Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 06:15:01


Post by: Freakazoitt


Comrades!
I congratulate you on the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution!









100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 06:17:52


Post by: sebster


I guy I used to know on-line had a few books history books published, he was always planning to write a history of Russia from the Tsars to the oligarchs called "Somehow it gets worse".


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 09:28:03


Post by: tneva82


Well guess I can thank for independent Finland


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 10:33:39


Post by: jhe90


1917.

Aye. The rise of communism.

I saw a intresting documentary about that period when the Navy crews rebelled against communists because they felt the revolution was not true to its roots.

They lost, though early on there resistance and such as quite symbolic.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 10:52:05


Post by: Skinnereal


Possibly an insight from a UK perspective (I've not read it yet):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Red_October


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 11:13:51


Post by: Freakazoitt


I saw a intresting documentary about that period when the Navy crews rebelled against communists because they felt the revolution was not true to its roots.

Probably, the Kronstadt uprising? One of the events that showed that the Bolsheviks went on the bloody path.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 12:13:48


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Freakazoitt wrote:
I saw a intresting documentary about that period when the Navy crews rebelled against communists because they felt the revolution was not true to its roots.

Probably, the Kronstadt uprising? One of the events that showed that the Bolsheviks went on the bloody path.


All revolutions end in failure. The American Revolution had the whisky rebellion, and the founding fathers' reaction to it was very hypocritical to say the least.

The French revolution was hijacked by Napoleon.

And the Russian revolution ended when Trotsky turned the guns on the sailors. From then on, it was a naked power grab.

Who knows what might have happened if Kerensky hadn't made the idiotic decision to launch another Russian offensive?



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 12:34:25


Post by: fresus


 Freakazoitt wrote:
I saw a intresting documentary about that period when the Navy crews rebelled against communists because they felt the revolution was not true to its roots.

Probably, the Kronstadt uprising? One of the events that showed that the Bolsheviks went on the bloody path.

The Kronstadt rebellion was also a fight between different visions of communism (anarchist vs authoritarian). The Bolshevik quickly showed that they would only accept their own view on the matter.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 15:10:33


Post by: Rosebuddy



Lenin walks around the world.

Frontiers cannot bar him.

Neither barracks nor barricades impede.

Nor does barbed wire scar him.


Lenin walks around the world.

Black, brown, and white receive him.

Language is no barrier.

The strangest tongues believe him.


Lenin walks around the world.

The sun sets like a scar.

Between the darkness and the dawn

There rises a red star.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 15:37:46


Post by: ulgurstasta


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
I saw a intresting documentary about that period when the Navy crews rebelled against communists because they felt the revolution was not true to its roots.

Probably, the Kronstadt uprising? One of the events that showed that the Bolsheviks went on the bloody path.


All revolutions end in failure. The American Revolution had the whisky rebellion, and the founding fathers' reaction to it was very hypocritical to say the least.

The French revolution was hijacked by Napoleon.

And the Russian revolution ended when Trotsky turned the guns on the sailors. From then on, it was a naked power grab.

Who knows what might have happened if Kerensky hadn't made the idiotic decision to launch another Russian offensive?



Depends on how you define "failure" in this case, The French revolution did actually liberalize France and heralded the end of feudalism and the aristocracy, even though it was a "two steps forward, one steps backwards" situation.

Same with the Russian revolution, say what you will about the Bolsheviks, but they were an improvement to the serfdom and tzardom that was before them.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 16:03:04


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


It liberalized France at the expensive of Europe going to hell in a handcart!


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 16:24:51


Post by: Frazzled


Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 16:35:16


Post by: Scrabb


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


This is what I wanted to say, but didn't know I wanted to say it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 16:40:13


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


I don't doubt the good intentions of ordinary peasant people who just wanted a better life than abject poverty and Cossacks shooting you down.

But yeah, it spiralled out of control real bad.

The legacy of Communism will be with us for a long time. It provoked Fascism in Italy and Germany, and of course, China has been heavily influenced by Communism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:00:00


Post by: feeder


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Given that we've established in other threads that intention is what counts behind an action, surely the birth of communism is something to celebrate? It very quickly turned into the greatest gak sandwich the world has ever seen, but the intention at the outset was good and noble. The intention is what counts, right?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:08:57


Post by: Iron_Captain


Lenin lived!
Lenin lives!
Lenin will live again!




Happy anniversary to all comrades out there. Kinda a pity that the Soviet Union fell now. The party probably would have been epic.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:09:46


Post by: Frazzled


 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Given that we've established in other threads that intention is what counts behind an action, surely the birth of communism is something to celebrate? It very quickly turned into the greatest gak sandwich the world has ever seen, but the intention at the outset was good and noble. The intention is what counts, right?


The intentions of Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were carried out. Murder and death on a scale that would give Hitler pause.
Lenin set up the first version of what would become the KGB. The death started then.

You're literally celebrating genocide.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Lenin lived!
Lenin lives!
Lenin will live again!




Happy anniversary to all comrades out there. Kinda a pity that the Soviet Union fell now. The party probably would have been epic.


Millions of his victims cry out for justice.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:19:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

Except that the goal of Nazism was to murder or enslave anyone who wasn't "aryan" and the goal of Communism was to provide equal opportunities and a decent standard of living to all mankind?
And taking a look at Russia in 1917 and at Russia in 1957, they did a damn good job. From a rural agrarian backwater where people couldn't even read or write to a spacefaring nuclear superpower. Not bad. A pity that they forgot about the whole equality thing though.

 Frazzled wrote:
Millions of his victims cry out for justice.

In a few weeks time it will be Thanksgiving. May I remind you of the fact that you will be celebrating an even bigger massacre? Maybe you should change it into a national day of atonement for the massacre of indigenous Americans instead?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:27:11


Post by: feeder


 Frazzled wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Given that we've established in other threads that intention is what counts behind an action, surely the birth of communism is something to celebrate? It very quickly turned into the greatest gak sandwich the world has ever seen, but the intention at the outset was good and noble. The intention is what counts, right?


The intentions of Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were carried out. Murder and death on a scale that would give Hitler pause.
Lenin set up the first version of what would become the KGB. The death started then.


So we agree the USSR quickly became the greatest gak sandwich the world has ever seen.

You're literally celebrating genocide.


I'm saying if intention is what counts, then the birth of communism is something to be celebrated. At birth, the USSR had good intentions.


Or maybe I'm trying to illustrate, in a cheeky way, that intentions an behind action doesn't matter jack squat and it's the actual outcome of those actions that matters.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:29:42


Post by: Frazzled


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

Except that the goal of Nazism was to murder or enslave anyone who wasn't "aryan" and the goal of Communism was to provide equal opportunities and a decent standard of living to all mankind?



And taking a look at Russia in 1917 and at Russia in 1957, they did a damn good job. From a rural agrarian backwater where people couldn't even read or write to a spacefaring nuclear superpower. Not bad. A pity that they forgot about the whole equality thing though.

Ask the "politially unreliable" people's how it worked out.
As for the economy, Russia's economy is smaller than Brazil and killed millions of people for NOTHING. One hundred million died in China. 1/4 of the population died in Cambodia. Wherever it was put

 Frazzled wrote:
Millions of his victims cry out for justice.

In a few weeks time it will be Thanksgiving. May I remind you of the fact that you will be celebrating an even bigger massacre? Maybe you should change it into a national day of atonement for the massacre of indigenous Americans instead?


You're just jealous of our recent technological innovation-frying turkeys in peanut oil, and of course our latest invention: turduckin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Given that we've established in other threads that intention is what counts behind an action, surely the birth of communism is something to celebrate? It very quickly turned into the greatest gak sandwich the world has ever seen, but the intention at the outset was good and noble. The intention is what counts, right?


The intentions of Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were carried out. Murder and death on a scale that would give Hitler pause.
Lenin set up the first version of what would become the KGB. The death started then.


So we agree the USSR quickly became the greatest gak sandwich the world has ever seen.

You're literally celebrating genocide.


I'm saying if intention is what counts, then the birth of communism is something to be celebrated. At birth, the USSR had good intentions.


Or maybe I'm trying to illustrate, in a cheeky way, that intentions an behind action doesn't matter jack squat and it's the actual outcome of those actions that matters.




I'm saying, from the start the Bolsheviks did not have good intentions.

EDIT: to be clear, I am not disparaging the Russians, or anyone alive, unless of course Lenin is attached to some sort of Golden Throne, just waiting for his time to strike...

OK thats wrong, I am still disparaging Malfred for stealing my socks.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:35:48


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:38:13


Post by: Frazzled


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


Hey if that makes you sleep better at night. Just be sure to skip over the parts about the dictatorship thing to re-order society, and what the Bolsheviks actually did.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:48:50


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Frazzled wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


Hey if that makes you sleep better at night. Just be sure to skip over the parts about the dictatorship thing to re-order society, and what the Bolsheviks actually did.

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 17:53:11


Post by: Frazzled


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


Hey if that makes you sleep better at night. Just be sure to skip over the parts about the dictatorship thing to re-order society, and what the Bolsheviks actually did.

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Most of the world managed that without slaughtering a portion of the population.

Now the real question is, was vodka better before or after the revolution.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:04:46


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Frazzled wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


Hey if that makes you sleep better at night. Just be sure to skip over the parts about the dictatorship thing to re-order society, and what the Bolsheviks actually did.

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Most of the world managed that without slaughtering a portion of the population.

That is not true. Do you know how many people have been slaughtered by your government and its predecessors? Did you forget your own civil war already? All the wars against native Americans? The massacre of people in colonies? There is no government on earth that hasn't slaughtered a portion of its population at some point in time. The only real difference is that in the West, this is all long ago enough that the people have forgotten, while in Russia it is more recent. And of course all of the russophobic and anti-communist propaganda that the West is so fond of that makes sure people in the West only know about the bad things that communism did, and not the good.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:09:05


Post by: Frazzled


You're arguing that to bring electricity and education, you have to have gulags? Can you explain the connection to me?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:10:58


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Frazzled wrote:
You're arguing that to bring electricity and education, you have to have gulags? Can you explain the connection to me?

There is no connections. GULAG is a result of autoritarian rule, not ideology.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:13:58


Post by: Frazzled


Don't ask me, ask Iron Captain. He's the one arguing lots of people have to die to hook up the electric grid.

Must be a Matrix thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, celebration of ending the Czar and Boyars, good. Bolsheviks, bad. Very very bad.

To quote Ferris Bueller, "I am against isms."


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:19:34


Post by: feeder


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:22:10


Post by: Frazzled


 feeder wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.


Exactly. For one brief moment the long suffering Russian people had a chance for a new and better way. The Bolsheviks ended that.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:25:13


Post by: djones520


This is like celebrating the beginning of the Sioux Wars. Yeah, in the end it opened up massive amounts of land that helped to springboard our country into an unparalleled level of growth, but at what cost?

Seriously, there is nothing to celebrate about the 1917 revolution. It only ended up plunging the world into a near century of war.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:27:02


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Frazzled wrote:
Don't ask me, ask Iron Captain. He's the one arguing lots of people have to die to hook up the electric grid.

Must be a Matrix thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, celebration of ending the Czar and Boyars, good. Bolsheviks, bad. Very very bad.

To quote Ferris Bueller, "I am against isms."

I don't agree that. Many many deaths could be avoided. The reason they died is a Stalin's paranoia. He killed all the revolutionaries to rule at his own and then started terror. There were some crimed commited by Lenin too, but was thinking of saving revolution, not making himself another tsar.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:35:06


Post by: feeder


 Frazzled wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.


Exactly. For one brief moment the long suffering Russian people had a chance for a new and better way. The Bolsheviks ended that.


True. Still gonna "celebrate" with some 28mm Whites vs Reds Chain of Command.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:46:13


Post by: Frazzled


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Don't ask me, ask Iron Captain. He's the one arguing lots of people have to die to hook up the electric grid.

Must be a Matrix thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, celebration of ending the Czar and Boyars, good. Bolsheviks, bad. Very very bad.

To quote Ferris Bueller, "I am against isms."

I don't agree that. Many many deaths could be avoided. The reason they died is a Stalin's paranoia. He killed all the revolutionaries to rule at his own and then started terror. There were some crimed commited by Lenin too, but was thinking of saving revolution, not making himself another tsar.


Which countries had communism without repression?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.


Exactly. For one brief moment the long suffering Russian people had a chance for a new and better way. The Bolsheviks ended that.


True. Still gonna "celebrate" with some 28mm Whites vs Reds Chain of Command.


Don't forget the vodka!


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:54:45


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 18:59:36


Post by: feeder


 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


I had to google this term. It's a meme popular with the gakkier part of society. I thought you weren't down with the clown, I thought you Voted for the Stoner (tm) I am dissapoint. Feels bad man.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:06:06


Post by: whembly


 feeder wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


I had to google this term. It's a meme popular with the gakkier part of society. I thought you weren't down with the clown, I thought you Voted for the Stoner (tm) I am dissapoint. Feels bad man.

I indeed voted for The Stoner™.

Pinochet was asked to intervene after the election of Allende by the parliment.

He did.

He ordered executions of many Chilean communists by throwing them out of helicopters. Pinochet himself commanded battlions (is that right terminologies) of helicopters.

Not sure what you meant by popular meme... had to google myself.

But, "Helicopter Pinochet" is an old old nickname.... such that, Frazzled is old enough to recognize.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:24:31


Post by: Galas


Most National Celebrations are based in wars and the destruction of the opponents of a nation.

Many people in Spain call the Hispanity Day, the celebration of a genocide (Is the day Columbus discovered america). I disagree. But they have a point.

Personally, living in a country that was under Fascist-Rulership during 40 years just because it was convenient at the time for the democratic western goverments, because he was opposed to Marxism, I can't really see the Moral High Horse some western nations claim to have.

The only difference between Communism and the Portuguese and Spanish Fascim vs Nazism, is that the the Nazis lost the war.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:25:19


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
You're arguing that to bring electricity and education, you have to have gulags? Can you explain the connection to me?

There is no connections. GULAG is a result of autoritarian rule, not ideology.

Indeed. There is no connection. Frazzled is making one up.
Electricity and education are two important of the myriad improvements that the Bolsheviks brought to Russia. The GULAG system was a tool of stalinist oppression. It is a great shame that the Soviet Union under Stalin became so authoritarian, and that Stalin was such a paranoid, murderous bastard, but you can't blame that on the Bolsheviks. They became victims of Stalin just like everyone else.

 feeder wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.

Most of my family was killed off or exiled after the civil war, as everyone but my great-grandfather fought on the White side. Yet I still praise the Bolsheviks. The modernisation of Russia is a massive benefit. Sure, the civil war was incredibly nasty, but it paved the way to a prosperous future as a modern superpower. Sometimes, sacrifices must be brought for the greater good.

The American War of Independence was also very nasty. Many atrocities were committed by the Patriots. Loyalists, slaves and native Americans (who supported the government) were actively murdered and many had to flee the country. Yet you still celebrate that. It is the same thing. Why is it a problem if Russia does it? Typical Western hypocrisy, that is what it is.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:25:47


Post by: feeder


 whembly wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


I had to google this term. It's a meme popular with the gakkier part of society. I thought you weren't down with the clown, I thought you Voted for the Stoner (tm) I am dissapoint. Feels bad man.

I indeed voted for The Stoner™.

Pinochet was asked to intervene after the election of Allende by the parliment.

He did.

He ordered executions of many Chilean communists by throwing them out of helicopters. Pinochet himself commanded battlions (is that right terminologies) of helicopters.

Not sure what you meant by popular meme... had to google myself.

But, "Helicopter Pinochet" is an old old nickname.... such that, Frazzled is old enough to recognize.


While I'm sure you are being darkly humourous, extrajudicial killings are always a sign of an illegitimate system.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:29:57


Post by: Galas


 Iron_Captain wrote:

 feeder wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.

Most of my family was killed off or exiled after the civil war, as everyone but my great-grandfather fought on the White side. Yet I still praise the Bolsheviks. The modernisation of Russia is a massive benefit. Sure, the civil war was incredibly nasty, but it paved the way to a prosperous future as a modern superpower. Sometimes, sacrifices must be brought for the greater good.


Many people use this same argument to support Franquism. "Yeah, he did many things to improve Spain! Spain ended better than it was before"
You know what? Every f****ng nation did it in the same period. And many of them didn't needed a Authoritarian and genocidical goverment to do it. So no, they don't receive a free pass or a "Objetive revisionism" of their acts because "They did it for the greater good"


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:54:36


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Frazzled wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Don't ask me, ask Iron Captain. He's the one arguing lots of people have to die to hook up the electric grid.

Must be a Matrix thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, celebration of ending the Czar and Boyars, good. Bolsheviks, bad. Very very bad.

To quote Ferris Bueller, "I am against isms."

I don't agree that. Many many deaths could be avoided. The reason they died is a Stalin's paranoia. He killed all the revolutionaries to rule at his own and then started terror. There were some crimed commited by Lenin too, but was thinking of saving revolution, not making himself another tsar.


Which countries had communism without repression?

Which countries had capitalism without repression? You belong to the elite of capitalist society. It is easy for you to forget just how repressive capitalism is as a system. Just ask the poor kids in Bangladesh that are making your clothes. Or all of the miners that died easily preventable deaths while building your country into what it is today (with the elite getting all the profits and praise).
And that is without mentioning the more direct forms of oppression in all those capitalist states that did not have the luxury of being on the top of the global pecking order. Yeah, communism has turned into oppressive tyrannical systems in those countries where it was tried. But with capitalism has turned into this in even more countries.
 Galas wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

 feeder wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Sure, father and all my uncles were seized in the night by government agents with no explanation, but at least I have a lightbulb to learn to read by!

Communism, as practiced under Stalin and to a lesser extent his successors, resulted in the greatest genocide of the last 100 years. You can't handwave that away with some creature comforts and an improved literacy rate.

Most of my family was killed off or exiled after the civil war, as everyone but my great-grandfather fought on the White side. Yet I still praise the Bolsheviks. The modernisation of Russia is a massive benefit. Sure, the civil war was incredibly nasty, but it paved the way to a prosperous future as a modern superpower. Sometimes, sacrifices must be brought for the greater good.


Many people use this same argument to support Franquism. "Yeah, he did many things to improve Spain! Spain ended better than it was before"
You know what? Every f****ng nation did it in the same period. And many of them didn't needed a Authoritarian and genocidical goverment to do it. So no, they don't receive a free pass or a "Objetive revisionism" of their acts because "They did it for the greater good"

And let me guess? All of those nations also happen to all have been stable democracies that belonged to the wealthiest nations in the world already? Improving your nation is easy when you have the means and no resistance. When you do not have the means and do have a lot of resistance, that is where you will have to spill blood to get what you want.
You can't compare the Bolsheviks to Franco. Franco was an ordinary military dictator who overthrew a democratic government that he didn't like, as happens so often in the world. The Bolsheviks were a popular resistance movement against one of the most authoritarian and despotic governments in the world. Spain didn't need the modernisation that Russia needed. Spain wasn't still a near-feudal society. In Spain people could actually read. In Russia, the old feudal order had to be brought down, just like it had been brought down in the rest of the world centuries before.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 19:58:45


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Thank you for parroting nazi propaganda.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:05:29


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Thank you for parroting nazi propaganda.

Lets be real, Frazzled isn't. He is critical of Nazism as well and saying the magnitude is greater is just depending on how we handle statistics and what to include etc. They were both pretty terrible in execution, even if the end goal was wildly different.

 sebster wrote:
I guy I used to know on-line had a few books history books published, he was always planning to write a history of Russia from the Tsars to the oligarchs called "Somehow it gets worse".

Seems like "Somehow it gets worse" is the perfect way to describe the future of this thread...

For being so focused on what Stalin and the Gulags contributed to the dark part of history, lets not forget that from the start Lenin and his Cheka weren't so 'friendly' either.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:11:12


Post by: kronk


I am thinking Rosebuddy was joking and knows that Frazz is not a Nazi sympathizer...

I hope?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:14:06


Post by: Disciple of Fate


I hope so..


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:17:27


Post by: jhe90


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
I saw a intresting documentary about that period when the Navy crews rebelled against communists because they felt the revolution was not true to its roots.

Probably, the Kronstadt uprising? One of the events that showed that the Bolsheviks went on the bloody path.


All revolutions end in failure. The American Revolution had the whisky rebellion, and the founding fathers' reaction to it was very hypocritical to say the least.

The French revolution was hijacked by Napoleon.

And the Russian revolution ended when Trotsky turned the guns on the sailors. From then on, it was a naked power grab.

Who knows what might have happened if Kerensky hadn't made the idiotic decision to launch another Russian offensive?



That's the uprising. The soviet Navy crews put up a fight against red army but in the end they took the costal fortresses and ships.

They gave them a good fight though.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:20:36


Post by: Rosebuddy


 kronk wrote:
I am thinking Rosebuddy was joking and knows that Frazz is not a Nazi sympathizer...

I hope?


He doesn't need to have nazi sympathies to parrot, that is unwittingly repeat, their propaganda. It happens quite often that someone who has no personal interest in nazism repeats one of their talking points with regards to communism without knowing, because the West has spent many decades lying about communism. After all, communism is a bigger threat to the capitalist order than nazism is.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:27:10


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Its not spreading Nazi propaganda to say that a lot of people died in the name of communism. Yes, it depends on what you include in communism and the defenition. But academia is pretty secure in putting people like Stalin and Mao in a form of communism camp.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:34:21


Post by: kronk


Or was Stalin's Communist Russia really Authoritarian Socialism. However, I'm not interested in a debate about "which was worse, Hitler's Nazis or Stalin's Communists" here.

As even Freakazoitt (or was it Iron Captain) said in this thread "Stalin was a dick to his people." (paraphrasing)


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:41:06


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 kronk wrote:
Or was Stalin's Communist Russia really Authoritarian Socialism. However, I'm not interested in a debate about "which was worse, Hitler's Nazis or Stalin's Communists" here.

As even Freakazoitt (or was it Iron Captain) said in this thread "Stalin was a dick to his people." (paraphrasing)

Ah good old fashioned debates on definitions Stalin even got his own one, Stalinism. I don't think the debate has any inherent value (not to mention how you would even agree on breaking it down), both were bad as everyone seems to agree on.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:42:51


Post by: Kilkrazy


 djones520 wrote:
This is like celebrating the beginning of the Sioux Wars. Yeah, in the end it opened up massive amounts of land that helped to springboard our country into an unparalleled level of growth, but at what cost?

Seriously, there is nothing to celebrate about the 1917 revolution. It only ended up plunging the world into a near century of war.


I would disagree that the Soviet Union caused a century of war. The first thing the SU did was to pull out of WW1, leaving it to the west to fight out. The first thing the west did was to invade the nascent SU to try and force it to continue in the war.

It takes two to tango.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:44:28


Post by: kronk


 Kilkrazy wrote:


I would disagree that the Soviet Union caused a century of war. The first thing the SU did was to pull out of WW1, leaving it to the west to fight out. The first thing the west did was to invade the nascent SU to try and force it to continue in the war.

It takes two to tango.


To be fair, I never liked the kid that said "I'm taking my ball and going home if we don't play it my way!"

feth you, Scott. feth you and your goddam ball.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:45:51


Post by: Kilkrazy


True, but it doesn't make that kid liable for the continuation of the game which a lot of people want to end.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:49:20


Post by: Disciple of Fate


WW1 was really what led to the century of war in the first place if reasoned like that. Germany would have lost either way and the events of that (in a really shortened version) led to WW2, which led to the antagonism between the two new superpowers that came out of WW2.

The SU pulling out of WW1 and the Allied invasion caused a lot of bad blood between the two parties that helped the above events along. But I wouldn't call 1917 a primary reason as Killkrazy says.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 20:54:30


Post by: Future War Cultist


Nice intentions, shame about the famines.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 21:40:42


Post by: Frazzled


 feeder wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


I had to google this term. It's a meme popular with the gakkier part of society. I thought you weren't down with the clown, I thought you Voted for the Stoner (tm) I am dissapoint. Feels bad man.


I don't know what that means but now I have the intro to Apocalypse Now in my head.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Thank you for parroting nazi propaganda.


25-50mm dead in the USSR.
100mm in China
1/4 the population in Cambodia.
I am not the one celebrating the birth of the system that caused the most death for humanity since the Black Plague. Sure the Nazis tried but they scheduled too many good opponents in the worldwide John Deere Lowenbrau Guiness Ale Stolichnoya World Domination Bowl and got stomped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
This is like celebrating the beginning of the Sioux Wars. Yeah, in the end it opened up massive amounts of land that helped to springboard our country into an unparalleled level of growth, but at what cost?

Seriously, there is nothing to celebrate about the 1917 revolution. It only ended up plunging the world into a near century of war.


I would disagree that the Soviet Union caused a century of war. The first thing the SU did was to pull out of WW1, leaving it to the west to fight out. The first thing the west did was to invade the nascent SU to try and force it to continue in the war.

It takes two to tango.


The USSR then invaded the Balkans and got its ass kicked by Poland. Remember the Bolsheviks originally wanted worldwide revolution.
The Nazis were bad. The Communists were bad. Only Rasta Man was good.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 22:13:31


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Nice intentions, shame about the famines.

Famines existed before 1917. The only European country to still suffer famine even in peacetime. The difference is that the bolsheviks cared about it and managed to eventually put a stop to it. They greatly modernised agriculture and made Russia self-sufficient in food. There haven't been any famines since.The tsar never even cared enough to try to solve the issue. He just wanted more golden eggs to give as presents to his family.
And that is the thing about the bolsheviks. They had nothing but good intentions. And while they had many failures and never reached their greatest ambition of a communist society (mostly thanks to Stalin), they did manage to fulfill a lot of their smaller goals. Russia was an illiterate society in 1917. Now, 100 years later is one of the best educated nations in the world and famed for many scientific achievements. All of these things are often conveniently forgotten in the west for the sake of anti-communist or anti-russian propaganda. But really, it is hard to comprehend just how much good the revolution did for Russia in the end.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Thank you for parroting nazi propaganda.


25-50mm dead in the USSR.
100mm in China
1/4 the population in Cambodia.
I am not the one celebrating the birth of the system that caused the most death for humanity since the Black Plague. Sure the Nazis tried but they scheduled too many good opponents in the worldwide John Deere Lowenbrau Guiness Ale Stolichnoya World Domination Bowl and got stomped.

50 million dead? That is like a third of the entire population... I call bs on those numbers. It is pure propaganda that can only be gotten to by blaming every single death on communism, even deaths that really aren't due to communism. And even then the numbers for the USSR are still way off, so it is more likely you or someone else just made that up for his little propaganda piece. If we treat capitalism in the same way as communism, then it is pretty certain that capitalism killed way more people than communism and fascism combined. After all, the vast majority of wars, famines, oppression and purges happen in capitalist countries, if only because of the fact that almost every country in the world is capitalist, including all the really gakky ones (North Korea is only the really exception here, but NK isn't really communist anymore either).


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 22:15:20


Post by: Scrabb


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Thank you for parroting nazi propaganda.


"A magnitude greater" sounds a whole lot worse than "ten times as much" but I didn't know facts were nazi propoganda now.

Already brought up, but I feel bears repeating is the fact Communism beats Nazism in kill count by raw numbers (we have China to thank for that) and per capita deaths of it's own citizens (Pol Pot).

It's really weird how we had this lively debate going about with defenders of the actions taken by communists like Lenin and Stalin and everyone was doing ok but as soon as someone was accused of aligning, even unintentionally, with nazis the thread took a collective gasp.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 22:38:47


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Scrabb wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.


Thank you for parroting nazi propaganda.


"A magnitude greater" sounds a whole lot worse than "ten times as much" but I didn't know facts were nazi propoganda now.

Already brought up, but I feel bears repeating is the fact Communism beats Nazism in kill count by raw numbers (we have China to thank for that) and per capita deaths of it's own citizens (Pol Pot).

It's really weird how we had this lively debate going about with defenders of the actions taken by communists like Lenin and Stalin and everyone was doing ok but as soon as someone was accused of aligning, even unintentionally, with nazis the thread took a collective gasp.

That is easy to explain. Nazism is an ideology that deliberately sought to exterminate entire peoples and 'inferior races'. Communism is an ideology that seeks to improve life and establish equal rights for all people. Communism is an inherently good ideology that was abused by authoritarian regimes, just like all political ideologies, religions and ideas can be abused by leaders to justify and safeguard their power. Atrocities committed in authoritarian communist countries are little different from those committed in authoritarian capitalist countries. They should not be blamed on the ideology, but rather on the authoritarian regime. Nazism on the other hand is an inherently bad system. Atrocities committed under nazism are completely different from anything seen before or since. They were not just committed for the regular reasons that authoritarian regimes commit atrocities (to safeguard their power by eliminating their enemies). Nazism sought to destroy not just political enemies (though they did that as well) but to exterminate entire populations based on the belief that those populations were 'impure' and 'not worthy of life'. They committed their atrocities for no reason but pure hate. No communist or capitalist regime has ever done something quite that shocking.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 23:33:22


Post by: Scrabb


Interesting perspective, Iron.

I guess I consider evil done in the name of good more dangerous and insidious than evil done for it's own sake.

That explains the divide.

And I consider the gulags the single most terrifying thing we have surviving human personal testimonies of.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/07 23:34:18


Post by: Mario


Frazzled wrote:Which countries had communism without repression?
Ask the CIA


Future War Cultist wrote:Nice intentions, shame about the famines.
Are we talking about communism or capitalism, or both?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 00:49:41


Post by: Disciple of Fate


The numbers getting thrown around are a bit unrealistic when taking historical accuracy into account. A bit of a more general list that is in more accepted range.

Soviet Union has around 10 million victims in its worst period between 1917-1945ish, this includes the Holodomor (3-5), the NKVD shootings(0.5-1), Gulags (1.5-2), Cheka (0.2-0.5 and absolutly brutal civil war war communism (hard to directly attribute, partly tied to Cheka).

This does not take into account any of the victims it created during WW2, which could be several million depending on how to distribute blame after placing Nazism as fhe primary culprit.

For China it is between 35-45 million. Divided between the Great Famine (30-40) and the Cultural Revolution (1-5). China is a bit more difficult and the numbers fluctuate more because record keeping was worse and officially death tolls are still downplayed by the CCP.

Frazzled is right about Cambodia killing 1/4 of the population which is about 2 milliin.

Another to possibly include is North Korea with around half a million. Although war once again gives a more complicated view, as blame can be attributed for victims of the Korean War.

This leaves out countries such as Vietnam and Cuba, which overall weren't nearly as bad as the above, although they also had serious problems. These numbers are indeed terrible. But the West should not pat itself too much on the back for not having gone through this phase, plenty of less eye catching bloodshed happened in Western colonial empires in the 20th century. It just happened that two of the most populous countries on earth were controlled by terrible people who would climb over mountains of corpses to realize their views.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Scrabb wrote:
Interesting perspective, Iron.

I guess I consider evil done in the name of good more dangerous and insidious than evil done for it's own sake.

That explains the divide.

And I consider the gulags the single most terrifying thing we have surviving human personal testimonies of.

While the Gulags were terrible, the majority sent to them survived. Contrast that to the concentration and extermination camps of the Third Reich and I think those qualify more as the most terrifying.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 02:32:13


Post by: Grey Templar


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nazism on the other hand is an inherently bad system.


So is Communism. It makes some hilariously bad assumptions and fails to take into account basic human nature. In order to implement communism, you need the most brutal leaders to enforce it. But these same types of people you'd need to seize power to implement it are the same kind of people who will not relinquish it, thus making the whole political and economic system that is Communism doomed to failure.

Marx to put it bluntly was a total moron, who angry at his lot in life made some desperate and ill thought out ramblings which other people latched on to, and billions suffered as a result.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 02:51:10


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nazism on the other hand is an inherently bad system.


So is Communism. It makes some hilariously bad assumptions and fails to take into account basic human nature. In order to implement communism, you need the most brutal leaders to enforce it. But these same types of people you'd need to seize power to implement it are the same kind of people who will not relinquish it, thus making the whole political and economic system that is Communism doomed to failure.

Like with every other socio-economic system, the success or failure of communism depends entirely on how it is implemented. Authoritarianism is not inherent to communism in any way, though authoritarianism does often result from violent revolutions (which only take place in authoritarian societies). However, revolution is not absolutely necessary to implement communism. In a democratic society it could equally be done democratically.
And just to clarify, I was referring to good and bad as ethical terms, not as practical assessments. In practical terms, I don't think communism is a good system myself actually. I would much prefer something like anarcho-syndicalism.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Marx to put it bluntly was a total moron, who angry at his lot in life made some desperate and ill thought out ramblings which other people latched on to, and billions suffered as a result.
Calling Marx a moron is not entirely an accurate assessment of the man and his ideas. Marx is more than just the Communist Manifesto you know. Marx is the father of modern socialism, easily one of if not the most influential political ideas of the 19th and 20th centuries. Apart from that, his other writings and philosophical theories have had a huge impact on many scientific fields, ranging from disciplines like sociology to linguistics to archaeology. Our world would not look quite the same without Marx, so calling him a moron means calling a very large part of the world's political and scientific community morons. Which is evidently not true. Just because you don't like his ideas doesn't make him a moron.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 03:14:17


Post by: Galas


Calling Marx a Moron is demostrating one own ignorance.

Karl Marx wrote the best analysis and critizism of the Capitalistics and Western society that even today still applies to our world.

Even if I myself think ideologies and other modernist ways of thinkings are outdated and incorrect, and that the Marx's analisys of capitalism was very accurate but his solution (Socialism and Communism) was totally inviable, I can recognise him as one of the greatests Philosopher and thinker of the XIX century.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 03:44:27


Post by: sebster


 feeder wrote:
I'm saying if intention is what counts, then the birth of communism is something to be celebrated. At birth, the USSR had good intentions.


I dispute this. At its heart the bolshevik movement was a ruthless, naked grab for power. Everything else was secondary to that, especially equality. Afterall, if the real goal is equality then you would attempt it by raising the wealth and power of the average person. Instead the bolsheviks achieved their 'equality' simply by stripping rights from the formerly privileged, dragging them down to the same level as everyone else, and took all status and privilege for themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Lots of countries managed that without murdering anyone.

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad.


Directly executing more than a million people, and killing another 20 to 40 million more die through mass (often planned) starvation and other such ruthless policies is not 'many things that were bad'. fething hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is not true. Do you know how many people have been slaughtered by your government and its predecessors? Did you forget your own civil war already?


When we talk about the slaughter of the Soviet regime, it doesn't even included the Civil War. It's actually just counting the millions of citizens who were killed in deliberate government programs in peacetime that we're counting. And in that regard, yes, the Soviet Union is unique in directly executing about a million people, and counts itself among a very rare few countries in creating policies where the deaths of millions was either not a concern, or in some cases a desired outcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Seriously, there is nothing to celebrate about the 1917 revolution. It only ended up plunging the world into a near century of war.


I agree that there's nothing to celebrate in the 1917 revolution. But I'm not sure there's much value in assigning blame for the subsequent wars on it. The Nazis are to blame for the war they started. And sure, one of the reasons the Nazis gained power was fear of communism, but it wasn't as though the anti-communist elements were motivated by the awful human rights abuses of Soviet Russia, it was the income equality thing that freaked them out. Reactionary movements freaking out about the actual good parts of communism must be accountable for their own atrocities, including WWII and the holocaust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
I don't agree that. Many many deaths could be avoided. The reason they died is a Stalin's paranoia. He killed all the revolutionaries to rule at his own and then started terror. There were some crimed commited by Lenin too, but was thinking of saving revolution, not making himself another tsar.


Lenin was also a murderous gak. And so was Trotsky. The fact that Stalin was an even more murderous donkey-cave doesn't in any way reduce the crimes of other Soviet leaders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


Its fundamentally weird to simultaneously take a moral position against the murders of Soviet Russia, and at the same time celebrate the murders commited by an anti-communist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
And let me guess? All of those nations also happen to all have been stable democracies that belonged to the wealthiest nations in the world already?


Nope. Let's just start with India as an example that started from a much lower base, with far bigger ethnic rivalries, and shifted to a modern country in shorter time without having to murder millions of its own citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Seems like "Somehow it gets worse" is the perfect way to describe the future of this thread...


I have to admit I didn't see the defence of Soviet Russia coming. Even when I saw this thread had three pages since I saw it yesterday, I didn't suspect it was because someone would be trying to mount a defense of Soviet Russia. I've read the thread now, and I'm still not sure I believe someone was trying to defend Soviet Russia.

For being so focused on what Stalin and the Gulags contributed to the dark part of history, lets not forget that from the start Lenin and his Cheka weren't so 'friendly' either.


Absolutely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
50 million dead? That is like a third of the entire population... I call bs on those numbers. It is pure propaganda that can only be gotten to by blaming every single death on communism, even deaths that really aren't due to communism.


Yeah, seeing a number you don't like the sound of and rejecting it is precisely why your politics are in the place they are. 50m is on the higher end of estimates, but there are plenty of decent estimates that put it over 60m. Lower estimates go down to 20m. If we take a rough middle we get 40m, higher than the 50m quoted but within the ballpark.

And your measure against population is bad. We aren't talking about a mass murder over a single year, but a year on year set of policies, almost all between 1917 and 1940. Forced starvation over that period can quite easily kill that many people in a country as large as Soviet Russia.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 04:48:14


Post by: Frazzled


Oh dear Dog, I agree with Sebster.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 04:52:07


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 sebster wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Seems like "Somehow it gets worse" is the perfect way to describe the future of this thread...


I have to admit I didn't see the defence of Soviet Russia coming. Even when I saw this thread had three pages since I saw it yesterday, I didn't suspect it was because someone would be trying to mount a defense of Soviet Russia. I've read the thread now, and I'm still not sure I believe someone was trying to defend Soviet Russia.

I once spend a while on FB arguing with a very delusional German on how Mao was a mass murderer. All the while he kept arguing how Mao modernized and industrialized China and how well he did to make that transformation happen. Ignoring 40 million something deaths and the small amount of effort that can actually be attributed to Mao for making the Chinese economy what it is today was pretty staggering. I got blocked for providing references for the inconvenient truth

 sebster wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
50 million dead? That is like a third of the entire population... I call bs on those numbers. It is pure propaganda that can only be gotten to by blaming every single death on communism, even deaths that really aren't due to communism.


Yeah, seeing a number you don't like the sound of and rejecting it is precisely why your politics are in the place they are. 50m is on the higher end of estimates, but there are plenty of decent estimates that put it over 60m. Lower estimates go down to 20m. If we take a rough middle we get 40m, higher than the 50m quoted but within the ballpark.

And your measure against population is bad. We aren't talking about a mass murder over a single year, but a year on year set of policies, almost all between 1917 and 1940. Forced starvation over that period can quite easily kill that many people in a country as large as Soviet Russia.

Just out of curiosity, where are those numbers from and what part is attributed to the civil war? Recent historical works don't tend to come to 20 million if not including a large amount of civil war and ww2 deaths (not that I disagree about including part of those).


