Did Stalin Ever Get Elected?
356400
No, he was not. He was given control over a Soviet agency after Lenin's death and consolidated his power from there. Malenkov or Trotsky were considered the likely successors to Lenin. Malenkov was too meek to fight Stalin for power and Stalin turned public opinion against Trotsky, forcing him to flee to Mexico, where he was assassinated.
312421
Actually the first one was MEHDI BAZARGAN, he was head of Iran's interim government.\nBut the first elected president was ABOLHASAN BANI SADR.
79279
Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany from 1933 and then Führer (Leader) of Germany from 1934 to 1945. \n\nHe was never a "president", but held the comparable post in Germany. For more information follow the link below.
855297
sounds like hogwash to me.  He got elected, didn't he?
1012472
He changed his name around 1905 to Stalin.
1140971
there is the democratic republic - which the USA has.  They elect people to legislate on their behalf - and elect the leader as well.\n\nThere is the democratic monarchy - which the UK and others have.  It still elects those to legislate for them - but the leader is there by birthright (there are still a couple where the monarch is not just a figure head).\n\nThere is plain democracy, which does not exist to my knowledge anymore, it was in ancient Greece, where there was no real "leader" and that while there was a senate to deal with certain issues, one person = one vote on main issues.\n\nI suppose you could also include the democratic dictatorship where there is "an election" every so many years and surprisingly the "leader" keeps getting re-elected. basically one person = no vote.\n\nThere was the attempt at democratic socialism, but am not sure as much about that.
1073402
I think disintegration of the USSR as a communist dictatorship can be considered as an achievement itself.\n\nI think Gorbachev did a great service to his country by bringing it back from Orwellian "1984" world back to reality. One can argue what better economic policy could be applied to start moving from centralized economy to the market economy, but Gorbachev role in political reforms and restoring "human values" (общечеловеческих ценностей) is hard to overestimate.\n\nMy personal opinion is that Gorbachev did not really know that it was the beginning of the end when he started his actions in 1985, he honestly believed in a "socialism with human face". And many people (including myself) would simply laugh, if somebody told them in early 1985 that in slightly more than 6 years their country would cease to exist and the communist party will be outlawed (although briefly).
459283
On March 1, 1953, after an all-night dinner with interior minister Lavrenty Beria and future premiers Georgi Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin collapsed in his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought it odd that he did not rise at his usual time the next day they were under orders not to disturb him and he was not discovered until that evening. He died four days later, on March 5, 1953, at the age of 74, and was buried on March 9. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until October 31, 1961.\n\nAs part of the process of de-Stalinization, his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls.\n\nIt has been suggested that Stalin was assassinated. The ex-Communist exile Avtorkhanov argued this point as early as 1975. The political memoirs of Vyacheslav Molotov, published in 1993, claimed strong evidence that Beria had boasted to Molotov that he poisoned Stalin: "I took him out."\n\nKhrushchev recorded in his memoirs that Beria had, immediately after the stroke, gone about "spewing hatred against [Stalin] and mocking him", and then, when Stalin showed signs of consciousness, dropped to his knees and kissed his hand. When Stalin fell unconscious again, Beria immediately stood and spat.\n\nIn 2003, a joint group of Russian and American historians announced their view that Stalin ingested warfarin, a powerful rat poison that inhibits coagulation of the blood and so predisposes to hemorrhagic stroke (cerebral hemorrhage). Since it is flavorless, warfarin is a plausible weapon of murder. The facts of Stalin's death, however, will probably never be known with certainty.\n\nHis demise arrived at a convenient time for Beria and others, who feared to be swept away in still another purge. It is believed that Stalin felt Beria's power was too great and threatened his own. Whether or not Beria or another usurper was directly responsible for his death, it is true that the politburo did not summon medical attention for him for more than a day after he was found.
1068968
Yes, there are. They're called elections. \n\nVoting is power. Vote.
432050
No. He came to office to enrich his sponsors (big corporations selling weapons and oil) and he is doing a great job.\n\nThe little guy just needed to be conned into voting for him..
557559
No, Because when a dictator dies more than likely they do not name a rightful heir/heiress and the emergance of another dictator occurs because after death the country is left in an other riot. Nope\n\ndictorship= another stronger dictator= another dicator\n\nunless somewhere peopel have free elections, which never seems to be truly free because the "dictator" threatens his political opponents and therby scres his own people into re-election Ex: Fidel castro(all opposition are in exile or killed) Robert Mugabe(Dictator of Zimbabwe) he has been president of Zimbabwe since 1980 when it was granted independence by England. He rigged the ballot boxes for each election to ensure his victory.\n\nSorry for long explanation but answer is no
648769
Nikita Kruschev\n\nSoldier for USSR during WW2\nSoviet Premiere after Stalin
788982
No.  We elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to a regular term.  I say this because he won a special re-call election two years ago. \n\nHe beat his opponent, State Treasurer, Phill Angelides by about 16 points.
85011
yeah in some ways I agree, but at least Stalin was able to do something when Hitler bit him in the butt!  When the Jihadists betray the leftists, they will just cower and beg for a Republican to take care of business.\n\nStudent of life?  you need to go to the School of life and stay away from the protesting lines.  Democrats are the ones that try to have the government rule our lives- and open your ears if you only hear about Bush tapping phone lines, because there is plenty of evidence showing Clinton doing the same things, just not as much press because he wagged the dog with a BJ in office! So maybe you should research the philosophy of democrats vs. republicans, and take that paper 2 cents back that you recieved from the bogus budgeting that your hero Bill Clinton did.
206124
They use a parallel electoral system. Out of the 450 members in the Duma, half are elected in SMDs using the Plurality system and the other half are elected by regional lists using PR. A party needs a threshold of 5% to qualify. The results are very disproportional.
1132478
No, you got it mixed up. Stalin killed about as many if not more people than Hilter, Not Kruschev.
329195
No. In order to be the worst elected official, you have to be elected legally. Bush doesnt fit that basic requirement. Check out this article on what really happened during the last election.\n\nhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html\n\n\nNixon or Reagan would have to be the worst elected officials.\n\n\npeace