historical parallels between himself and the less than savory figures of Russia's past. It is very easy to read parallels between the Terror of Stalin and the Ivan IV's repression, hence these critiques of Stalin tended to emphasize the modernity and necessity of Ivan IV's policies. Portraying the oprichniki's terror as an orgy of violence had a particular meaning the context of the emerging Cold War where the KKK lynching loomed large in Soviet propaganda against the US.

While Robert Tucker has argued that Stalin used Ivan IV as a paradigmatic model, this argument relies upon a set of circumstantial evidence. Stalin only directly intervened twice for a more positive depiction of Ivan IV, in Eisenstein's film and the staging of a Tolstoi's play on Ivan IV. And Stalin's own interpretation of Ivan IV's biography was not universal, several writers presented a critical view of the Tsar, albeit one that was steeped in Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. The state rehabilitation of Ivan IV only gathered steam after 1940, and while it is tempting to view this as representative of Stalin using history to retroactively justify the Terror (and this was Mikoyan's opinion), this rehabilitation was part of a larger project of instrumentalizing the Russian past in light of the German threat.

sources

Perrie, Maureen. The Cult of Ivan the Terrible in Stalin's Russia. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Platt, Kevin M. F., and David Brandenberger. Epic Revisionism: Russian History and Literature As Stalinist Propaganda. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006."