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 05:28:55


Post by: sebster


 Grey Templar wrote:
Marx to put it bluntly was a total moron, who angry at his lot in life made some desperate and ill thought out ramblings which other people latched on to, and billions suffered as a result.


You are wildly, hopelessly ignorant of Marx. I am not a defender of communism, but assuming it was the creation of Marx is a huge mistake. I am also not a defender of Marx' own Labour Theory of Value, but calling it the work of a moron is nonsense. And beyond all that, Marx' contributions to economic history are huge, he provided amazing insights and methods that played a direct role in the creation of that field - not the work of a moron.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Oh dear Dog, I agree with Sebster.


Don't worry, it'll pass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I once spend a while on FB arguing with a very delusional German on how Mao was a mass murderer. All the while he kept arguing how Mao modernized and industrialized China and how well he did to make that transformation happen. Ignoring 40 million something deaths and the small amount of effort that can actually be attributed to Mao for making the Chinese economy what it is today was pretty staggering. I got blocked for providing references for the inconvenient truth


It is staggering what people will deny, or rationalise. But then, that's a big part of how these things happen in the first place.

Just out of curiosity, where are those numbers from and what part is attributed to the civil war? Recent historical works don't tend to come to 20 million if not including a large amount of civil war and ww2 deaths (not that I disagree about including part of those).


How soon is now? I'll admit the last time I paid any really close attention to this was in the late 90s, when we saw the last of the studies done after Russia gave some access to its archives. If work done since then has lowered the total, I'd be happy to admit my figures were out of date.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 05:46:05


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just out of curiosity, where are those numbers from and what part is attributed to the civil war? Recent historical works don't tend to come to 20 million if not including a large amount of civil war and ww2 deaths (not that I disagree about including part of those).


How soon is now? I'll admit the last time I paid any really close attention to this was in the late 90s, when we saw the last of the studies done after Russia gave some access to its archives. If work done since then has lowered the total, I'd be happy to admit my figures were out of date.

The last decade really. If including figures from the civil war and WW2 it averages around 20-30 million in most works. 10 million I gave earlier, which is the bottom end of the scale, can at least be directly attributed to murder and starvation policies outside of the two wars, although that leaves out at least another 10-15 million in my opinion (but including wars always leads to endless arguing about what 'counts').


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 06:08:34


Post by: sebster


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The last decade really. If including figures from the civil war and WW2 it averages around 20-30 million in most works. 10 million I gave earlier, which is the bottom end of the scale, can at least be directly attributed to murder and starvation policies outside of the two wars, although that leaves out at least another 10-15 million in my opinion (but including wars always leads to endless arguing about what 'counts').


Interesting, thanks. I'll look in to that to update my understanding.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 07:52:48


Post by: Kilkrazy




Continued here...

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/210


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:11:08


Post by: ulgurstasta


 sebster wrote:


Yeah, seeing a number you don't like the sound of and rejecting it is precisely why your politics are in the place they are. 50m is on the higher end of estimates, but there are plenty of decent estimates that put it over 60m. Lower estimates go down to 20m. If we take a rough middle we get 40m, higher than the 50m quoted but within the ballpark.

And your measure against population is bad. We aren't talking about a mass murder over a single year, but a year on year set of policies, almost all between 1917 and 1940. Forced starvation over that period can quite easily kill that many people in a country as large as Soviet Russia.


50 million is an absurd number and perfectly reasonable to be sceptical about, even the notorious propaganda book "The Black Book of Communism" puts the USSR death count at 20 million, where do you get these 60+m estimates from?

I have to admit I didn't see the defence of Soviet Russia coming.


Well not that odd considering most people still base their view of the USSR on cold war propaganda, as we have seen displayed in this very thread. Dont get me wrong, the USSR was a failure, but it was not Mordor.


Also many people in this thread seem a bit dishonest in their arguments. If communism is responsible for famine deaths (even though famines stopped happening under it), why isn't capitalism responsible for the millions of people who have died under famines and lack of drinking water and continues to every year in capitalism?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:12:08


Post by: Iron_Captain


 sebster wrote:
 feeder wrote:
I'm saying if intention is what counts, then the birth of communism is something to be celebrated. At birth, the USSR had good intentions.


I dispute this. At its heart the bolshevik movement was a ruthless, naked grab for power. Everything else was secondary to that, especially equality. Afterall, if the real goal is equality then you would attempt it by raising the wealth and power of the average person. Instead the bolsheviks achieved their 'equality' simply by stripping rights from the formerly privileged, dragging them down to the same level as everyone else, and took all status and privilege for themselves.

Did you ever actually read a history book? The Bolsheviks massively improved the living standards of the average person. Like really really massively.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Lots of countries managed that without murdering anyone.

All of which were stable and wealthy democracies, not feudal states that were ruled by a despotic autocrat.

 sebster wrote:
Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad.


Directly executing more than a million people, and killing another 20 to 40 million more die through mass (often planned) starvation and other such ruthless policies is not 'many things that were bad'. fething hell.

Thanks for once again just pulling numbers out of your ass. Even if you attribute many deaths to them for which the Bolsheviks' actual responsibility is questionable (such as war and famines) you only get to like 10 million. And calling the starvation planned is just ridiculous. Famines in the early Soviet Union were the unforeseen result of radical experiments with agricultural collectivisation, and one of the things that made Lenin think "Oh maybe this isn't such a good idea after all" and basically turn back the whole collectivisation thing (before it then got forced through under Stalin, but at that point you can't blame the Bolsheviks anymore because Stalin killed almost all of them).


 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is not true. Do you know how many people have been slaughtered by your government and its predecessors? Did you forget your own civil war already?


When we talk about the slaughter of the Soviet regime, it doesn't even included the Civil War. It's actually just counting the millions of citizens who were killed in deliberate government programs in peacetime that we're counting. And in that regard, yes, the Soviet Union is unique in directly executing about a million people, and counts itself among a very rare few countries in creating policies where the deaths of millions was either not a concern, or in some cases a desired outcome.
Yes, and your country is unique in that it can pride itself on being one of the few, if not the only, countries to successfully exterminate not just one, or two, but countless entire peoples. The Soviet Union seems innocent in comparison. Also, your numbers are just way off.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Seriously, there is nothing to celebrate about the 1917 revolution. It only ended up plunging the world into a near century of war.


I agree that there's nothing to celebrate in the 1917 revolution. But I'm not sure there's much value in assigning blame for the subsequent wars on it. The Nazis are to blame for the war they started. And sure, one of the reasons the Nazis gained power was fear of communism, but it wasn't as though the anti-communist elements were motivated by the awful human rights abuses of Soviet Russia, it was the income equality thing that freaked them out. Reactionary movements freaking out about the actual good parts of communism must be accountable for their own atrocities, including WWII and the holocaust.

Russians don't need an American to tell them what is to be celebrated or not. In Russia, the revolution and communism are celebrated, and there are many good reasons for doing so. 1917 is the year where Russia began its journey from a backwards land of peasants and feudal lords to a modern nuclear, spacefaring superpower with great achievements in the fields of education, healthcare, arts and science. That is definitely something to celebrate, even if the Americans choose to be ignorant of it.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
I don't agree that. Many many deaths could be avoided. The reason they died is a Stalin's paranoia. He killed all the revolutionaries to rule at his own and then started terror. There were some crimed commited by Lenin too, but was thinking of saving revolution, not making himself another tsar.


Lenin was also a murderous gak. And so was Trotsky. The fact that Stalin was an even more murderous donkey-cave doesn't in any way reduce the crimes of other Soviet leaders.

The big difference is that the crimes of Lenin and Trotsky were committed as part of the civil war. Wars, especially civil wars aren't clean. Sometimes things must be done to win the war. Stalin is different because he had no such excuse. He killed people in peacetime, and not just political and ideological opponents either.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
At least Helicopter Pinochet™ had the right idea againsts the commies.


Its fundamentally weird to simultaneously take a moral position against the murders of Soviet Russia, and at the same time celebrate the murders commited by an anti-communist.

Will you be celebrating Thanksgiving in a few weeks?

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
And let me guess? All of those nations also happen to all have been stable democracies that belonged to the wealthiest nations in the world already?


Nope. Let's just start with India as an example that started from a much lower base, with far bigger ethnic rivalries, and shifted to a modern country in shorter time without having to murder millions of its own citizens.

And India is still far from being a developed modern country. A significant portion of its people still live in slums and have to scavenge their food from garbage dumps. It also was a part of Great Britain, so not really useful for comparisons.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Seems like "Somehow it gets worse" is the perfect way to describe the future of this thread...


I have to admit I didn't see the defence of Soviet Russia coming. Even when I saw this thread had three pages since I saw it yesterday, I didn't suspect it was because someone would be trying to mount a defense of Soviet Russia. I've read the thread now, and I'm still not sure I believe someone was trying to defend Soviet Russia.

That just goes on to show how little you actually know about Russia and Russian history, and how much you have been brainwashed by decades of American anti-communist propaganda. There aren't many Russians here on Dakka, but what few Russians there are are celebrating and defending the Soviet Union. Maybe that shows that you need to update your understanding of the success and failures of the Soviet Union.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
50 million dead? That is like a third of the entire population... I call bs on those numbers. It is pure propaganda that can only be gotten to by blaming every single death on communism, even deaths that really aren't due to communism.


Yeah, seeing a number you don't like the sound of and rejecting it is precisely why your politics are in the place they are. 50m is on the higher end of estimates, but there are plenty of decent estimates that put it over 60m. Lower estimates go down to 20m. If we take a rough middle we get 40m, higher than the 50m quoted but within the ballpark.

Just dream on with your imaginary numbers. Most of those numbers were just made up by Western anti-Soviet propagandists. Since the fall of the Soviet Union a lot more accurate estimates have been possible, and they aren't even close to being that high. But hey, if you want to keep living in the Cold War, we won't stop you. I don't know then why people say it ever ended though.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:23:49


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I once spend a while on FB arguing with a very delusional German on how Mao was a mass murderer. All the while he kept arguing how Mao modernized and industrialized China and how well he did to make that transformation happen. Ignoring 40 million something deaths and the small amount of effort that can actually be attributed to Mao for making the Chinese economy what it is today was pretty staggering. I got blocked for providing references for the inconvenient truth



Even with the famine, life expectancy rose by one year per year, for forty years. That's a humanitarian achievement only rivalled throughout history by the Soviet Union. Not like Western technological and social development was bloodless. Colonialism has murdered millions in the name of conquest and resource extraction and is why some Western countries were wealthy in the first place. Industrialisation displaced and impoverished millions so the factories owned by the rich would have workers. How many have died as a result of that, do you think?

Most every time someone says "communism killed so-and-so many people" the numbers are based on repetition of CIA propaganda and the metrics, often undisclosed, are never applied to capitalist countries. When there's a food shortage in a leftist country that's the fault of communism on a fundamental level as an ideology but when there's a food shortage in a capitalist country that's just how the world works and nothing could have been done to predict or prevent it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:31:52


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American, and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:33:57


Post by: Kilkrazy


I've actually been to the Soviet Union.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:41:45


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 ulgurstasta wrote:
 sebster wrote:


Yeah, seeing a number you don't like the sound of and rejecting it is precisely why your politics are in the place they are. 50m is on the higher end of estimates, but there are plenty of decent estimates that put it over 60m. Lower estimates go down to 20m. If we take a rough middle we get 40m, higher than the 50m quoted but within the ballpark.

And your measure against population is bad. We aren't talking about a mass murder over a single year, but a year on year set of policies, almost all between 1917 and 1940. Forced starvation over that period can quite easily kill that many people in a country as large as Soviet Russia.


50 million is an absurd number and perfectly reasonable to be sceptical about, even the notorious propaganda book "The Black Book of Communism" puts the USSR death count at 20 million, where do you get these 60+m estimates from?

20 million even from notorious propaganda comes pretty close to the historical truth with what we know now. Sebster already said 60 million was at the very high end and he was willing to accept different numbers.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
 sebster wrote:
I have to admit I didn't see the defence of Soviet Russia coming.


Well not that odd considering most people still base their view of the USSR on cold war propaganda, as we have seen displayed in this very thread. Dont get me wrong, the USSR was a failure, but it was not Mordor.


Also many people in this thread seem a bit dishonest in their arguments. If communism is responsible for famine deaths (even though famines stopped happening under it), why isn't capitalism responsible for the millions of people who have died under famines and lack of drinking water and continues to every year in capitalism?

Dishonest? Hardly, there is a difference in famines. A good one to compare the Soviet or Chinese famine to is the Bengal famine in 1943 iirc. They were all exacerbated by the governments at the time. Famines happen in every system because it tends to be unavoidable in countries that aren't wealthy enough to import. Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving. Not only that, farmers were accused of lying and sabotaging and any scrap of grain they had left was forcibly requisitioned. In the case of the PRC everyone involved in government was basically lying about crop yields and the actual effectiveness of agrarian policies. So again the government forcibly requisitioned food from starving regions because actual production being lower than recorded production equals lying farmers. The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines. The UK and the Bengal famine is one of those famines that you can actually hold up to the one in the SU (2-3 million deaths versus 3-5)and realize that imperialist countries also engaged in it, key difference being imperialist versus capitalist. But nothing comes close to the horrific Great Famine in pure numbers. Were not blaming communism for natural famines here, its dishonest to argue that.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:46:41


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.

It is anything but immaterial. It is critically important if we want to measure whether the Soviet Union was good or bad and whether or not we should celebrate the revolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've actually been to the Soviet Union.

Cool! Where did you go?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 12:57:37


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I once spend a while on FB arguing with a very delusional German on how Mao was a mass murderer. All the while he kept arguing how Mao modernized and industrialized China and how well he did to make that transformation happen. Ignoring 40 million something deaths and the small amount of effort that can actually be attributed to Mao for making the Chinese economy what it is today was pretty staggering. I got blocked for providing references for the inconvenient truth



Even with the famine, life expectancy rose by one year per year, for forty years. That's a humanitarian achievement only rivalled throughout history by the Soviet Union. Not like Western technological and social development was bloodless. Colonialism has murdered millions in the name of conquest and resource extraction and is why some Western countries were wealthy in the first place. Industrialisation displaced and impoverished millions so the factories owned by the rich would have workers. How many have died as a result of that, do you think?

Most every time someone says "communism killed so-and-so many people" the numbers are based on repetition of CIA propaganda and the metrics, often undisclosed, are never applied to capitalist countries. When there's a food shortage in a leftist country that's the fault of communism on a fundamental level as an ideology but when there's a food shortage in a capitalist country that's just how the world works and nothing could have been done to predict or prevent it.

Might want to fix the quote in your post. Life expectancy is a nice metric, but doesn't tell the whole story. The PRC brought stability to decades of war torn China so a rise is to be expected. It still doesn't excuse a famine. Lets take the SU, life got much better right? Yet their famine 'only' claimed 3-5 million lives, so why did 30-40 million have to die in China for the same 'progress'? Wilfully starving your population is not a great humanitarian achievement in my book, certainly considering many if not most of these deaths could have been avoided. Also you're reaching, yes Western imperialism was bad. But countries such as Taiwan, South Korea and West Germany showed you could achieve as much progress with little bloodshed at the same time 40 million Chinese died due to Mao's 'progress'. SK and Taiwan had just as far if not further to climb than China and certainly surpassed it.

Stop putting words in people's mouths. Its not CIA propaganda, its decades of academic efforts and research, also conducted by Chinese and Russian historians. Deriding them as CIA outlets is just offensive. I already adressed the fact imperialism is bad, this isn't a thread celebrating the birth of imperialism. If you want to discuss the dozens of millions killed by colonialism/imperialism I'm perfectly willing to do so, taking into account that most of that didn't happen in living memory like the Great Famine or Cultural Revolution. Also I adressed natural versus constructed famines, its a false equivalance. Under capitalism its often a flaw of external help, in communism two large famines were internally driven and exacerbated. Check my comment up about the UK and the Bengal famine for a similar case.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 13:05:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.

It is anything but immaterial. It is critically important if we want to measure whether the Soviet Union was good or bad and whether or not we should celebrate the revolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've actually been to the Soviet Union.

Cool! Where did you go?


Moscow and Leningrad.

Visited the Kremlin. Saw Lenin's mausoleum. Went to the Science and Space park. Went on the underground and on a tram. Went to the GUM department store.
In Leningrad I saw the Hermitage Winter Palace, Aurora, and the Summer Palace. The big fortress on an island -- I can't remember its name. The Siege memorial and mass graves.

I stayed in three different hotels. A very modern one called Kosmos in Moscow, then a mid-19th century one called Europskaya in Leningrad, then Hotel Ukraine, a massive Stalinist pile, in Moscow on the way back.

It was great.

This was back in 1979, the year before the Moscow Olympics.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 13:07:33


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Lots of countries managed that without murdering anyone.

All of which were stable and wealthy democracies, not feudal states that were ruled by a despotic autocrat.

You might want to look at Taiwan and South Korea. They weren't stable or wealthy democracies when they went down the 'tiger' path. Yet it shows that with help a decent level can be achieved. Even the SU was open to foreign help in the 1920's because it was the best way to quickly develop. Yet Mao and Stalin were crazy insular about their states which required a different approach in their opinion. With less murderous leaders similar results might have been achieved with a little more outside help. Granted its what-iffing, but to say you have to start of wealthy or democratic isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.

It is anything but immaterial. It is critically important if we want to measure whether the Soviet Union was good or bad and whether or not we should celebrate the revolution.

It is immaterial, in the same sense that convincing African Americans slavery was ok doesn't change if it was good or bad. People are influencable, victors writing history and general level of history knowledge and all that. If Hitler won we would have plenty of people arguing the Third Reich was ok because of popular support and because dead people can't object. Its just a flawed method of declaring things to be 'ok'. It was objectively bad for the most part, which is true for a great majority of human history and government. Everybody in the world has done a fethload of bad stuff, sadly national populations prefer to go for the "yes, but..." approach. For the US its Columbus day/thanksgiving, for the Netherlands its zwarte piet or the VOC mentality comment, its very rose-tinted way of looking at history. Even the Germans had some myths regarding the army in WW2 and 'clean conduct' (mostly dispelled in the 90's), hell we had an AfD politician say that Germans should be able to be proud of the Wehrmacht


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 13:24:17


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.


Why don't we ask the Finns, or the Estonians, or the Poles how great the Soviet Union was, eh?

Or we could drop this ridiculous notion that someone's nationality disqualifies them from discussing the political situation in another country. You know, like I asked.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 14:08:51


Post by: motyak


Any more discounting users' opinions based on the flag beside their name will see the perpetrator out of the OT for 2 weeks. 0 tolerance for that kind of rudeness


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 14:20:10


Post by: Frazzled


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've actually been to the Soviet Union.


Pfft. I've been to Tijuana. What happens in TJ stays in TJ- if you make it back across the border...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 14:35:33


Post by: Iron_Captain


Kilkrazy wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.

It is anything but immaterial. It is critically important if we want to measure whether the Soviet Union was good or bad and whether or not we should celebrate the revolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've actually been to the Soviet Union.

Cool! Where did you go?


Moscow and Leningrad.

Visited the Kremlin. Saw Lenin's mausoleum. Went to the Science and Space park. Went on the underground and on a tram. Went to the GUM department store.
In Leningrad I saw the Hermitage Winter Palace, Aurora, and the Summer Palace. The big fortress on an island -- I can't remember its name. The Siege memorial and mass graves.

I stayed in three different hotels. A very modern one called Kosmos in Moscow, then a mid-19th century one called Europskaya in Leningrad, then Hotel Ukraine, a massive Stalinist pile, in Moscow on the way back.

It was great.

This was back in 1979, the year before the Moscow Olympics.

Nice. Saint Petersburg especially is a really beautiful city imo.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Lots of countries managed that without murdering anyone.

All of which were stable and wealthy democracies, not feudal states that were ruled by a despotic autocrat.

You might want to look at Taiwan and South Korea. They weren't stable or wealthy democracies when they went down the 'tiger' path. Yet it shows that with help a decent level can be achieved. Even the SU was open to foreign help in the 1920's because it was the best way to quickly develop. Yet Mao and Stalin were crazy insular about their states which required a different approach in their opinion. With less murderous leaders similar results might have been achieved with a little more outside help. Granted its what-iffing, but to say you have to start of wealthy or democratic isn't true.

I agree here. Stalin, although he also did many good things, became a major impediment to the further development of the Soviet Union and of communism. The authoritarianism and later stagnation can ultimately be traced back to Stalin. Not to mention he was a murderous bastard. And the fact that he massively crippled the Soviet army so that it could not resist Nazi invasion. And the fact that he made people worship him like he was some kind of god...
But Stalin's atrocities can't really be blamed on the Bolsheviks or the revolution. The Bolsheviks tried really hard to make Russia a better place, and the atrocities they committed in that process were either part of the general horribleness of the civil war or honest mistakes. It is not the Bolsheviks' fault that Stalin did what he did. They (or at least most of them) actively tried to oppose him when it became clear that his ideas weren't all that healthy. Hell, Lenin's testament even said something along the lines of 'whatever you do, keep Stalin away from power. He is a maniac.' The revolution was needed to remove the old order of Russian society, which was stifling Russian potential and keeping the country backwards for the sake of their own power. Kerensky and his guys tried to do it in a more or less peaceful way but utterly failed. Taiwan and South Korea both did not have to deal with these problems (and despite that they did have their fair share of atrocities, just look at the purges of communists in South Korea or the Jeju uprising). Their government did not deliberately obstruct their path to progress. On the contrary, they received tons and tons of aid on their path to progress and were very willing to improve people's lives exactly in order to prevent a revolution. And that is just the later history. If you go a bit further back, the Republic of China did go down much the same path as the Russian Empire, complete with revolution, bloody civil war and a despotic maniac seizing power. The only difference in fact is that in China, the West succeeded in keeping the old regime alive somewhat in Taiwan. Korea on the other hand is hard to compare, since it was a colony of Japan.


Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.

It is anything but immaterial. It is critically important if we want to measure whether the Soviet Union was good or bad and whether or not we should celebrate the revolution.

It is immaterial, in the same sense that convincing African Americans slavery was ok doesn't change if it was good or bad. People are influencable, victors writing history and general level of history knowledge and all that. If Hitler won we would have plenty of people arguing the Third Reich was ok because of popular support (because dead people can't object. Its just a flawed method of declaring things to be 'ok'. It was objectively bad for the most part, which is true for a great majority of human history and government. Everybody in the world has done a fethload of bad stuff, sadly national populations prefer to go for the "yes, but..." approach. For the US its Columbus day/thanksgiving, for the Netherlands its zwarte piet or the VOC mentality comment. Even the Germans had some myths regarding the army in WW2 and 'clean conduct' (mostly dispelled in the 90's), hell we had an AfD politician say that Germans should be able to be proud of the Wehrmacht
That is not a comparison that makes a lot of sense. Slavery was indisputably bad. Just the fact that we are disputing here shows that the revolution and the Soviet Union were not. People's beliefs come from somewhere. If the vast majority of Russians, most of them who still experienced the Soviet Union, perceive it was good, then that is a strong argument that the Soviet Union was actually good. Nobody has convinced them of that but themselves and their own experiences of the Soviet Union. And this is not a case of victors writing history either. Every book on the subject written by historians in the West that I have ever read acknowledges the many benefits that the revolution brought to Russia. It is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of measurable fact. You can just look at the statistics and see it for yourself.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.


Why don't we ask the Finns, or the Estonians, or the Poles how great the Soviet Union was, eh?

Or we could drop this ridiculous notion that someone's nationality disqualifies them from discussing the political situation in another country. You know, like I asked.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in Russia and in the Netherlands as well it is considered very rude for a foreigner to come in and tell you how to do things, or that things you do and love are bad.
I am not saying that living in a foreign country disqualifies you from discussion. In fact, as you may have noticed from my flag, I am not even living in Russia myself anymore. What I said is that Russians do not need foreigners to tell them what is good or what is bad. Because this is Russia we are talking about, so ultimately it is only the opinions of Russian citizens that actually matter regarding these internal Russian matters, and they can decide for themselves.
Of course, everyone is free to discuss them. I love discussing events and policies in other countries as well. But for all my discussion and opinions on matters like Catalan independence and the response of the Spanish government, it is ultimately the opinion of the Catalans and Spanish people that ultimately matters, because it concerns them, and not me.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 15:26:55


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?


Lots of countries managed that without murdering anyone.

All of which were stable and wealthy democracies, not feudal states that were ruled by a despotic autocrat.

You might want to look at Taiwan and South Korea. They weren't stable or wealthy democracies when they went down the 'tiger' path. Yet it shows that with help a decent level can be achieved. Even the SU was open to foreign help in the 1920's because it was the best way to quickly develop. Yet Mao and Stalin were crazy insular about their states which required a different approach in their opinion. With less murderous leaders similar results might have been achieved with a little more outside help. Granted its what-iffing, but to say you have to start of wealthy or democratic isn't true.

I agree here. Stalin, although he also did many good things, became a major impediment to the further development of the Soviet Union and of communism. The authoritarianism and later stagnation can ultimately be traced back to Stalin. Not to mention he was a murderous bastard. And the fact that he massively crippled the Soviet army so that it could not resist Nazi invasion. And the fact that he made people worship him like he was some kind of god...
But Stalin's atrocities can't really be blamed on the Bolsheviks or the revolution. The Bolsheviks tried really hard to make Russia a better place, and the atrocities they committed in that process were either part of the general horribleness of the civil war or honest mistakes. It is not the Bolsheviks' fault that Stalin did what he did. They (or at least most of them) actively tried to oppose him when it became clear that his ideas weren't all that healthy. Hell, Lenin's testament even said something along the lines of 'whatever you do, keep Stalin away from power. He is a maniac.' The revolution was needed to remove the old order of Russian society, which was stifling Russian potential and keeping the country backwards for the sake of their own power. Kerensky and his guys tried to do it in a more or less peaceful way but utterly failed. Taiwan and South Korea both did not have to deal with these problems (and despite that they did have their fair share of atrocities, just look at the purges of communists in South Korea or the Jeju uprising). Their government did not deliberately obstruct their path to progress. On the contrary, they received tons and tons of aid on their path to progress and were very willing to improve people's lives exactly in order to prevent a revolution. And that is just the later history. If you go a bit further back, the Republic of China did go down much the same path as the Russian Empire, complete with revolution, bloody civil war and a despotic maniac seizing power. The only difference in fact is that in China, the West succeeded in keeping the old regime alive somewhat in Taiwan. Korea on the other hand is hard to compare, since it was a colony of Japan.

Problem is, Lenin was also a murderous bastard and the security state Stalin had was just a natural evolution of the one Lenin set up. The birth of the Soviet Union and the police state are tied together since the beginning. Stalin took it to extremes so abhorrent that it calmed down significantly afterwards, but the origins of the SU are irrevocably tied to a violent police state. Brutalities in a civil war don't excuse brutalities, war in itself doesn't excuse brutalities. Every government still has to be held accountable for their conduct.

I know Lenin thought Stalin was a real danger, sadly Lenin wasn't that much better for putting Stalin where he was. Stalin might have been a dangerous SoB, but a useful one to Lenin nonetheless. Revolution was likely required to overthrow the ancien regime, but the absolute horrific brutality went above and beyond the required. South Korea and Taiwan had similar problems, they were utterly poor and exploited colonies of Japan, who afterwards were utterly poor and ruled by brutal authoritarian dictators. The point it comes down to is the obstruction part, it shows that progress could be made with relatively little bloodshed, regardless of old connections. Opening up the state instead of turning insular and committing to the communism in one country approach could have provided such an avenue, one that modern day China itself has used. Yet Mao and Stalin felt the need to let an absolute metric ton of people die because they were enemies of progress or the revolution. You have to blame communism for this even if there are exceptions, attempted implementation of communism is what led to these tragedies. You can't just blame Hitler without blaming Nazism/fascism, too many people were involved to blame it on a single person. The ideologies as a whole provided the motivation and opportunity to commit these acts, no matter how misguided from their origins.


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
and whether the population of Russia approves of the Soviet Union or not is immaterial, as it is an argumentum ad populum.

It is anything but immaterial. It is critically important if we want to measure whether the Soviet Union was good or bad and whether or not we should celebrate the revolution.

It is immaterial, in the same sense that convincing African Americans slavery was ok doesn't change if it was good or bad. People are influencable, victors writing history and general level of history knowledge and all that. If Hitler won we would have plenty of people arguing the Third Reich was ok because of popular support (because dead people can't object. Its just a flawed method of declaring things to be 'ok'. It was objectively bad for the most part, which is true for a great majority of human history and government. Everybody in the world has done a fethload of bad stuff, sadly national populations prefer to go for the "yes, but..." approach. For the US its Columbus day/thanksgiving, for the Netherlands its zwarte piet or the VOC mentality comment. Even the Germans had some myths regarding the army in WW2 and 'clean conduct' (mostly dispelled in the 90's), hell we had an AfD politician say that Germans should be able to be proud of the Wehrmacht
That is not a comparison that makes a lot of sense. Slavery was indisputably bad. Just the fact that we are disputing here shows that the revolution and the Soviet Union were not. People's beliefs come from somewhere. If the vast majority of Russians, most of them who still experienced the Soviet Union, perceive it was good, then that is a strong argument that the Soviet Union was actually good. Nobody has convinced them of that but themselves and their own experiences of the Soviet Union. And this is not a case of victors writing history either. Every book on the subject written by historians in the West that I have ever read acknowledges the many benefits that the revolution brought to Russia. It is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of measurable fact. You can just look at the statistics and see it for yourself.

Actually the comparison makes a lot of sense. The Gulags, the starvation, the NKVD, the Cheka, the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution were indisputably bad too. Countless people died under horrific and totally unnecessary circumstances. I'm pretty sure if you dig hard enough you can find people disputing slavery was bad, that proves nothing. The point is that most Russians who experienced the Soviet Union experienced the significantly less bad version of it after 1945. Not to mention that those people were that ones that survived the purges, the starvation, the Gulags. The murdered aren't asked for their opinion on the matter. Lets say Nazi Germany existed until the 90's, most of the murdering and atrocities would have taken place in the 40's, far outside most peoples living memory. So those people having live in the post 40's Third Reich would have a completely different opinion than those who lived through and died during the 30's and 40's. Its a matter of perspective. The vast majority of Russians today didn't experience or live through the absolute worst parts of Soviet history. But how many millions died so they could have a 'better' Soviet Union? Declaring the Soviet Union good or bad isn't based on the benefits it brought, its based on the very real existence of a murderous and repressive police state that gave people those benefits.

If you murder a 100 people and divide their money amongst a 1000 poor people, you might have done a good deed in the mind of those 1000. But it is not in any way going to change the fact that to do good with one hand it also murdered a 100 with the other. Benefits don't absolve Soviet history of its atrocities, which is morally bad. Perception is all that matters.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 15:37:39


Post by: ulgurstasta


Spoiler:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:



Also many people in this thread seem a bit dishonest in their arguments. If communism is responsible for famine deaths (even though famines stopped happening under it), why isn't capitalism responsible for the millions of people who have died under famines and lack of drinking water and continues to every year in capitalism?

Dishonest? Hardly, there is a difference in famines. A good one to compare the Soviet or Chinese famine to is the Bengal famine in 1943 iirc. They were all exacerbated by the governments at the time. Famines happen in every system because it tends to be unavoidable in countries that aren't wealthy enough to import. Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving. Not only that, farmers were accused of lying and sabotaging and any scrap of grain they had left was forcibly requisitioned. In the case of the PRC everyone involved in government was basically lying about crop yields and the actual effectiveness of agrarian policies. So again the government forcibly requisitioned food from starving regions because actual production being lower than recorded production equals lying farmers. The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines. The UK and the Bengal famine is one of those famines that you can actually hold up to the one in the SU (2-3 million deaths versus 3-5)and realize that imperialist countries also engaged in it, key difference being imperialist versus capitalist. But nothing comes close to the horrific Great Famine in pure numbers. Were not blaming communism for natural famines here, its dishonest to argue that.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines.


Disregarding that capitalism definitely creates and exacerbates famines, if you dont care that people starve to death in your system, thats okay, but if you try to alleviate it and fail it's not okay?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving


This happens all the time in capitalism too. No modern famine has been because lack of food it's because of the uneven access to food, which is due food being grown for profit rather then for use.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
key difference being imperialist versus capitalist.


Imperialist isn't in contradiction to capitalism, quite the opposite actually.

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about, you are holding up these two system to two totally different standards. If people starve under capitalism it's just "nature" and doesn't count for capitalism death count, but if the same happens under "communism" then suddenly it's not nature and it's added to the communist death count


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 15:46:29


Post by: Cothonian


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


Hey if that makes you sleep better at night. Just be sure to skip over the parts about the dictatorship thing to re-order society, and what the Bolsheviks actually did.

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"

40 million eggs, who died for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why communism isn't treated the same as fascism is a mystery to me. Russia and China have killed 20 times the amount of civilians that the nazis did, and enslaved Eastern Europe. (40 million Russian casualties, over 100 million in China.) Any other ideology would be torn apart if it resulted in such a catastrophe.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 15:48:18


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 ulgurstasta wrote:
Spoiler:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:



Also many people in this thread seem a bit dishonest in their arguments. If communism is responsible for famine deaths (even though famines stopped happening under it), why isn't capitalism responsible for the millions of people who have died under famines and lack of drinking water and continues to every year in capitalism?

Dishonest? Hardly, there is a difference in famines. A good one to compare the Soviet or Chinese famine to is the Bengal famine in 1943 iirc. They were all exacerbated by the governments at the time. Famines happen in every system because it tends to be unavoidable in countries that aren't wealthy enough to import. Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving. Not only that, farmers were accused of lying and sabotaging and any scrap of grain they had left was forcibly requisitioned. In the case of the PRC everyone involved in government was basically lying about crop yields and the actual effectiveness of agrarian policies. So again the government forcibly requisitioned food from starving regions because actual production being lower than recorded production equals lying farmers. The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines. The UK and the Bengal famine is one of those famines that you can actually hold up to the one in the SU (2-3 million deaths versus 3-5)and realize that imperialist countries also engaged in it, key difference being imperialist versus capitalist. But nothing comes close to the horrific Great Famine in pure numbers. Were not blaming communism for natural famines here, its dishonest to argue that.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines.


Disregarding that capitalism definitely creates and exacerbates famines, if you dont care that people starve to death in your system, thats okay, but if you try to alleviate it and fail it's not okay?

Sigh, again there is a difference between famine in a communist and capitalist world, and deliberate famine in a communist country (or capitalist)... If capitalism gets blamed for not caring people starving to death than communism doesn't get a free pass either, what did the communist system do for China during the Great famine? I'm not criticizing communism as a system for causing famine, I'm criticizing communist governments (SU and PRC) for engineering them.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving


This happens all the time in capitalism too. No modern famine has been because lack of food it's because of the uneven access to food, which is due food being grown for profit rather then for use.

Again, you're taking about the whole system versus a single government. Its an important distinction, food aid is also a program driven by a capitalist system. Yes the capitalist world doesn't do enough to help prevent starvation, but its not deliberately engineering them either. I gave an example of an empire deliberately not shipping food to a starving population, the Bengal famine. Do you have any examples of capitalist countries that deliberately engineered a famine in their own country while exporting food?

 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
key difference being imperialist versus capitalist.


Imperialist isn't in contradiction to capitalism, quite the opposite actually.

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about, you are holding up these two system to two totally different standards. If people starve under capitalism it's just "nature" and doesn't count for capitalism death count, but if the same happens under "communism" then suddenly it's not nature and it's added to the communist death count

There is a significant difference in the academic world. Its why they have developed terms such as neo-colonialism.

Quit talking about dishonesty. I'm not forgiving crimes of any system, you are. People shouldn't starve period! But there is a difference between starvation in a system and a state, between deliberate and caused by outside factors and not solved by outside actors.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 15:49:55


Post by: NenkotaMoon


Summed up in one word Communism= Failure.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 16:53:39


Post by: Frazzled


I always wanted to see St. Petersberg.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 17:21:42


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Cothonian wrote:
Why communism isn't treated the same as fascism is a mystery to me. Russia and China have killed 20 times the amount of civilians that the nazis did, and enslaved Eastern Europe. (40 million Russian casualties, over 100 million in China.) Any other ideology would be torn apart if it resulted in such a catastrophe.

Its quite simple, communism/socialism at the core theory is entirely different from fascism. Many countries have adopted socialist or 'communist' aspects, while fascism has a toxic mix of nationalism and authoritarianism at its core that is less appealing. Now the communism of the second world is of course an obvious deviation that is really bad, worse than many fascist countries in practice, but then fascism isn't also wholeheartedly condemned either. It still exist and plenty of Western countries have and do support regimes with fascist tendencies. Now Nazism and communism as practiced in the second world isn't entirely comparable either, because it took so many forms. Was Cuba as bad as Nazism? Certainly not. Now Leninism was bad but perhaps not as bad, Stalinism and Maoism approach the level of death of Nazism, regardless of motivation. Yet 20 times is vastly overstating the amount of deaths. Even if we take 70 million (100 million for China is far to many) for the PRC and SU combined, this was over decades and a much larger population. Nazism in comparison existed for about a decade during which it and its allies dragged the world into a war in which 60 million people died. The three big -isms of the leaders of Nazi Germany, the SU and the PRC were terrible, but not all communist countries were as bad.

Yet after all the atrocities and death of the 20th century, socialism as a political concept has brought Western nations invaluable (to the population) policies, while Nazism has contributed absolutely nothing beyond senseless racial theories. That is why communism/socialism as a whole concept isn't treated the same, because it has an inherent appeal in its message of equality and providing for society that still resonates and has actually delivered good policies in Western countries (Scandinavia being the prime example). Yes there have been terrible consequences to real life communist states, but not many people still argue to go full on communist, they wouldn't be significantly more numerous than people who support more fascist regimes.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 19:28:34


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Cothonian wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its like a thread celebrating the birth of Nazism, except of course the slaughter is a magnitude greater.

No, Nazi is an ideology based on eliminating all the people, not belongs to some fiction "aryans". Communism is an ideology of people's equality.


Hey if that makes you sleep better at night. Just be sure to skip over the parts about the dictatorship thing to re-order society, and what the Bolsheviks actually did.

Like bringing electricity and education to the poor?

Aye, the Bolsheviks did many things that were bad. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and they did far more good than they ever did bad. Nobody in history is completely good. Virtually every government has committed atrocities (you as American should know that better than most), but overall, despite the atrocities they committed, the Bolsheviks were a force for good. Their good acts outweigh their bad ones.


"Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"

40 million eggs, who died for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why communism isn't treated the same as fascism is a mystery to me. Russia and China have killed 20 times the amount of civilians that the nazis did, and enslaved Eastern Europe. (40 million Russian casualties, over 100 million in China.) Any other ideology would be torn apart if it resulted in such a catastrophe.

