Skip to main content

Who said that?


World War II was a bloody and sickening affair. A dirty and shameful blot on human history. It was not a war for truth or justice etc. but as usual it was about power. The rivalry between established world powers of France, Great Britain, United States, USSR and want to be great powers of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Nevertheless, 80 Million people died due to wounds, and war induced disease and famine The former Soviet Union alone lost 26.6 Million people. 

Unfortunately behind everything we see or experience in the material world is about power. First they fight, then they decide what is the noble cause for which they are fighting. They fight, then they weep.


"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."


_____________________________

The Soviet Union was led by their leader Josef Stalin. Stalin was frequently described by Lenin as "a course, brutal, bully". Stalin's willingness to sacrifice large number of his under-equipped and poorly trained people to fight the Germans greatly helped the Allies win the war Stalin felt it could afford the loss of lives, and human attrition was a significant factor, along with courage, strategy, technology and ingenuity, of the Soviet people in winning the war against Germany. 

War often gives winners a taste of power. A power so addictive that they simply can't let go. Stalin wanted to the only powerful person in the Soviet Union, so he carried out one ruthless purge after another. No one was safe.  The Soviet nation, an economic, political and military superpower after the war was driven purely by fear. The people who trembled most were people closest to Stalin. Indeed the Soviet Union was a frightening place to be at that time.

Nikita Khrushchev was chosen to succeeded Stalin in 1953. Khrushchev was one of the eight members of the Presidium of the central committee of the USSR communist party. He was repulsed by what he saw was Stalin's personality based cult. He publicly denounced Stalin and Stalinism and it's consequences, at the session of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 


A few minutes into Khrushchev's speech, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?" 

The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence. 

"Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence. 

Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer. 

Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile. 

"Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit."

A few lessons to share with you.

  • The truth is never plain and simple.
  • Only two types of people normally speak the truth. Those who love or care for you /the cause or those who hate you. 
  • Everyone asks for the truth, but very few can swallow it. Even fewer are the people in power who can tolerate it. Rarely can senior colleagues or bosses digest the truth. In any event it is the messenger who always gets shot or hanged. 
  • If you must speak the truth, do so, but leave immediately.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Last thoughts and words of Emperor Aurangzeb

The 6th Mughal emperor of India, Aurangzeb was a brave but cruel man. While he was an excellent military leader, he was a weak administrator with poor understanding of economics. As a result he landed up being dependent on corrupt, fanatical people who only hungered for power and wealth.

Aurangzeb's lust for power was insatiable. In this quest he spared no one, imprisoning his own father, and slaughtering his brothers and nephews. He inherited an expanding empire which permitted him to rule the largest area of the Mughal empire's history, before he led it into decline. 

He felt that his actions had probably made him repugnant to the people and his legitimacy to rule would always be questioned. So he adopted a frugal life style and tried to be a good Muslim to appease the powerful clerics, soldiers, noblemen and the muslim public, which would allow him to rule effectively.

Like many other misguided men he came to believed that Islam meant only violent, subjugation and persecution.…

The Lopez Effect

Every now & then things get tough for a lot of organisations. This may be caused by technology, competition, recession or whatever. When the nasty stuff hits the fan, this is what typically happens at large organisations;

The CMD (Chairman & Managing Director) will call a meeting and scream and rant on how useless and lazy his entire management team is and how they have let the organisation's profitability slide. blah, blah, blah!!!!

The boss desperately searches for a scapegoat. Sometimes sacrificial lambs are found and a few heads roll and the situation only deteriorates because attacking people rather problems never helps. Sometimes the boss realises the truth, that there is no one individual or department or function that can be specifically blamed except the boss himself.

After venting his ire, the boss will issue a diktat to the management team. "I want my organisation to return to high profitability so this is what the team is going to do. I want you to reduce…

Ideology is not Philosophy

We often use words carelessly when communicating and that can lead to much confusion and even misunderstandings.  Take the case of the terms ideology and philosophy which are often used interchangeably. 

The ideologist believes that he or she is right and all those who disagree are wrong.
The philosopher believes that there may be differing perspectives and he or she might have missed something, or the other person has an alternate perspective, and they are  perfectly within their rights to have a differing view.

The ideologist is extremely confident, the philosopher always harbours doubts.
The ideologist is intolerant and if he has no choice will at best tolerate you. The philosopher respects you. 

The hallmark of a true civilisation is that there is scope for dissent, and yet be respected. 
As my friend Bala Adiga says, "One can always disagree without being disagreeable"
This is clearly the philosophy of the East evident in India and many parts of Asia.

The ideologist is masculin…