I think you raise excellent points. However, I could see Iranians being very angry that people in the U.S. government decided for the Iranian people that it was best that the Iranians should live under a brutal dictatorship. I can only imagine if the situation were reversed ...

> The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states.

I don't know about that particular example: I believe the E. European client states were occupied by the Red Army after WWII, dominated by secret police services, and later when they rebelled in Hungary and Czechoslovakia the tanks were sent back in. Not much intrigue needed.

But they did manage to acquire allies in many parts of the world, so generally I'd agree they seemed good at it.

The military occupation was a big part of it, but the communists were able to seize control of the political process in Eastern European capitals without resorting to overt military coercion. They made it look like the Eastern European states were free to choose their own paths. By the time people realized what was happening, it was too late.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transfo...

Roosevelt was fooled too. This is what he wrote to one of his diplomats in 1943, before the war was over: "I think that if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

> Roosevelt was fooled too. This is what he wrote to one of his diplomats in 1943, before the war was over: "I think that if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

That quote is unbelievable for someone so experienced in war and politics (but I see it has a good-looking cite in Wikipedia) Thanks. Wow.

Here's a great interview with Stephen Kotkin, Princeton professor, about Stalin: http://www.hoover.org/research/hoover-fellow-stephen-kotkin-... . He was apparently a very charismatic and likable guy. The interview convinced me to buy the book.

Thanks! I've seen several times people be surprised that some horrible leader was charismatic.

I've heard it said by people who meet politicians they despise: 'They were actually very nice!'. Politicians need to win people over in seconds, which is all the time they will have with most of them. If they rise to high levels, they probably are very good at it.

Stalin was (I assume) a leader of the Bolsheviks from when they were a nothing grassroots organization through taking over a large country through a successful revolution and coup, and then later defeating the Nazi army and controlling one of the largest empires in the history of the world. I don't think you can pull that off without exceptional interpersonal skills.

It also reinforces that there is little relationship between being someone you like and being a good leader. The very worst were highly charismatic - how else could they get millions of people to do such horrible, irrational things?

It's a controlled democracy, it's not brutal and it's not a dictatorship[1]. What gives U.S. the right besides it's carrier groups to say what kind of government the Iranian people should live under? The head of state the Iranian people last officially recorded as having overwhelmingly supported in 1979 is more legitimate than any kind of leader or government U.S. might say they would like to foist onto the Iranian people. The U.S. has indirectly caused multiple times more deaths and suffering in Iran that it's current government ever did.

Who is brutal, and who is trying to dictate?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran

I think you misunderstood my comment.

You're right, yes I did. Thanks.