40 million is a myth. The actual number is more like a few million. About 15-20 million if you also count civil war atrocities and famines for which the degree that communism or the Bolsheviks were actually responsible is debatable. And that includes Stalin's murderous policies, for which Bolshevik responsibility is also debatable. And even then. 20 million deaths to bring prosperity to hundreds of millions? Seems like a fair sacrifice to me. In the situation that Russia found itself in in 1917, many of these deaths were simply unavoidable. In hindsight it is easy to criticise the mistakes the Bolsheviks made that led to famines and Stalin's rise to power. But the Bolsheviks had good intentions, and achieved amazing successes. Like virtually all Russians, I therefore find it easy to forgive their mistakes.

I think I am done with this thread. There is only a few reasonable people in here interested in an actual discussion (like Disciple of Fate, thanks for the good arguments). It seems most of you just want to wallow in your own little Western echo chamber. Well, you can do that as much as you like, echoing anti-communist and fascist propaganda without care for truth or critical self-examination. "Communism is bad!" "60 million deaths!" "Stalin was worse than Hitler!". I do not care. Russia does not care. Russia won't forget the heroes who turned our country into the spacefaring superpower it is today. The heroes who gave us our great achievements in education, art, healthcare and science. To whom we thank almost everything we have achieved as a nation. Slava velikaya oktyabrskaya sotsialicheskaya revolutsii! Slava!


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 19:57:00


Post by: Future War Cultist


You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs...it was only a few million who died...that’s not exactly presenting it in a very positive light if I’m honest.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 20:31:56


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Future War Cultist wrote:
You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs...it was only a few million who died...that’s not exactly presenting it in a very positive light if I’m honest.


Given the circumstances, given the stakes, given how capitalist countries have done worse at higher costs...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 20:44:53


Post by: Kilkrazy


People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 20:55:44


Post by: oldravenman3025


Rosebuddy wrote:
 kronk wrote:
I am thinking Rosebuddy was joking and knows that Frazz is not a Nazi sympathizer...

I hope?


He doesn't need to have nazi sympathies to parrot, that is unwittingly repeat, their propaganda. It happens quite often that someone who has no personal interest in nazism repeats one of their talking points with regards to communism without knowing, because the West has spent many decades lying about communism. After all, communism is a bigger threat to the capitalist order than nazism is.





And this is the perfect example of the modern West making excuses for communism, ignoring documented history as "propaganda".



Democide claimed over 250 million people in the 20th Century. And communist regimes caused a respectable chunk of those deaths. Mao and Stalin were the biggest offenders, each with a body count that would've made Hitler green with envy.


Communism, in practice, was never about bettering people's lives. It was about the power over people's lives. Remember, the Germany under the Nazis also experienced major recovery after the dark days of the Great Depression and crushing Versailles Treaty. Does that excuse their crimes? If not, then the communist regimes throughout history cannot be excused.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.





Lenin was a bloody handed thug, and his top people were just hatchetmen. That's another historical inaccuracy propagated in the West, that Lenin and his revolution were heroes of the people and benign, and that mean ol' Stalin moved in and "twisted" it into something evil. Which is complete BS.



As for Marx, he was an interesting philosopher. But as a political commentator, he sucked. And his understanding of economics and Human nature was barely above stick figures. His is an ideology that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:06:33


Post by: whembly


To this day, I don't understand why adherents to communism isn't as reviled as nazism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:06:37


Post by: OgreOnAStick


To anyone still holding the view that intentions matter:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:08:29


Post by: feeder


OgreOnAStick wrote:
To anyone still holding the view that intentions matter:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis


"Dude, there's like a whole magic world with a talking lion and everything at the back of my closet, totally"

- Also CS Lewis



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:08:49


Post by: whembly


OgreOnAStick wrote:
To anyone still holding the view that intentions matter:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis


Or this oldie:
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,”
The Los Angeles times, Sept. 9, 1962, G2


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:09:37


Post by: Frazzled


 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


Again, which communist state existed without a repressive dictatorship?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:23:03


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Frazzled wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


Again, which communist state existed without a repressive dictatorship?

A few African communist countries did ok-ish without going overboard with repression, but they really weren't equipped to survive economically.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:26:16


Post by: oldravenman3025


 ulgurstasta wrote:
Spoiler:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:



Also many people in this thread seem a bit dishonest in their arguments. If communism is responsible for famine deaths (even though famines stopped happening under it), why isn't capitalism responsible for the millions of people who have died under famines and lack of drinking water and continues to every year in capitalism?

Dishonest? Hardly, there is a difference in famines. A good one to compare the Soviet or Chinese famine to is the Bengal famine in 1943 iirc. They were all exacerbated by the governments at the time. Famines happen in every system because it tends to be unavoidable in countries that aren't wealthy enough to import. Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving. Not only that, farmers were accused of lying and sabotaging and any scrap of grain they had left was forcibly requisitioned. In the case of the PRC everyone involved in government was basically lying about crop yields and the actual effectiveness of agrarian policies. So again the government forcibly requisitioned food from starving regions because actual production being lower than recorded production equals lying farmers. The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines. The UK and the Bengal famine is one of those famines that you can actually hold up to the one in the SU (2-3 million deaths versus 3-5)and realize that imperialist countries also engaged in it, key difference being imperialist versus capitalist. But nothing comes close to the horrific Great Famine in pure numbers. Were not blaming communism for natural famines here, its dishonest to argue that.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The harsh truth is that while capitalism is often uncaring about famine, the SU and the PRC actually had a hand in creating and exacerbating their famines.


Disregarding that capitalism definitely creates and exacerbates famines, if you dont care that people starve to death in your system, thats okay, but if you try to alleviate it and fail it's not okay?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Communism in the case of the SU and the PRC is responsible because the SU kept exporting grain abroad while a significant portion of the population was starving


This happens all the time in capitalism too. No modern famine has been because lack of food it's because of the uneven access to food, which is due food being grown for profit rather then for use.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
key difference being imperialist versus capitalist.


Imperialist isn't in contradiction to capitalism, quite the opposite actually.

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about, you are holding up these two system to two totally different standards. If people starve under capitalism it's just "nature" and doesn't count for capitalism death count, but if the same happens under "communism" then suddenly it's not nature and it's added to the communist death count






Capitalism isn't a political ideology that deliberately runs on murder and genocide. It's an economic system that is chained to a free market that can be fickle in the best of times, and one that has a tendency to attract people whose view is too narrowly focused on "the bottom line"

Private enterprise does not make a habit of planning out genocide, famines, and mass murder on an epic scale. Communist regimes, on the other hand, have done so.

Your comparison of a profit driven economic system with a totalitarian and murderous ideology is dishonest at best, plain ignorant at worst.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:26:52


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 whembly wrote:

Or this oldie:
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,”
The Los Angeles times, Sept. 9, 1962, G2

This quote just sums up the completely simplistic and pointless argument that socialism is evil. Plenty of countries are social democracies without them ending up as hellholes. In a decent world there should always be an element of socialism mixed in, its unavoidable in running states. Sign of the times I guess.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:34:37


Post by: oldravenman3025


 whembly wrote:
To this day, I don't understand why adherents to communism isn't as reviled as nazism.





Post-war revisionism and the fact that Marx (and communism) was the "hip thing" among academics, the bohemian wealthy, and people who didn't know any better, in the West.


Even today, knowing what we know, people continue to admire Che and other communist historical personages, and LARP as commies in groups such as Antifa. And communism is (for good or ill) considered to be "less evil" than Hitler and the NSDAP, with people making excuses for the crimes committed under the legacy of Karl Marx BS social and economic theories (i.e. "Real communism has never been tried" or "Lenin's revolution was twisted by Stalin")


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 21:40:26


Post by: Frazzled


Indeed.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/08 22:54:53


Post by: Rosebuddy


 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Capitalism isn't a political ideology that deliberately runs on murder and genocide. It's an economic system that is chained to a free market that can be fickle in the best of times, and one that has a tendency to attract people whose view is too narrowly focused on "the bottom line"

Private enterprise does not make a habit of planning out genocide, famines, and mass murder on an epic scale. Communist regimes, on the other hand, have done so.

Your comparison of a profit driven economic system with a totalitarian and murderous ideology is dishonest at best, plain ignorant at worst.


Belgian Congo. Colonialism. The Holocaust was carried out in buildings and with machinery built by private enterprise. IBM says "hello".

A profit-driven economic system is in and of itself a terror. Not just because it can only be established and perpetuated by force, but because its fundamental operation is violence in the form of depriving people of stability unless they agree to work as profit creation units.



 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
To this day, I don't understand why adherents to communism isn't as reviled as nazism.





Post-war revisionism and the fact that Marx (and communism) was the "hip thing" among academics, the bohemian wealthy, and people who didn't know any better, in the West.


Even today, knowing what we know, people continue to admire Che and other communist historical personages, and LARP as commies in groups such as Antifa. And communism is (for good or ill) considered to be "less evil" than Hitler and the NSDAP, with people making excuses for the crimes committed under the legacy of Karl Marx BS social and economic theories (i.e. "Real communism has never been tried" or "Lenin's revolution was twisted by Stalin")


Communism isn't as reviled as nazism because the poor and downtrodden of the world understand the difference between the systems. They understand the difference between wanting to free humanity from the shackles of capitalism and wanting to enslave and exterminate the so-called lesser races. People view communism more favourably because it speaks to them.

To attribute it to "post-war revisionism" and uphold capitalism is hilarious because Western capitalists immediately set to work on rehabilitating nazis so they could use them as agents against communism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 01:30:04


Post by: Peregrine


 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


This. FFS, Lysenkoism and communism are not the same thing.

PS: communism, or something very similar to it, is likely inevitable. Enjoy the last days of capitalism while you can.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 01:46:35


Post by: Gordon Shumway


If nothing else, and whether one agrees with the ideas espoused with Lenin or not, he got us all to see things a bit differently. And I never see that as a bad thing. He was a pioneer of thought, and just like Freud or Newton, one can disregard his views later, but one can't disregard that he changed views. And for that, I say, huzzah!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


This. FFS, Lysenkoism and communism are not the same thing.

PS: communism, or something very similar to it, is likely inevitable. Enjoy the last days of capitalism while you can.


It's either going to be a Star Trek utopia or a blade runner dystopia? Those are are only options? I thought us liberals only saw things in grey scale. It's going to be a slow and bloody process. But maybe someday? If we are still around.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 02:50:51


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This quote just sums up the completely simplistic and pointless argument that socialism is evil. Plenty of countries are social democracies without them ending up as hellholes. In a decent world there should always be an element of socialism mixed in, its unavoidable in running states. Sign of the times I guess.


Social democracies aren't actually socialist. They're capitalistic systems that have cherrypicked the good and realistic parts of socialism and discarded the rest, which manifest in heavy investment in social programs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


This. FFS, Lysenkoism and communism are not the same thing.

PS: communism, or something very similar to it, is likely inevitable. Enjoy the last days of capitalism while you can.


Funnily enough, the only viable version of socialism is borne out of capitalism by advancing so far in technology that human labour of any kind is redundant.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 02:59:05


Post by: Peregrine


OgreOnAStick wrote:
Funnily enough, the only viable version of socialism is borne out of capitalism by advancing so far in technology that human labour of any kind is redundant.


Which is kind of the principle of Marxism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 03:05:44


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Peregrine wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:
Funnily enough, the only viable version of socialism is borne out of capitalism by advancing so far in technology that human labour of any kind is redundant.


Which is kind of the principle of Marxism.


So the ideology that was borne out of and exists to advocate for the benefit of the worker and to setup the worker as the ruling class advocates for the abolition of the workers?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 04:01:40


Post by: whembly


Rosebuddy wrote:

Communism isn't as reviled as nazism because the poor and downtrodden of the world understand the difference between the systems.

I blame the education system because in many, many ways... Communism is just as abhorrent as Nazism.
They understand the difference between wanting to free humanity from the shackles of capitalism and wanting to enslave and exterminate the so-called lesser races.

"Shackle of capitalism"... wut?
People view communism more favourably because it speaks to them.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need???

To attribute it to "post-war revisionism" and uphold capitalism is hilarious because Western capitalists immediately set to work on rehabilitating nazis so they could use them as agents against communism.

What the holy hell is this? Is this a european thing?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 05:16:58


Post by: Grey Templar


 Gordon Shumway wrote:

It's either going to be a Star Trek utopia or a blade runner dystopia? Those are are only options? I thought us liberals only saw things in grey scale. It's going to be a slow and bloody process. But maybe someday? If we are still around.


Fun fact, the Federation is actually a fascist government.

https://youtu.be/P4KBPaS-1PU


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 06:52:39


Post by: sebster


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Did you ever actually read a history book? The Bolsheviks massively improved the living standards of the average person. Like really really massively.


You've missed the point completely. The Bolshevik revolutionaries weren't idealists who happened to also be utterly ruthless. They were from the start motivated primarily by an absolute will to power, to which everything else was secondary. Once they reached office then sure alongside the ruthless persecution of their enemies they also expanded material wealth, but if you look at the nature of that increase it you see a focus on industrial production, cement, steel etc. Things that make a nation powerful that happen to improve living standards as well. What you don't see is any focus consumer goods, because the Bolsheviks didn't care about that. They wanted to control Russia, and once they did that they wanted to control a powerful Russia.

All of which were stable and wealthy democracies, not feudal states that were ruled by a despotic autocrat.


They wren't stable and wealthy democracies when they started. They became stable and wealthy by delivering material improvements to people's lives while at the same time not murdering lots of them.

That's kind of the point of all this.

Thanks for once again just pulling numbers out of your ass.


You'll note I later gave the source of my numbers, and when I was told that later revisions are lower I accepted the correction.

Even taking the new figures, you're still describing 10 million deaths as 'many things that are bad'. Which is some amazing bs.

(before it then got forced through under Stalin, but at that point you can't blame the Bolsheviks anymore because Stalin killed almost all of them).


Yeah, it'd be crazy to blame the Bolsheviks for the actions of a Bolshevik.


Russians don't need an American to tell them what is to be celebrated or not.


That's true. As grown adults you should be capable of knowing for yourself that you shouldn't celebrate tyrants coming to power, without anyone else having to explain that to you.

The big difference is that the crimes of Lenin and Trotsky were committed as part of the civil war. Wars, especially civil wars aren't clean. Sometimes things must be done to win the war. Stalin is different because he had no such excuse. He killed people in peacetime, and not just political and ideological opponents either.


Oh well I guess political death squads were okay then.

Will you be celebrating Thanksgiving in a few weeks?


I'm Australian, so no. And yeah, Thanksgiving it pretty messed up. The excuse Americans will use, and it's okay for the most part, is that Thanksgiving is almost entirely divorced from its origin. It's a day that is now about family, turkey and football, with only a passing reference to its origin.

A better example would be Australia Day, which is on the day settlers first arrived, and is still explicitly tied to what we then did to the indigenous people.

And India is still far from being a developed modern country. A significant portion of its people still live in slums and have to scavenge their food from garbage dumps. It also was a part of Great Britain, so not really useful for comparisons.


India wasn't part of Great Britain, it was part of the Commonwealth. The difference is huge.

Also, if high poverty means a country isn't developed, well India's poverty rate is 22%, while Russia's is 13%. There are significant differences in calculation, but India's rate is dropping, Russia's is on a decade long increase.

what few Russians there are are celebrating and defending the Soviet Union


What Russians other than you are defending the USSR?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 07:52:30


Post by: oldravenman3025


Rosebuddy wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Capitalism isn't a political ideology that deliberately runs on murder and genocide. It's an economic system that is chained to a free market that can be fickle in the best of times, and one that has a tendency to attract people whose view is too narrowly focused on "the bottom line"

Private enterprise does not make a habit of planning out genocide, famines, and mass murder on an epic scale. Communist regimes, on the other hand, have done so.

Your comparison of a profit driven economic system with a totalitarian and murderous ideology is dishonest at best, plain ignorant at worst.


Belgian Congo. Colonialism. The Holocaust was carried out in buildings and with machinery built by private enterprise. IBM says "hello".

A profit-driven economic system is in and of itself a terror. Not just because it can only be established and perpetuated by force, but because its fundamental operation is violence in the form of depriving people of stability unless they agree to work as profit creation units.



 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
To this day, I don't understand why adherents to communism isn't as reviled as nazism.





Post-war revisionism and the fact that Marx (and communism) was the "hip thing" among academics, the bohemian wealthy, and people who didn't know any better, in the West.


Even today, knowing what we know, people continue to admire Che and other communist historical personages, and LARP as commies in groups such as Antifa. And communism is (for good or ill) considered to be "less evil" than Hitler and the NSDAP, with people making excuses for the crimes committed under the legacy of Karl Marx BS social and economic theories (i.e. "Real communism has never been tried" or "Lenin's revolution was twisted by Stalin")


Communism isn't as reviled as nazism because the poor and downtrodden of the world understand the difference between the systems. They understand the difference between wanting to free humanity from the shackles of capitalism and wanting to enslave and exterminate the so-called lesser races. People view communism more favourably because it speaks to them.

To attribute it to "post-war revisionism" and uphold capitalism is hilarious because Western capitalists immediately set to work on rehabilitating nazis so they could use them as agents against communism.






No, the actions of Leopold II were a prime example of corrupt government and/or head of state with little to no accountability. If anything, it's a good case against statist regimes, including communist ones.

Colonialism didn't necessarily involve deliberate genocide. In fact, many modern countries that were European colonies have benefited from the seeds planted during the colonial era.

In the Third Reich, private enterprise existed on paper only. The captains of industry were beholden to the whims of the National Socialist state, and kept on a tight lease via Albert Speer. That's not capitalism or free enterprise. If anything, Germany during that time was a corporatist state, just minus the economic sector participating in making national policy.

If you are referring to IBM's German subsidiary Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen, they were in the same boat as other German companies. And the firm was seized by the state after Hitler's declaration of war against the United States. I don't buy into the weak case presented by Edwin Black that IBM was an ethusiastic supporter of Nazi Germany before Pearl Harbor, and funneled wealth through Swiss banks back to the States. That smacks of tinfoil conspiracy theories. And if IBM America did get a cut from any profits made by Dehomag, then so what? The United States wasn't in a state of war with the Reich prior to December 1941.

There were other U.S. companies that operated in the Third Reich and U.S.S.R. before their assets were seized. I guess that makes those companies ethusiastic supporters of national socialist and communism, huh?

As for the last part, that's a load of nonsense. Capitalism and free market economics are based of the principles of "make it or break it on your own", or voluntary participation. And cut the nonsense about workers being virtual slaves of the system working out of fear. People get jobs and work for the other guy to make a living, and get a paycheck. But there are options. You can A: Start your own business or B: Become a leech living off of the taxpayers.


The poor and downtrodden buy into Marxist nonsense because the ones selling it are snake oil salesmen preying on people's fears of the future or ignorance. While the lower classes are the "foot soldiers" of the revolution, it's the self-styled "intellectuals" that run the show. In the end, the poor get suckered into continual repression, and the intellectuals run the country slowly into the ground.

It doesn't matter what encompasses an ideology, Nazi or communist. What matters is that both are tyrannical philosophies that leads to mass death and oppression of the masses. They are no different.

And finally, it wasn't the "capitalists" that made use of former nazis. It was the governments of the allied powers, including the U.S.S.R. Mostly those in the technical and scientific fields. although there were some in the military and politics that were instrumental in forming the post-war West German Federal Republic and German Armed Forces. Private enterprise had very little to do with it.

No offense, but most of what you are posting is just the usual commie BS that you see edgelords, bohemian wannabes, and college kids spouting off every other generation or so.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 08:37:27


Post by: sebster


 ulgurstasta wrote:
Well not that odd considering most people still base their view of the USSR on cold war propaganda, as we have seen displayed in this very thread. Dont get me wrong, the USSR was a failure, but it was not Mordor.


Post Stalin the Soviet Union was more or less like most other authoritarian states. Before then, from Lenin to Stalin it was about as close to Mordor as the real world is going to get. I mean what was worse? Cambodia was, Nazi Germany was, Maoist China for a few years, anything else?

Also many people in this thread seem a bit dishonest in their arguments. If communism is responsible for famine deaths (even though famines stopped happening under it), why isn't capitalism responsible for the millions of people who have died under famines and lack of drinking water and continues to every year in capitalism?


This has come up a bunch of times on dakka. And yeah, there have been some really awful things done by other countries. For instance Britain directly caused the Indian famine, and then did as little as possible to minimise its impact. 10m people died as a result of that.

But that is a reason to condemn colonialism. It is not a reason to absolve the USSR of the appalling things it did.

And yes, modern capitalist societies also have failings. But scale matters here, societies with small problems that kill a very small number of people are not the same as countries with very large problems that kill millions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
People seem to be confusing or conflating the Marxist principles of communism with the practical development of Soviet Union under international invasion by supporters of White Russian forces, followed by Stalinism.


I think distancing communism from Stalinism is false. There'd be something to the argument if communism had been attempted in some places and didn't produce authoritarian rule, but that hasn't happened. Sure, not every instance has been as murderous as Stalin's, but a few have, and not one communist regime has been anything near decent.

There is, ultimately, something at the core of communism that is about control first and foremost, and that control is enforced with whatever means necessary. People will happily point out that there is exploitation at the core of capitalism, this is widely accepted and barely argued against. But the thing is that over time many countries have found ways of mitigating the exploitation of capitalism.

And yet people deny that the core of communism isn't that desire to control. Perhaps because of that there's never been an instance where that desire has been mitigated or reduced in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Communism, in practice, was never about bettering people's lives. It was about the power over people's lives. Remember, the Germany under the Nazis also experienced major recovery after the dark days of the Great Depression and crushing Versailles Treaty. Does that excuse their crimes? If not, then the communist regimes throughout history cannot be excused.


I agree with a lot of your post, but this is part is fairly misleading. Hitler came to power at a time when a lot of initiatives of the Weimar Republic were beginning to bear fruit. All Hitler did was redirect some of the economic aims towards military ones, and reduce the overall rate of recovery.

As for Marx, he was an interesting philosopher. But as a political commentator, he sucked. And his understanding of economics and Human nature was barely above stick figures. His is an ideology that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.


This is also not quite true. Marx insight that economics was not a series of static, abstract rules, but was in fact a process in which the rules of one economic system produced changes that drove to its replacement by a new economic system was profound.

He was wrong about what the next step would be, but oh well, everyone else has been wrong about that stuff too. Keynes was wrong. Hayek was at least as wrong as Marx. Freidman turned out to be not just wrong about what came next, but it turned out he was wrong about most of the present as well. They're all still greats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
To this day, I don't understand why adherents to communism isn't as reviled as nazism.


We could ask the same question of colonialism. That also had an obscene death toll but you never see it mentioned in threads like this.

Part of the issue is that communism's victims are people in countries we really don't give a gak about, while Nazi Germany killed people in countries we do care about. I mean lets be honest here, 1,000 people die in an earthquake in Europe, or 1,000 people die in an earthquake in China - which one gets nightly news coverage for a week, and which one gets maybe one brief description one time?

But there is also a second reason - because while communism at its core is really awful, it still isn't as awful as Nazism. My post above I talk about how the real core of communism is control, and that's a horrible thing. But the core of Nazism is the pure worship of power through the subjugation and victimization of other people purely for the sake of subjugating and victimizing. That is worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Colonialism didn't necessarily involve deliberate genocide. In fact, many modern countries that were European colonies have benefited from the seeds planted during the colonial era.


Dismissing the genocide of colonialism as something that didn't happen in every instance, and saying some good did come out of it... is functionally the exact same defense that Iron Captain attempted for communism.

And if IBM America did get a cut from any profits made by Dehomag, then so what? The United States wasn't in a state of war with the Reich prior to December 1941.


Most people would consider it bad for a company to provide services that help a fascist state oppress and murder its people, even when their own country isn't at war with the fascist state.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 10:11:16


Post by: Skinnereal


 sebster wrote:
And India is still far from being a developed modern country. A significant portion of its people still live in slums and have to scavenge their food from garbage dumps. It also was a part of Great Britain, so not really useful for comparisons.
India wasn't part of Great Britain, it was part of the Commonwealth. The difference is huge.
India was part of the British Empire, Just to be picky The Empire collapsed into becoming the Commonwealth.
The points stated still stand, though.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 10:29:35


Post by: Just Tony


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.


Why don't we ask the Finns, or the Estonians, or the Poles how great the Soviet Union was, eh?

Or we could drop this ridiculous notion that someone's nationality disqualifies them from discussing the political situation in another country. You know, like I asked.


My mom's family immigrated to the US from Lithuania, there is NO positive opinion on the Soviet Union from there. The neatest part of learning about that heritage was going to the Litnuanian museum and genealogy center (failing on the actual name of the establishment) and seeing half the museum was dedicated to the resistance to the Soviet Union, and the ultimate price paid by SEVERAL Lithuanians in the process. Also formed more of an opinion of the Soviet government than 20 years of "capitalist propaganda" ever could.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 11:25:13


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:
Funnily enough, the only viable version of socialism is borne out of capitalism by advancing so far in technology that human labour of any kind is redundant.


Which is kind of the principle of Marxism.


So the ideology that was borne out of and exists to advocate for the benefit of the worker and to setup the worker as the ruling class advocates for the abolition of the workers?


The abolition of workers having to work for other people's profit to survive, yes. Marx was quite explicit in that capitalism was needed in order to let humanity society progress to a point where it was feasible for the workers to unite and seize the means of production. He was off by more than a little regarding when this'd happen (if indeed it ever will) though.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 12:16:03


Post by: Rosebuddy


 sebster wrote:
There is, ultimately, something at the core of communism that is about control first and foremost, and that control is enforced with whatever means necessary. People will happily point out that there is exploitation at the core of capitalism, this is widely accepted and barely argued against. But the thing is that over time many countries have found ways of mitigating the exploitation of capitalism.

And yet people deny that the core of communism isn't that desire to control. Perhaps because of that there's never been an instance where that desire has been mitigated or reduced in any way.


To say that communism is in part about a desire to control is trivially true but it's dishonest to not specify that it's about the desire for the working class to control the means of production. Capitalism is also about a desire to control, specifically the desire for the capitalist class to control the means of production. That capitalism is fundamentally about a very small group controlling how resources are extracted, distributed and used has not and can not be mitigated. Social democracy is a compromise that can only come into existence when there is a strong workers' movement and that can only continue to exist when there is a strong communist power to show the capitalists and the workers that there is an alternative to capitalism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, social democracy has eroded to the point that current Swedish social democrats will weep and wail about the red menace whenever someone takes a position that they proudly held twenty years ago.

And there most definitely are those who argue against capitalism being inescapably exploitative. Pick any free marketeer. We got one earlier in the thread.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 12:36:37


Post by: Disciple of Fate


OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This quote just sums up the completely simplistic and pointless argument that socialism is evil. Plenty of countries are social democracies without them ending up as hellholes. In a decent world there should always be an element of socialism mixed in, its unavoidable in running states. Sign of the times I guess.


Social democracies aren't actually socialist. They're capitalistic systems that have cherrypicked the good and realistic parts of socialism and discarded the rest, which manifest in heavy investment in social programs.

Hence why I used the term social democracies, which is different from a socialist country. They are a mix of capitalist and socialist systems that can work pretty well. Implementing socialist policies doesn't mean ending up as a hell hole like the quote from 1962 I responded to indicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:

To attribute it to "post-war revisionism" and uphold capitalism is hilarious because Western capitalists immediately set to work on rehabilitating nazis so they could use them as agents against communism.

What the holy hell is this? Is this a european thing?

While Rosebuddy goes way too far in the capitalist aspect, which is not a European thing, the rehabilitating part is mostly true yet very onesided. Denazification programs weren't very thorough and the sheer amount of skilled people that had belonged to the Nazi party was just too large. So many Nazis ended up unpunished and working in the new governments because their skills were needed to rebuild the country. They didn't all walk of course, but there were problematic undertones. The SU did this to a lesser extent and was a lot harsher when it came to German PoWs and Nazis, but they had no problem sparing the valuable ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 sebster wrote:
There is, ultimately, something at the core of communism that is about control first and foremost, and that control is enforced with whatever means necessary. People will happily point out that there is exploitation at the core of capitalism, this is widely accepted and barely argued against. But the thing is that over time many countries have found ways of mitigating the exploitation of capitalism.

And yet people deny that the core of communism isn't that desire to control. Perhaps because of that there's never been an instance where that desire has been mitigated or reduced in any way.


To say that communism is in part about a desire to control is trivially true but it's dishonest to not specify that it's about the desire for the working class to control the means of production. Capitalism is also about a desire to control, specifically the desire for the capitalist class to control the means of production. That capitalism is fundamentally about a very small group controlling how resources are extracted, distributed and used has not and can not be mitigated.

But to get to equality and controlling the means of production in 'pure' socialism you need a different kind of control than in capitalism. Where capitalism is mostly about money as a control method, 'pure' socialism is about politcal control on an authoritarian level, because it will have to push through certain measures that go against a certain part of society. But to achieve 'pure' socialism in the 20th century context you needed 'pure' humans so to speak. Because every attempt at communism in the real world ended up with people liking the amount of control they had, creating a new elite and wealthy class plus doing some pretty terrible things to satisfy grudges. In the second world communist states in history the governments needed absolute power to reform society. But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 20th century communism failed in part because its leaders were corrupt, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and even Castro were not averse to giving themselves a leg up, they were crazier than your average person to boot. Plus once you have authoritarian power, its hard to give it up. Untill the end, most communists regimes still were one man shows (even if they don't have to be), even now its another Castro or the new Mao in the form of Xi.

We can move closer to 'pure' socialism. But it can't be done by force, because its been tried by force and it ends up in the same authoritarian police state or failure every time.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 13:34:48


Post by: Peregrine


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
As for the last part, that's a load of nonsense. Capitalism and free market economics are based of the principles of "make it or break it on your own", or voluntary participation. And cut the nonsense about workers being virtual slaves of the system working out of fear. People get jobs and work for the other guy to make a living, and get a paycheck. But there are options. You can A: Start your own business or B: Become a leech living off of the taxpayers.


It's hardly "voluntary" when your choices are work or starve to death. And the welfare programs that might replace "literally starve to death" with "suffer a miserable existence in extreme poverty" only exist because we have collectively decided that unrestricted capitalism is not ok and implemented socialist principles.

What matters is that both are tyrannical philosophies that leads to mass death and oppression of the masses.


And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
I blame the education system because in many, many ways... Communism is just as abhorrent as Nazism.


Yes, of course, "capital should be collectively owned and used for the common good" and "we should exterminate the lesser races" are definitely moral equivalents...

"Shackle of capitalism"... wut?


Yes, shackles of capitalism. That thing where you work yourself to death so that some wealthy investment banker can press a couple of buttons once a day from their billion-dollar luxury yacht. Capitalism is a system of massive inequality and suffering, and the only reason anyone can believe otherwise is that no sane society allows capitalism to exist without limits.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:02:55


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The abolition of workers having to work for other people's profit to survive, yes. Marx was quite explicit in that capitalism was needed in order to let humanity society progress to a point where it was feasible for the workers to unite and seize the means of production. He was off by more than a little regarding when this'd happen (if indeed it ever will) though.


Then he seems to have misread what I said. Let me be clearer: Viable socialism rises from the natural evolution (not revolution) of capitalism where technology advances to such point where any kind of human labour becomes obsolete. This both kills capitalism and marxism as it is currently understood. As for the timeframe, well I wouldn't expect it in our lifetimes nor in the lifetimes of our great grandchildren, and this is being generous in assumption that socialists stop trying to topple capitalism by means of revolution, which only serves to hinder the progress.
Capitalism might not be perfect (corporatism really needs to be squished), but it is by far the best system we have.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Hence why I used the term social democracies, which is different from a socialist country. They are a mix of capitalist and socialist systems that can work pretty well. Implementing socialist policies doesn't mean ending up as a hell hole like the quote from 1962 I responded to indicated.


Then why are you using social democracies as a defense for socialism when you know the relation is only tangential?



 Peregrine wrote:

It's hardly "voluntary" when your choices are work or starve to death. And the welfare programs that might replace "literally starve to death" with "suffer a miserable existence in extreme poverty" only exist because we have collectively decided that unrestricted capitalism is not ok and implemented socialist principles.


Is this supposed to be criticism of capitalism or socialism? Because in socialism you are forced to have a job or be branded a parasite that is to be removed.


And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing.


As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means. What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?
Communism is basically Tall Poppy Syndrome in form of an ideology.


Yes, of course, "capital should be collectively owned and used for the common good" and "we should exterminate the lesser races" are definitely moral equivalents...


"At least there is no racial component in our genocide." They certainly did genocide an entire class of people. The bourgeoisie.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:09:35


Post by: Ketara


OgreOnAStick wrote:

Is this supposed to be criticism of capitalism or socialism? Because in socialism you are forced to have a job or be branded a parasite that is to be removed.

I know it's from the opposite end of the spectrum, but whenever I hear the word 'parasite' used in this sort of context, it just makes me think of this.




100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:14:48


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


OgreOnAStick wrote:


As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means. What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?
Communism is basically Tall Poppy Syndrome in form of an ideology.


One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:18:25


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[
One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


Is the ability to benefit from such system not a skilll those people possess? Also, you didn't refute it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:19:35


Post by: Kilkrazy


In recent news it turns out that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett between them own more wealth than the bottom 160 million of US citizen put together.

Did those three guys create all that wealth by their own means?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:20:48


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Kilkrazy wrote:
In recent news it turns out that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett between them own more wealth than the bottom 160 million of US citizen put together.

Did those three guys create all that wealth by their own means?


Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:21:08


Post by: Frazzled


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing.


As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means. What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?
Communism is basically Tall Poppy Syndrome in form of an ideology.


One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


AW has the way of it.

You can't have violence free communism for humans without: 1) being in Heaven; 2) a nonscarcity economy (not possible outside of us being energy beings); 3) literally messing up the genetic code to remove a whole lot of things and get us to the level of ants.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:25:20


Post by: OgreOnAStick


You might want to reread the original posts, because AW bungled the quotations (and so did you for that matter).


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:35:53


Post by: Kilkrazy


OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
In recent news it turns out that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett between them own more wealth than the bottom 160 million of US citizen put together.

Did those three guys create all that wealth by their own means?


Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


None of them created all that wealth by themselves. They all employ staff who actually did the bulk of the work.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:36:40


Post by: Peregrine


OgreOnAStick wrote:
Is this supposed to be criticism of capitalism or socialism? Because in socialism you are forced to have a job or be branded a parasite that is to be removed.


Lolwut? Seriously, what?

As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means.


No more so than the oppression inherent in that gaining of wealth "by their own means". Which, of course, is no such thing. You can't gain wealth purely by your own means, you depend on the labor of others. And if you're gaining significant wealth you're doing it through an oppressive system that overwhelmingly favors keeping the wealthy and powerful in their privileged position at the expense of everyone else.

What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?


The same thing that happens when someone refuses to pay their taxes in the US: fines, prison, eventual suicide by cop if they continue to resist.

"At least there is no racial component in our genocide." They certainly did genocide an entire class of people. The bourgeoisie.


First of all, that's an absurd misuse of the term "genocide". Second, mass death is not required. The bourgeoisie can pay their taxes like everyone else and continue to be a part of civil society.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:37:27


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Kilkrazy wrote:
[


None of them created all that wealth by themselves. They all employ staff who actually did the bulk of the work.


Just because their ideas were successful enough to warrant employment of others does not mean they did not create it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:40:44


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


OgreOnAStick wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[
One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


Is the ability to benefit from such system not a skilll those people possess? Also, you didn't refute it.


The entire point is that it's only "oppressive" if you're assuming that a certain type of property is a God-given right and not a social construct. The rich person sees taxation as theft, whereas the poor person sees his refusal to pay taxes and support the system that made him able to be rich in the first place as theft.

You're right, I didn't refute your statement because it's accurate. The redistribution of wealth is coercive. The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that something being coercive automatically makes it bad.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:41:38


Post by: Peregrine


OgreOnAStick wrote:
Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices. Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:45:44


Post by: Crazy_Carnifex


Fascism=Pride

Communism=Envy

Capitalism=Greed

Fans of Fullmetal Alchemist may remember which of these was a good guy...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:55:44


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Peregrine wrote:

Lolwut? Seriously, what?


Your argument was that in X you are forced to work or starve. This is applies to both capitalism and socialism.


No more so than the oppression inherent in that gaining of wealth "by their own means".

The same thing that happens when someone refuses to pay their taxes in the US: fines, prison, eventual suicide by cop if they continue to resist.


Your claim (see below) was that communism wasn't inherently tyrannical. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

"And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing."




Which, of course, is no such thing. You can't gain wealth purely by your own means, you depend on the labor of others. And if you're gaining significant wealth you're doing it through an oppressive system that overwhelmingly favors keeping the wealthy and powerful in their privileged position at the expense of everyone else.


Mm.. Yummy carrot, which I grew myself in a planter pot in the balcony. Am I not enjoying the fruits of my own labour? Since building my own wealth is apparently not a thing, I suppose the money I made from selling the excess carrots do not belong to me either.

First of all, that's an absurd misuse of the term "genocide". Second, mass death is not required. The bourgeoisie can pay their taxes like everyone else and continue to be a part of civil society.


It falls entirely within the definition of genocide (see below). There are no taxes in communism since private property is not a concept in communism and since (as demonstrated above) you are oppressing the bourgeoisie through jailing (people in prison don't breed) or killing them, yes the communists are waging a war of extermination on them.

Spoiler:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

Definition of genocide
:the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 15:57:57


Post by: Frazzled


 Peregrine wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:
Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices. Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.


Indeed. However this thread is about communism. To equate, take 1-25% of your workforce, put them on trial, and then send them to Alaska and work them to death drilling for oil.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 16:07:26


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:


Which, of course, is no such thing. You can't gain wealth purely by your own means, you depend on the labor of others. And if you're gaining significant wealth you're doing it through an oppressive system that overwhelmingly favors keeping the wealthy and powerful in their privileged position at the expense of everyone else.


Mm.. Yummy carrot, which I grew myself in a planter pot in the balcony. Am I not enjoying the fruits of my own labour? Since building my own wealth is apparently not a thing, I suppose the money I made from selling the excess carrots do not belong to me either.


Today I learned that excess carrots are significant wealth, and that being unable to gain wealth purely by your own means it's impossible to contribute to your own wealth at all.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 16:11:22


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Peregrine wrote:


They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices. Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.


And each of these innovators were compensated by the sales of their own inventions. This also applies to the workers who were compensated for the services of work and time they provided.
Just because their actions were distasteful, does not mean that they have not generated their wealth through their own actions and choices. And as I have stated before, corporatism and crony capitalism are a bad thing for capitalism.

However, enough with the whataboutery on capitalism and lets go back to the topic of communism.


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Today I learned that excess carrots are significant wealth, and that being unable to gain wealth purely by your own means it's impossible to contribute to your own wealth at all.


The scale of wealth is irrelevant, only thing matters is that one can generate their own wealth. Also, where did I state that self generated wealth is the only form of wealth?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 16:24:07


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


OgreOnAStick wrote:



 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Today I learned that excess carrots are significant wealth, and that being unable to gain wealth purely by your own means it's impossible to contribute to your own wealth at all.


