What were the results of Joseph Stalin's Death?
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.
421990
Probably one of the most brutal dictators in modern history, surpassing Hitler, and on the level of Stalin.\n\nMao came to power when he defeated nationalist forces in the late 40's. He was a very personable leader, but could not run the country, and his policies became disastrous. \n\nFor example, in the 50's, he forced many people to go work in steel mills. This lead to widespread famine & death. While no official figures are available, estimates put the death toll for this famine between 20 and 30 million.\n\nIn addition, to keep control over the country, in the 60's he created the Cultural Revolution. This revolution, which probably killed around 1-3 million people (again, only estimates), involved primarly teenagers roaming the country, buring schools and generally destroying the main pillars of civilization. Only when the Cultural Revolution factions started to fight each other, and when it appeared that civil war was once again a real possibility, did Mao call in the Chinese Army to put down the revolution & restore civilization.
643047
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili is his given name. In 1913, He changed his name to Josef Stalin. 'Stalin' in English means 'steel'
1178672
~Worked well for the Third Reich.  They just didn't use it enough.  Neither did Pol Pot.  Joe Stalin made a good run at it though.  Kill for Peace and Justice, I say.  PTL
413038
Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao or Pol Pot ??\n\nAll the above are tyrants .. dictators .. murderers\n\nthe first .. killed more than 20 millions .. mostly his own ppl.\n\nthe second .. killed more than 50 millions during his WW2 of 6 yrs .. he even ordered destruction of Germany itself on his last days in the Bunker\n\nthe third Mao .. maybe some 3-4 millions .. all were his enemies\n\nthe 4th .. PSYCHOTIC leader who killed his own ppl. about 4 millions .. and made a Pyramid of their skulls
294596
Stalin exercised complete control in all areas of his country, including all the media, the politburo, industry, research areas and even the artistic/cultural sphere.\nThrough propaganda, Stalin's control of all the media ensured that only good news (most of the time deliberate lies or gross exaggerations) reached its population, while the bad news, famines, bad results caused by his collectivization plans, etc., never reached the ears of the public except perhaps in the form of isolated rumours. He also controled the education system, and in all schools the children were taught to love him as "the father of the country", and a large personality cult was centered around him. Textbooks were also altered and biased to favour Stalin's rule and his policies.\nThrough terror campaigns, Stalin got rid of all his political enemies... first those inside the Communist Party, like Trotsky, and eventually, he begun to target anyone that showed any hints of independent thinking. Stalin's spies and secret police were omnipresent, and reported anybody that seemed slightly critical of his regime, or just because they were intelectual, and these people were sent to gulags where they faced years of imprisonment and forced labour or sometimes they were just brutally murdered. These people often had to face "faux trials", or "moneky trials" first, where they were accused of being counter-revolutionaries or traitors under false pretenses, to give some legitimacy to their dissapearances.\n\nAlso: For more info, there's always wikipedia. It's very helpful!\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
972140
The communists were on the winning side .
207391
He died of pneumonia in Munich on June 14, 1920. I tried to find out where he was buried but I was unable to find any mention of it in the sources I checked.
