I mean he also helped the Cubans, the Chinese, the Africans, and continued some of the Stalin-era plans. I feel like I'm also forgetting something else I'd say that was nice about him, but I'll probably remember later.
Anyways point is, is that he did good things and bad things through out his life and that we shouldn't wholesale throw out his experience as one of the leaders of the Communist movement - unlike how he threw Stalin under the bus - and ultimately try to be objective in judging his professional career. By my judgement being that he was lightyears and galaxies ahead of any president we've had or will ever have under this government and in the sino-soviet split I would side with the Soviet as being on the right side of history. That said I would still have him and several other rightists as face trial as opportunists of the highest order and be liquidated.
To give him credit for "helping the Chinese" when he destroyed sino-soviet relations is, uh, not reasonable. He destroyed hundreds of arrangements made under Stalin for the cooperation between the two nations and the purchase of technology by China because China didn't want to host Soviet military basis (or denounce Stalin). China went on to pursue dreadful foreign policy, but Khrushchev is absolutely at fault for the initial split.
He did help Cuba though and gets full credit for that.
He followed through with the majority of the deal set by the Stalin-era presidium of significantly pouring Soviet resources, technology, expertise, etc. into China to help them get the first step towards modernization, in addition to trying to temper Mao's, almost Trotskyite, desire to assertively spread the Revolution in a post-nuke world.
And Khrushchev may be at fault for causing the split, but it's Mao's fault for exacerbating it to the point that the PRC - even after the ultra-left gang of four and well into the period of time the CPC is in the grasp of Rightists - conducts objective harm to the international communist movement by siding with America against the Soviet Union several times over the decades.
Like I said, Mao pursued bad foreign policy, but it was only the catastrophically bad US-collaboration (etc) after Khrushchev started the split, which he did for horseshit reasons.
And my, boiled down, point is that Mao's a splitter. Even if Khrushchev decided to be a piece of shit - which is understating it - that doesn't excuse Mao from being a little shit that grabbed his ball and went home.
We can point to the best Korea as having the most advanced and nuanced take on the whole situation and the period thereafter which is basically boiled down to continuing to cooperate even though you disagree because there's a whole imperialist world out there frothing at the mouth to enslave you or exterminate you.
Krushchev was the one who stopped cooperating first unless you believe that China not wanting Soviet military installations is a blow on the same level as Khrushchev's subsequent betrayal!
It's not lost on me how the whole ordeal fucked things over. Reading about poor Albania was very depressing, though in some respects it might be said Hoxha was also a splitter. I don't really know his policy but he correctly identified Khrushchevites as revisionists and wreckers and China as a turncoat, so it was a very difficult position, especially if Hoxha is to be believed about Khrushchev boasting to him about how he killed Stalin.
China not wanting Soviet bases makes about as much sense as the Soviets not wanting to fulfill China's request for a full restoration of pre-1859 Tsarist borders. The whole sino-soviet split was the result of pigheaddedness and arguing who had the bigger pighead is to aspire to be a pighead alongside them.
And frankly I don't know much about Albania outside of a story I either heard or read about some boomer hating his job so much he wrote to Enver to find him a better job and actually succeeding. Which is incredibly funny and an incredible testament of character for Hoxie as far as I'm concerned.
It's like making fun of Trotsky for being a little shit that didn't tip Waiters vs recognizing his successes and failures wholistically. Fun to do dunks but good to keep a realistic understanding.
I mean he also helped the Cubans, the Chinese, the Africans, and continued some of the Stalin-era plans. I feel like I'm also forgetting something else I'd say that was nice about him, but I'll probably remember later.
Anyways point is, is that he did good things and bad things through out his life and that we shouldn't wholesale throw out his experience as one of the leaders of the Communist movement - unlike how he threw Stalin under the bus - and ultimately try to be objective in judging his professional career. By my judgement being that he was lightyears and galaxies ahead of any president we've had or will ever have under this government and in the sino-soviet split I would side with the Soviet as being on the right side of history. That said I would still have him and several other rightists as face trial as opportunists of the highest order and be liquidated.
To give him credit for "helping the Chinese" when he destroyed sino-soviet relations is, uh, not reasonable. He destroyed hundreds of arrangements made under Stalin for the cooperation between the two nations and the purchase of technology by China because China didn't want to host Soviet military basis (or denounce Stalin). China went on to pursue dreadful foreign policy, but Khrushchev is absolutely at fault for the initial split.
He did help Cuba though and gets full credit for that.
He followed through with the majority of the deal set by the Stalin-era presidium of significantly pouring Soviet resources, technology, expertise, etc. into China to help them get the first step towards modernization, in addition to trying to temper Mao's, almost Trotskyite, desire to assertively spread the Revolution in a post-nuke world.
And Khrushchev may be at fault for causing the split, but it's Mao's fault for exacerbating it to the point that the PRC - even after the ultra-left gang of four and well into the period of time the CPC is in the grasp of Rightists - conducts objective harm to the international communist movement by siding with America against the Soviet Union several times over the decades.
Like I said, Mao pursued bad foreign policy, but it was only the catastrophically bad US-collaboration (etc) after Khrushchev started the split, which he did for horseshit reasons.
And my, boiled down, point is that Mao's a splitter. Even if Khrushchev decided to be a piece of shit - which is understating it - that doesn't excuse Mao from being a little shit that grabbed his ball and went home.
We can point to the best Korea as having the most advanced and nuanced take on the whole situation and the period thereafter which is basically boiled down to continuing to cooperate even though you disagree because there's a whole imperialist world out there frothing at the mouth to enslave you or exterminate you.
Krushchev was the one who stopped cooperating first unless you believe that China not wanting Soviet military installations is a blow on the same level as Khrushchev's subsequent betrayal!
It's not lost on me how the whole ordeal fucked things over. Reading about poor Albania was very depressing, though in some respects it might be said Hoxha was also a splitter. I don't really know his policy but he correctly identified Khrushchevites as revisionists and wreckers and China as a turncoat, so it was a very difficult position, especially if Hoxha is to be believed about Khrushchev boasting to him about how he killed Stalin.
China not wanting Soviet bases makes about as much sense as the Soviets not wanting to fulfill China's request for a full restoration of pre-1859 Tsarist borders. The whole sino-soviet split was the result of pigheaddedness and arguing who had the bigger pighead is to aspire to be a pighead alongside them.
And frankly I don't know much about Albania outside of a story I either heard or read about some boomer hating his job so much he wrote to Enver to find him a better job and actually succeeding. Which is incredibly funny and an incredible testament of character for Hoxie as far as I'm concerned.
Fair. I was mostly joking, but thats really good to keep in mind.
It's like making fun of Trotsky for being a little shit that didn't tip Waiters vs recognizing his successes and failures wholistically. Fun to do dunks but good to keep a realistic understanding.