The scale of wealth is irrelevant, only thing matters is that one can generate their own wealth. Also, where did I state that self generated wealth is the only form of wealth?


Where has anyone disputed that?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 16:28:54


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Where has anyone disputed that?


Heavily implied by Peregrine and Kilkrazy by their attack on the concept of self generated wealth. Or did you refer to the scale of wealth generation? In which, case that would be you in your mocking statement about the carrot example.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 16:35:40


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Honestly, on second thought even your carrot example isn't purely self-generated wealth. You're still benefitting from society, whether you want to or not.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 16:40:17


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, on second thought even your carrot example isn't purely self-generated wealth. You're still benefitting from society, whether you want to or not.


Then I'll just move the the carrot patch into a hypothetical location where there are no other people. The carrots are still form of wealth as I can attribute value to them by eating them. The presence of society is also irrelevant.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 17:09:41


Post by: Galas


Hmm... wasn't the principle of Comunism the nationalization of the means of production? Where this "Redistribution of Wealth" comes from? In Communism/Socialism everybody is free to make as much money as they want as long as they earn it without taking advantage of the work force of other workers.


And to be honest I don't understand why people uses today ethics to call Lenin and their revolutionaries a bunch of violent thugs. Wherent the French ones the same?
In that same year, in Spain we were under a dictadure, followed by a Republic, followed by a Civil War, and followed by another Dictadure. I know that in USA things wheren't as chaotic, but the 1910-1940 period was a very bloody period in most of Europe. Most of Europe was killing each other in that age.

I know, it could have been ideal if all revolutions in history where made Gandhi's style, but thats isn't how history works.
Personally, I'm totally opposed to the Ideology of Franquism, but I'm not gonna call the right-wing groups in 1920-1936 in Spain assasins, because both right and left wing, in that age, where literally killing each other on the streets.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 17:25:55


Post by: whembly


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, on second thought even your carrot example isn't purely self-generated wealth. You're still benefitting from society, whether you want to or not.

...and?

We still pay taxes that funds the government.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 17:26:12


Post by: Disciple of Fate


OgreOnAStick wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Hence why I used the term social democracies, which is different from a socialist country. They are a mix of capitalist and socialist systems that can work pretty well. Implementing socialist policies doesn't mean ending up as a hell hole like the quote from 1962 I responded to indicated.


Then why are you using social democracies as a defense for socialism when you know the relation is only tangential?

... Because it is not just tangential is it? On the sliding scale between socialism and capitalism nobody is purely capitalist. The US is closer to capitalism than many European countries, but they still have plenty of socialist aspects. Its proof that socialist policies aren't a bad thing to begin with, its the opression to force them through. Europe could easily institute more policies to ease the distribution of wealth if it wanted to do so witbout force or violence. How do you get to decide when its only tangential? Based on your comments you seem to have a different conception of socialism (i.e. historical versus theory). Not to mention social democracy came into being alongside communism in response to Marx as a non revolutionary approach.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 17:31:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


Aye. Communism doesn't requires redistribution of personal wealth, it requires redistribution of collective wealth through a change in the ownership of the means of production. Basically, the idea is to redistribute wealth not by breaking into rich people's homes and stealing all their stuff (as some seem to think it is) but by transferring the ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, businesses) from an individual or shareholders to the employees who are actually generating the wealth. Basically, businesses will be run in a democratic fashion by their employees, instead of in an autocratic fashion by 'the boss'.
Wait... Didn't I say I would keep away from all this ignorance? God, I must hate myself so much...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 17:34:19


Post by: Galas


Maybe is that where I live, the most succesfull business are all cooperatives, because they are from the primary sector (Fishing, Breeding of mussels, etc...) and they work and are organized in a very "socialist" way, with democratic elected presidents, etc... so my vision of a "business" owned by the workers and not by shareholders and "bossess" is more positive than most other people.
Basically everybody has his own sea-farms, they are the ones that work on them, and then they organice themselves to negotiate with other business for a fair price for their product, they put quotas to have a balance between the ones with more sea-farms and the ones with less, etc...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 18:44:17


Post by: Frazzled


 Galas wrote:
Hmm... wasn't the principle of Comunism the nationalization of the means of production? Where this "Redistribution of Wealth" comes from? In Communism/Socialism everybody is free to make as much money as they want as long as they earn it without taking advantage of the work force of other workers.


And to be honest I don't understand why people uses today ethics to call Lenin and their revolutionaries a bunch of violent thugs. Wherent the French ones the same?
In that same year, in Spain we were under a dictadure, followed by a Republic, followed by a Civil War, and followed by another Dictadure. I know that in USA things wheren't as chaotic, but the 1910-1940 period was a very bloody period in most of Europe. Most of Europe was killing each other in that age.

I know, it could have been ideal if all revolutions in history where made Gandhi's style, but thats isn't how history works.
Personally, I'm totally opposed to the Ideology of Franquism, but I'm not gonna call the right-wing groups in 1920-1936 in Spain assasins, because both right and left wing, in that age, where literally killing each other on the streets.


Because it led to the murder of tens of millions of people.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Aye. Communism doesn't requires redistribution of personal wealth, it requires redistribution of collective wealth through a change in the ownership of the means of production. Basically, the idea is to redistribute wealth not by breaking into rich people's homes and stealing all their stuff (as some seem to think it is) but by transferring the ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, businesses) from an individual or shareholders to the employees who are actually generating the wealth. Basically, businesses will be run in a democratic fashion by their employees, instead of in an autocratic fashion by 'the boss'.
Wait... Didn't I say I would keep away from all this ignorance? God, I must hate myself so much...


Except the Bolsheviks did just that. Or in the case of the Kulaks, all of your food too. What you'll starve? Don't bother Dear Leader with capitalist nonsense!


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 19:03:52


Post by: Scrabb


Whenever two groups of people disagree about the nature of man, the more pessimistic group is correct.


If I say people will turn on each other during the zombie apocalypse and I'm going to get mine when that happens and you say they won't and we can work together and come out better for it I am right because I am unconvinced by you.

You would be right if you could convince me, and everyone else that you were right. But as long as the argument continues you are wrong. And you'll have to kill everyone you fail to convince. Edit: or just take their stuff.

That is communism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 19:13:27


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Frazzled wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Aye. Communism doesn't requires redistribution of personal wealth, it requires redistribution of collective wealth through a change in the ownership of the means of production. Basically, the idea is to redistribute wealth not by breaking into rich people's homes and stealing all their stuff (as some seem to think it is) but by transferring the ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, businesses) from an individual or shareholders to the employees who are actually generating the wealth. Basically, businesses will be run in a democratic fashion by their employees, instead of in an autocratic fashion by 'the boss'.
Wait... Didn't I say I would keep away from all this ignorance? God, I must hate myself so much...


Except the Bolsheviks did just that. Or in the case of the Kulaks, all of your food too. What you'll starve? Don't bother Dear Leader with capitalist nonsense!

Aye, they did that. And more. But it is not inherent to communism. They did it because the circumstances of the Civil War forced them to (they needed the food for the armies), combined with a lot of built-up resentment and hate (these people oppressed us for centuries and even now they support the enemy, let's go get them) and just plain selfish looting. They did not do it because of communism. It isn't like page 47, paragraph 3 of the Communist Manifesto states 'Thou shalt steal all of the rich people's stuff' or anything like that, but strangely enough a lot of (rich) people opposed to communism seem to think it does.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 19:40:53


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Aye. Communism doesn't requires redistribution of personal wealth, it requires redistribution of collective wealth through a change in the ownership of the means of production. Basically, the idea is to redistribute wealth not by breaking into rich people's homes and stealing all their stuff (as some seem to think it is) but by transferring the ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, businesses) from an individual or shareholders to the employees who are actually generating the wealth. Basically, businesses will be run in a democratic fashion by their employees, instead of in an autocratic fashion by 'the boss'.
Wait... Didn't I say I would keep away from all this ignorance? God, I must hate myself so much...



So instead of stealing their stuff, the communists steal their livelihood. That is not any better.
However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.

Galas wrote:Hmm... wasn't the principle of Comunism the nationalization of the means of production? Where this "Redistribution of Wealth" comes from? In Communism/Socialism everybody is free to make as much money as they want as long as they earn it without taking advantage of the work force of other workers.


Originated from Lycurgus of Sparta in the form of resource redistribution, which influenced Karl Marx (can't remember which book it was, it was either Critique of Gotha Program or in one of the volumes of Das Kapital) in the form of "to each according to his contribution" and taken to its logical conclusion by Lenin et co. by nationalizing pretty much everything. Modernly it is a viewpoint held by the anarcho-communists who make up a significant portion of the non-academic socialists.

Also, as written communism doesn't use money or have a state for that matter, which indirectly means no private property either as one of the functions of a state is to enforce property rights.

Maybe is that where I live, the most succesfull business are all cooperatives, because they are from the primary sector (Fishing, Breeding of mussels, etc...) and they work and are organized in a very "socialist" way, with democratic elected presidents, etc... so my vision of a "business" owned by the workers and not by shareholders and "bossess" is more positive than most other people.


That sounds a lot like (non-anarchic) syndicalist influence and I am unsurprised to see it function locally, as the problems tend to rise when socialism is taken to national level due to scalability issues.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

... Because it is not just tangential is it? On the sliding scale between socialism and capitalism nobody is purely capitalist. The US is closer to capitalism than many European countries, but they still have plenty of socialist aspects. Its proof that socialist policies aren't a bad thing to begin with, its the opression to force them through. Europe could easily institute more policies to ease the distribution of wealth if it wanted to do so witbout force or violence. How do you get to decide when its only tangential? Based on your comments you seem to have a different conception of socialism (i.e. historical versus theory). Not to mention social democracy came into being alongside communism in response to Marx as a non revolutionary approach.


Just because a capitalistic system has socialistic aspects does not make it socialism as socialism itself includes more than the economic system which is discarded entirely in order to form a social democracy. I do agree however that the scale isn't binary (and includes a centralized-decentralized axis or collectivist-libertarian if one prefers), Capitalism as a whole has evolved quite a lot since Marx' time to adress the issues raised by socialists, although many modern communists (especially anarcho variants) like to pretend it has not.
It has just become an annoyance on how often nordics (thankfully not in this thread) are used as poster children for socialism when they're free market capitalist nations who are wealthy enough to afford social programs (which I am not against unless they start incentivizing unproductivity). Amusingly enough, France is probably one of the more apt examples of adaptation of socialism to fit into capitalist systems needs.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:03:06


Post by: Disciple of Fate


OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

... Because it is not just tangential is it? On the sliding scale between socialism and capitalism nobody is purely capitalist. The US is closer to capitalism than many European countries, but they still have plenty of socialist aspects. Its proof that socialist policies aren't a bad thing to begin with, its the opression to force them through. Europe could easily institute more policies to ease the distribution of wealth if it wanted to do so witbout force or violence. How do you get to decide when its only tangential? Based on your comments you seem to have a different conception of socialism (i.e. historical versus theory). Not to mention social democracy came into being alongside communism in response to Marx as a non revolutionary approach.

Just because a capitalistic system has socialistic aspects does not make it socialism as socialism itself includes more than the economic system which is discarded entirely in order to form a social democracy. I do agree however that the scale isn't binary (and includes a centralized-decentralized axis or collectivist-libertarian if one prefers), Capitalism as a whole has evolved quite a lot since Marx' time to adress the issues raised by socialists, although many modern communists (especially anarcho variants) like to pretend it has not.
It has just become an annoyance on how often nordics (thankfully not in this thread) are used as poster children for socialism when they're free market capitalist nations who are wealthy enough to afford social programs (which I am not against unless they start incentivizing unproductivity). Amusingly enough, France is probably one of the more apt examples of adaptation of socialism to fit into capitalist systems needs.

Not necessarily, socialism comes in many forms. Social democracy versus communism was the socialist split of international socialism. Both are expressions of socialism, one just goes much further than the other. Yet even if social democracies aren't close to communism that does not men they aren't partly socialist in nature. There is a reason communists frequently kept referring to themselves as socialists and why they saw social democrats as traitors, because they had different views on socialism and how to achieve it, social democracy was removing the revolutionary potential.

So in that sense, yes Nordic states can be seen as poster children for socialism, the 'good' kind of socialism (not communism) in the form of a highly successful social democracy. They help their population while making it work economically, being free and democratic states. France is a slightly worse example of socialism, because while they have implemented 'more' of it, they don't have the finances to keep it running in the state that it is now. The way to make a more socialist state work currently is either live with the free market and capitalism or have a shift in the future (which history shows likely won't happen with political power/force). But the existence of a free market doesn't exclude socialism in that sense. Socialism comes in many forms, but too easily does it get used as nothing more than a buzzword/byword for communism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:23:03


Post by: Frazzled


Nordic states are advantaged by wealth coming from hydrocarbons, like the Gulf States. We'll see how they do when that runs out.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:32:26


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Frazzled wrote:
Nordic states are advantaged by wealth coming from hydrocarbons, like the Gulf States. We'll see how they do when that runs out.


Wait, we have oil? Since when?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:34:57


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Frazzled wrote:
Nordic states are advantaged by wealth coming from hydrocarbons, like the Gulf States. We'll see how they do when that runs out.

This is mostly the case for Norway, but Norway has already invested in the future knowing natural resources might run out. But there are plenty of social democracies who have done just fine without significant natural resources. Plus with a profound economic shift due to something like robotics, who knows what the future will bring for any Western state?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:35:24


Post by: Rosebuddy


OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:38:10


Post by: whembly


Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

Yeah... it is very harmful.

You will not get everyone to meekly submit.

Hence why communism is a failure.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:39:54


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

Yeah... it is very harmful.

You will not get everyone to meekly submit.

Hence why communism is a failure.


By that logic capitalism is also a failure.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:48:46


Post by: whembly


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

Yeah... it is very harmful.

You will not get everyone to meekly submit.

Hence why communism is a failure.


By that logic capitalism is also a failure.

Dunno how you can say that.

Much of the innovation and advances on our planet is driven by some sort of capitalistic system/endeavor.





100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 21:56:23


Post by: Frazzled


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Nordic states are advantaged by wealth coming from hydrocarbons, like the Gulf States. We'll see how they do when that runs out.

This is mostly the case for Norway, but Norway has already invested in the future knowing natural resources might run out. But there are plenty of social democracies who have done just fine without significant natural resources. Plus with a profound economic shift due to something like robotics, who knows what the future will bring for any Western state?


Very true. I am not knocking them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.


There is always a ruling class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

Yeah... it is very harmful.

You will not get everyone to meekly submit.

Hence why communism is a failure.


By that logic capitalism is also a failure.


Ok. They both can be


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 22:10:40


Post by: Galas


 whembly wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

Yeah... it is very harmful.

You will not get everyone to meekly submit.

Hence why communism is a failure.


By that logic capitalism is also a failure.

Dunno how you can say that.

Much of the innovation and advances on our planet is driven by some sort of capitalistic system/endeavor.


We had innovation and advance long before, without Capitalism. (And I'm not saying this to criticize capitalism, but I just hate the "Omg, if we have science now is because of capitalism!" argument)


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 22:13:52


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Frazzled wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

There is always a ruling class.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


Well, yes. The point of communism is for there to not be classes anymore. Of course this would mean the redistribution of the colossal, incomprehensible wealth of the ruling class. "You're going to live like anyone else now" is not actually harmful.

Yeah... it is very harmful.

You will not get everyone to meekly submit.

Hence why communism is a failure.

By that logic capitalism is also a failure.

Ok. They both can be

Both are, both for practical reasons but only one in theory. Pure capitalism is both for practical and theoretical (as its just economic theory) reasons pretty flawed, because if money is the end all most would consider that pretty terrible. Communism tends to be a failure in practice because it is done by force, yet we have never seen a peaceful method to reach the theoretical stage. One could argue that 'pure' communism/socialism (end goal is the same) could be great (as it sounds in theory). As of now, all of communist history has told us that people seem to be unable to reach that theoretical point (technological developments not withstanding). People are flawed and if there is one thing 20th century communism has shown its that flawed people who think they know better and try to impose that by force tend to create terrible states. As Rosebuddy says, in 'pure' communism there aren't (or shouldn't really be) any classes anymore, yet all the communist leaders deemed fit to become the wealthy ruling class, to take that 'burden' off the people of course

No communist state has managed to move beyond the new communist ruling class, which is pretty ironic.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 22:17:14


Post by: Galas


I believe in God-Level IA communism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/09 23:02:30


Post by: Peregrine


OgreOnAStick wrote:
So instead of stealing their stuff, the communists steal their livelihood. That is not any better.
However, once the communists start enforcing "To each according to his contribution" (as the borgeoisie haven't put in the perceived labour equal to their wealth) then they will come for borgeoisies stuff.


That's certainly a hyperbolic way of looking at it. Is it "stealing your stuff" when you have to pay taxes?

And it really says a lot that people are sincerely claiming that "you will live at the level of wealth of your common workers" is oppression and genocide and stealing livelihoods and all that. If that's really such a horrible level of oppression then what does it say about the wealthy under a capitalist system that they're willing to force others to live at that same standard for their own personal benefit? The more you argue that communism is oppressive the more you concede that capitalism and the people who benefit from it are guilty of the same oppression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreOnAStick wrote:
Then I'll just move the the carrot patch into a hypothetical location where there are no other people. The carrots are still form of wealth as I can attribute value to them by eating them. The presence of society is also irrelevant.


I don't think you understand what "wealth" means. A small amount of food is not "wealth", and it says a lot that this is the kind of example you have to resort to as supposed proof of self-generated wealth.

Your argument was that in X you are forced to work or starve. This is applies to both capitalism and socialism.


No it doesn't. Socialist states tend to have welfare systems and a belief that everyone should be able to get a basic standard of living, regardless of what work they do. Because, you know, we shouldn't just leave people to starve to death. Capitalism, in the absence of socialist beliefs modifying and restraining it, leaves you to starve (or to work in horrible poverty just to survive).

Your claim (see below) was that communism wasn't inherently tyrannical. You seem to be contradicting yourself.


What I described is not tyranny, unless you want to concede that the US is a tyrannical state. If you don't pay your taxes in the US you will get fined and owe the government even more. And at some point the government will take the money from you directly, and potentially arrest you for tax evasion. And if, when the police come to arrest you, you resist, it will be a case of suicide by cop. The principle is exactly the same as it is in a communist state, the only difference is what tax level is imposed.

It falls entirely within the definition of genocide (see below). There are no taxes in communism since private property is not a concept in communism and since (as demonstrated above) you are oppressing the bourgeoisie through jailing (people in prison don't breed) or killing them, yes the communists are waging a war of extermination on them.


That's ridiculous. It's like saying we're committing genocide against drug dealers and bank robbers in the US because we arrest them and send them to prison. There is no war of extermination required, the bourgeoise are free to follow the laws of society like everyone else and have the same life. The only violence applied to them is the same violence that every state applies to criminals that violate its laws.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 01:16:14


Post by: Iron_Captain


OgreOnAStick wrote:
There are no taxes in communism since private property is not a concept in communism

Private property might not mean what you think it does. In a communist context, private property is the social relationship between an owner (employer) and the deprived (employees). Again, when communists are talking about abolishing private property, they are not talking about stealing all of your stuff, they are talking about equalising the relationship between employer and employees so that everyone becomes an owner.

Probably, what you think of as private property (your carrots or your money), is what is actually called personal property. Private property purely refers to the ownership of the means of production by individuals (and its resulting unequal social relationships) instead of the community as a whole.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 02:17:17


Post by: OgreOnAStick


 Peregrine wrote:

That's certainly a hyperbolic way of looking at it. Is it "stealing your stuff" when you have to pay taxes?


That would only be true in cases where you get nothing in return for your taxes. Just to name a few: Safety in the form of police and military, infrastructure in form of railways and... *cue screeching ancaps* roads, postal service, public schools, healthcare (in some countries) and justice system.


And it really says a lot that people are sincerely claiming that "you will live at the level of wealth of your common workers" is oppression and genocide and stealing livelihoods and all that. If that's really such a horrible level of oppression then what does it say about the wealthy under a capitalist system that they're willing to force others to live at that same standard for their own personal benefit? The more you argue that communism is oppressive the more you concede that capitalism and the people who benefit from it are guilty of the same oppression.


If I had the means, will and skill to live at a higher level of wealth and the state/proletariat forced me not to, then yes I would be oppressed by the state/proletariat as they are arbitrarily restricting my life choices.
Capitalistic systems minimize their oppressive behaviour to the absolute minimum in order to incentivise the citizen to be productive and better themselves in order to benefit from their productivity.



I don't think you understand what "wealth" means. A small amount of food is not "wealth", and it says a lot that this is the kind of example you have to resort to as supposed proof of self-generated wealth.


Literally anything that can be attributed value to is wealth. And please do attempt to refute the example if you think so lowly of it.

Spoiler:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth

The definition is slightly flawed as wealth is able to be intangible.

Definition of wealth

1 obsolete :weal, welfare
2 :abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
3 :abundant supply :profusion
4 a :all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
b :all material objects that have economic utility; especially :the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time national wealth



No it doesn't. Socialist states tend to have welfare systems and a belief that everyone should be able to get a basic standard of living, regardless of what work they do. Because, you know, we shouldn't just leave people to starve to death. Capitalism, in the absence of socialist beliefs modifying and restraining it, leaves you to starve (or to work in horrible poverty just to survive).


Except those who hold different ideologies (guilty of wrongthink), are too wealthy (borgeoisie) or refuse to work (parasites). Let me remind you of what Lenin cited as a core principle of socialism "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". Also the Ukranians might want to object.
There is no reason for capitalistic systems to intentionally starve their own workforce. Healthy workers are far more productive than those dying of starvation. Amusingly enough, capitalism seems to breed poor fat people more than starving ones.

What I described is not tyranny, unless you want to concede that the US is a tyrannical state. If you don't pay your taxes in the US you will get fined and owe the government even more. And at some point the government will take the money from you directly, and potentially arrest you for tax evasion. And if, when the police come to arrest you, you resist, it will be a case of suicide by cop. The principle is exactly the same as it is in a communist state, the only difference is what tax level is imposed.


Tax evasion is theft from the state as one benefits from the services provided by the state for which the tax provides the funding for.
I repeat: Capitalistic systems minimize their oppressive behaviour. State socialism does not as it seeks to control their citizens.
Also, the difference between the tax rates are massive, 12% (in US, unless it has changed over the years) taxation that is used to (mostly) benefit the payer and partially refunded vs. you don't pay taxes because you don't own anything and whatever you do possess can be taken at will to be used to the benefit of the collective.


That's ridiculous. It's like saying we're committing genocide against drug dealers and bank robbers in the US because we arrest them and send them to prison. There is no war of extermination required, the bourgeoise are free to follow the laws of society like everyone else and have the same life. The only violence applied to them is the same violence that every state applies to criminals that violate its laws.


Drug dealers and bank robbers are sent to prison because they are actually commiting a crime. They are not imprisoned due to their political views. You are comparing apples to oranges.


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Private property might not mean what you think it does. In a communist context, private property is the social relationship between an owner (employer) and the deprived (employees). Again, when communists are talking about abolishing private property, they are not talking about stealing all of your stuff, they are talking about equalising the relationship between employer and employees so that everyone becomes an owner.

Probably, what you think of as private property (your carrots or your money), is what is actually called personal property. Private property purely refers to the ownership of the means of production by individuals (and its resulting unequal social relationships) instead of the community as a whole.


Only marxists make this distinction in definition. In colloqual language it is a distinction without a difference. Also, please refrain from redefining words as I am not interested in getting the conversation bogged down to an argument about semantics.
Equalization of the ownership of something is oppressive towards those who possess more of the ownership of that said something as he in effect owns less of that something. Holding shares in a company is an example. Owner x owns y shares in the company, thus giving him equal say about the company to that of the shares he holds. When these shares are then equalized he owns y/n shares where n is the amount of new shareholders who hold equal amounts of shares to x. As x now owns less shares in the company he holds less power over the companys direction. Unless x willingly agreed to the redistribution (as is his choices as an individual), he is being oppressed by the ones who forced the equalization upon the company.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 06:51:09


Post by: sebster


 Skinnereal wrote:
India was part of the British Empire, Just to be picky The Empire collapsed into becoming the Commonwealth.
The points stated still stand, though.


One internet point to you, Skinnereal


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
To say that communism is in part about a desire to control is trivially true but it's dishonest to not specify that it's about the desire for the working class to control the means of production.


Except that all the worker's committees that get set up just seem to keep on losing power and authority, as it is drawn up to the highest levels of power. If the primary focus was on maximising worker control then that should not happen. Because it happens every single time, if becomes pretty obvious that worker control of the means of production is not a genuine objective.

Capitalism is also about a desire to control, specifically the desire for the capitalist class to control the means of production.


The 'capitalist class' is a generalisation, a broad collection of people each acting in their own interests, generally in direct competition with each other. As individuals they desire more more power and more status, they do not seek as a collective to dominate. Making that claim would mean pretending that Bill Gates is happy when Mark Zuckerberg gains more power, because their class as a whole is now more powerful. It's a total fething nonsense.

In contrast, a group of communist revolutionaries are part of a single, unified organisation. Whether its Lenin's Bolsheviks, Mao's CCP or some other group, they are a single organisation which acts with group interests in mind. Now, it is hypothetically possible that a group may have goals beyond their own power, many political groups do. But it is simply not true of any major communist group we have seen in history.

That capitalism is fundamentally about a very small group controlling how resources are extracted, distributed and used has not and can not be mitigated. Social democracy is a compromise that can only come into existence when there is a strong workers' movement and that can only continue to exist when there is a strong communist power to show the capitalists and the workers that there is an alternative to capitalism.


Your first sentence claims capitalism's excesses cannot be mitigated. Your second sentence describes the exact process of mitigation we've seen in many countries.

And there most definitely are those who argue against capitalism being inescapably exploitative. Pick any free marketeer. We got one earlier in the thread.


I chose my words quite specifically; "this is widely accepted and barely argued against".

And no, finding some random on dakka who is willing to argue a position is not evidence of something being widely argued. This is dakka, and we all know the kind of stuff that posters here will defend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices.


Yep. Ask yourself if any wealthy person can personally build and combine all the parts needed for their Lexus, make and assemble all the materials that make up their six bedroom high spec home, and sew their own suits and silk ties. Obviously they can't. Wealth creation is a social process. That very heart of capitalism, seperation of specialties and trade, is a process that depends co-operating with other people in society.

Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.


Okay but that's taking it way too far. While it is more than fair to say investment, financing and business management are way over-rewarded, it is false to claim they have no value at all. The allocation of resources to their most effective purpose is an essential part of any economy.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 07:47:46


Post by: ulgurstasta


 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Sigh, again there is a difference between famine in a communist and capitalist world, and deliberate famine in a communist country (or capitalist)... If capitalism gets blamed for not caring people starving to death than communism doesn't get a free pass either, what did the communist system do for China during the Great famine? I'm not criticizing communism as a system for causing famine, I'm criticizing communist governments (SU and PRC) for engineering them.

Again, you're taking about the whole system versus a single government. Its an important distinction, food aid is also a program driven by a capitalist system. Yes the capitalist world doesn't do enough to help prevent starvation, but its not deliberately engineering them either. I gave an example of an empire deliberately not shipping food to a starving population, the Bengal famine. Do you have any examples of capitalist countries that deliberately engineered a famine in their own country while exporting food?


Yes I'm talking about the whole system becuase in the real world there are more actors then just governments, and does it really makes a difference if there is a government bureaucrat or a CEO that deprives people of food? We produce more then enough food to feed everyone, yet people are deprived of it to the degree that millions die every year of it, how is that any less deliberate then what the USSR did?

The USSR also had food aid programs, does that absolve them of their sins?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


There is a significant difference in the academic world. Its why they have developed terms such as neo-colonialism.


Not in any acedemic setting I have been in. But if you wanna go down that route that it wasn't your specific, infallible version of capitalism that starved millions to death, then I counter that USSR/PRC wasn't real communism, so communism hasn't killed anyone


 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Capitalism isn't a political ideology that deliberately runs on murder and genocide. It's an economic system that is chained to a free market that can be fickle in the best of times, and one that has a tendency to attract people whose view is too narrowly focused on "the bottom line"

Private enterprise does not make a habit of planning out genocide, famines, and mass murder on an epic scale. Communist regimes, on the other hand, have done so.

Your comparison of a profit driven economic system with a totalitarian and murderous ideology is dishonest at best, plain ignorant at worst.


So if the "free market" keeps food out of the hands out of starving people(When there is more then enough food for everyone) they aren't responsible when people starve to death? Are you sure that you aren't a Stalin apoligist?

And on the contrary starvation is a habit in capitalism because food is grown for profit rather then use, in 2006 alone 36 million died of malnutrion while we growed enough food to feed 12 billion people.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 07:55:57


Post by: sebster


 Galas wrote:
And to be honest I don't understand why people uses today ethics to call Lenin and their revolutionaries a bunch of violent thugs. Wherent the French ones the same?


Yes, the French revolutionaries were also murderous, and their murders also failed to achieve anything that wasn't better achieved elsewhere . It was called 'the terror' for a reason. The existence of other murderous failures in history doesn't in anyway excuse the murders of Lenin & friends.

I know, it could have been ideal if all revolutions in history where made Gandhi's style, but thats isn't how history works.


Nehru is bizarrely written out of Indian history in the West. But he was the one who led Congress through the independence movement, it Nehru who drafted the declaration of Independence, it was Nehru's vision of a secular republic that was realised, and it was Nehru who became India's first Prime Minister. Nehru took Ghandi's message and made it a real, achievable thing. I'm not saying Ghandi wasn't a major part of Indian independence, but Nehru was at least as important and is now almost entirely unknown outside of India.

Anyhow, enough of that personal bugbear of mine. You are right that not every revolution can be as peaceful as India's, but the lesson there shouldn't be to accept that sometimes there's gonna be piles of bodies. The real lesson should be that for all the bodies, the Soviet Union is now gone. The French Revolution failed, replaced by a dictatorship. India's democratic state is still with us. And France's only built a stable democratic republic when it did so without a mass bloodletting. So maybe the real answer is that reform without carnage is the best way of getting something that might actually last.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
... Because it is not just tangential is it? On the sliding scale between socialism and capitalism nobody is purely capitalist. The US is closer to capitalism than many European countries, but they still have plenty of socialist aspects. Its proof that socialist policies aren't a bad thing to begin with, its the opression to force them through.


That's a bit like noting that there's arsenic in bananas and bananas don't poison us, therefore arsenic isn't inherently bad. It is the size of the dose that's the issue.

The analogy doesn't work completely because arsenic in small doses is harmless, whereas socialism in medium doses isn't just harmless, but essential. But its Friday afternoon and I didn't sleep much last night, so that's the analogy I'm running with.

Anyhow, the greater point is not just that once you get to a certain extent with communism it isn't just harmful, but that the people demanding that extreme level of communism have shown themselves historically to be motivated more by the appeal of authoritarian control than in actual equality. Afterall, if its equality your after then democratic activism has a great track record of improving lives. The people who ignore that with dreams of building their own communist states are... motivated more by the bit about 'building their own state' than the 'communist' bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Nordic states are advantaged by wealth coming from hydrocarbons, like the Gulf States. We'll see how they do when that runs out.


Okay, so Fraz thinking all Scandinavian states are Norway is no real surprise. The amazing bit is where he seems to either forget where Texas' wealth comes from, or alternatively forgets that he lives there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Dunno how you can say that.

Much of the innovation and advances on our planet is driven by some sort of capitalistic system/endeavor.


Because your argument was that there will be resistance to communism that must be repressed. That's true, but also true of capitalism. As such, the fact that there's resistance that must be oppressed isn't a criticism of any one system, but a truism of any system.

Your second point, that capitalism has driven almost all our innovation and advances (in the last century), is a true and good point. But it is not related to your earlier argument.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 08:45:16


Post by: Peregrine


OgreOnAStick wrote:
That would only be true in cases where you get nothing in return for your taxes. Just to name a few: Safety in the form of police and military, infrastructure in form of railways and... *cue screeching ancaps* roads, postal service, public schools, healthcare (in some countries) and justice system.


And you get something for your work in a communist system. You are disagreeing over tax rates, not making any fundamental ethical point.

If I had the means, will and skill to live at a higher level of wealth and the state/proletariat forced me not to, then yes I would be oppressed by the state/proletariat as they are arbitrarily restricting my life choices.
Capitalistic systems minimize their oppressive behaviour to the absolute minimum in order to incentivise the citizen to be productive and better themselves in order to benefit from their productivity.


Capitalism also reduces your ability to live at a higher level of wealth, the only difference is the degree to which that ability is reduced. Sometimes communism reduces it more, sometimes capitalism reduces it more. A former rich investment banker in a communist society will see their standard of living reduced, but someone who is born into crippling poverty in a capitalist system and is never able to get a university degree, better job opportunities, etc, will also see their ability to live at a higher wealth level restricted.

And I strongly dispute this idea that capitalist systems minimize their oppressive behavior, or care about citizens bettering themselves. In fact, capitalism requires a large pool of poverty-wage workers who will never be able to better themselves, and the system encourages the wealthy elite to exploit that pool as much as possible.

Literally anything that can be attributed value to is wealth. And please do attempt to refute the example if you think so lowly of it.


Apparently you didn't read your own definition very carefully, because you missed the key word: abundance. Wealth requires an abundance of a particular object of value, subsistence farming (or less, in your example) is not wealth.

Tax evasion is theft from the state as one benefits from the services provided by the state for which the tax provides the funding for.


And hoarding wealth in a communist system is theft from the state as one benefits from the services provided by the state for which the collectivization of wealth and industry provides the funding for. And you're ignoring the bigger picture of the example. Whatever you feel about the financial policy of a communist system, it's the law of that country. A person who breaks the law is going to be punished by the state, no matter what form of state you're talking about. The police using force against a criminal is not inherently oppressive, whether that crime is refusing to pay a 10% tax or refusing to pay a 100% tax. A communist state requires the ability to use police power to enforce its laws. It does not inherently require mass murder of anyone who has a dissenting opinion, but complies with the law.

Drug dealers and bank robbers are sent to prison because they are actually commiting a crime. They are not imprisoned due to their political views. You are comparing apples to oranges.


A person in a communist society who illegally hoards wealth is also guilty of a crime, beyond their political views. You may disagree with the argument that hoarding wealth should be a crime, but I could disagree with the fact that using various drugs that are illegal in the US is a crime. It is absurd to call the use of police power to enforce compliance with a law "genocide" just because you don't like the law in question.

Only marxists make this distinction in definition. In colloqual language it is a distinction without a difference.


Who cares about colloquial language? In the context of economic and government policy the distinction exists. There is a clear functional difference between personal property and capital. A communist state has no need to concern itself with personal property of minimal financial value. The police are not going to show up and steal your beloved childhood toy just to prove that property is not a concept anymore. Even in real-world communist countries personal property still existed, and your neighbor couldn't just take whatever they want from you.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 11:36:31


Post by: Iron_Captain


 sebster wrote:
 Galas wrote:
And to be honest I don't understand why people uses today ethics to call Lenin and their revolutionaries a bunch of violent thugs. Wherent the French ones the same?


Yes, the French revolutionaries were also murderous, and their murders also failed to achieve anything that wasn't better achieved elsewhere . It was called 'the terror' for a reason. The existence of other murderous failures in history doesn't in anyway excuse the murders of Lenin & friends.

I know, it could have been ideal if all revolutions in history where made Gandhi's style, but thats isn't how history works.


Nehru is bizarrely written out of Indian history in the West. But he was the one who led Congress through the independence movement, it Nehru who drafted the declaration of Independence, it was Nehru's vision of a secular republic that was realised, and it was Nehru who became India's first Prime Minister. Nehru took Ghandi's message and made it a real, achievable thing. I'm not saying Ghandi wasn't a major part of Indian independence, but Nehru was at least as important and is now almost entirely unknown outside of India.

Anyhow, enough of that personal bugbear of mine. You are right that not every revolution can be as peaceful as India's, but the lesson there shouldn't be to accept that sometimes there's gonna be piles of bodies. The real lesson should be that for all the bodies, the Soviet Union is now gone. The French Revolution failed, replaced by a dictatorship. India's democratic state is still with us. And France's only built a stable democratic republic when it did so without a mass bloodletting. So maybe the real answer is that reform without carnage is the best way of getting something that might actually last.

Now that is something that I can totally agree with. Violent revolution never ends well. Sometimes there is no other option, but I have yet to see a violent revolution that did not simply result in another dictatorship. In fact, usually revolutions seem to follow an eerily similar pattern across nations. In the Soviet Union the revolution ended in the rule of Stalin. Still, for all its failure it did result in massive improvements that otherwise would not have happened, the foundation of modern Russia and a whole lot of stuff to be grateful for.


 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Dunno how you can say that.

Much of the innovation and advances on our planet is driven by some sort of capitalistic system/endeavor.


Because your argument was that there will be resistance to communism that must be repressed. That's true, but also true of capitalism. As such, the fact that there's resistance that must be oppressed isn't a criticism of any one system, but a truism of any system.

Your second point, that capitalism has driven almost all our innovation and advances (in the last century), is a true and good point. But it is not related to your earlier argument.

It is not entirely true though. A great deal of our innovation and advances in the previous century were made under fascism and communism. In fact, due to the costs that come with scientific research and little government contribution (which means scientists often can't do things for lack of money) and things like draconian copyright laws, capitalism is often more of a hassle for science than it is a boon. It is easier to be a scientist in a country where the government is really focused on scientific progress and will just pay any expenses, regardless of the political system. Although the countries in this last category often do tend to be pretty high on the authoritarian spectrum.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 12:24:28


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Sigh, again there is a difference between famine in a communist and capitalist world, and deliberate famine in a communist country (or capitalist)... If capitalism gets blamed for not caring people starving to death than communism doesn't get a free pass either, what did the communist system do for China during the Great famine? I'm not criticizing communism as a system for causing famine, I'm criticizing communist governments (SU and PRC) for engineering them.

Again, you're taking about the whole system versus a single government. Its an important distinction, food aid is also a program driven by a capitalist system. Yes the capitalist world doesn't do enough to help prevent starvation, but its not deliberately engineering them either. I gave an example of an empire deliberately not shipping food to a starving population, the Bengal famine. Do you have any examples of capitalist countries that deliberately engineered a famine in their own country while exporting food?


Yes I'm talking about the whole system becuase in the real world there are more actors then just governments, and does it really makes a difference if there is a government bureaucrat or a CEO that deprives people of food? We produce more then enough food to feed everyone, yet people are deprived of it to the degree that millions die every year of it, how is that any less deliberate then what the USSR did?

The USSR also had food aid programs, does that absolve them of their sins?

Yes, and in the real world a government murdering its own citizens is terrible. It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.