628860
munich olympics\n\nthe death of the atheletes\nbut the winning of mark spitz
635891
this has some good info, there's even more of you follow the link\n\nCauses and outcomes\n\nWhile complex, it is possible to group the causes of the Holodomor. They have to be understood in the larger context of the social revolution 'from above' that took place in the Soviet Union at the time.\n\nIn the early 1920s, when Soviet Russia needed to win the sympathy of other nations for the newly born communist state, Ukraine enjoyed a short period of revival of its national culture under the policy of Korenizatsiya. This was, however, ended and replaced with the a policy of effective Russification, as soon as the Soviet regime firmly took root, thereby causing significant social, cultural, and political conflict in the Ukrainian populated territories.\n\nSimultaneously, a policy of collectivization of agriculture was introduced. Agriculture in Ukraine was affected more strongly by this than most other agricultural areas, as Ukraine has had a long tradition of individually owned farms, while most farms in Russia, for example, had been communal (not collective) property.\n\nUnexpectedly, from the Bolshevik point of view, Collectivization proved highly unpopular with the rural population. When collectivization was still voluntary, very few peasants joined collective farms. The regime therefore began to increasingly put pressure on peasants to join collective farms, and to speed up the process of collectivization, tens of thousands of officials were sent into the countryside in 1929–1930.\n\nAt the same time, the "Twenty-Five Thousanders", industrial workers, mostly devoted Bolsheviks, were sent to help run the farms. In addition, they were to fight the increasing passive and active resistance to collectivisation by engaging in what was euphemistically referred to as "dekulakization": the arresting of 'kulaks' — allegedly well to do farmers who opposed the regime and withheld grain — and sending whole 'kulak' families into concentration camps and Siberia. In fact, most of the so-called 'kulaks' were no more well off than other peasants. Effectively, the term 'kulak' was applied to anybody resisting collectivization. It is estimated that around 2 million[citation needed] Ukrainians became victims of these repressions in 1929-1932.\n\nCollectivization proved to negatively affect agricultural output everywhere, but since Ukraine was the most productive area (over 50% of Imperial Russian wheat originated from Ukraine in the beginning of 20th century), the effects here were particularly dramatic.\n\n \nPassers-by no longer pay attention to the corpses of starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv, 1933.Despite the decrease in agricultural output, Soviet authorities soon drastically increased Ukraine's crop production quotas (by 44% in 1932). The targets were unrealistic and many historians believe that this was intentional. On August 7, 1932, the Moscow government imposed death penalty in Ukraine for any theft of public property [7] [8] [9]. The scope of this law was very wide, and included even the smallest appropriation of grain by peasants for personal use. As a result, hundreds of peasants were executed each month under the new law. Still, until October 25, Moscow received only 39% of the demanded grain supplies. When it became clear that the 1932 grain deliveries were not going to meet the expectations of the government, the decreased agricultural output was blamed on the "kulaks", "nationalists", and "Petluravites".\n\nA special commission headed by Vyacheslav Molotov was sent to Ukraine in order to execute the grain contingent.[10] On November 9, a secret decree urged Bolshevik police and repression forces to increase their "effectiveness". Molotov also ordered that if no grain remained in Ukrainian villages, all beets, potatoes, vegetables and any other food were to be confiscated. On December 6, a new regulation was issu
261505
I consider them both pretty evil.  Consider this, Stalin's mass killings were mostly before WW II (100,000 a year), and mostly from his purges and 'collectivization in early 30's with the latest estimate of around 20-30 million dead.  His genocide wasn't a full time occupation to his death, unlike Hitler, but that's where the comparison stops.  When comparing the two, both were evil, both put people in concentration camps, both committed genocide, both were dictators, both...well you get the picture.  The one factor Hitler had over Stalin tho, Hitler was insane.  Stalin was just angry and distrustful.\n\nOther things to consider,Stalin killed more people, Hitler started WW II, Hitler killed the Jews and some people in his nation, but he started the war that resulted in many troops dying on both sides.  Hitler may be considered the greater of both evils; tho Stalin killed more people it is said, Hitler's action ensured that those loses were as high as possible.
126804
RIP Orson Welles.\n\nThe date stated above is correct. He died at his typewriter.
1146181
My answer is: Party. Its great he is dead.
615542
happened righ5t in our county..parents were away..kid had party..another kid got drunk and hit by car. he then went home and died in his sleep from internal injuries. they are both vets and own a horse farm. they got charged and are facing lawsuits..good old communist ny..genesee county in particular
281855
The USSR was bent on world domination, and we had to maintain a balance of power or face nuclear war.The arms race and space programs and Vietnam,Korea were results. Domestically, anti war and civil rights issues nearly split the country.
368688
He was able to create a revolution, so yes - but at the same time, his revolution was completely immoral, inhuman, and did not succeed. He was defeated, however, through his leadership, dictatorship, and manipulative skills he was able to create a revolution.
63455
What result? Need more detail!!