The USSR might have had food aid programs, the key is they also deliberately starved their own people, so no it doesn't. Food aid was an example of how rich states try to help poor states (however little it does), it isn't an example of a rich state having deliberately starved its own people to death to then give food aid. How you can consider outside and non-state actors as responsible for famines as internal actors who knowingly caused them is just strange, as the level of control is a different scale. The 'ironic' thing is that the SU starved their people so it could sell food on the free market (capitalism!) to finance its industrialization.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:


There is a significant difference in the academic world. Its why they have developed terms such as neo-colonialism.


Not in any acedemic setting I have been in. But if you wanna go down that route that it wasn't your specific, infallible version of capitalism that starved millions to death, then I counter that USSR/PRC wasn't real communism, so communism hasn't killed anyone

No joke, if your academic setting does not or cannot distinguish between imperialism and capitalism that's not a very good setting. Even Lenin distinguished between imperialism and capitalism, looking at imperialism as a way to maintain capitalism and not an inherent part of. That doesn't mean that you have to dump responsibility for suffering on one or the other, imperialism and capitalism both cause and caused suffering (such as famines). Sadly for you just as neither capitalism or imperialism escapes criticism, neither does communism escape for being 'specific', because second world communism clearly stated they wanted to move to the end goal of Marxian communism. Unless the crimes of capitalism are forgiven for not being 'pure' capitalism we can't forgive the crimes of communism for not being 'pure' communism.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
... Because it is not just tangential is it? On the sliding scale between socialism and capitalism nobody is purely capitalist. The US is closer to capitalism than many European countries, but they still have plenty of socialist aspects. Its proof that socialist policies aren't a bad thing to begin with, its the opression to force them through.


That's a bit like noting that there's arsenic in bananas and bananas don't poison us, therefore arsenic isn't inherently bad. It is the size of the dose that's the issue.

The analogy doesn't work completely because arsenic in small doses is harmless, whereas socialism in medium doses isn't just harmless, but essential. But its Friday afternoon and I didn't sleep much last night, so that's the analogy I'm running with.

Anyhow, the greater point is not just that once you get to a certain extent with communism it isn't just harmful, but that the people demanding that extreme level of communism have shown themselves historically to be motivated more by the appeal of authoritarian control than in actual equality. Afterall, if its equality your after then democratic activism has a great track record of improving lives. The people who ignore that with dreams of building their own communist states are... motivated more by the bit about 'building their own state' than the 'communist' bit.

I think my original quote is getting lost, that quote becoming detached from the whole. I was responding to a 1962 quote that states: (paraphrasing) communism by force and socialism by democracy are the same thing, difference between murder and suicide. I wasn't defending communism, I was defending the fact that socialism does not have to be bad in forms such as social democracies. So that whole part was started by defending socialism as not necessarily evil, then getting criticized by someone arguing that social democracies aren't socialist states because they have capitalism, which is where the sliding scale comes in in what we should consider socialist versus a capitalist state (which is a bit of a false scale). So in essence my argument was the same as you make, going through the whole side debate: "socialism in medium doses isn't just harmless, but essential" even up to including the social democracy part. Here is the original start:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Or this oldie:
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,”
The Los Angeles times, Sept. 9, 1962, G2

This quote just sums up the completely simplistic and pointless argument that socialism is evil. Plenty of countries are social democracies without them ending up as hellholes. In a decent world there should always be an element of socialism mixed in, its unavoidable in running states. Sign of the times I guess.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 17:20:37


Post by: Rosebuddy


OgreOnAStick wrote:
Only marxists make this distinction in definition. In colloqual language it is a distinction without a difference. Also, please refrain from redefining words as I am not interested in getting the conversation bogged down to an argument about semantics.


-"You're misunderstanding what communists say."
-"Only marxists talk like that. I'm not interested in knowing."


...



Communists generally use a marxist model to describe society. They generally used terminology based in the writings of Marx. So what "private property" means when discussed by communists is not useless semantics, it's actually critically important to understand.


OgreOnAStick wrote:
Equalization of the ownership of something is oppressive towards those who possess more of the ownership of that said something as he in effect owns less of that something. Holding shares in a company is an example. Owner x owns y shares in the company, thus giving him equal say about the company to that of the shares he holds. When these shares are then equalized he owns y/n shares where n is the amount of new shareholders who hold equal amounts of shares to x. As x now owns less shares in the company he holds less power over the companys direction. Unless x willingly agreed to the redistribution (as is his choices as an individual), he is being oppressed by the ones who forced the equalization upon the company.


It isn't oppression to redistribute wealth that has been gotten by plunder. It isn't oppression to make the economy more democratic. That is the opposite of oppression, that's justice. You might as well complain that kings are oppressed when people want a republic instead. Tell me, was the British Crown the target of oppression during the American revolution? Were slave owners the target of oppression during the Civil War?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 20:41:31


Post by: flamingkillamajig


I think now's a good time as any to say i have several co-workers that used to live in the soviet union.

Supposedly one of their sons working at my job said their dad managed to leave romania (under soviet control) before he could be taken in by the military and if they knew he would've probably been killed.

Another from Belarus said the punishment for not doing your time in the military as a soviet man during the time he served was several choices. You could take a pill that would ruin your mental capacity for life, go to a re-education or forced labor camp or something to that effect. So yeah once you reached a certain age military duty was pretty much mandatory if you were a man. They gave you other choices but they were awful. The guy from belarus also said men and women in his nation weren't allowed to be anything outside of their set roles. Supposedly women couldn't be in the military and such like. Also in the soviet union or at least belarus they didn't like gay people from what they mentioned. This is all fairly recent as far as soviet timeline goes as my co-worker from belarus talked about the chernobyl incident happening when he was doing his mandatory time in the military.

Anyway both of those co-workers are very republican. I dunno but maybe living under communism has that effect on people.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 21:29:29


Post by: Iron_Captain


 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I think now's a good time as any to say i have several co-workers that used to live in the soviet union.

Supposedly one of their sons working at my job said their dad managed to leave romania (under soviet control) before he could be taken in by the military and if they knew he would've probably been killed.

Another from Belarus said the punishment for not doing your time in the military as a soviet man during the time he served was several choices. You could take a pill that would ruin your mental capacity for life, go to a re-education or forced labor camp or something to that effect. So yeah once you reached a certain age military duty was pretty much mandatory if you were a man. They gave you other choices but they were awful. The guy from belarus also said men and women in his nation weren't allowed to be anything outside of their set roles. Supposedly women couldn't be in the military and such like. Also in the soviet union or at least belarus they didn't like gay people from what they mentioned. This is all fairly recent as far as soviet timeline goes as my co-worker from belarus talked about the chernobyl incident happening when he was doing his mandatory time in the military.

Anyway both of those co-workers are very republican. I dunno but maybe living under communism has that effect on people.

None of that has really changed with the fall of the Soviet Union though. Military service is still mandatory in Russia and Belarus. Only difference now is that rich people can bribe someone to have them declared unfit for service. Russia and Belarus are also still very traditional societies. Gay people still aren't liked, and men and women are generally expected to adhere to traditional gender roles. However, women can and do serve in the Russian military now ( I read somewhere that about 10-15% of all Russian military personnel is female now) and there is also now more women in high government and business positions, so on that point things are improving. LGBT rights not so much however, that was actually better in Soviet times.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 21:32:16


Post by: Galas


In Spain we had obligatory military training (The "Mili") for men until 1996.
And theres no surprise about all of that. Many modern countries didn't allowed women in their armies until recently. The same about homosexuals.

I'm not saying that the "Killing you if you dont' do it" was common, of course.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 21:56:19


Post by: Rosebuddy


"A pill that would ruin your mental capacity for life"? What would that be?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 22:18:04


Post by: Galas


Rosebuddy wrote:
"A pill that would ruin your mental capacity for life"? What would that be?


The red one.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/10 23:08:20


Post by: feeder


 Galas wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
"A pill that would ruin your mental capacity for life"? What would that be?


The red one.


Bravo, sir. Bravo!


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/11 03:06:55


Post by: Just Tony


Rosebuddy wrote:It isn't oppression to redistribute wealth that has been gotten by plunder. It isn't oppression to make the economy more democratic. That is the opposite of oppression, that's justice. You might as well complain that kings are oppressed when people want a republic instead. Tell me, was the British Crown the target of oppression during the American revolution? Were slave owners the target of oppression during the Civil War?


Define plunder. If by plunder you mean "a person's accrued wealth", then what you describe as justice is actually thievery.

The problem was that communists say they want control of the product, but what they want is control of the profits. Even if a communist movement starts with the noble "Ivanhoe" intentions, it quickly shifts to the heads of the movement doling themselves out extra when distributing wealth to their people. The long as short of it is a gas station attendant bitter that they don't have a Bentley like the local bureacrat. So rather than work your life to a position where you can succeed (captialism) it is instead decided that bashing someone over the head with a rock or whatever colorful form of murder comes to mind and taking control of said wealth and what produces it is much more noble, or "just", as you describe it (communism). Granted, there are probably a few examples where there was a peaceful introduction of "take other people's stuff", but it's definitely an outlier. Usually people don't try to cast down their economic and political system unless they are dissatisfied or power mad. Typically both.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/11 11:25:54


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


You're assuming that the manager hasn't kicked the social ladder down after he climbed it and that the attendant actually can work hard enough to get a Bentley.

Or, as we say on Dakka: BOOTSTRAPS.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/11 11:29:14


Post by: Dr. Mills


Socialism doesn't work. Period.

Capitalism isn't great either, but I'd choose the lesser of two evils IMHO


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/11 11:30:46


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Dr. Mills wrote:
Socialism doesn't work. Period.

Capitalism isn't great either, but I'd choose the lesser of two evils IMHO


Define "socialism" and "doesn't work".


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/11 11:42:07


Post by: Peregrine


 Just Tony wrote:
Define plunder. If by plunder you mean "a person's accrued wealth", then what you describe as justice is actually thievery.


Plunder, as in taking advantage of lower-class workers for their own benefit. Under a capitalist system the wealthy elites accumulate vastly disproportionate wealth, wealth they can only obtain because they have people working (and, often, working much harder) for poverty-level wages providing the cheap labor that keeps their profits high. And those workers have no choice but to accept poverty-level wages, because the alternative is starving to death.

So rather than work your life to a position where you can succeed (captialism)


This is a myth. Under capitalism there are a great many people who will never succeed and reach the levels of wealth they desire, no matter how hard they work. A janitor working for minimum wage is never going to become a billionaire, because they are never going to make enough of a margin above their basic life requirements to invest in the kind of things that make people into billionaires. The best they can hope for is to work hard, make it to a slightly higher than minimum wage job, save up enough money to send a talented kid to school, and maybe get their descendants into the middle class. And it's only going to get worse as AI and automation continue to advance, leaving more and more people literally unemployable. There will simply be vastly more people than jobs available, and by necessity many people will have no hope of advancing beyond what society decides to give them.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/11 16:19:00


Post by: sebster


 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is not entirely true though. A great deal of our innovation and advances in the previous century were made under fascism and communism. In fact, due to the costs that come with scientific research and little government contribution (which means scientists often can't do things for lack of money) and things like draconian copyright laws, capitalism is often more of a hassle for science than it is a boon. It is easier to be a scientist in a country where the government is really focused on scientific progress and will just pay any expenses, regardless of the political system. Although the countries in this last category often do tend to be pretty high on the authoritarian spectrum.


Much like economic growth in a controlled economy, scientific advancement can get some positive effects in very specific, planned areas. So when the leaders decide they want space travel as a priority, then they will fund it and progress will be made.

But that's a tiny part of the story, because most economic growth and most scientific advancement in capitalism happens without specific government direction, but from individuals and organisations pursuing what they personally think sounds like a pretty good idea. It isn't just an accident of history that personal computers, the internet and renewable energy have all come out of the post-war Western world. And that scientific innovation advantage is increased as profit seekig companies refine technology for sale to consumers. The contrast of capitalist and communist cars is an old cliche, but that's for a reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think my original quote is getting lost, that quote becoming detached from the whole. I was responding to a 1962 quote that states: (paraphrasing) communism by force and socialism by democracy are the same thing, difference between murder and suicide. I wasn't defending communism, I was defending the fact that socialism does not have to be bad in forms such as social democracies. So that whole part was started by defending socialism as not necessarily evil, then getting criticized by someone arguing that social democracies aren't socialist states because they have capitalism, which is where the sliding scale comes in in what we should consider socialist versus a capitalist state (which is a bit of a false scale). So in essence my argument was the same as you make, going through the whole side debate: "socialism in medium doses isn't just harmless, but essential" even up to including the social democracy part.


Ah yes, I remember reading that crazy quote, but I lost track of the conversation after that. I agree with what you said above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Just Tony wrote:
So rather than work your life to a position where you can succeed (captialism) it is instead decided that bashing someone over the head with a rock or whatever colorful form of murder comes to mind and taking control of said wealth and what produces it is much more noble, or "just", as you describe it (communism).


It's certainly true that brainless aspiration is an important part of stability in capitalism, and a gas station attendant thinking he has a sensible chance of one day driving a Bentley is a great example. But that probably wasn't your point.

Granted, there are probably a few examples where there was a peaceful introduction of "take other people's stuff", but it's definitely an outlier.


What? The entire creation of progressive taxes and modern social welfare is entirely about 'take other people's stuff', and that has been rolled out in all liberal democracies, i most cases with no violence. Even the instances of violence were limited to aggressive strike action and counters.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 00:45:43


Post by: Mario


sebster wrote:But that's a tiny part of the story, because most economic growth and most scientific advancement in capitalism happens without specific government direction, but from individuals and organisations pursuing what they personally think sounds like a pretty good idea. It isn't just an accident of history that personal computers, the internet and renewable energy have all come out of the post-war Western world. And that scientific innovation advantage is increased as profit seekig companies refine technology for sale to consumers. The contrast of capitalist and communist cars is an old cliche, but that's for a reason.
That in turn is also a tiny part of the whole story.

The internet was able to grow as a government research project because its long gestation wasn't viable in a capitalistic environment (also: cold war fears). Capitalism latched onto it once VCs could see potential for profit. We literary needed a way to cancel out capitalism for it for a while or it wouldn't have gotten traction, the same goes for the WWW and HTML (developed through public funding and given away for free without patents). Amazon and Google were able to function because they grew on top of projects whose R&D was paid for by the government and that were able to grow despite capitalism. Microsoft even wanted to slowly strangle the WWW with IE because they feared losing their quasi-monopoly in the PC space (just look at IE6, and in general how they were able to cripple Netscape).

The same goes for the iPhone (link). The whole foundation it was build on was created through public R&D. It only became a hit product with massive profits because that foundation existed. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a whole monologue about how NASA's R&D created a huge multiplier (of their comparatively tiny budget) of profit for other companies once their work got appropriated. Without all that work—that was decoupled form market forces—a lot of the fancy stuff wouldn't have been possible in a capitalistic environment. It wouldn't even had gotten the chance to die as a bad idea in the open market.

The same goes for a lot of early R&D in the PC, renewable energy, and pharmaceutical industries.

Also let's not forget European colonisation and slavery which created huge profits for capitalists (if one ignores the externalities, like taking somebody's land, slavey, and murder).


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 05:17:08


Post by: Just Tony


Peregrine wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Define plunder. If by plunder you mean "a person's accrued wealth", then what you describe as justice is actually thievery.


Plunder, as in taking advantage of lower-class workers for their own benefit. Under a capitalist system the wealthy elites accumulate vastly disproportionate wealth, wealth they can only obtain because they have people working (and, often, working much harder) for poverty-level wages providing the cheap labor that keeps their profits high. And those workers have no choice but to accept poverty-level wages, because the alternative is starving to death.


Oh, I see. you're mistaking "payment for services rendered" for taking advantage of lower-class workers for their own benefit. Oddly enough, the socialist and communist econonic systems do EXACTLY that.

Do you know why some (not all, not by a long shot) companies pay minimum wage/poverty wage for their production/service positions? Because someone somewhere will work for that. All it takes is for workers to either refuse to work there, pressuring the company to raise wages, or for competition for talent to move in offering better pay. I work for a large corporate entity that makes industrial equipment, to protect their identity I will simply call them Inchworm Inc. I'm a machinist, and make 50,000 a year absolute minimum. I not only have bonuses and perks that shoot that number higher, but much more room for advancement. There are places in the same town as my factory where machinists are making 1/2 to 3/5 of what I'm making. There is literally nothing stopping them from working where I work. Also, two plants are opening in my town which are already advertising wages equal to or higher than my place of employment. What do you think is going to happen when they are ready to fill production/service slots? Do you think my company will risk its talent by not stayinig competitive? The plant wide wage increase last year tells me different.

If someone in my area, or even YOUR area, works for poverty wage, it's because they choose to.

Peregrine wrote:
So rather than work your life to a position where you can succeed (captialism)


This is a myth. Under capitalism there are a great many people who will never succeed and reach the levels of wealth they desire, no matter how hard they work. A janitor working for minimum wage is never going to become a billionaire, because they are never going to make enough of a margin above their basic life requirements to invest in the kind of things that make people into billionaires. The best they can hope for is to work hard, make it to a slightly higher than minimum wage job, save up enough money to send a talented kid to school, and maybe get their descendants into the middle class. And it's only going to get worse as AI and automation continue to advance, leaving more and more people literally unemployable. There will simply be vastly more people than jobs available, and by necessity many people will have no hope of advancing beyond what society decides to give them.


Depending, I suppose, on where you live. You live here in the US, so you operate under the same system as I do. I came from a family that lived easily below poverty level, with my dad being an over the road truck driver. By your logic, he never would have made it past that, or improved. After the recession in the early 80's, Dad was able to utilize that boom in the economy from Reaganomics failing (according to some) to locate work elsewhere, working his way to a supervisory position shortly after I moved out to start on my own. I've already gone over my own situation. My little brother enlisted and used the GI Bill to pay for a degree to become an English teacher, until career fatigue set in and he himself found employment at a company in the town he moved to, recently he advanced into a position making 6 figures. By your model, we were doomed to never advance.

And even then, our own comfort level is what stops us from advancing. If someone wants a six figure job, they can find it. Move up the ranks to management? Totally a thing. Vice Presidency of one of the divisions? Absolutely plausible. Just takes ambition, effort, and a foresight into what is required to further your career.

I could have honestly done better. My stupid ass went to college for Forensics, not knowing that the market is glutted with CSI's looking for work. THAT could be the trapping where the capitalist opportunity fails. Human error. If someone decides to rack up $80,000 in student loans to get a degree in Liberal Arts or Museum Curation, is it the fault of the economic system that they had their shot and blew it on a poorly thought out career path? I don't think so. That's like blaming the gun for someone deciding to murder someone... Oh, wait. That's like a main liberal tenet. Best leave that one alone...

sebster wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
So rather than work your life to a position where you can succeed (captialism) it is instead decided that bashing someone over the head with a rock or whatever colorful form of murder comes to mind and taking control of said wealth and what produces it is much more noble, or "just", as you describe it (communism).


It's certainly true that brainless aspiration is an important part of stability in capitalism, and a gas station attendant thinking he has a sensible chance of one day driving a Bentley is a great example. But that probably wasn't your point.


Is it any better than the brainless complacency that is required to maintain stability in socialist economies?

You are right, though. That was not my point, nor was it my point to ellicit condescendingly prickish comments born from one's overinflated sense of superiority. To be frank, Seb, I expected better of you...

My point is that history is replete with examples of people pursuing dreams and dragging themselves from the bottom rung to the top, but it's better to stand on rhetoric apparently.


sebster wrote:
Granted, there are probably a few examples where there was a peaceful introduction of "take other people's stuff", but it's definitely an outlier.


What? The entire creation of progressive taxes and modern social welfare is entirely about 'take other people's stuff', and that has been rolled out in all liberal democracies, i most cases with no violence. Even the instances of violence were limited to aggressive strike action and counters.


I have myself to blame for this one. If you see me type "take other people's stuff", I'm referring to the redistribution of wealth principles behind socialism and communism, and the covetous nature that feeds those principles. I will endeavor to keep my flippant pet terms to a minimum.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 05:46:34


Post by: Peregrine


 Just Tony wrote:
Oh, I see. you're mistaking "payment for services rendered" for taking advantage of lower-class workers for their own benefit. Oddly enough, the socialist and communist econonic systems do EXACTLY that.


No, socialism and communism (which are not the same) do not do that. The issue is not working for pay, it's the extreme gap in pay between the poorest and the richest workers. In a communist system you might still have to work, but you aren't living in horrible poverty so that the owner of the company can make $50 million a year instead of $40 million a year.

All it takes is for workers to either refuse to work there, pressuring the company to raise wages, or for competition for talent to move in offering better pay.


That's nice in theory, but it depends on there being a surplus of jobs such that any employer that doesn't increase pay has nobody desperate enough to work for them. When the number of workers exceeds the number of jobs the competition goes the other way around, as there will always be someone willing to take lower pay for a job when the alternative is getting nothing and starving to death. That's why we have things like minimum wage laws, to prevent employers in this situation from paying their workers China-level rates.

And, again, this problem is only going to get worse as automation and AI replace more and more human workers. If there's a 90% unemployment rate because there are only enough jobs for 10% of the potential work force then wages will crash to the absolute minimum that is legally permitted, and anyone who asks for more than that will find themselves fired and replaced with someone more desperate. There are only two possible outcomes from this situation: moving to a socialist/communist state, or violent revolution by the 90% who have nothing left to lose.

If someone in my area, or even YOUR area, works for poverty wage, it's because they choose to.


Or because they aren't qualified to do anything better. I notice that in your example you're talking about highly skilled labor, where the employer has a strong incentive to keep you because getting a replacement is difficult. Consider, instead, a McBurger employee that can be replaced immediately if they leave. They have no marketable skills outside of the fast food industry (where everyone pays poverty wages and there's a surplus of potential workers), and they don't have any money to pay for school to improve their position. The only choice they have is working for poverty wages, or not working at all.

But really, the absurdity of your argument should be obvious: do you sincerely believe that people choose to live in poverty because they like it? Of course not.

Depending, I suppose, on where you live. You live here in the US, so you operate under the same system as I do. I came from a family that lived easily below poverty level, with my dad being an over the road truck driver. By your logic, he never would have made it past that, or improved. After the recession in the early 80's, Dad was able to utilize that boom in the economy from Reaganomics failing (according to some) to locate work elsewhere, working his way to a supervisory position shortly after I moved out to start on my own. I've already gone over my own situation. My little brother enlisted and used the GI Bill to pay for a degree to become an English teacher, until career fatigue set in and he himself found employment at a company in the town he moved to, recently he advanced into a position making 6 figures. By your model, we were doomed to never advance.


You're moving the goalposts here. Your example is of your dad moving from poverty to a supervisor job, not from poverty to the wealthy elite. Obviously some people can work hard and advance into a slightly better situation, but your chances of going from poverty to wealth are virtually nonexistent. Even your chances of going from the middle class to wealth are virtually nonexistent.

My point is that history is replete with examples of people pursuing dreams and dragging themselves from the bottom rung to the top, but it's better to stand on rhetoric apparently.


Those examples are the exception to the rule, and memorable because they are rare. For every lucky person who manages that feat there are countless others who fall well short and are forgotten. It's about as realistic as dreaming that you're going to become a professional athlete and make millions. Sure, it happens, but the overwhelming majority of people who attempt it fail.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 08:53:28


Post by: Ketara


 Just Tony wrote:


If someone in my area, or even YOUR area, works for poverty wage, it's because they choose to.

I'm somewhat in awe that a person could actually think that the reason those in poverty work for minimum wage is because they've decided to.

In all seriousness, I think you just discredited yourself from any argument you could make on social or fiscal policy. Bit of an own goal there.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 11:18:06


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Got to admit though, it's been a while since someone's gone full bootstraps on Dakka.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 13:18:01


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, as we say on Dakka: BOOTSTRAPS.
We do? What does bootstraps mean on Dakka?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 13:48:09


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, as we say on Dakka: BOOTSTRAPS.
We do? What does bootstraps mean on Dakka?


Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, i.e. working hard and reaching success, especially if the argument is made in such a way as to downplay or ignore any possible difficulties in doing so, implying or outright stating that poor people being poor is entirely their own fault. It was a common enough argument a few years ago that it essentially turned into a meme, as the argument is blatantly ridiculous.

It's essentially the modern equivalent of "let them eat cake".


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 14:43:24


Post by: Ketara


I always liked the way Scott Adams put it. He pointed out how most 'Success' stories of the self-made businessman boil down to 4 steps.

1. Be poor.
2. Develop an amazingly motivational attitude towards work.
3. ????
4. Buy your third porsche whilst surveying property in Barbados.

Step 3 is always some stroke of good fortune, or series of incredibly lucky breaks.

The person writing the self-help/business success story always attributes their success to Step 2 though, believing that they're the ones who were directly responsible for making it happen, and that anyone else can too if they just have the right attitude and do the right stuff. They never quite cotton on to the fact that you can do have everything right,work really hard, and still end up poor and in a ditch.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 15:14:09


Post by: Ouze


 Just Tony wrote:
My little brother enlisted and used the GI Bill to pay for a degree to become an English teacher, until career fatigue set in and he himself found employment at a company in the town he moved to, recently he advanced into a position making 6 figures. By your model, we were doomed to never advance.
(snip)
I could have honestly done better. My stupid ass went to college for Forensics, not knowing that the market is glutted with CSI's looking for work.


Did you also use the GI Bill to go to college?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 15:49:54


Post by: Rosebuddy


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, as we say on Dakka: BOOTSTRAPS.
We do? What does bootstraps mean on Dakka?


Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, i.e. working hard and reaching success, especially if the argument is made in such a way as to downplay or ignore any possible difficulties in doing so, implying or outright stating that poor people being poor is entirely their own fault. It was a common enough argument a few years ago that it essentially turned into a meme, as the argument is blatantly ridiculous.

It's essentially the modern equivalent of "let them eat cake".


Additionally, the saying "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" as it existed previously meant specifically something that was impossible. It is, after all, not physically doable to lift yourself up out of a hole by grabbing on to your shoes and pulling.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 17:20:06


Post by: Galas


The only reason we don't see the worst part of capitalism in our countries is because India, Bangladesh and China exist.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/12 23:48:37


Post by: Mario


Ketara wrote:The person writing the self-help/business success story always attributes their success to Step 2 though, believing that they're the ones who were directly responsible for making it happen, and that anyone else can too if they just have the right attitude and do the right stuff. They never quite cotton on to the fact that you can do have everything right,work really hard, and still end up poor and in a ditch.
That's survivorship bias at work, self-help/business books or stories are the astrology of "business leaders" (also: over the years Scott Adams himself has drifted into crazy person territory).



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 02:38:55


Post by: sebster


Mario wrote:
[That in turn is also a tiny part of the whole story.


Excellent point, really well substantiated with loads of examples. You are absolutely right, government research is essential to technological development, as the early stages of research where applications are unclear do not attract much private sector interest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Just Tony wrote:
Dad was able to utilize that boom in the economy from Reaganomics failing (according to some)


You've gotten your economics confused by injecting your partisan politics.

Anyhow, to understand Reaganomics, you have to understand what Reaganonimics was, how Reagan sold it, and what actually happened. Reagan's policy was self-funding tax cuts as theorised in the Laffer Curve, famously called 'voodoo economics', and it was a straight up dismal failure. The cuts didn't self fund and instead the deficit blew out, and Reagan ended up reversing course and passed at least one bill increasing taxes every year from '82 to '87, starting with a 1982 bill that immediately reversed about a third of the impact of the original 1981 bill's cuts. At the same time, over the course of Reagan's time in office he managed GDP growth of 3.4%, compared to postwar average of 3.1%, so for all that extra spending the impact on growth was either non-existent or extremely small.

That legacy, a deficit blow out that produced average growth is not the kind of thing conservatives can admit to while they're trying to repeat it, still claiming they'll pay for themselves. So instead Republicans play a game, looking at a specific period, 1983 & 1984. Because early in Reagan's first term there was a sharp recession. It was due to Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker brought in tight monetary policy to bring inflation under control. People can argue all day about whether Volcker's actions were necessary, but whatever conclusion is reached there it's clear the recession nothing to do with Reagan in either a positive or negative sense. But Reagan boosters still like to claim credit for the recovery, pretending the normal process of 'snapping back' to long term trends after a supply shock recession should be ignored, and instead the high growth of 1983 and 1984 should credited to Reagan's tax cuts. It's not an honest analysis.



And even then, our own comfort level is what stops us from advancing. If someone wants a six figure job, they can find it. Move up the ranks to management? Totally a thing. Vice Presidency of one of the divisions? Absolutely plausible. Just takes ambition, effort, and a foresight into what is required to further your career.


You are actually trying to argue the only difference between the janitor and a divisional vice president is ambition and effort.

Is it any better than the brainless complacency that is required to maintain stability in socialist economies?


No, defending either is brainless. And when I say either, I mean extreme USSR style socialism, and extreme libertarian style capitalism.

You are right, though. That was not my point, nor was it my point to ellicit condescendingly prickish comments born from one's overinflated sense of superiority. To be frank, Seb, I expected better of you...


Dude, you volunteered the actual literal example of a gas station attendant dreaming of one day owning a Bentley. I described that as brainless aspiration, precisely because it is, and then pointed out how that blind hope is an important part of social stability in capitalist systems.

My point is that history is replete with examples of people pursuing dreams and dragging themselves from the bottom rung to the top, but it's better to stand on rhetoric apparently.


People who reach greatness make for wonderful stories, and they should be told often and celebrated, but we shouldn't pretend such stories are more common than the alternative. Reality is most people are born in to mediocrity and stay there, and not because of any personal failings but because that's just how stuff works out. So once we accept that it becomes clear the focus should be on making sure mediocre lives are not full of needless material suffering, while also making sure support given doesn't hurt the number of people who rise up, and ideally increases that number.

I have myself to blame for this one. If you see me type "take other people's stuff", I'm referring to the redistribution of wealth principles behind socialism and communism, and the covetous nature that feeds those principles. I will endeavor to keep my flippant pet terms to a minimum.


If you mean socialism in the USSR sense, and not the Sweden/UK/US progressive tax and distribute sense, then I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote:
That's survivorship bias at work, self-help/business books or stories are the astrology of "business leaders"


I think the world would benefit a lot if for every story of made capitalist success, we had 20 stories of people who followed a dream, it failed, and they went back to teaching or carpentry or whatever and went on with their lives while slowly paying off the debt from the bankruptcy deal that let them keep their house. Or the story of the single mum who struggled to raise 2 kids, who had a killer idea for a gadget... that turned out to be not commercially viable at the prototype stage so she kept on struggling.

I think it would lead to a culture where a lot more people find a balance between 'do nothing more than accept life will always be a financial struggle' and 'chase wildly impractical dream'.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 06:35:48


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, as we say on Dakka: BOOTSTRAPS.
We do? What does bootstraps mean on Dakka?


Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, i.e. working hard and reaching success, especially if the argument is made in such a way as to downplay or ignore any possible difficulties in doing so, implying or outright stating that poor people being poor is entirely their own fault. It was a common enough argument a few years ago that it essentially turned into a meme, as the argument is blatantly ridiculous.

It's essentially the modern equivalent of "let them eat cake".
Ah ok, I know the saying pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, never knew it became memenized to a single word.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 11:49:58


Post by: ulgurstasta


 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Yes, and in the real world a government murdering its own citizens is terrible. It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.


So if we imagine that Stalin was CEO of USSR Corp. you would be fine with him starving people by raising prices on food to the level that millions wouldn't be able to afford it? In a capitalist society/world the private sector is responsible for making and distributing food, so it would be ridicoulus to claim they have no responsibility for how that distribution affects people. Is the private sector in the same regard not responsible for the enviromental damage they cause? Or work related deaths/injuries?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


No joke, if your academic setting does not or cannot distinguish between imperialism and capitalism that's not a very good setting. Even Lenin distinguished between imperialism and capitalism, looking at imperialism as a way to maintain capitalism and not an inherent part of. That doesn't mean that you have to dump responsibility for suffering on one or the other, imperialism and capitalism both cause and caused suffering (such as famines). Sadly for you just as neither capitalism or imperialism escapes criticism, neither does communism escape for being 'specific', because second world communism clearly stated they wanted to move to the end goal of Marxian communism. Unless the crimes of capitalism are forgiven for not being 'pure' capitalism we can't forgive the crimes of communism for not being 'pure' communism.


Lenin saw imperialism as a stage of capitalism, not as something that was distinct or outside of it, which most acdemic settings I have been in usually agree with. Seperating imperialism from capitalism is like saying "I dont own a dog, I own a bulldog".

And I'm the one willing to blame both capitalism and communism equally when people do horrible thing in its name, you are one trying to deflect capitalism flaws by blaming it on "imperialism", just like when a naive communist argues it wasn't "true communism".


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 17:29:21


Post by: Lone Cat


About the Church of Blood, built on the spot where Ekatenburg Massacre took place 100 years ago. What are the inscriptions regarding to the incident written there? What did the Russian Orthodox church called the Bolshevicks (and also Lenin and Stalin) ? do they called Bolshevicks Satanists and do they also call Lenin 'Antichristo'?

The Church and the Bolshevicks (And later the Soviets) are sworn enemies.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 18:20:48


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Yes, and in the real world a government murdering its own citizens is terrible. It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.


So if we imagine that Stalin was CEO of USSR Corp. you would be fine with him starving people by raising prices on food to the level that millions wouldn't be able to afford it? In a capitalist society/world the private sector is responsible for making and distributing food, so it would be ridicoulus to claim they have no responsibility for how that distribution affects people. Is the private sector in the same regard not responsible for the enviromental damage they cause? Or work related deaths/injuries?

Bit of a false equivalence, most famines occur in region of subsistence farming that suffer from crop failure and not richer areas in the world. Famines in that sense are not the fault of CEO's are they? The only failure CEO commit is not volunteering food aid, which btw is not a crime. CEO's aren't directly implementing policies and ensuring people starve to death. While the food industry and the abysmal waste in it is terrible, it is still on an entirely different level from a government swooping in to take all the peoples food to export and leaving them to die. You can claim capitalist society all you want, which is fine, but then the key is that its the private sector apparently 'doing' the starving, while in a communist world its the government? How does that make it sound any better? They are on two completely different levels of responsibility.

The problem I have with your entire comparison is thus that the food sector does not go in with paramilitary groups to squeeze every drop of food from the farmers, which the PRC and SU did. But yes, they are responsible for environmental damage and workplace injuries, which is pretty clear by law, if governments implement them. So while the business sector does a lot of things wrong, its countries that also allow them to do so. While I admit that there is an element of coercion in that, there is no element of coercion in the PRC or SU as they as states hold the ultimate responsibility of what happens and what they do to their citizens.

Having said that, I'm very much pro stronger international regulations and enforcment of decent standards in industry and a more comprehensive and fast way to provide relief in famine regions. Sadly the international community is slow or even broken at times.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:


No joke, if your academic setting does not or cannot distinguish between imperialism and capitalism that's not a very good setting. Even Lenin distinguished between imperialism and capitalism, looking at imperialism as a way to maintain capitalism and not an inherent part of. That doesn't mean that you have to dump responsibility for suffering on one or the other, imperialism and capitalism both cause and caused suffering (such as famines). Sadly for you just as neither capitalism or imperialism escapes criticism, neither does communism escape for being 'specific', because second world communism clearly stated they wanted to move to the end goal of Marxian communism. Unless the crimes of capitalism are forgiven for not being 'pure' capitalism we can't forgive the crimes of communism for not being 'pure' communism.


Lenin saw imperialism as a stage of capitalism, not as something that was distinct or outside of it, which most acdemic settings I have been in usually agree with. Seperating imperialism from capitalism is like saying "I dont own a dog, I own a bulldog".

And I'm the one willing to blame both capitalism and communism equally when people do horrible thing in its name, you are one trying to deflect capitalism flaws by blaming it on "imperialism", just like when a naive communist argues it wasn't "true communism".

Yes the key is that Lenin included imperialism as late state capitalism, as he needed to explain the hunt for colonial territories. Why? Because he thought it was capitalism conquering and fencing off individual markets before its untimely death, because he had to explain it through an economic lens. Yet here we are, without imperialism in the 19th century sense and capitalism alive and well. Lenin did not account for the simple idea that imperialism was also prestige, it wasn't just plain capitalism, it was about national ego too. But if 19th century imperialism is gone now, how is it an inherent part of capitalism? As you say you made little distinction between the two, but if that's true then why is traditional imperialism gone and not capitalism. Lenin was just wrong about many things.

I really want to know which academic settings agree with you on not making a distinction between imperialism and capitalism and seeing it as an inherent part? Capitalism is mostly an economic theory at heart, while imperialism included a significant amount of political and cultural theories behind it. Separating capitalism and imperialism is just good academic sense, certainly as the time frame in origins doesn't even overlap, plus you have the problem of imperialism versus colonialism. Saying they are the same is more like "humans and chimpanzees are gorillas, because gorillas are apes." Yeah there are interactions, but they aren't the same thing.

I'm not deflecting, both imperialism and capitalism have plenty of blood on their hands. I distinguish because it is an important one. While I don't always distinguish between Stalinism or Maoism, because they both espoused working towards the final goal of socialist utopia. Imperialism and capitalism weren't in it for the same goal. Communism in practice, imperialism and capitalism have been responsible for countless crimes against humanity or people. Yet capitalism and socialism don't have to be evil at heart (imperialism totally is), its just that both have had absolutely terrible and uncaring people in charge. There are good capitalist businesses who truly try to help and there are and were great socialists who gave us great social democracies and policies. The problem with communism in practice is that the people in charge either were or turned into absolute power hungry monsters (not that its exclusive to communism) that became obsessed with control or people inheriting police states. Sadly most people suck.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 19:09:04


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.


Leaving food production in the hands of private actors for the sake of generating profit is inherently depriving people of food because if they can't buy it they aren't supposed to eat it. Organising most food production so that people farm whatever is most profitable instead of what is locally sustainable will unavoidably create food shortages.


That you keep repeating that communists always intentionally starve people and capitalists never do is getting annoying because, well, it's what Britain did to India and Russia was stricken with incessant droughts and famines for a thousand years before 1917 due to having at best mediocre soil for large-scale agriculture, after 1917 they had a period of civil war and existential war and then once they had finished industrialisation and collectivisation and were no longer the direct target for immediate extermination, suddenly famines weren't a problem anymore. Additionally a lot of the problems communist countries have had are because of the US targetting them for sabotage and destruction.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes the key is that Lenin included imperialism as late state capitalism, as he needed to explain the hunt for colonial territories. Why? Because he thought it was capitalism conquering and fencing off individual markets before its untimely death, because he had to explain it through an economic lens. Yet here we are, without imperialism in the 19th century sense and capitalism alive and well. Lenin did not account for the simple idea that imperialism was also prestige, it wasn't just plain capitalism, it was about national ego too. But if 19th century imperialism is gone now, how is it an inherent part of capitalism? As you say you made little distinction between the two, but if that's true then why is traditional imperialism gone and not capitalism. Lenin was just wrong about many things.


Imperialism isn't gone, it has simply moved away from being strictly enforced by soldiers into being enforced by economic institutions and the threat of soldiers. It's what the IMF has been doing. If you can deprive a country of money to buy things it needs because it's reliant on imports since its infrastructure is mostly about exporting raw materials through private entities then you don't need soldiers there. That's aside from that the US does back coups in countries that displease it and even bombs them directly. What did you think US foreign policy history was about?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/13 21:28:17


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.


Leaving food production in the hands of private actors for the sake of generating profit is inherently depriving people of food because if they can't buy it they aren't supposed to eat it. Organising most food production so that people farm whatever is most profitable instead of what is locally sustainable will unavoidably create food shortages.


That you keep repeating that communists always intentionally starve people and capitalists never do is getting annoying because, well, it's what Britain did to India and Russia was stricken with incessant droughts and famines for a thousand years before 1917 due to having at best mediocre soil for large-scale agriculture, after 1917 they had a period of civil war and existential war and then once they had finished industrialisation and collectivisation and were no longer the direct target for immediate extermination, suddenly famines weren't a problem anymore.

No, this is another false equivalence. Famines we talk about in a capitalist system are frequently caused by crop failure or situations like war, not a problem of profitability. Because at the end of the day, supply and demand step in, combined with the fact that just the highest profitability doesn't always allow for singular exploitation. Because there is a limit to how much you can sell in one nation. Even 'poorer' nations get products from multinationals because a lot of profit plus a little profit is still better than only a lot of profit. If the food industry causes famines by buying up food you would see famines year after year in the same poor regions they buy food from. Not to mention the fact that farmers with modern methods can produce more food than required. Famine is much more of a threat to a subsistence economy, yes people might go hungry in capitalist systems, but large scale famines because of buying up food leaves nothing is just out there. Who would enforce that?

Sigh, either you're not getting the point or just ignoring what I write. I don't keep hammering on communists while letting capitalists off the hook. This is a thread on celebrating 100 years of communism, which is why I write more about it. Note that I did call out imperialism and the UK for causing the Bengal famine. Two communist states, the PRC and the SU, deliberately engineered some of the largest 20th century famines. So I'm neither bashing on all communism or neglecting capitalism, I'm specifically talking about two communist governments creating famine. Existential threats or civil war had nothing to do with either the 1930's famine in the SU or the Great Famine in the PRC. These famines were caused because the two states that had control over production and distribution of food, forcibly removed food from starving areas. Famines never had to be a problem in either case, famines were a problem caused by criminal mismanagement and unwillingness to face reality of what was happening or simply not caring about it. There is no but, there is nothing that counts as extenuating circumstances for either the PRC or the SU. The famines stopped because they never had to have occurred in the first place, its easy to make a problem stop when you yourself are the cause of it.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Additionally a lot of the problems communist countries have had are because of the US targetting them for sabotage and destruction.

Just no, while the US messed up a lot of countries, it had nothing to do with the brutality of the police states or the creation of famines in countries such as Cambodia, North Korea, the SU and the PRC. Those were murderous leaders taking those decisions and holding final responsibility. The US has done plenty of wrong in this world, but you can't blame it for the violent police states some communist countries were or the famines they willingly created.

Rosebuddy wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes the key is that Lenin included imperialism as late state capitalism, as he needed to explain the hunt for colonial territories. Why? Because he thought it was capitalism conquering and fencing off individual markets before its untimely death, because he had to explain it through an economic lens. Yet here we are, without imperialism in the 19th century sense and capitalism alive and well. Lenin did not account for the simple idea that imperialism was also prestige, it wasn't just plain capitalism, it was about national ego too. But if 19th century imperialism is gone now, how is it an inherent part of capitalism? As you say you made little distinction between the two, but if that's true then why is traditional imperialism gone and not capitalism. Lenin was just wrong about many things.


Imperialism isn't gone, it has simply moved away from being strictly enforced by soldiers into being enforced by economic institutions and the threat of soldiers. It's what the IMF has been doing. If you can deprive a country of money to buy things it needs because it's reliant on imports since its infrastructure is mostly about exporting raw materials through private entities then you don't need soldiers there. That's aside from that the US does back coups in countries that displease it and even bombs them directly. What did you think US foreign policy history was about?

I have repeatedly said 19th century imperialism or traditional imperialism. That is very much gone. We have concepts and make distinctions for important reasons, as similar concepts can still differ wildly. What we have now is a new version of economic neo-imperialism. Imperialism at its core was different from neo-imperialism. The issues with neo-imperialism and forcing through of the Washington Consensus through organisations such as the IMF is a whole other can of worms. Going beyond what just the US did, securing resources goes beyond simple capitalism. every form of political government has been focused on securing them. Even know the PRC is doing it in Africa, not caring which murderous regime provides what China's economy needs. Backing coups and disposing governments has been done by many states in history, including the SU, Russia, the PRC and a host of others. Its nothing unique to the US, although its problematic nonetheless. US foreign policy history during the Cold War was certainly about stopping the formation of communist governments, outside of the 1950's-1991 its been for a whole host of reasons such as economics, politics and normative goals.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/14 02:56:00


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Lone Cat wrote:
About the Church of Blood, built on the spot where Ekatenburg Massacre took place 100 years ago. What are the inscriptions regarding to the incident written there? What did the Russian Orthodox church called the Bolshevicks (and also Lenin and Stalin) ? do they called Bolshevicks Satanists and do they also call Lenin 'Antichristo'?

The Church and the Bolshevicks (And later the Soviets) are sworn enemies.

There are lots of inscriptions on and surrounding that church. Which ones do you mean? The big golden ones above the windows? Those are just verses from the Book of Psalms.
During the initial revolution the Church was an enemy of the Bolsheviks. The Church of course called the Bolsheviks things like godless and anathema, and probably every other mean word they could think of. Maybe some priests would even have called the Bolsheviks satanists or Lenin the antichrist. Given the fact that it was war and there were all kinds of atrocities, using such curse-words doesn't seem unlikely.
Here, I found a White song from the Civil War with english subtitles:


It was popular with supporters of the White movement in the Far East. It shows a lot of how they thought about things.

Anyways, the Church survived the revolution of course, and in the Soviet Union they praised the Bolsheviks just like everyone else did. It is not like they had a choice.
In modern-day Russia, the Church is very ambiguous towards the Soviets and the Bolsheviks. On one hand, they hate them for the persecution that the Church and religion in general experienced in Soviet times, but on the other had they also recognise that the Soviets and Bolsheviks are still very popular with the majority of the Russian people. So, in the present day priests aren't very likely to say anything positive or negative about the Soviets (there are exceptions of course), much less go as far as to call them satanists or the antichrist. It would upset too many people.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/14 03:30:34


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.


Leaving food production in the hands of private actors for the sake of generating profit is inherently depriving people of food because if they can't buy it they aren't supposed to eat it. Organising most food production so that people farm whatever is most profitable instead of what is locally sustainable will unavoidably create food shortages.


That you keep repeating that communists always intentionally starve people and capitalists never do is getting annoying because, well, it's what Britain did to India and Russia was stricken with incessant droughts and famines for a thousand years before 1917 due to having at best mediocre soil for large-scale agriculture, after 1917 they had a period of civil war and existential war and then once they had finished industrialisation and collectivisation and were no longer the direct target for immediate extermination, suddenly famines weren't a problem anymore.

No, this is another false equivalence. Famines we talk about in a capitalist system are frequently caused by crop failure or situations like war, not a problem of profitability. Because at the end of the day, supply and demand step in, combined with the fact that just the highest profitability doesn't always allow for singular exploitation. Because there is a limit to how much you can sell in one nation. Even 'poorer' nations get products from multinationals because a lot of profit plus a little profit is still better than only a lot of profit. If the food industry causes famines by buying up food you would see famines year after year in the same poor regions they buy food from. Not to mention the fact that farmers with modern methods can produce more food than required. Famine is much more of a threat to a subsistence economy, yes people might go hungry in capitalist systems, but large scale famines because of buying up food leaves nothing is just out there. Who would enforce that?

Sigh, either you're not getting the point or just ignoring what I write. I don't keep hammering on communists while letting capitalists off the hook. This is a thread on celebrating 100 years of communism, which is why I write more about it. Note that I did call out imperialism and the UK for causing the Bengal famine. Two communist states, the PRC and the SU, deliberately engineered some of the largest 20th century famines. So I'm neither bashing on all communism or neglecting capitalism, I'm specifically talking about two communist governments creating famine. Existential threats or civil war had nothing to do with either the 1930's famine in the SU or the Great Famine in the PRC. These famines were caused because the two states that had control over production and distribution of food, forcibly removed food from starving areas. Famines never had to be a problem in either case, famines were a problem caused by criminal mismanagement and unwillingness to face reality of what was happening or simply not caring about it. There is no but, there is nothing that counts as extenuating circumstances for either the PRC or the SU. The famines stopped because they never had to have occurred in the first place, its easy to make a problem stop when you yourself are the cause of it.
The deliberate part of the famines is something that is often stressed in anti-communist propaganda, but something for which in reality, there is barely any evidence. In my opinion, you should not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. After all, famines were frequent before the Soviets ever got to power, as they are in every pre-industrial society (which Russia in 1917, and even in 1930 still was in many places). The famine was caused by a combination of natural causes, the lingering effects of war and above all horrible agricultural mismanagement. It was not a deliberate policy of the Soviet Union, though once it began, they did little to provide relief and in fact their attempts to intervene in some cases only made it worse. Still, there is no evidence they did that out of malice. If you read the documents of that time, it seems much more that they did try to help but were horribly misguided in their views as to what was the cause of the famines, causing their attempts to fail. But it was not that they didn't care, or even worse that they had actually somehow engineered all of it. If that had been the case they would never have sent food aid on such massive scale as they did. If only they hadn't then so grossly mismanaged that aid...
So yeah, did the Soviets cause the 1930 famine? Definitely yes. But did they do it on purpose? No. I have heard this story many many times, but never have I heard or seen a single shred of evidence for that.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/14 04:00:55


Post by: Peregrine


I said it before, but I'll say it again: communism and Lysenkoism are not the same thing.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/14 15:34:03


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It does make a significant difference if its a private or state actor that deprives people of food, because circumstances are entirely different. States are on an entirely different level of responsibility, because a state is in control of the lives of its own citizens. What CEO's contribute in lack of food or destruction of environment is terrible, but you can't point the finger at them and directly blame them for famines because the food is still being sold (granted its extremely troubling and should be tackled) to them, you can at a state if you look at policies.


Leaving food production in the hands of private actors for the sake of generating profit is inherently depriving people of food because if they can't buy it they aren't supposed to eat it. Organising most food production so that people farm whatever is most profitable instead of what is locally sustainable will unavoidably create food shortages.


That you keep repeating that communists always intentionally starve people and capitalists never do is getting annoying because, well, it's what Britain did to India and Russia was stricken with incessant droughts and famines for a thousand years before 1917 due to having at best mediocre soil for large-scale agriculture, after 1917 they had a period of civil war and existential war and then once they had finished industrialisation and collectivisation and were no longer the direct target for immediate extermination, suddenly famines weren't a problem anymore.

No, this is another false equivalence. Famines we talk about in a capitalist system are frequently caused by crop failure or situations like war, not a problem of profitability. Because at the end of the day, supply and demand step in, combined with the fact that just the highest profitability doesn't always allow for singular exploitation. Because there is a limit to how much you can sell in one nation. Even 'poorer' nations get products from multinationals because a lot of profit plus a little profit is still better than only a lot of profit. If the food industry causes famines by buying up food you would see famines year after year in the same poor regions they buy food from. Not to mention the fact that farmers with modern methods can produce more food than required. Famine is much more of a threat to a subsistence economy, yes people might go hungry in capitalist systems, but large scale famines because of buying up food leaves nothing is just out there. Who would enforce that?

Sigh, either you're not getting the point or just ignoring what I write. I don't keep hammering on communists while letting capitalists off the hook. This is a thread on celebrating 100 years of communism, which is why I write more about it. Note that I did call out imperialism and the UK for causing the Bengal famine. Two communist states, the PRC and the SU, deliberately engineered some of the largest 20th century famines. So I'm neither bashing on all communism or neglecting capitalism, I'm specifically talking about two communist governments creating famine. Existential threats or civil war had nothing to do with either the 1930's famine in the SU or the Great Famine in the PRC. These famines were caused because the two states that had control over production and distribution of food, forcibly removed food from starving areas. Famines never had to be a problem in either case, famines were a problem caused by criminal mismanagement and unwillingness to face reality of what was happening or simply not caring about it. There is no but, there is nothing that counts as extenuating circumstances for either the PRC or the SU. The famines stopped because they never had to have occurred in the first place, its easy to make a problem stop when you yourself are the cause of it.
The deliberate part of the famines is something that is often stressed in anti-communist propaganda, but something for which in reality, there is barely any evidence. In my opinion, you should not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. After all, famines were frequent before the Soviets ever got to power, as they are in every pre-industrial society (which Russia in 1917, and even in 1930 still was in many places). The famine was caused by a combination of natural causes, the lingering effects of war and above all horrible agricultural mismanagement. It was not a deliberate policy of the Soviet Union, though once it began, they did little to provide relief and in fact their attempts to intervene in some cases only made it worse. Still, there is no evidence they did that out of malice. If you read the documents of that time, it seems much more that they did try to help but were horribly misguided in their views as to what was the cause of the famines, causing their attempts to fail. But it was not that they didn't care, or even worse that they had actually somehow engineered all of it. If that had been the case they would never have sent food aid on such massive scale as they did. If only they hadn't then so grossly mismanaged that aid...
So yeah, did the Soviets cause the 1930 famine? Definitely yes. But did they do it on purpose? No. I have heard this story many many times, but never have I heard or seen a single shred of evidence for that.

You've heard the story, you just haven't looked hard enough. Its not just propaganda, many influential historians have worked on this topic in the last two decades, free of Cold War bias. You know what the most curious part of the 1933 famine was? That peasants/farmers tried to get into cities to get food as it was made available there, which is completely contrary to normal famines where urban populations go to the countryside as farmers usually are the ones that posses any remaining food. Not only did Stalin ordered the region sealed off, you even needed special passports to get into the cities in the area, the only place food was available, and which peasants weren't able to acquire. Hell, by 1933 the Soviets had forcibly sent back around 190.000 peasants into the starvation zone (T. Snyder, Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London 2010) 45). People in the Gulags such as at Belomor were given terrible food rations, about 1300 calories a day, yet they were better rations than the people in the starvation areas in 1933 could get. Not just better, about two to three times as much as the peasants on collective farms in areas such as Soviet Ukraine got in 1933 (A. Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York 2003) 64-65). Just the fact that the Soviets fed Gulag inmates in some of the most inhospitable areas in the world better than the actual starving population says something.

Of course the collectivization to feed industrialisation did its part. Meaning that 'kulaks' or the most successful farmers were deported as enemies of the state. Collective farms were allowed to take the seed grain (required to have a harvest the following years) from independent farmers, so taking that was basically a death sentence as those farmers could no longer grow food (R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1932-1933 (London 2004) 8-11, 24-37). Not only that, the Soviet government set the harvest of 1931 as the baseline for what should be supplied each year. But this was critically a harvest that had not been affected yet by deportations and collectivization, meaning that the baseline was entirely unobtainable in 1932 to 1933. The effects of collectivization were devastating on output because of the upheavals it brought. When the Ukrainian party leader Stanislaw Kosior reported in 1931 that the baseline was unobtainable, Lazar Kaganovich told him that "the real problem was theft and concealment" (Davies, 72-95). So with that line of approach the Soviet government started requisitioning seed grain from even the collective farms, because they were obviously hiding their produce and sabotaging collectivization, yet that meant that next year would bring no harvest at all (combined that sounds pretty 'malicious' don't you think?'). Stalin even privately admitted there was a famine going on, but crucially did not implement food aid, even telling Kaganovich that "it is imperative to export without fail immediately", continuing the requisitioning during the famine (Snyder, 35). Stalin knew what his orders meant, he did not care, in his mind the famine was the work of sabotage. Watchtowers were set up to control the movement of peasants and communist youth organizations were mobilized to go door to door to confiscate anything they could find (Snyder, 39). Ukrainians in Poland collected money as famine relief, but their offers were rejected, no outside help was accepted.

Stalin could have ended the famine by just temporarily stopping food exports or even releasing grain reserves of three million tons, but he did none of that. I could go on for a while (with more sources), but I have made my point sufficiently clear, it was malice, not stupidity that fed the 1932-1933 famine in the Soviet Union. There was plenty of food available in-country. Yet the Soviet government deliberately withheld it. This was no ordinary famine, it was the result of deliberate policies of the Soviet government even after the consequences were becoming horribly obvious. It was a malicious and deliberately driven famine by the Soviet government.

To stress again before others, not you Iron Captain, criticizing me again for blaming all of communism for famines: I'm criticizing the communist governments that did this, not the actual political theories behind communism/socialism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/14 23:56:22


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
The deliberate part of the famines is something that is often stressed in anti-communist propaganda, but something for which in reality, there is barely any evidence. In my opinion, you should not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. After all, famines were frequent before the Soviets ever got to power, as they are in every pre-industrial society (which Russia in 1917, and even in 1930 still was in many places). The famine was caused by a combination of natural causes, the lingering effects of war and above all horrible agricultural mismanagement. It was not a deliberate policy of the Soviet Union, though once it began, they did little to provide relief and in fact their attempts to intervene in some cases only made it worse. Still, there is no evidence they did that out of malice. If you read the documents of that time, it seems much more that they did try to help but were horribly misguided in their views as to what was the cause of the famines, causing their attempts to fail. But it was not that they didn't care, or even worse that they had actually somehow engineered all of it. If that had been the case they would never have sent food aid on such massive scale as they did. If only they hadn't then so grossly mismanaged that aid...
So yeah, did the Soviets cause the 1930 famine? Definitely yes. But did they do it on purpose? No. I have heard this story many many times, but never have I heard or seen a single shred of evidence for that.

You've heard the story, you just haven't looked hard enough. Its not just propaganda, many influential historians have worked on this topic in the last two decades, free of Cold War bias.
You say that as if the Cold War is over, and all the bias has suddenly disappeared.
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You know what the most curious part of the 1933 famine was? That peasants/farmers tried to get into cities to get food as it was made available there, which is completely contrary to normal famines where urban populations go to the countryside as farmers usually are the ones that posses any remaining food.
That is not curious at all, since that is where the authorities sent all the food. It is a communist economy after all. The authorities took the food provided by the farms and redistributed to everyone according to their need. That was the theory at least. The cities were the centers from where stuff was supposed to be redistributed. However, in practice a lot of things often went wrong with this process, so the food stayed in the cities and never actually got redistributed back to the needy peasants.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not only did Stalin ordered the region sealed off, you even needed special passports to get into the cities in the area, the only place food was available, and which peasants weren't able to acquire. Hell, by 1933 the Soviets had forcibly sent back around 190.000 peasants into the starvation zone (T. Snyder, Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London 2010) 45). People in the Gulags such as at Belomor were given terrible food rations, about 1300 calories a day, yet they were better rations than the people in the starvation areas in 1933 could get. Not just better, about two to three times as much as the peasants on collective farms in areas such as Soviet Ukraine got in 1933 (A. Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York 2003) 64-65). Just the fact that the Soviets fed Gulag inmates in some of the most inhospitable areas in the world better than the actual starving population says something.
Yes. And you know why they were forced back? Because these were mostly farmers, working (or supposed to be working) in one of the Soviet Union's most important agricultural areas. When the famine hit, a lot of people abandoned the farms to get into the cities. This of course had the effect of reducing production even further, making the famine even worse and thus causing even more people to abandon their farms, reducing production ad inf.. These measures were introduced by the Soviets in an attempt to break the vicious cycle. The other reason to confine people was to prevent a flood of refugees into neighbouring regions. While not being in a state of famine, food still wasn't exactly plentiful in surrounding areas either. They would have been unable to feed (or house) the refugees.
And that people in the Belomor camp got more food is kinda obvious. The White Sea region is very far away from Ukraine and Southwestern Russia, the areas where the famine was. There was no famine in Northern Russia, so why should they've led the people in the camps there there starve?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
(T. Snyder, Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London 2010) 45).
(A. Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York 2003) 64-65).
I admire the fact that you properly refer to your sources, even though this is a forum discussion and not an academic paper.
But the sources you cite do bring up some problems. I do not know if this is your idea of reputable historians or reputable sources, but it is not. Both are not proper academic sources, and are written with a clear bias, written by people who have clearly displayed an anti-Soviet and anti-Russian bias throughout their lives.
I would recommend getting information from authors who maintain a somewhat more neutral tone in their writing. Academic papers have to remain free of bias, and are therefore an excellent source of information. I recommend reading them instead of non-academic literature which is primarily interested in selling copies (and thus often writing in a sensationalist manner) or impressing upon people the views of the author. Wheatcroft, to who you also have referred, is a good example of a much more neutral and therefore much better source. I definitely recommend his articles on the subject.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Of course the collectivization to feed industrialisation did its part. Meaning that 'kulaks' or the most successful farmers were deported as enemies of the state. Collective farms were allowed to take the seed grain (required to have a harvest the following years) from independent farmers, so taking that was basically a death sentence as those farmers could no longer grow food (R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1932-1933 (London 2004) 8-11, 24-37). Not only that, the Soviet government set the harvest of 1931 as the baseline for what should be supplied each year. But this was critically a harvest that had not been affected yet by deportations and collectivization, meaning that the baseline was entirely unobtainable in 1932 to 1933. The effects of collectivization were devastating on output because of the upheavals it brought.
Aye, that is typical Soviet stupidity. Those independent farmers were then supposed to go to the collective farms, but the Soviets vastly overestimated the willingness of people to join these collective farms (there were pretty good reasons people didn't want to join those, but that is another story). So now they had eliminated independent farmers as planned, but this did not translate in a growth of the collective farms as expected. The Soviets had really high hopes and expectations for the collective farms, and they based their policies on that. When those collective farms then failed to perform, they got in trouble.
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
When the Ukrainian party leader Stanislaw Kosior reported in 1931 that the baseline was unobtainable, Lazar Kaganovich told him that "the real problem was theft and concealment" (Davies, 72-95). So with that line of approach the Soviet government started requisitioning seed grain from even the collective farms, because they were obviously hiding their produce and sabotaging collectivization, yet that meant that next year would bring no harvest at all (combined that sounds pretty 'malicious' don't you think?').
And that is the other part of Soviet stupidity. Soviet leaders (especially the Stalinist bunch) believed so much in their own ideas, it was like a religion to them. To them, it was absolutely inconceivable that their plans and ideas didn't work and caused problems. So they started to look for causes, and recalling the Civil War, and many farmer's opposition to communism, this must have seemed logical to them. They were not malicious, just stupid and blinded by their own self-righteousness.
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Stalin even privately admitted there was a famine going on, but crucially did not implement food aid, even telling Kaganovich that "it is imperative to export without fail immediately", continuing the requisitioning during the famine (Snyder, 35). Stalin knew what his orders meant, he did not care, in his mind the famine was the work of sabotage. Watchtowers were set up to control the movement of peasants and communist youth organizations were mobilized to go door to door to confiscate anything they could find (Snyder, 39). Ukrainians in Poland collected money as famine relief, but their offers were rejected, no outside help was accepted.
Food aid was actually implemented, and on a very large scale. The Soviet archives (a lot of relevant documents are public, you can look them up online. You would need to speak Russian though.) show large quantities of grain being transported to the area destined for aid. But due to the horrible failures of the Soviet system, the aid never was very effective. For the most part it never actually reached the starving people. All those big shipments just disappear, probably a lot of it was simply wasting away in storehouses in the cities. Besides the records of aid shipments to the region there is also a vast amount of legislative and legal documents of Soviet authorities on different levels that show that they were doing their best to fight the famine. Unfortunately their attempts to do so were misguided and generally failed miserably, especially outside of the cities. If you can't read Russian, Davies and Wheatcroft also write a bit on aid attempts in their book.
Polish aid was not accepted given the fact that Poland was an enemy of the Soviet Union. With how paranoid the Soviets were that is kinda obvious.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Stalin could have ended the famine by just temporarily stopping food exports or even releasing grain reserves of three million tons, but he did none of that. I could go on for a while (with more sources), but I have made my point sufficiently clear, it was malice, not stupidity that fed the 1932-1933 famine in the Soviet Union. There was plenty of food available in-country. Yet the Soviet government deliberately withheld it. This was no ordinary famine, it was the result of deliberate policies of the Soviet government even after the consequences were becoming horribly obvious. It was a malicious and deliberately driven famine by the Soviet government.

To stress again before others, not you Iron Captain, criticizing me again for blaming all of communism for famines: I'm criticizing the communist governments that did this, not the actual political theories behind communism/socialism.

Soviet food exports dropped enormously during the famine. The relatively small amounts that still were exported would not have made any difference, given the large amount of food aid that had already gone to waste. Surrounding regions in the Soviet Union also weren't really abundant with food, as famines in other parts of the Soviet Union throughout the early 20th century attest. There was only a very limited amount of food surplus, and that either was too far away to be transported to the famine area or it was already being send and mostly wasted as food aid. The Soviet leaders wanted to tackle the real cause of the famine (or what they believed to be the cause at least). Halting even the last exports to send even more food to the region must have seemed like throwing it away in a bottomless well to them. That is not malicious, on the contrary they tried their best to solve the famine. But due to being blinded by their own self-righteousness they failed or accidentally made the problems even worse.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/15 12:22:59


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/15 14:05:12


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/15 14:50:23


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 Peregrine wrote:
But really, the absurdity of your argument should be obvious: do you sincerely believe that people choose to live in poverty because they like it? Of course not.


Ah, the other leg of the pernicious meme that is the Protestant work ethic. A person's worth is judged by their deeds. Which becomes the idea that everyone should work. and thus anyone who isn't working is therefore worth less than those of us that are. Conveniently ignoring the reasons why they can't work.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/15 16:53:07


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


You're insisting on academic standards but not following them yourself. All you're doing is reiterating your accusations of bias, you're not giving any concrete examples, you're not giving any sources, and you're not actually giving us any reason beyond your own word to believe you.

It's entirely possible that there is bias involved, but we can't tell wether there is or not from what you've said so far.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/15 18:22:13


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
The deliberate part of the famines is something that is often stressed in anti-communist propaganda, but something for which in reality, there is barely any evidence. In my opinion, you should not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. After all, famines were frequent before the Soviets ever got to power, as they are in every pre-industrial society (which Russia in 1917, and even in 1930 still was in many places). The famine was caused by a combination of natural causes, the lingering effects of war and above all horrible agricultural mismanagement. It was not a deliberate policy of the Soviet Union, though once it began, they did little to provide relief and in fact their attempts to intervene in some cases only made it worse. Still, there is no evidence they did that out of malice. If you read the documents of that time, it seems much more that they did try to help but were horribly misguided in their views as to what was the cause of the famines, causing their attempts to fail. But it was not that they didn't care, or even worse that they had actually somehow engineered all of it. If that had been the case they would never have sent food aid on such massive scale as they did. If only they hadn't then so grossly mismanaged that aid...
So yeah, did the Soviets cause the 1930 famine? Definitely yes. But did they do it on purpose? No. I have heard this story many many times, but never have I heard or seen a single shred of evidence for that.

You've heard the story, you just haven't looked hard enough. Its not just propaganda, many influential historians have worked on this topic in the last two decades, free of Cold War bias.
You say that as if the Cold War is over, and all the bias has suddenly disappeared.

Problem is that you said "anti-communist propaganda". These are works written decades after the end of the Soviet Union and communist Russia. Its hard to see how factual works on events that were almost 90 years ago about a now defunct state would need to include propaganda to smear it. The Soviet Union is not the Russian Federation, not a big fan putting the sins of the father on the successor states

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You know what the most curious part of the 1933 famine was? That peasants/farmers tried to get into cities to get food as it was made available there, which is completely contrary to normal famines where urban populations go to the countryside as farmers usually are the ones that posses any remaining food.
That is not curious at all, since that is where the authorities sent all the food. It is a communist economy after all. The authorities took the food provided by the farms and redistributed to everyone according to their need. That was the theory at least. The cities were the centers from where stuff was supposed to be redistributed. However, in practice a lot of things often went wrong with this process, so the food stayed in the cities and never actually got redistributed back to the needy peasants.

Really, they: "redistributed to everyone according to their need. That was the theory at least. The cities were the centers from where stuff was supposed to be redistributed." So they took away the food from starving peasants when hundreds of thousands were already dying? You're telling me you take all their food first, then give it to the farmers if anything is left, you know the people producing next year's food? That's a nice way to ensure everybody dies the next year, 1933. That wasn't stupidity, it was just uncaring at the least, and plain murder at worst.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not only did Stalin ordered the region sealed off, you even needed special passports to get into the cities in the area, the only place food was available, and which peasants weren't able to acquire. Hell, by 1933 the Soviets had forcibly sent back around 190.000 peasants into the starvation zone (T. Snyder, Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London 2010) 45). People in the Gulags such as at Belomor were given terrible food rations, about 1300 calories a day, yet they were better rations than the people in the starvation areas in 1933 could get. Not just better, about two to three times as much as the peasants on collective farms in areas such as Soviet Ukraine got in 1933 (A. Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York 2003) 64-65). Just the fact that the Soviets fed Gulag inmates in some of the most inhospitable areas in the world better than the actual starving population says something.
Yes. And you know why they were forced back? Because these were mostly farmers, working (or supposed to be working) in one of the Soviet Union's most important agricultural areas. When the famine hit, a lot of people abandoned the farms to get into the cities. This of course had the effect of reducing production even further, making the famine even worse and thus causing even more people to abandon their farms, reducing production ad inf.. These measures were introduced by the Soviets in an attempt to break the vicious cycle. The other reason to confine people was to prevent a flood of refugees into neighbouring regions. While not being in a state of famine, food still wasn't exactly plentiful in surrounding areas either. They would have been unable to feed (or house) the refugees.
And that people in the Belomor camp got more food is kinda obvious. The White Sea region is very far away from Ukraine and Southwestern Russia, the areas where the famine was. There was no famine in Northern Russia, so why should they've led the people in the camps there there starve?

Yes, sending back starving farmers back into starvation areas is illogical. If those farmers were producing food why would they need to escape the starvation area in the first place. No, the famine was made worse by Soviet requisitioning amounts and stealing the seed grain, that's how it got worse. Those farmers had nothing to grow anymore in the first place. "Saboteurs" was the favorite criticism against the people that were starving in the first place. You're shifting blame to the first victims of starvation. Those people were sent back to die, plain and simple.
No, the distance part is not an excuse. It was a Gulag, food was shipped there. How come the Soviet authorities were able to send food to Gulag inmates but not to starving farmers?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
(T. Snyder, Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London 2010) 45).
(A. Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York 2003) 64-65).
I admire the fact that you properly refer to your sources, even though this is a forum discussion and not an academic paper.
But the sources you cite do bring up some problems. I do not know if this is your idea of reputable historians or reputable sources, but it is not. Both are not proper academic sources, and are written with a clear bias, written by people who have clearly displayed an anti-Soviet and anti-Russian bias throughout their lives.
I would recommend getting information from authors who maintain a somewhat more neutral tone in their writing. Academic papers have to remain free of bias, and are therefore an excellent source of information. I recommend reading them instead of non-academic literature which is primarily interested in selling copies (and thus often writing in a sensationalist manner) or impressing upon people the views of the author. Wheatcroft, to who you also have referred, is a good example of a much more neutral and therefore much better source. I definitely recommend his articles on the subject.

I have, I've read many more books from a list of authors. I just gave Snyder and Applebaum as they are more widely available outside of academic circles. Plus Snyder is a respected academic professor from Yale (nice guy btw). Applebaum's book is praised by plenty of academic professors too, my Soviet history professor still makes his students read parts as far as I'm aware. They are well researched works and plenty of other work backs them up. Beyond them being more popular or mainstream books, what is your problem with them? They are properly referenced in the academic fashion, they back everything up with references.

I'd like to hear about the anti-Soviet biases of Syder and Applebaum "throughout their lives" beyond just saying their books are biased.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Of course the collectivization to feed industrialisation did its part. Meaning that 'kulaks' or the most successful farmers were deported as enemies of the state. Collective farms were allowed to take the seed grain (required to have a harvest the following years) from independent farmers, so taking that was basically a death sentence as those farmers could no longer grow food (R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1932-1933 (London 2004) 8-11, 24-37). Not only that, the Soviet government set the harvest of 1931 as the baseline for what should be supplied each year. But this was critically a harvest that had not been affected yet by deportations and collectivization, meaning that the baseline was entirely unobtainable in 1932 to 1933. The effects of collectivization were devastating on output because of the upheavals it brought.
Aye, that is typical Soviet stupidity. Those independent farmers were then supposed to go to the collective farms, but the Soviets vastly overestimated the willingness of people to join these collective farms (there were pretty good reasons people didn't want to join those, but that is another story). So now they had eliminated independent farmers as planned, but this did not translate in a growth of the collective farms as expected. The Soviets had really high hopes and expectations for the collective farms, and they based their policies on that. When those collective farms then failed to perform, they got in trouble.

Typical stupidity? No, they literally took away what these people needed to survive, that's not stupidity, that's murder. "High hopes" and "got in trouble"? You mean wildly unrealistic expectations and when those weren't met all their food was taken and they were left to starve? Why use euphemisms, the Soviets even took the seed grain. Again, not 'trouble', plain murder. That's what it is when you steal someone's food and then force them to stay.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
When the Ukrainian party leader Stanislaw Kosior reported in 1931 that the baseline was unobtainable, Lazar Kaganovich told him that "the real problem was theft and concealment" (Davies, 72-95). So with that line of approach the Soviet government started requisitioning seed grain from even the collective farms, because they were obviously hiding their produce and sabotaging collectivization, yet that meant that next year would bring no harvest at all (combined that sounds pretty 'malicious' don't you think?').
And that is the other part of Soviet stupidity. Soviet leaders (especially the Stalinist bunch) believed so much in their own ideas, it was like a religion to them. To them, it was absolutely inconceivable that their plans and ideas didn't work and caused problems. So they started to look for causes, and recalling the Civil War, and many farmer's opposition to communism, this must have seemed logical to them. They were not malicious, just stupid and blinded by their own self-righteousness.

Yet Stalin himself admitted in private their was a famine going on. They knew. It doesn't matter what kinds of 'justifications' they made up to let those people starve, they let them starve and took any scraps they had left foor good measure. Just because they were misguided does not mean you can't be evil. You could call Hitler "stupid and blinded by [his] own self-righteousness" in the same manner, doesn't change that at heart what he did was just pure evil. Misguided reasoning does not exclude maliciousness.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Stalin even privately admitted there was a famine going on, but crucially did not implement food aid, even telling Kaganovich that "it is imperative to export without fail immediately", continuing the requisitioning during the famine (Snyder, 35). Stalin knew what his orders meant, he did not care, in his mind the famine was the work of sabotage. Watchtowers were set up to control the movement of peasants and communist youth organizations were mobilized to go door to door to confiscate anything they could find (Snyder, 39). Ukrainians in Poland collected money as famine relief, but their offers were rejected, no outside help was accepted.
Food aid was actually implemented, and on a very large scale. The Soviet archives (a lot of relevant documents are public, you can look them up online. You would need to speak Russian though.) show large quantities of grain being transported to the area destined for aid. But due to the horrible failures of the Soviet system, the aid never was very effective. For the most part it never actually reached the starving people. All those big shipments just disappear, probably a lot of it was simply wasting away in storehouses in the cities. Besides the records of aid shipments to the region there is also a vast amount of legislative and legal documents of Soviet authorities on different levels that show that they were doing their best to fight the famine. Unfortunately their attempts to do so were misguided and generally failed miserably, especially outside of the cities. If you can't read Russian, Davies and Wheatcroft also write a bit on aid attempts in their book.
Polish aid was not accepted given the fact that Poland was an enemy of the Soviet Union. With how paranoid the Soviets were that is kinda obvious.

That's kind of a joke isn't it? Saying you're sending food aid but nothing ever shows up. Something about empty promises and all that. The Soviet Union was a tightly controlled authoritarian police state with 3 million tons of grain reserves that still managed to ship 2 million tons of grain abroad in the middle of a terrible famine. Now why would they be so effective in building those reserves and exporting it when they couldn't even provide proper food aid inside their own country? The dots just don't connect. They still kept taking food away from starving peasants too. So not only were they competent enough to scour the farmlands for every scrap of food, being able to ship 2 million tons abroad and feed Gulag inmates, but they weren't competent enough to provide food to starving civilians? That's not just mismanagement, Stalin insisted they keep exporting as much as possible.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Stalin could have ended the famine by just temporarily stopping food exports or even releasing grain reserves of three million tons, but he did none of that. I could go on for a while (with more sources), but I have made my point sufficiently clear, it was malice, not stupidity that fed the 1932-1933 famine in the Soviet Union. There was plenty of food available in-country. Yet the Soviet government deliberately withheld it. This was no ordinary famine, it was the result of deliberate policies of the Soviet government even after the consequences were becoming horribly obvious. It was a malicious and deliberately driven famine by the Soviet government.

To stress again before others, not you Iron Captain, criticizing me again for blaming all of communism for famines: I'm criticizing the communist governments that did this, not the actual political theories behind communism/socialism.

Soviet food exports dropped enormously during the famine. The relatively small amounts that still were exported would not have made any difference, given the large amount of food aid that had already gone to waste. Surrounding regions in the Soviet Union also weren't really abundant with food, as famines in other parts of the Soviet Union throughout the early 20th century attest. There was only a very limited amount of food surplus, and that either was too far away to be transported to the famine area or it was already being send and mostly wasted as food aid. The Soviet leaders wanted to tackle the real cause of the famine (or what they believed to be the cause at least). Halting even the last exports to send even more food to the region must have seemed like throwing it away in a bottomless well to them. That is not malicious, on the contrary they tried their best to solve the famine. But due to being blinded by their own self-righteousness they failed or accidentally made the problems even worse.

Yes they did, but not enormously, that's misleading. 1925-1927 had similar levels of food exports as 1932, the first year of famine. Critically they shipped out as much food during a famine as during a normal year, in 1932 they exported 2 million tons. That was just short of half their best year, 1931, while in 1928-1929 they exported half as much as in famine year 1932. Take into account that the starvation area was one of the breadbaskets of the Soviet Union and that just shows the enormity of what is ongoing. The Soviets maintained their food exports at an average level while their prime agricultural regions were starving to death. How were they maintaining average exports during a famine? You can easily connect those dots.

The famine of 1932-1933 was malicious. These weren't 6 year old children running the Soviet Union. Neither "stupidity" or "being blinded by their own self-righteousness" excuses the incredible tragedy they let and helped happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.

I'll take this apart:

Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings.

How?

Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany.

Actually no, that isn't at all what either Snyder or Applebaum write. Snyder even gives the reason for including Hitler, because he is writing a history of Central/Eastern Europe during the 1930's and 1950's through the actions of Hitler and Stalin. He doesn't say that Hitler equals Stalin. He barely mentions the Gulags, because he is focused on a specific area. He could have split it up into two books if that would have helped? And Applebaum? She writes about the Gulags, not Nazi Germany.

Plus oppressing is pretty accurate, seeing as how the Soviet Union was a massive police state especially under Stalin.

Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians.

While their is a lot of debate on if it was purposefully done to Ukrainians, it is pretty clear they represented an incredibly disproportionate amount of the famine victims. Combined with what I stated above, it was pretty clearly orchestrated to be that bad. Now if it was against a specific group? I'm not making a judgement on that.

Aimed at exterminating non-Russians.

Snyder references his numbers of purge victims. Non-Russians are victims in a disproportionate percentage compared to the total population, saying Stalin targeted non-Russians more is just looking at statistics. What's the problem with that? He never says it wasn't bad for Russians either, he just states it was disproportionately worse for non-Russians.

Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area.

Exterminating them is never brought up, its hyperbole. But Stalin did team up with Hitler to regain the lost territories of Russia, the Baltics and Eastern Poland amongst other. So yes, dominate is definitely true. And there definitely was an air of extermination/domination with Katyn, you don't just murder the intelligentsia of a nation for the fun of it.

GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians.

Again, statistical data backs up the disproportionate amounts. They still don't say it was just against non-Russians.

You criticize these people with one hand, then with the other write what you want people to see as hyperbolic stories that actually have cores of truth to them. You're purposefully misleading in that sense, which doesn't help your argument


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/16 15:06:47


Post by: KTG17


Any form of government that requires killing off hordes of the people it rules over to make them go along with it, is evil. And so are the guys running the show. The vast majority of Russia is still backwater today, regardless how nice Moscow and St. Petersburg look during Christmas.

Its nice that these russian trolls write off the lives of their own people taken in the act of modernizing Russia, but the reality is the system was doomed from the start, as Communism is flawed to begin with. Its a shame it took so long for people to come to their senses about it. Its amazing to me that you would have anyone sign up for eliminating free thought, freedom of speech, or political debate. The fact that a government has to ban opposition parties is absolute proof that it is weak, as it cannot expect to last long when its short-comings are challenged.

And whatever advances were made under 'Soviet' leadership, far more advances across far more sectors were produced under free societies in the US and Western Europe.

Keep viewing the history through those rose-colored glasses. They do look ridiculous.





100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/16 17:51:59


Post by: Ustrello


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


Sounds like you need to read "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", it pretty much shows that a lot of the local populations that collaborated (that more often than not helped kill as many Jews as Nazis) were former NKVD or had training from them and were looking to whitewash their past and help them survive Nazi occupation.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/16 17:54:01


Post by: Disciple of Fate


KTG17 wrote:
Any form of government that requires killing off hordes of the people it rules over to make them go along with it, is evil. And so are the guys running the show. The vast majority of Russia is still backwater today, regardless how nice Moscow and St. Petersburg look during Christmas.

Its nice that these russian trolls write off the lives of their own people taken in the act of modernizing Russia, but the reality is the system was doomed from the start, as Communism is flawed to begin with. Its a shame it took so long for people to come to their senses about it. Its amazing to me that you would have anyone sign up for eliminating free thought, freedom of speech, or political debate. The fact that a government has to ban opposition parties is absolute proof that it is weak, as it cannot expect to last long when its short-comings are challenged.

And whatever advances were made under 'Soviet' leadership, far more advances across far more sectors were produced under free societies in the US and Western Europe.

Keep viewing the history through those rose-colored glasses. They do look ridiculous.


Communism isn't necessarily flawed to begin with in theory, it is in practice as of now. The popularisation of the term by Marx and the term people often refer to is of communism that eventually reaches enough support, a critical mass of discontent, for a communist or progressive revolution. Communism in practice has always been the violent seizure of power by (a small group) men who had to hold on to it at any cost, popular support was never at the critical mass. They were top to bottom approaches to communism instead of the bottom up approach Marx saw. But Marx envisioned his form of communism to ally with social democrats, as both were working for a better world for the proletariat. It never was about "eliminating free thought, freedom of speech, or political debate" in the first place. That's just the consequence of the violent aspects of seizing power of a small group that can't be secure in its survival without repression, any authoritarian government really. Plus communism as envisioned by Marx would never happen in poor countries like 1917 Russia or 1949 China first, the social conditions not being right. Of course Lenin, Stalin and Mao recognized that, but they really didn't care, they wanted it and wanted it now.

Socialist democrats and communists could work together to achieve their utopia together and in many Western European countries they did. Western Europe is free and democratic, with significant socialist elements having been worked into the states. Its the more benign way of taking care of inequality (but only to an extent). Plus like many have mentioned, the labor shift due to robotics might make a shift towards socialism/communism inevitable, people need something to survive. Currently, massive wealth inequality causes discontent, but most people in the West still make enough to live pretty ok, so there is a grudging tolerance for the most part. That discontent will rapidly explode if a great deal of people lose their jobs and the state does nothing while the rich get richer.

Don't write off the political theory just yet because of historical 20th century communism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ustrello wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


Sounds like you need to read "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", it pretty much shows that a lot of the local populations that collaborated (that more often than not helped kill as many Jews as Nazis) were former NKVD or had training from them and were looking to whitewash their past and help them survive Nazi occupation.

Uhm how do I put this... That book was also written by T. Snyder, the exact person he is criticizing heavily here for his 'anti-Russian bias'


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/16 18:02:45


Post by: Ustrello


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Any form of government that requires killing off hordes of the people it rules over to make them go along with it, is evil. And so are the guys running the show. The vast majority of Russia is still backwater today, regardless how nice Moscow and St. Petersburg look during Christmas.

Its nice that these russian trolls write off the lives of their own people taken in the act of modernizing Russia, but the reality is the system was doomed from the start, as Communism is flawed to begin with. Its a shame it took so long for people to come to their senses about it. Its amazing to me that you would have anyone sign up for eliminating free thought, freedom of speech, or political debate. The fact that a government has to ban opposition parties is absolute proof that it is weak, as it cannot expect to last long when its short-comings are challenged.

And whatever advances were made under 'Soviet' leadership, far more advances across far more sectors were produced under free societies in the US and Western Europe.

Keep viewing the history through those rose-colored glasses. They do look ridiculous.


Communism isn't necessarily flawed to begin with in theory, it is in practice as of now. The popularisation of the term by Marx and the term people often refer to is of communism that eventually reaches enough support, a critical mass of discontent, for a communist or progressive revolution. Communism in practice has always been the violent seizure of power by (a small group) men who had to hold on to it at any cost, popular support was never at the critical mass. They were top to bottom approaches to communism instead of the bottom up approach Marx saw. But Marx envisioned his form of communism to ally with social democrats, as both were working for a better world for the proletariat. It never was about "eliminating free thought, freedom of speech, or political debate" in the first place. That's just the consequence of the violent aspects of seizing power of a small group that can't be secure in its survival without repression, any authoritarian government really. Plus communism as envisioned by Marx would never happen in poor countries like 1917 Russia or 1949 China first, the social conditions not being right. Of course Lenin, Stalin and Mao recognized that, but they really didn't care, they wanted it and wanted it now.

Socialist democrats and communists could work together to achieve their utopia together and in many Western European countries they did. Western Europe is free and democratic, with significant socialist elements having been worked into the states. Its the more benign way of taking care of inequality (but only to an extent). Plus like many have mentioned, the labor shift due to robotics might make a shift towards socialism/communism inevitable, people need something to survive. Currently, massive wealth inequality causes discontent, but most people in the West still make enough to live pretty ok, so there is a grudging tolerance for the most part. That discontent will rapidly explode if a great deal of people lose their jobs and the state does nothing while the rich get richer.

Don't write off the political theory just yet because of historical 20th century communism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ustrello wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


Sounds like you need to read "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", it pretty much shows that a lot of the local populations that collaborated (that more often than not helped kill as many Jews as Nazis) were former NKVD or had training from them and were looking to whitewash their past and help them survive Nazi occupation.

Uhm how do I put this... That book was also written by T. Snyder, the exact person he is criticizing heavily here for his 'anti-Russian bias'


Well lets put it this way, I am going to trust a man who actually can speak a decent amount of eastern european languages and can do primary research over there rather than some random Russian guy on the internet


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/16 18:12:47


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Ustrello wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


Sounds like you need to read "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", it pretty much shows that a lot of the local populations that collaborated (that more often than not helped kill as many Jews as Nazis) were former NKVD or had training from them and were looking to whitewash their past and help them survive Nazi occupation.

Uhm how do I put this... That book was also written by T. Snyder, the exact person he is criticizing heavily here for his 'anti-Russian bias'


Well lets put it this way, I am going to trust a man who actually can speak a decent amount of eastern european languages and can do primary research over there rather than some random Russian guy on the internet

Touché good sir. Just saying that bringing up that he has to read a book by the guy he just heavily criticized might not convince him.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/11/16 18:17:47


Post by: Ustrello


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Show where the bias of the authors is. You can't just yell "bias!" all the time without backing it up.

I already told you where the bias is. Both authors show a consistent negative attitude towards Russia and the Soviet Union in all of their writings. Doesn't matter whether it is the Empire, the Soviet Union or the Federation, if it is Russian it is bad.
In their writings, Russia is this big bad bogeyman trying to oppress and murder all the poor people in Eastern Europe, and it is constantly being equated to Nazi Germany. And when something happens? Russia is undoubtedly behind it, it is all part of their grand plan to dominate Eastern Europe and oppress the Ukrainians/Poles/Estonians/Other Eastern European people. Famine of 1930? Orchestrated by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians. Stalinist purges? Aimed at exterminating non-Russians. Nazi Germany? Russia was working together with them to exterminate Eastern European peoples and dominate the area. GULAG? A tool to oppress non-Russians. Trump gets elected? Orchestrated by Russia to destabilise the US and thus gain the opportunity to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe again. By contrast, there are loads of people out there writing books that are much less biased. But their writings don't tend to be as sensationalist and therefore get not as well sold.

Academic authors set out with a question and then write a paper or book to analyse data to explore whether they can find an answer to that question. In contrast, these authors set out from a preconceived (and sensational) story, and then arrange the data in such a way that it supports their story. That is a great way to write a commercial book for the general population, but it has zero academic merit.


Sounds like you need to read "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", it pretty much shows that a lot of the local populations that collaborated (that more often than not helped kill as many Jews as Nazis) were former NKVD or had training from them and were looking to whitewash their past and help them survive Nazi occupation.

Uhm how do I put this... That book was also written by T. Snyder, the exact person he is criticizing heavily here for his 'anti-Russian bias'


Well lets put it this way, I am going to trust a man who actually can speak a decent amount of eastern european languages and can do primary research over there rather than some random Russian guy on the internet

Touché good sir. Just saying that bringing up that he has to read a book by the guy he just heavily criticized might not convince him.


Oh I know, I just want to hit home the point that these people are much more intelligent than any of us on this board and can actually do the research because they speak more than english and russian.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/02 06:10:22


Post by: Freakazoitt


A bad attitude towards communism is the result of McCarthyism, pr. Trumen and the appearance of an atomic bomb in USA. Evolutionary, communism is a development from capitalism that will inevitably happen. In Russia there were special conditions that triggered the revolutionary method of the emergence of a pro-communist regime.Initially, there was a plan to continue the revolution, making it world-wide. But this plan was stopped by Stalin, like many utopic ideas of early Bolshevism.
Unfortunately, the leaders of the USSR distorted the original ideas of communism in the 1960s. They decided that communism is external signs of well-being (apartment, car, sausage). This gave rise to capitalist thinking in people. At the same time, the work of enterprises was transferred in part to capitalist methods of regulation. The enterprise manufacturing the products should have made it "profitable". In non-capitalist conditions, this led to a drop in the quality of products, a reduction in the variety of goods. In combination with capitalistic values, this led to dissatisfaction among people, which increased due to the fact that "in the West there was anything and it's better.". And, finally, the Gorbachev's perestroika finally destroyed the system that aspired to build communism. All this was by loss of understanding among people. we are building communism, and what is communism?
If you look at how successful mega corporations are, then you will see inside them a partial communism. Let's assume, there is part A, that makes raw material and part B that makes some prodution from it. This does not happen capitalist way, where A sells material to B. It does by communist scheme, where "A" has a plan with quantity, quality and delivery time of production. And hey, USA is full of Socialism -. trade unions, workers' rights, women's rights, insurance, benefits, social housing


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/02 06:40:01


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
A bad attitude towards communism is the result of McCarthyism, the trumpet and the appearance of an atomic bomb in USA. Evolutionary is a development from capitalism that will inevitably happen. In Russia there were special conditions that triggered the revolutionary method of the emergence of a pro-communist regime.Initially, there was a plan to continue the revolution, making it world-wide. But this plan was stopped by Stalin, like many utopic ideas of early Bolshevism.

No not really, fear of communism is what enabled McCarthyism in the first place, not the other way around. The atomic bomb has very little to do with it either, as it was developed during a time when the SU and US were still allies in WW2.
Russia did not have special conditions that triggered a communist revolution, just special conditions to trigger a revolution. Support for the Bolsheviks was initially not very high, but some skilled and ruthless political manoeuvring by Lenin enabled the Bolsheviks to seize power. If looking at the theoretical requirements for revolutionary communism Tsarist Russia would be one of the last candidates. Something Lenin and Stalin were both aware of. Also Stalin did not stop the world revolution. He rightly assessed that after Germany failed to become communist in the late 1910's/early 1920's and the invasion of Poland failed to link up to Germany that world revolution wasn't going to happen anytime soon, which is why he instituted "socialism in one country". As for 'utopic' ideas of early Bolshevism? Lenin saw repression and a strong secret police as vital from the start, not so much utopic as downright cynical.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/02 07:40:28


Post by: Freakazoitt


No not really, fear of communism is what enabled McCarthyism in the first place, not the other way around.

It was hyped up hysteria, as witch hunting in the Middle Ages, Jewish pogroms and, for example, the statement that Putin is responsible for all the problems of Ukraine. Actually, there are many similarities with what's going on in post-maidan Ukraine.
The atomic bomb has very little to do with it either, as it was developed during a time when the SU and US were still allies in WW2.

The Bomb ruined US SU relations in a moment. There is an opinion that the attack on Hiroshima was by the need to frighten Stalin, and not by military necessity.

Russia did not have special conditions that triggered a communist revolution, just special conditions to trigger a revolution.

Yeah, and it happen in February. But according to Lenin, February revolution was lack of very important thing - a party that will lead the country and transform it. Democrats has no ability to control anything. Social-revolutionrees were to terroristic in their methods and bolsheviks were most suited for that. They just filled the vacuum in the government.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/02 12:37:44


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
No not really, fear of communism is what enabled McCarthyism in the first place, not the other way around.

It was hyped up hysteria, as witch hunting in the Middle Ages, Jewish pogroms and, for example, the statement that Putin is responsible for all the problems of Ukraine. Actually, there are many similarities with what's going on in post-maidan Ukraine.

Yes, McCarthyism was a witch hunt, one driven by fear of communism, not driving that fear itself. An important distinction, communism was already feared before.
Its not that relatable to Ukraine. Seeing as the US didn't have part of its territory taken by Soviet Russian troops or those troops driving a civil war as happened to Ukraine.
 Freakazoitt wrote:
The atomic bomb has very little to do with it either, as it was developed during a time when the SU and US were still allies in WW2.

The Bomb ruined US SU relations in a moment. There is an opinion that the attack on Hiroshima was by the need to frighten Stalin, and not by military necessity.

No it didn't . The atomic bomb wasn't that important in relations. They were already going south beforehand. Which is exactly why the US could also use it as a demonstration, because the Cold War was already starting. It showed the US had a deterrent against the much more powerful Soviet ground army. The demonstration part of the nuclear bomb was a signal of worsening relations, not the start.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Russia did not have special conditions that triggered a communist revolution, just special conditions to trigger a revolution.

Yeah, and it happen in February. But according to Lenin, February revolution was lack of very important thing - a party that will lead the country and transform it. Democrats has no ability to control anything. Social-revolutionrees were to terroristic in their methods and bolsheviks were most suited for that. They just filled the vacuum in the government.

They filled the 'vacuum' with a coup d'etat. Hardly showing a natural inclination towards communist revolution. It just turned out the Bolsheviks were best organized to seize power. Plus its not like the Bolsheviks were averse to violence and terror themselves.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/09 12:55:18


Post by: Freakazoitt


Under communism, it will no need to produce a huge amount of unnecessary things that we are forced to buy now. But communism is more thinking way than technical. Now people have capitalist thinking. People want to have status things that will raise from above others. For example, some people buy full-frame cameras with huge lenses to be proud of owning it. Need such camera? Rent it and shoot what you need. Nooo. Do you want to ride a cool car? Rent it or go to some car hobby club. Under communism (yes, maybe cars will not be cool, but that's for another topic). But now it's not interesting for anyone to just ride a cool car. They need to OWN this car. Sometimes many of it. Perhaps now the human being is not yet ready for communism. I do not regret that it failed. So people did not want it. "Putin why we soo poor, do something" pff...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/09 18:14:48


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
Under communism, it will no need to produce a huge amount of unnecessary things that we are forced to buy now. But communism is more thinking way than technical. Now people have capitalist thinking. People want to have status things that will raise from above others. For example, some people buy full-frame cameras with huge lenses to be proud of owning it. Need such camera? Rent it and shoot what you need. Nooo. Do you want to ride a cool car? Rent it or go to some car hobby club. Under communism (yes, maybe cars will not be cool, but that's for another topic). But now it's not interesting for anyone to just ride a cool car. They need to OWN this car. Sometimes many of it. Perhaps now the human being is not yet ready for communism. I do not regret that it failed. So people did not want it. "Putin why we soo poor, do something" pff...

No, even under a more communist system the population will expect a certain standard of living. Its an important reason for the collapse of communist countries, they can't provide or finance a standard of living the population wants, so either the people leave or the economy goes under. Communism has to be able to provide that certain level, people should't expect less, else it will never work. Either the whole world goes at once or people will always be envious.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/09 19:11:59


Post by: Freakazoitt


No, even under a more communist system the population will expect a certain standard of living.

Correctly. And in the beginning they got it. Moved from the dugouts to the commune housing and then to apartments. Not immediately, but hunger won. Have the right, if desired, to educate and make any career. There are no restrictions due to nationality or because you are not an aristocrat. In the 50s, the standard of living was restored after the attack of fascist Europe and their leader (idol of some young morons today). But in this very goal there was a defeat. Communism is not an apartment, it's not a sausage, not jeans, not a car and not tanks with rockets. the Party pursued the improvement of the quality of life and so infected people's thoughts with capitalism. And trying to build communism with the capitalism things they destroyed the economy, found themselves in everything that lagged behind the USA, lost the meaning of the slogan "to build communism". People felt deprived and of the inferior to "holy western paradise" . this idea is simple and old. "I want to live better than others." even if I am a slave owner or will suffer for a low salary 10 others. but I deserve it, and they not yet. People even support war and die like the Germans, who were promised estates and slav slaves. Hence people are still at a low stage of thinking development, since they are so easily confused. Why did people take to the streets against the USSR regime? For the phantom idea that they will be rich. And they were right, cause Party became oligarchy. the majority of the population has not lived better since. And in the 90's the majority lived worse. What has changed? Rich became much richer. And now the West simply does not respect Russia. And the oligarchy does not care about this - their capital in Switzerland, and the children in London.

Its an important reason for the collapse of communist countries

cause in the greed of people and base desires to rise up and gak on the head to others. For example socialism would improve the quality of life of the population of countries such as South America,. but they are willing to tolerate the existing system because of the illusory chance to someday become a rich man and manage a plantation where other "losers" work or at the very least escape to the US


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/09 20:03:24


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
No, even under a more communist system the population will expect a certain standard of living.

Correctly. And in the beginning they got it. Moved from the dugouts to the commune housing and then to apartments. Not immediately, but hunger won. Have the right, if desired, to educate and make any career. There are no restrictions due to nationality or because you are not an aristocrat. In the 50s, the standard of living was restored after the attack of fascist Europe and their leader (idol of some young morons today). But in this very goal there was a defeat. Communism is not an apartment, it's not a sausage, not jeans, not a car and not tanks with rockets. the Party pursued the improvement of the quality of life and so infected people's thoughts with capitalism. And trying to build communism with the capitalism things they destroyed the economy, found themselves in everything that lagged behind the USA, lost the meaning of the slogan "to build communism". People felt deprived and of the inferior to "holy western paradise" . this idea is simple and old. "I want to live better than others." even if I am a slave owner or will suffer for a low salary 10 others. but I deserve it, and they not yet. People even support war and die like the Germans, who were promised estates and slav slaves. Hence people are still at a low stage of thinking development, since they are so easily confused. Why did people take to the streets against the USSR regime? For the phantom idea that they will be rich. And they were right, cause Party became oligarchy. the majority of the population has not lived better since. And in the 90's the majority lived worse. What has changed? Rich became much richer. And now the West simply does not respect Russia. And the oligarchy does not care about this - their capital in Switzerland, and the children in London.

Its an important reason for the collapse of communist countries

cause in the greed of people and base desires to rise up and gak on the head to others. For example socialism would improve the quality of life of the population of countries such as South America,. but they are willing to tolerate the existing system because of the illusory chance to someday become a rich man and manage a plantation where other "losers" work or at the very least escape to the US

"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies? Socialism/communism is inherently about being able to provide a better life, that's not just capitalism. A better life also means having a thing like a car or an appartment. In the end what killed the Soviet Union was its inability to keep improving people's lives while facing severe economic problems combined with an authoritarian government. China shows most people can accept an authoritarian state, as long as it keeps providing better.

The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense. They have opposing goals that haven't changed because of 91. Politically the situation hasn't changed much since 91 either. Just a slightly different group of corrupt self enriching oligarchs. Those things lead to inherent dislike. Russia is respected as a player, just disliked because of how it plays the game,the same went for the SU.

Real life theoretical socialism would be great for the world. But like you said people tend to ruin it with greed. Give people power to change and they change the amount in their bank account. Communist countries that existed for decades never managed to make enough progress to stop having poor people. Political socialism is seemingly a pipedream, maybe technology will find a way. Even the true 'believers' failed.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/09 20:12:52


Post by: Iron_Captain


Yes, the Soviets became popular because they provided a better life for people. When they no longer were able to do so (while Western countries were) they lost a lot of their popularity. Which meant that people started looking to other ideologies such as ethnic nationalism and people like Yeltsin instead.
You can call that capitalist thinking and that is right, but I also think, that to some degree 'capitalist thinking' is natural for human beings. We always want more. All people are greedy, and politicians are especially greedy. Even the "communists".


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/09 20:27:50


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, the Soviets became popular because they provided a better life for people. When they no longer were able to do so (while Western countries were) they lost a lot of their popularity. Which meant that people started looking to other ideologies such as ethnic nationalism and people like Yeltsin instead.
You can call that capitalist thinking and that is right, but I also think, that to some degree 'capitalist thinking' is natural for human beings. We always want more. All people are greedy, and politicians are especially greedy. Even the "communists".

Well wanting a better life is inherent to people. A better metric for how 'greedy' or 'capitalist' people are is how much is enough. When do they feel others should be looked after/provided for. After getting a decent house? A mansion? Never enough? Most people aren't dead set against some part of socialism, they have problems with socialism/communism if it seemingly can't provide better. Of course some people never want to share because they feel like in capitalism everybody should "be able to make it". And a lot of people are fine with socialist inspired policies as long as they themselves don't have to pay more/lessen their standards for it. People are on a sliding scale of 'capitalist', but wanting better is inherently human, from socialist to libertarian on the political spectrum.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 01:50:59


Post by: Mario


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well wanting a better life is inherent to people. A better metric for how 'greedy' or 'capitalist' people are is how much is enough. When do they feel others should be looked after/provided for. After getting a decent house? A mansion? Never enough? Most people aren't dead set against some part of socialism, they have problems with socialism/communism if it seemingly can't provide better. Of course some people never want to share because they feel like in capitalism everybody should "be able to make it". And a lot of people are fine with socialist inspired policies as long as they themselves don't have to pay more/lessen their standards for it. People are on a sliding scale of 'capitalist', but wanting better is inherently human, from socialist to libertarian on the political spectrum.
True, the difference is in a communist system the failure to provide the comforts of everyday life are blamed on the system while in a system that's driven by capitalism we find ways to blame people for their misfortune instead. They are lazy, didn't work hard enough, are parasites, and so on.

If somebody can't find a job it's their fault and not the system that has huge incentives to reduce the workforce as much as possible and squeeze the ones who work for you while increasing automation and driving cost down as much as possible (because that's how you amass more capital). A growing percentage of millennials can't afford to move out of their parents home or start families but somebody will find a way to write a nonsensical article about how they are the ones destroying this or that industry (real estate, diamonds, restaurants,…) instead of blaming the comparatively ridiculously more powerful economic forces that are shaping the world around millennials (and the rest of us humans).

The poverty rate is blamed on the poor and not on the ones who actually have the money and power to change things. As if the poor who have no means to change their situation or a few people "abusing" social services a bit (to survive or live better lives) can have the same economic impact as a company weaselling its way into getting millions in subsidies and draining your tax €s/$s. The company is seen as smart for bending the system to its needs yet the poor as seen as abusing it.

There were recently articles about some people in their twenties who couldn't afford insulin (I think both were not eligible to be included in their parents healthcare plan anymore) and died in the USA. They died because of capitalism and its inherent incentives. In other developed countries healthcare services are heavily regulated because those don't work in an capitalistic open market. If you need insulin to live then it's literary priceless to you. And if somebody's allowed to abuse that situation you end up with people dying of easily preventable diseases because instead of focusing on cheap medicine the priority was profit and thus on new patentable/protectable variations of already existing and affordable compounds. Is there a limit of how much of your wealth you would be willing to spend if it meant you wouldn't die?

It's important to remember when people mention how many millions died under communist regimes that people die under the influence of capitalism too, also due to the system's failings. The difference is who gets the blame (system vs individual). Take the 2012 Dhaka fire (it was just the first google result): "At least 117 people were confirmed dead in the fire, and over 200 were injured" because we need cheap stuff no matter the cost but nobody adds up all those dead bodies and points at the systemic failures of capitalism. It was the workers' fault for not finding better and safer jobs or the factory owner's fault for being greedy, it was the US/European companies' (who import the product) fault because of their need for profit maximisation, and so on. It's everybody but the underlying system.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 03:48:38


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies?

Germany, which wanted to fight. To avenge the defeat in the WW1. And the WW1 they also started. This is fascism. And hey - Spain is fascist, Italy is fascist, Germany is fascist, Vici France is pro-fascist and lesser countries were happy "good! with German's help we will make Our Little Great Countryname from Baltic to Black Sea!". Do you think only the personality of Hitler and the Nazi party are responsible for this? No, this is where the crowd corporately motivates that they can become some kind of "nobles" and that they are better than others just because they are of some nationality, which is characteristic not only of the nazis. See that Europeans are saying now: "I am proud being German nationality" under some Wehrmacht videos. Who are you to be proud of it? What did you personally do to be proud of? And what are you trying to be proud of? The fact that your country twice arranged a world war, committed war crimes and finally lost that wars? What is so good about it? Or quotes like "I'm nostalgic about the good old days when we had eggs." You did not have any eggs, you were brainwashed you have it to send you fight war and die. There was imperialism, which sent crowds of people to fight with each other for the benefit of the elites. And the fools were happy to die for the sake of the wealth of their masters, because they were motivated by these nationalistic values "I am proud to die for my king/emperor/fuhrer"

China shows most people can accept an authoritarian state, as long as it keeps providing better.

politically, the difference is not large with the rest of the countries. Illusion of free elections. Candidates are pre-selected and approved by the establishment. And if there are incidents like Trump, then they can correct his decisions. We will see how many promises he will make. Well, or ours free election between Putin and Putin? Haha.


The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense.

But now they respect much less. The country has no principles, no ideology, no unifying idea, no slogan, it can not be of any interest to other countries to cooperate with it, except for accusations against "evil America."

Real life theoretical socialism would be great for the world. But like you said people tend to ruin it with greed.

The fact is that there will not be enough resources for all people. It is impossible to make everyone go to Bentley. but you can do to go on Ford or Fiat. and here people for the sake of a miserable chance to get a Bentley refuse to evenly distribute the benefits. and now they can take anything else on credit, becoming a slave of bank owner.

Mario wrote:


There were recently articles about some people in their twenties who couldn't afford insulin (I think both were not eligible to be included in their parents healthcare plan anymore) and died in the USA. They died because of capitalism and its inherent incentives. In other developed countries healthcare services are heavily regulated because those don't work in an capitalistic open market. If you need insulin to live then it's literary priceless to you. And if somebody's allowed to abuse that situation you end up with people dying of easily preventable diseases because instead of focusing on cheap medicine the priority was profit and thus on new patentable/protectable variations of already existing and affordable compounds. Is there a limit of how much of your wealth you would be willing to spend if it meant you wouldn't die?

.

There are "motivational" articles saying "everyone has the opportunity (under capitalism) to earn money and become a patron, helping others and its motivate you to become successful/rich". but hey, when you give something for free to someone else who does not have it - this is communism


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 08:53:04


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Mario wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well wanting a better life is inherent to people. A better metric for how 'greedy' or 'capitalist' people are is how much is enough. When do they feel others should be looked after/provided for. After getting a decent house? A mansion? Never enough? Most people aren't dead set against some part of socialism, they have problems with socialism/communism if it seemingly can't provide better. Of course some people never want to share because they feel like in capitalism everybody should "be able to make it". And a lot of people are fine with socialist inspired policies as long as they themselves don't have to pay more/lessen their standards for it. People are on a sliding scale of 'capitalist', but wanting better is inherently human, from socialist to libertarian on the political spectrum.
True, the difference is in a communist system the failure to provide the comforts of everyday life are blamed on the system while in a system that's driven by capitalism we find ways to blame people for their misfortune instead. They are lazy, didn't work hard enough, are parasites, and so on.

If somebody can't find a job it's their fault and not the system that has huge incentives to reduce the workforce as much as possible and squeeze the ones who work for you while increasing automation and driving cost down as much as possible (because that's how you amass more capital). A growing percentage of millennials can't afford to move out of their parents home or start families but somebody will find a way to write a nonsensical article about how they are the ones destroying this or that industry (real estate, diamonds, restaurants,…) instead of blaming the comparatively ridiculously more powerful economic forces that are shaping the world around millennials (and the rest of us humans).

The poverty rate is blamed on the poor and not on the ones who actually have the money and power to change things. As if the poor who have no means to change their situation or a few people "abusing" social services a bit (to survive or live better lives) can have the same economic impact as a company weaselling its way into getting millions in subsidies and draining your tax €s/$s. The company is seen as smart for bending the system to its needs yet the poor as seen as abusing it.

There were recently articles about some people in their twenties who couldn't afford insulin (I think both were not eligible to be included in their parents healthcare plan anymore) and died in the USA. They died because of capitalism and its inherent incentives. In other developed countries healthcare services are heavily regulated because those don't work in an capitalistic open market. If you need insulin to live then it's literary priceless to you. And if somebody's allowed to abuse that situation you end up with people dying of easily preventable diseases because instead of focusing on cheap medicine the priority was profit and thus on new patentable/protectable variations of already existing and affordable compounds. Is there a limit of how much of your wealth you would be willing to spend if it meant you wouldn't die?

It's important to remember when people mention how many millions died under communist regimes that people die under the influence of capitalism too, also due to the system's failings. The difference is who gets the blame (system vs individual). Take the 2012 Dhaka fire (it was just the first google result): "At least 117 people were confirmed dead in the fire, and over 200 were injured" because we need cheap stuff no matter the cost but nobody adds up all those dead bodies and points at the systemic failures of capitalism. It was the workers' fault for not finding better and safer jobs or the factory owner's fault for being greedy, it was the US/European companies' (who import the product) fault because of their need for profit maximisation, and so on. It's everybody but the underlying system.

Agreed overall, good points. On the last part about deaths, its different parts of system failure. In capitalism it is frequently corrupt or weak governments that are held to economic ransom like Bangladesh. That argument doesn't really work for the kind of authoritarian communist states we have seen. Deaths in a capitalist system are failures of weaker government and also significant disinterest about how stuff is made for us in the West. That's the difference between the failures, one is more economic thriving off weak government and consumer apathy, the other is powerful delusional government. In capitalism it is a symptom of the underlying system on how power and money works, for communism it didn't have to be that way, but in real life those governments chose to do it that way.
Ironically the very thing that caused a lot of death in communist countries (i.e. strong government) is exactly what 'capitalist' countries need to combat the excesses of capitalism, by passing and enforcing things like labor laws. Of course even certain Western countries still suffer from 'weaker' governments who have decided it falls to the individual to take care of themselves and let the market control vital aspects with no supply-demand pressure like medicine. Sadly that in part seems to be the 'democratic' choice that people in poorer countries don't get.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 09:35:50


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies?

Germany, which wanted to fight. To avenge the defeat in the WW1. And the WW1 they also started. This is fascism. And hey - Spain is fascist, Italy is fascist, Germany is fascist, Vici France is pro-fascist and lesser countries were happy "good! with German's help we will make Our Little Great Countryname from Baltic to Black Sea!". Do you think only the personality of Hitler and the Nazi party are responsible for this? No, this is where the crowd corporately motivates that they can become some kind of "nobles" and that they are better than others just because they are of some nationality, which is characteristic not only of the nazis. See that Europeans are saying now: "I am proud being German nationality" under some Wehrmacht videos. Who are you to be proud of it? What did you personally do to be proud of? And what are you trying to be proud of? The fact that your country twice arranged a world war, committed war crimes and finally lost that wars? What is so good about it? Or quotes like "I'm nostalgic about the good old days when we had eggs." You did not have any eggs, you were brainwashed you have it to send you fight war and die. There was imperialism, which sent crowds of people to fight with each other for the benefit of the elites. And the fools were happy to die for the sake of the wealth of their masters, because they were motivated by these nationalistic values "I am proud to die for my king/emperor/fuhrer"

The way you said Fascist Europe sounded strange. Because plenty of Europe was occupied thanks in part to the Soviet deal with Nazi Germany to cover its flank and provide critical resources for the war. Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland. Vichy France was an odd German ally as Free France also existed, but Vichy France never actually helped out Germany with troops on the Eastern Front like Italy, Hungary, Romania and others did.

The feeling better part is just what we call nationalism with or without racism mixed in, its horrible, but lets not pretend its just European. Even Russia went through that phase before the SU toned it down a bit. Also the comments under Wehrmacht videos are disgusting, but those people exist, but those comments are nothing compared to the German AFD party actually being ran by people who say they should be proud of the Wehrmacht again, which is an insane can of worms. Yet downplaying your own atrocities is not inherently European either, both further from the center right and left politics involve a good deal of whitewashing crimes. The PRC does it, the AfD wants to do it, communist hold outs in Russia do, just as some parties in the Netherlands think we should be proud of our past (which the represent through images of our colonial past which was plenty bloody).

Communism had plenty of fighting and dying for the elites too. The problem is that every country with an army will likely eventually end up in a war with the young dying for the elite. Communism had their own ideals to die for in war, instead of nationalism it was for example dying for the world revolution i.e. the war between the SU and Poland in the 1920's.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
China shows most people can accept an authoritarian state, as long as it keeps providing better.

politically, the difference is not large with the rest of the countries. Illusion of free elections. Candidates are pre-selected and approved by the establishment. And if there are incidents like Trump, then they can correct his decisions. We will see how many promises he will make. Well, or ours free election between Putin and Putin? Haha.

The difference could be large, it mainly depends on the extent and invasiveness of a police state. If leaving aside the police state you could say no elections, but in exchange you get long term planning and so on. China uses Trump as an example of why elections are bad (because he's making the US look stupid they say) and a stable long term government is better, of course it suits their narrative but it helps he kinda makes it for them. The problem as you point out is that authoritarian governments can also not care about improving the situation of its population. Overall people would prefer to live in democracies, as they tend to have more benefits both individually and for society on the whole.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense.

But now they respect much less. The country has no principles, no ideology, no unifying idea, no slogan, it can not be of any interest to other countries to cooperate with it, except for accusations against "evil America."

Well that's not because of the collapse of the SU, at first there was great hope that ties between Russia-US-Europe would become better and that perhaps together they might become the new West (very optimistic). Yet the oligarchy that moved in kind of blocked and destroyed that idea. Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there. Plus Russia has a very pragmatic (some would say cynical) approach to international politics which makes it a usefull partner or independent third party to some countries. Yes it might not carry the same sort of weight the SU did, but its still pretty important.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Real life theoretical socialism would be great for the world. But like you said people tend to ruin it with greed.

The fact is that there will not be enough resources for all people. It is impossible to make everyone go to Bentley. but you can do to go on Ford or Fiat. and here people for the sake of a miserable chance to get a Bentley refuse to evenly distribute the benefits. and now they can take anything else on credit, becoming a slave of bank owner.

Exactly, people have to settle for a good life instead of one of incredible luxury. Better and more responsible division of resources means we could all have a pretty good life. And having a ford and a decent house sounds pretty good to most of us, but not to those who already have more.

Tht the system has managed to trick people through things like the "American Dream" is pretty impressive. But even in Europe there are plenty of voters who don't want to pay a single cent more so that others can have it better, even if they already have a good life themselves. In the Netherlands for example the government is trying to reduce benefits for older people that are retired. The older people are dominating politics (because there are just more of them in general) and are fighting tooth and nail to stop it. Yet the cold hard truth is that those same old people are the wealthiest demographic group, with benefits that were paid for by their parents and will be paid for over the backs of my generation (their children). Everything for my generation is facing cuts and when we get old the government won't be able to afford the 'generosity' old people get now. Frankly its ridiculous, the economic outlook as Mario pointed out for our generation is getting worse, just because the wealthiest group can't settle for a little less for the benefit of their own children.

Socialism can be great, but one group can also domineer and exploit it like in the Dutch example. That isn't a failure of socialism though. The government could have seen this problem from a mile away with declining birth rates. They put short term political gain over the long term health of the system.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 11:16:05


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland.

What deal are you talking about? SU was preparing for war with the Polish all the way 1920s 30s. Obviously, the fall of Poland was caused by betrayal of Britain. And what did Poland do when Germany attacked Czechoslovakia? Led the troops there to take a piece of territory. Do we call Polish deal with Hitler? We can, technically. But it is not necessary., because Poland and Germany were obviouse enemies. So it is not necessary to say that the USSR had business with Hitler. About France. How many troops occupied/Vici France provided for Hitler? More than Free France army had troops. it's good that the people of Italy have woken up and left fascism. But the Nazis did not. decided to destroy their own country and die in Berlin. Even after defeat many werent changed their ideas.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Even Russia went through that phase before the SU toned it down a bit.

They are still there. Generating a lot of stupidity like "Slavs were arians, who arrived in vimanas and lived in Hyderborea" and then what happen? yeah, of source jew masons came and destroyed their paradise. Or "history is false, there were Great Tartaria with real arians, but destroyed by Nuclear bombs in 1800s". It's not even funny, just dumb. Or "If there will be tsar, he will kill all jews and everything will be cool, we all wil became nobles". Same idea as mentioned before. They dont' think about 85% of peasant. They think they will be in small % of nobles. Or ideas of returning to paganism. But hey, why there is a swastika? It's not swastika, it's ancient Kolovrat solar symbol! they say. Yes of course.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nothing compared to the German AFD party actually being ran by people who say they should be proud of the Wehrmacht again, which is an insane can of worms.

If they say so, then it will be a real war soon or later. and as usual, the profit from this won will be to the same imperialists. but what will get those who went to war? "pride". it's free. But I think in current Germany there are smart people who understand that it's easier to remove fascists than to go to war for "proud". It's not even acient war for simple looting.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Communism had their own ideals to die for in war, instead of nationalism it was for example dying for the world revolution

high goals such as the world revolution for the sake of the common good - this is too difficult for a lot of people. it's much easier to promise him something like "go fight for the great Ukraine and the European visa." By the way, Europe seems to have refused a visa to Ukrainians. but they fought and died for it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

. the war between the SU and Poland in the 1920's.
This is the consequences of not fully understanding the situation. Poland was perceived as an artificial formation imposed by the anti-Bolshevik Treaty of Versailles, and on this territory the oppressed Poles and Byelorussians live, who will be happy about the war. It turned out - they are not happy to see Bolsheviks. By the way, if they had won, they could have supported the Communists comrades in Germany and nazis would not came power But this is an alternative story and fantasy. I do not know maybe the place of "the worst" would have been occupied by Stalin. in history. then, it came to 1939. By the way, Churchill supported the actions of the USSR then. Well, it's not good. Somehow it happened. Well, Finland. And why interfere with the strengthening of the defense of the USSR against Germany? You or neutral, then be neutral. Once he began to cooperate with Germany, well, what else to expect.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The problem as you point out is that authoritarian governments can also not care about improving the situation of its population. Overall people would prefer to live in democracies, as they tend to have more benefits both individually and for society on the whole.

We in Russia have a democratic government. Is it beneficial for government to improve people's lives? What for? Is it profitable for them to develop their economies? It is more like they should. But they do not. And what can people do? Nothing. Business is not profitable. Just get out of here and get work in "normal" capitalist countries.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there.

It is more like a struggle for existence than counterbalance. At what our oligarchy do not care what will happen to the country, if the resistance is finally broken.



For example, in Scandinavia there is somwthing like socialism. It because of the small population and the availability of resources. And these resources are not captured by foreign capital. And their government is not greedy (which is strange )



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 14:03:14


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland.

What deal are you talking about? SU was preparing for war with the Polish all the way 1920s 30s. Obviously, the fall of Poland was caused by betrayal of Britain. And what did Poland do when Germany attacked Czechoslovakia? Led the troops there to take a piece of territory. Do we call Polish deal with Hitler? We can, technically. But it is not necessary., because Poland and Germany were obviouse enemies. So it is not necessary to say that the USSR had business with Hitler. About France. How many troops occupied/Vici France provided for Hitler? More than Free France army had troops. it's good that the people of Italy have woken up and left fascism. But the Nazis did not. decided to destroy their own country and die in Berlin. Even after defeat many werent changed their ideas.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The fall of Poland was in no way caused by betrayal by Britain. It was caused by the invasion of Stalin and Hitler. Yes, Poland wasn't such a nice country during the partition of Czechoslovakia. But neither was the SU for the partition of Poland. Does that imply the SU deserved what happened in any way? No, and neither does it do that for Poland. But the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed Hitler to wage a good part of the Second World War with a secure flank and strategic resources for the Nazi war effort provided by the Soviets. It is really necessary to say that, because beyond the support to the Nazi war machines that pact with Hitler allowed Stalin to annex part of Poland, the Baltics, Bessarabia and war with Finland.

Vichy France provided no troops for Hitler. Vichy French troops stayed in the parts of French territory that was still in control by Vichy. The troops aso were useless because when push came to shove Hitler took over from Vichy France and had German troops occupy it to defend the southern flank of Europe. The Nazis not leaving fascism makes sense with them being the actual Nazis and all that. It was easier for them to maintain the grip on power than it was for Mussolini when half his country had fallen. Besides, the thorough defeat of Nazism inside Germany was seen as important to stop another stab in the back myth from emerging like after WW1.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Even Russia went through that phase before the SU toned it down a bit.

They are still there. Generating a lot of stupidity like "Slavs were arians, who arrived in vimanas and lived in Hyderborea" and then what happen? yeah, of source jew masons came and destroyed their paradise. Or "history is false, there were Great Tartaria with real arians, but destroyed by Nuclear bombs in 1800s". It's not even funny, just dumb. Or "If there will be tsar, he will kill all jews and everything will be cool, we all wil became nobles". Same idea as mentioned before. They dont' think about 85% of peasant. They think they will be in small % of nobles. Or ideas of returning to paganism. But hey, why there is a swastika? It's not swastika, it's ancient Kolovrat solar symbol! they say. Yes of course.

Fascist supporters exist in every country and they are real scumbags, but sadly some people are just terrible people. Those are some very strange beliefs though, ridiculous

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nothing compared to the German AFD party actually being ran by people who say they should be proud of the Wehrmacht again, which is an insane can of worms.

If they say so, then it will be a real war soon or later. and as usual, the profit from this won will be to the same imperialists. but what will get those who went to war? "pride". it's free. But I think in current Germany there are smart people who understand that it's easier to remove fascists than to go to war for "proud". It's not even acient war for simple looting.

No, there won't be war soon. These are the extreme elements in the AfD and most of their voters wouldn't agree with that part, beyond the party not having the electoral support to get really big. Also Germany is in no condition to go to war with Russia. Its army is not big enough, Russia has nukes and Germany is heavily tied up in European and American political and defensive ties. Any potential war between Russia and just Germany will be in a far and freaky future.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Communism had their own ideals to die for in war, instead of nationalism it was for example dying for the world revolution

high goals such as the world revolution for the sake of the common good - this is too difficult for a lot of people. it's much easier to promise him something like "go fight for the great Ukraine and the European visa." By the way, Europe seems to have refused a visa to Ukrainians. but they fought and died for it.

The 'common good' has led to countless deaths. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Almost all communist victims died for the 'common good'. Its no better reason to go to war over than nationalism, its just delusional that they used to think so. EU relations with Ukraine are complicated and messy to say the least, especially with a civil war in the country. The people at Maidan protested for closer ties with the EU, but everything that happened after has made it more difficult.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

. the war between the SU and Poland in the 1920's.
This is the consequences of not fully understanding the situation. Poland was perceived as an artificial formation imposed by the anti-Bolshevik Treaty of Versailles, and on this territory the oppressed Poles and Byelorussians live, who will be happy about the war. It turned out - they are not happy to see Bolsheviks. By the way, if they had won, they could have supported the Communists comrades in Germany and nazis would not came power But this is an alternative story and fantasy. I do not know maybe the place of "the worst" would have been occupied by Stalin. in history. then, it came to 1939. By the way, Churchill supported the actions of the USSR then. Well, it's not good. Somehow it happened. Well, Finland. And why interfere with the strengthening of the defense of the USSR against Germany? You or neutral, then be neutral. Once he began to cooperate with Germany, well, what else to expect.

Poland was not a product of Versailles per se though. The Brest-Litovsk agreement between Germany and Russia already ceded those areas to Germany and made Russia renounce its claims on Poland. Lenin actually supported the Brest-Litovsk agreement, he signed it. So the Soviets reneged on their treaty later. If they managed to conquer Poland in the 20's there was no guarantee that Germany would have turned socialist. Significant and powerful parts of German society were firmly anti-communist. On top of the fact that the 1918 Allies might have actually supported Germany in a war with the Soviet Union.

Churchill did not support the Soviet actions in 1939. The British were aghast that Hitler and Stalin had actually signed a pact. There was some consideration on the part of France and Britain to actually go to war with the Soviet Union over the war in Finland. Stalin didn't strengthen the SU with the its alliance to Hitler, it actually strengthened Nazi Germany and catastrophically exposed the Soviets to the 1941 invasion. If anything, the 1939 pact weakened Stalin, with a more defensible border being left for an exposed forward position. Stalin cooperated more with Hitler than Churchill ever did, seeing as Churchill wasn't in power in 1939.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The problem as you point out is that authoritarian governments can also not care about improving the situation of its population. Overall people would prefer to live in democracies, as they tend to have more benefits both individually and for society on the whole.

We in Russia have a democratic government. Is it beneficial for government to improve people's lives? What for? Is it profitable for them to develop their economies? It is more like they should. But they do not. And what can people do? Nothing. Business is not profitable. Just get out of here and get work in "normal" capitalist countries.

Its not exactly democratic though, it has some of the trappings of a democracy, but it really isn't once. Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy with a little democratic veneer over it. The Russian economy is not helped by the massive corruption of the oligarchs, it might have turned into a decent economy if not for the catastrophic push towards instant capitalism. The example of China provides a more gradual and slightly more beneficial path without the collapse.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there.

It is more like a struggle for existence than counterbalance. At what our oligarchy do not care what will happen to the country, if the resistance is finally broken.

Its not a struggle for existence. Russia and China are actively preventing a more active role of the West through the prevention of UN mandates, that goes beyond mere existence.


 Freakazoitt wrote:
For example, in Scandinavia there is somwthing like socialism. It because of the small population and the availability of resources. And these resources are not captured by foreign capital. And their government is not greedy (which is strange )

Scandinavia has taken socialism quite far policy wise. Resource wise Scandinavia is pretty poor, but good long term planning based on demographics and taxes should enable most modern economies to maintain that. If Russia's economy transitions into calmer and more prosperous waters they might establish a similar system, but the current political climate combined with the economy and poverty levels make it hard to do so with resource income on a downward trend. A stable and relatively wealthy tax base is enough for a Scandinavian model, if the political will is there,


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 14:16:37


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies?

Germany, which wanted to fight. To avenge the defeat in the WW1. And the WW1 they also started. This is fascism. And hey - Spain is fascist, Italy is fascist, Germany is fascist, Vici France is pro-fascist and lesser countries were happy "good! with German's help we will make Our Little Great Countryname from Baltic to Black Sea!". Do you think only the personality of Hitler and the Nazi party are responsible for this? No, this is where the crowd corporately motivates that they can become some kind of "nobles" and that they are better than others just because they are of some nationality, which is characteristic not only of the nazis. See that Europeans are saying now: "I am proud being German nationality" under some Wehrmacht videos. Who are you to be proud of it? What did you personally do to be proud of? And what are you trying to be proud of? The fact that your country twice arranged a world war, committed war crimes and finally lost that wars? What is so good about it? Or quotes like "I'm nostalgic about the good old days when we had eggs." You did not have any eggs, you were brainwashed you have it to send you fight war and die. There was imperialism, which sent crowds of people to fight with each other for the benefit of the elites. And the fools were happy to die for the sake of the wealth of their masters, because they were motivated by these nationalistic values "I am proud to die for my king/emperor/fuhrer"

The way you said Fascist Europe sounded strange. Because plenty of Europe was occupied thanks in part to the Soviet deal with Nazi Germany to cover its flank and provide critical resources for the war. Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland. Vichy France was an odd German ally as Free France also existed, but Vichy France never actually helped out Germany with troops on the Eastern Front like Italy, Hungary, Romania and others did.
Hey, we just wanted to maintain Poland as a nice little buffer between the USSR and the Nazis. The only alternative was to let the Nazis take all of Poland, so it is not like the Soviets had much of a choice.
Also, Vichy France did help out the Nazis with troops on other fronts. I feel that in general, a distinction should be made against people and countries who willingly aided and supported the Nazis such as Italy and Vichy France and those who actually opposed the Nazis but were kinda forced by circumstances to ally with them, such as Hungary and Finland.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:

The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense.

But now they respect much less. The country has no principles, no ideology, no unifying idea, no slogan, it can not be of any interest to other countries to cooperate with it, except for accusations against "evil America."

Well that's not because of the collapse of the SU, at first there was great hope that ties between Russia-US-Europe would become better and that perhaps together they might become the new West (very optimistic). Yet the oligarchy that moved in kind of blocked and destroyed that idea. Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there. Plus Russia has a very pragmatic (some would say cynical) approach to international politics which makes it a usefull partner or independent third party to some countries. Yes it might not carry the same sort of weight the SU did, but its still pretty important.

No, no, that is not at all how it went. The oligarchy wanted cooperation with the West. And after Putin and the siloviks broke the power of the oligarchs, they also wanted closer ties to the West. But the West did not want closer ties to Russia. NATO broke its word with its eastward expansion, surrounding Russia. Then they bombed Serbia. The West consistently ignored and marginalised Russia. The list of slights (real and perceived) is long. They did not respond to offers of friendship, but kept criticising and treating Russia as an enemy. Russia was clearly not respected anymore. This was a very humiliating experience and it is what has led to the rise of anti-Western sentiment and Russian nationalism in Russia.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Socialism can be great, but one group can also domineer and exploit it like in the Dutch example. That isn't a failure of socialism though. The government could have seen this problem from a mile away with declining birth rates. They put short term political gain over the long term health of the system.
As all politicians do. It is one of the big failures of democracy, as already observed by people such as Plato, Aristotle or Machiavelli thousands of years ago.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 14:37:03


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies?

Germany, which wanted to fight. To avenge the defeat in the WW1. And the WW1 they also started. This is fascism. And hey - Spain is fascist, Italy is fascist, Germany is fascist, Vici France is pro-fascist and lesser countries were happy "good! with German's help we will make Our Little Great Countryname from Baltic to Black Sea!". Do you think only the personality of Hitler and the Nazi party are responsible for this? No, this is where the crowd corporately motivates that they can become some kind of "nobles" and that they are better than others just because they are of some nationality, which is characteristic not only of the nazis. See that Europeans are saying now: "I am proud being German nationality" under some Wehrmacht videos. Who are you to be proud of it? What did you personally do to be proud of? And what are you trying to be proud of? The fact that your country twice arranged a world war, committed war crimes and finally lost that wars? What is so good about it? Or quotes like "I'm nostalgic about the good old days when we had eggs." You did not have any eggs, you were brainwashed you have it to send you fight war and die. There was imperialism, which sent crowds of people to fight with each other for the benefit of the elites. And the fools were happy to die for the sake of the wealth of their masters, because they were motivated by these nationalistic values "I am proud to die for my king/emperor/fuhrer"

The way you said Fascist Europe sounded strange. Because plenty of Europe was occupied thanks in part to the Soviet deal with Nazi Germany to cover its flank and provide critical resources for the war. Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland. Vichy France was an odd German ally as Free France also existed, but Vichy France never actually helped out Germany with troops on the Eastern Front like Italy, Hungary, Romania and others did.
Hey, we just wanted to maintain Poland as a nice little buffer between the USSR and the Nazis. The only alternative was to let the Nazis take all of Poland, so it is not like the Soviets had much of a choice.
Also, Vichy France did help out the Nazis with troops on other fronts. I feel that in general, a distinction should be made against people and countries who willingly aided and supported the Nazis such as Italy and Vichy France and those who actually opposed the Nazis but were kinda forced by circumstances to ally with them, such as Hungary and Finland.

A buffer, fine. Did Stalin also have to supply resources for the Nazi war machine and annex the Baltics? No. They had choices, they gave a lot more than required, plus it put the Red Army exposed on a silver platter. It was a mistake that only made Hitler stronger.
Well Vichy France didn't. Its troops stayed in Vichy territory where they ended up clashing with the Allies. But that wasn't done to help Hitler. Yes they should distinguish. Although I'm not sure I would put Hungary in the forced category from the start. Italy and Vichy France were on different levels as well.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:

The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense.

But now they respect much less. The country has no principles, no ideology, no unifying idea, no slogan, it can not be of any interest to other countries to cooperate with it, except for accusations against "evil America."

Well that's not because of the collapse of the SU, at first there was great hope that ties between Russia-US-Europe would become better and that perhaps together they might become the new West (very optimistic). Yet the oligarchy that moved in kind of blocked and destroyed that idea. Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there. Plus Russia has a very pragmatic (some would say cynical) approach to international politics which makes it a usefull partner or independent third party to some countries. Yes it might not carry the same sort of weight the SU did, but its still pretty important.

No, no, that is not at all how it went. The oligarchy wanted cooperation with the West. And after Putin and the siloviks broke the power of the oligarchs, they also wanted closer ties to the West. But the West did not want closer ties to Russia. NATO broke its word with its eastward expansion, surrounding Russia. Then they bombed Serbia. The West consistently ignored and marginalised Russia. The list of slights (real and perceived) is long. They did not respond to offers of friendship, but kept criticising and treating Russia as an enemy. Russia was clearly not respected anymore. This was a very humiliating experience and it is what has led to the rise of anti-Western sentiment and Russian nationalism in Russia.

I made it a bit too simplistic I guess. Western optimism about how Russia was supposed to turn out in their eyes wasn't validated. It was much too optimistic too see such changes and total adherence to Western politics in assuming Russia would just dissapear into NATO and such. Russia still was independent and eventually opposing views clashed. The Yugoslavian Civil War is a good example of how different the views still were, how opposing as well. The West expected way too much after 91, should have been more patient about the transition. Of course less than a decade to totally transform a country is just unrealistic. But less than 15 year later there were significant amounts of politicians thinking that once the tanks rolled into Baghdad it would just transform into a Western democracy like a miracle.

Both sides in the West-Russia reset went in with wrong ideas what was going to happen. Sadly most of the damage ended up being done to Russia of course.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Socialism can be great, but one group can also domineer and exploit it like in the Dutch example. That isn't a failure of socialism though. The government could have seen this problem from a mile away with declining birth rates. They put short term political gain over the long term health of the system.
As all politicians do. It is one of the big failures of democracy, as already observed by people such as Plato, Aristotle or Machiavelli thousands of years ago.

Well the problem of democracy is that these people are given jobs by voters. So long term planning is like getting yourself fired in some aspects. It worked for a while and with some effort socialist policies will still work, just be different.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 18:07:49


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

It's just an agreement that there will not be an attack. Everyone understood that it was just delaying

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The fall of Poland was in no way caused by betrayal by Britain.

Inaction of Britain led to a number of consequences that could be avoided. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland. We can say that the powering Hitler and loss of Europe is the result of inaction of Britain. Hitler would not have attacked if Britain had respected the ally treaty and would have somehow participate in defense of Poland. Also, the USSR would not have invaded Poland, if Britain had reacted actively to this. But Churchill even reacted positively to the actions of the USSR.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Vichy France provided no troops for Hitler.

Who defended Reichstag, for example?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, there won't be war soon. These are the extreme elements in the AfD and most of their voters wouldn't agree with that part, beyond the party not having the electoral support to get really big. Also Germany is in no condition to go to war with Russia. Its army is not big enough, Russia has nukes and Germany is heavily tied up in European and American political and defensive ties. Any potential war between Russia and just Germany will be in a far and freaky future.

Some result will still be, if not stop. Clashes with arabic refugees, for example. they can say "the government does nothing with this problem, then we will solve this problem in our own way"

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Poland was not a product of Versailles per se though.

Yes I know. Poland appeared because there were Poles of course. But I wrote the point of view that Lenin had. For them, resistance was a surprise.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

s there was no guarantee that Germany would have turned socialist. Significant and powerful parts of German society were firmly anti-communist.

Nobody knows and does not know how could it be.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Churchill did not support the Soviet actions in 1939

He did not react to this in any way and later responded positively about it, that there appeared something like a stable positions.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

There was some consideration on the part of France and Britain to actually go to war with the Soviet Union over the war in Finland.

First some ancient cannons were sent, and then they left the Finns.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

it actually strengthened Nazi Germany and catastrophically exposed the Soviets to the 1941 invasion.

This is a myth of the times of the collapse of the USSR. For two years the army has completely transformed rapidly and began to be pulled together to the border. Production was increased, new tanks and planes were designed and constructed. Instead of a revolutionary army, where orders did not necessarily have to be executed, they returned rigid discipline as before. But many mistakes were made. for example, they were preparing for the fact that Germany would begin with provocations and gradually develop provocations for real actions. And then the Red Army will attack and crush the enemy on its territory. What happened was the naivety and underestimation of the enemy and the reassessment of the quality of own army.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its not exactly democratic though, it has some of the trappings of a democracy, but it really isn't once. Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy with a little democratic veneer over it. The Russian economy is not helped by the massive corruption of the oligarchs, it might have turned into a decent economy if not for the catastrophic push towards instant capitalism. The example of China provides a more gradual and slightly more beneficial path without the collapse.

And why oligarchs not afraid that they will bring country to such a condition when people will want to remove them. And why they are not afraid that West will not want to defend their bank accounts but simply take it for themselves, like Gaddafi's.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its not a struggle for existence. Russia and China are actively preventing a more active role of the West through the prevention of UN mandates, that goes beyond mere existence.

In many cases they just ignored. Like when Serbia was bombed.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/10 19:27:45


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

It's just an agreement that there will not be an attack. Everyone understood that it was just delaying

No there was more to it in secret clauses. It was a division of Eastern Europe and Soviet resource support for the Nazi war machine. The texts of the pact are easily available revealing it was far beyond a mere non-aggression pact.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The fall of Poland was in no way caused by betrayal by Britain.

Inaction of Britain led to a number of consequences that could be avoided. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland. We can say that the powering Hitler and loss of Europe is the result of inaction of Britain. Hitler would not have attacked if Britain had respected the ally treaty and would have somehow participate in defense of Poland. Also, the USSR would not have invaded Poland, if Britain had reacted actively to this. But Churchill even reacted positively to the actions of the USSR.

Just like Soviet inaction led to avoidable consequences, so? The British tried to avert war with Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was clearly a pact that would secure Soviet support for Nazi Germany for the start of WW2. Hitler felt secure enough to invade Poland thanks to the Soviets. Britain might have given Hitler Czechoslovakia, but the Soviets handed him Poland, the Benelux and France. Without Soviet assurances all those German troops would have to guard against a possible two front war.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Vichy France provided no troops for Hitler.

Who defended Reichstag, for example?

Those were French SSers, not Vichy troops. Even a decent chunk of Soviets joined the SS. The SS just recruited the far right segments of European populations independently from their national governments.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, there won't be war soon. These are the extreme elements in the AfD and most of their voters wouldn't agree with that part, beyond the party not having the electoral support to get really big. Also Germany is in no condition to go to war with Russia. Its army is not big enough, Russia has nukes and Germany is heavily tied up in European and American political and defensive ties. Any potential war between Russia and just Germany will be in a far and freaky future.

Some result will still be, if not stop. Clashes with arabic refugees, for example. they can say "the government does nothing with this problem, then we will solve this problem in our own way"

Yes they could. But luckily enough a large enough of amount of Germans see the AfD for what it is. Yes part of the population is showing their xenophobic side, but they always held those views. Its not going to lead to a new war, its just giving some public opinions that are revolting to the normal part of society.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Poland was not a product of Versailles per se though.

Yes I know. Poland appeared because there were Poles of course. But I wrote the point of view that Lenin had. For them, resistance was a surprise.

The surprise was more that Poland turned out to be able to resist the Red Army. Even Lenin was pragmatic, he accepted the results for a while, but Poland wasn't imposed on the Soviets, they signed the treaty that made it possible. Of course it didn't lessen the ideas amongst them such as Stalin's that Poland was a monstrosity.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

s there was no guarantee that Germany would have turned socialist. Significant and powerful parts of German society were firmly anti-communist.

Nobody knows and does not know how could it be.

Exactly, but it was clear that the socialists weren't going to get a revolution on their own in Germany. But its unlikely the Red Army would have actually been able to conquer Germany and stop the rise of Nazism. There were plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler, if only Einstein's time machine plan had worked

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Churchill did not support the Soviet actions in 1939

He did not react to this in any way and later responded positively about it, that there appeared something like a stable positions.

Source? For whatever horrible things Churchill did I very much doubt he was positive towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact he was as good as jumping up and down from joy when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, because Churchill expected that with the Soviets involved Hitler might be finally beaten.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

There was some consideration on the part of France and Britain to actually go to war with the Soviet Union over the war in Finland.

First some ancient cannons were sent, and then they left the Finns.

Yes, because reality set in. France and Britain were in no position to help Finland. Let alone practically getting reinforcements and equipment there through a German dominated Baltic Sea. Imagine the utter mess of a three way war between the Allies, the Soviets and the Axis after 41. Worst of all fighting the Soviets might have actually caused them to lose to Germany. Thank feth the world didn't get fethed over by the Nazis in the name of saving Finland, sorry Finland...

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

it actually strengthened Nazi Germany and catastrophically exposed the Soviets to the 1941 invasion.

This is a myth of the times of the collapse of the USSR. For two years the army has completely transformed rapidly and began to be pulled together to the border. Production was increased, new tanks and planes were designed and constructed. Instead of a revolutionary army, where orders did not necessarily have to be executed, they returned rigid discipline as before. But many mistakes were made. for example, they were preparing for the fact that Germany would begin with provocations and gradually develop provocations for real actions. And then the Red Army will attack and crush the enemy on its territory. What happened was the naivety and underestimation of the enemy and the reassessment of the quality of own army.

The fact was thay the Red Army matured equipment and doctrine wise in the 30's. Stalin's purges did massive damage to the Red Army however. Finland provided invaluable lessons to the Soviets to get back on their feet. It didn't prevent the incredible defeats a year later and the loss of almost THREE MILLION Soviet troops to German captivity and death. Doctrine doesn't matter when the army is incapable.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its not a struggle for existence. Russia and China are actively preventing a more active role of the West through the prevention of UN mandates, that goes beyond mere existence.

In many cases they just ignored. Like when Serbia was bombed.


Yes and the West is ignored about Russia bombing in Syria. Ignoring the other is a two way street.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 05:29:02


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No there was more to it in secret clauses. It was a division of Eastern Europe and Soviet resource support for the Nazi war machine. The texts of the pact are easily available revealing it was far beyond a mere non-aggression pact.

This is not true and distorts the picture in order to hide the insidiousness and mistakes of Britain, accusing the USSR of supporting Germany. Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles with the tacit consent of the Entente. He was given territories, factories, workers, resources, whole countries with developed industry. Finally, in his hands was a whole Europe. Why did they let him? There are no other explanations, except for that he attacked the USSR. If you look back, you will see that the ex-Entente and the USSR were enemies. So, what we have: Three players - Hitler, the USSR and the Anglo-French. And it is not known who will attack first. And when the two sides are at war with each other, the third will definitely join. And usually, he who later joins, he wins (Hello USA). Therefore, if Germany attacks the USSR, the Entente strategically wins both of them. Stalin understood this. So, you need to do it so that you do not get to war first. How to do it? And the Germans themselves proposed a pact. And so they signed a verdict against themselves. But at some point they understood the mistake and attacked. The USSR was preparing for this, but he was counting on that it would happen later and not so suddenly. But withstood a terrible blow and eventually won. So, the pact is not evil, but good.



 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes they could. But luckily enough a large enough of amount of Germans see the AfD for what it is. Yes part of the population is showing their xenophobic side, but they always held those views. Its not going to lead to a new war, its just giving some public opinions that are revolting to the normal part of society.

Obviously, this is not normal. It's anti-human. People who threaten other people with violence and justify it with some ideas and who consider themselves to be correct should be prohibited. They are not forbidden, because it is beneficial for ... speaking in old-fashioned words, it is beneficial to capital to suppress its class enemies. Or for some other purpose. You can be sure - if their availability were not profitable, they would be immediately removed and no freedom of speech would help.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Exactly, but it was clear that the socialists weren't going to get a revolution on their own in Germany. But its unlikely the Red Army would have actually been able to conquer Germany and stop the rise of Nazism. There were plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler, if only Einstein's time machine plan had worked

It's a naive thought that a time machine can stop someone. Assume someone went to the past to kill Hitler. And how will he do it? They will grab him instantly. And what, did not anyone at that time want to kill Hitler? Many wanted and it did not work. In addition, the role of Hitler's personality is not absolute. After all, it was put forward by other Nazis. So, they could find replacement or use another person if he was assasinated when he was young. In addition, the Entente is to blame for the growth of Hitler's power. Therefore, they can interfere with the construction of a time machine.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Source? For whatever horrible things Churchill did I very much doubt he was positive towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact he was as good as jumping up and down from joy when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, because Churchill expected that with the Soviets involved Hitler might be finally beaten.

Churchill's 1 october 1939 interview

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes, because reality set in. France and Britain were in no position to help Finland. Let alone practically getting reinforcements and equipment there through a German dominated Baltic Sea. Imagine the utter mess of a three way war between the Allies, the Soviets and the Axis after 41. Worst of all fighting the Soviets might have actually caused them to lose to Germany. Thank feth the world didn't get fethed over by the Nazis in the name of saving Finland, sorry Finland...

Finland could avoid participation in the war if it gave Stalin a piece of land to ensure the security of Leningrad and a tiny stone island to block Leningrad on the Baltic. In return, very large territories were offered in Karelia. But as a result of stubbornness they only suffered losses.
I do not justify the war, but that was the reality of that difficult time.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


The fact was thay the Red Army matured equipment and doctrine wise in the 30's. Stalin's purges did massive damage to the Red Army however. Finland provided invaluable lessons to the Soviets to get back on their feet. It didn't prevent the incredible defeats a year later and the loss of almost THREE MILLION Soviet troops to German captivity and death. Doctrine doesn't matter when the army is incapable.

I wonder how long the same mistakes are repeated. Much was already clear in the Spanish war. 1941 showed that simply the number of tanks does not mean that these tanks will be really used and will lead to victory. There were some reforms, but the mass production of tanks still remained. T-34 tanks were produced more numbers than could be provided with command, supply and other necessary things. In the cold war again mass production of T-55 tanks. When the USSR collapsing in the 80's, again mass production of T-64 / T-72 / T-80 tanks. Today, too, are going to mass produce new T-72/90 and Armata. Hey, what about the prepared crews? We'll put in the tank yesterday's schoolchildren and job done.
However, in some tactics the Red Army adapted well and quickly.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes and the West is ignored about Russia bombing in Syria. Ignoring the other is a two way street.

Hey, bombing the country and the bombing terrorists are two different things.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 11:16:57


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No there was more to it in secret clauses. It was a division of Eastern Europe and Soviet resource support for the Nazi war machine. The texts of the pact are easily available revealing it was far beyond a mere non-aggression pact.

This is not true and distorts the picture in order to hide the insidiousness and mistakes of Britain, accusing the USSR of supporting Germany. Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles with the tacit consent of the Entente. He was given territories, factories, workers, resources, whole countries with developed industry. Finally, in his hands was a whole Europe. Why did they let him? There are no other explanations, except for that he attacked the USSR. If you look back, you will see that the ex-Entente and the USSR were enemies. So, what we have: Three players - Hitler, the USSR and the Anglo-French. And it is not known who will attack first. And when the two sides are at war with each other, the third will definitely join. And usually, he who later joins, he wins (Hello USA). Therefore, if Germany attacks the USSR, the Entente strategically wins both of them. Stalin understood this. So, you need to do it so that you do not get to war first. How to do it? And the Germans themselves proposed a pact. And so they signed a verdict against themselves. But at some point they understood the mistake and attacked. The USSR was preparing for this, but he was counting on that it would happen later and not so suddenly. But withstood a terrible blow and eventually won. So, the pact is not evil, but good.

Where to begin with this. First of all the Soviet Union did support Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured Germany's second front while it focused on Western Europe. Furthermore the Soviet Union provided the Nazis with critical resources they couldn't have gotten elsewhere from 1939 to 1941 such as almost a million tons of oil and hundreds of thousands of tons of rare metals. Without these resources Nazi Germany wouldn't even have been able to sustain its production to invade the Soviet Union. Soviet trade with the Nazis almost ensured their own destruction.

Hitler violated the terms of Versailles true, but France and Britain felt to be in no position for another war. Given territories is an overstatement. The only thing Britain and France really gave Hitler was the Sudetenland. Neither they nor the Soviet Union did much to prevent the Anschluss or the First Vienna Award, in which neither parties played a part. So no, not whole countries. France and Britain let him take Sudetenland for the same reason the Soviet Union let Hitler take Western Poland with their help, none of them felt to be in any position to wage a war with Germany at their times. Of course hindsight is a wonderful tool.

The letting Hitler attack the Soviets idea is a bit ridiculous. France and Britain put themselves on the line to stop Hitler in Poland and really lost in 1940. There was no secret plan to send Hitler off against the Soviets, which indeed was a fear of Stalin and later a feverish fantasy of some German officers. Both Hitler and Stalin recognized that eventually their ideologies were going to clash sooner rather than later. It was Hitler's original plan after all, he gambled that France and Britain wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. What's more, France and Britain actually sought to ally with the Soviets against Hitler in 1939, but Stalin choose to go with the partnership with Hitler, which came to bite the Soviets in the ass in a major way. France and Britain weren't even considering a war with the Soviets until the Finland War, during which they were already at war with Germany.

The thing Stalin understood was that he needed more time to postpone the inevitable, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 seemed like such a good idea. It turned out to be an almost fatal mistake. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a mistake for the Germans. It enabled the Germans to focus their whole army on a single front while obtaining critical resources from the Soviets. It prevented a two front war WW1 scenario for the Germans, of course Hitler thought the Pact was a great idea. The Pact was very much evil, because in 1939 Germany was in no way capable to fight a two front war or sustain it. It just strengthened the inevitable blow against the Soviet Union into an almost killing one. Of course that leaves aside the evil of the Soviets attacking the Baltics and Poland, leading to the Katyn Massacre. So yes, the Pact was very much stupid and very much evil.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes they could. But luckily enough a large enough of amount of Germans see the AfD for what it is. Yes part of the population is showing their xenophobic side, but they always held those views. Its not going to lead to a new war, its just giving some public opinions that are revolting to the normal part of society.

Obviously, this is not normal. It's anti-human. People who threaten other people with violence and justify it with some ideas and who consider themselves to be correct should be prohibited. They are not forbidden, because it is beneficial for ... speaking in old-fashioned words, it is beneficial to capital to suppress its class enemies. Or for some other purpose. You can be sure - if their availability were not profitable, they would be immediately removed and no freedom of speech would help.

It isn't normal. But free speech goes so far and Germany is actually quite hawkish on overstepping the bounds of free speech. So the AfD skirts the line of the legally acceptable and crosses far into the socially unacceptable. The AfD is in no way beneficial to the German ruling elite and economy however, because those are pretty pro-EU while the AfD isn't.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Exactly, but it was clear that the socialists weren't going to get a revolution on their own in Germany. But its unlikely the Red Army would have actually been able to conquer Germany and stop the rise of Nazism. There were plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler, if only Einstein's time machine plan had worked

It's a naive thought that a time machine can stop someone. Assume someone went to the past to kill Hitler. And how will he do it? They will grab him instantly. And what, did not anyone at that time want to kill Hitler? Many wanted and it did not work. In addition, the role of Hitler's personality is not absolute. After all, it was put forward by other Nazis. So, they could find replacement or use another person if he was assasinated when he was young. In addition, the Entente is to blame for the growth of Hitler's power. Therefore, they can interfere with the construction of a time machine.

Its a Red Alert joke In Red Alert Einstein builds a time machine and kills Hitler, leading to a war between the Allies and the Soviets because Nazi-Germany never existed. Actually the role and importance of Hitler as a figurehead is pretty important. None of the early followers of Hitler really had the gift for politics and public speaking he had. It would have been much much harder without Hitler, and of course much of the batgak insane gak of Nazi ideology came directly from Hitler himself and influenced his subordinates who wanted his favor. Without Hitler we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party as it came to power in 1933. Also the Entente played its part in creating Hitler, but so did the Soviet Union and a immense amount of other factors.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Source? For whatever horrible things Churchill did I very much doubt he was positive towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact he was as good as jumping up and down from joy when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, because Churchill expected that with the Soviets involved Hitler might be finally beaten.

Churchill's 1 october 1939 interview

Thanks. You seem to be misreading what Churchill is saying. He is saying that he doesn't know why the Soviets do what they do, only that they do it out of national interest. But he believes that the Soviets will scare off Hitler from expanding further into Eastern Europe because of Soviet national interests in Eastern Europe. Nowhere does he actually state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a good idea, just that its actions are an enigma. Plus you have to take into account that Churchill in 1939 could only have been aware of the non-aggression side of the pact, not the secret part dividing up Eastern Europe. That part only came to light in 1946.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes, because reality set in. France and Britain were in no position to help Finland. Let alone practically getting reinforcements and equipment there through a German dominated Baltic Sea. Imagine the utter mess of a three way war between the Allies, the Soviets and the Axis after 41. Worst of all fighting the Soviets might have actually caused them to lose to Germany. Thank feth the world didn't get fethed over by the Nazis in the name of saving Finland, sorry Finland...

Finland could avoid participation in the war if it gave Stalin a piece of land to ensure the security of Leningrad and a tiny stone island to block Leningrad on the Baltic. In return, very large territories were offered in Karelia. But as a result of stubbornness they only suffered losses.
I do not justify the war, but that was the reality of that difficult time.

Which is a ridiculous claim. The Soviet Union could have avoided the war with Germany if only it had ceded the land west of the Urals, but why would any sovereign country do so? The border area was vital for Finnish defense too and had a reasonably large city at the time. Being offered desolate and worthless territories does not make up for that.

I agree it was the reality of the time, but it was nowhere near necessary and as 1941 showed it only set up Finland to attack the Soviets again. To secure Leningrad the Soviet nearly lost Leningrad to the consequences of their own actions. There is a trend noticeable in long term Soviet planning between 1939 and 1941 don't you think

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The fact was thay the Red Army matured equipment and doctrine wise in the 30's. Stalin's purges did massive damage to the Red Army however. Finland provided invaluable lessons to the Soviets to get back on their feet. It didn't prevent the incredible defeats a year later and the loss of almost THREE MILLION Soviet troops to German captivity and death. Doctrine doesn't matter when the army is incapable.

I wonder how long the same mistakes are repeated. Much was already clear in the Spanish war. 1941 showed that simply the number of tanks does not mean that these tanks will be really used and will lead to victory. There were some reforms, but the mass production of tanks still remained. T-34 tanks were produced more numbers than could be provided with command, supply and other necessary things. In the cold war again mass production of T-55 tanks. When the USSR collapsing in the 80's, again mass production of T-64 / T-72 / T-80 tanks. Today, too, are going to mass produce new T-72/90 and Armata. Hey, what about the prepared crews? We'll put in the tank yesterday's schoolchildren and job done.
However, in some tactics the Red Army adapted well and quickly.

Well you would hope that your crews outlive more than one tank. There are stories of crews going through over a dozen tanks during WW2. There is value in a strategic reserve of material and especially in WW2 Soviet production versus German production helped the Soviets win the war. But its true that the Soviets produced far more equipment than they ever needed. But that is frequently the case in more authoritarian societies, because the army takes on a disproportionate amount of political influence and demands just more stuff. Even in the US you can see the political influences behind giving the US army unnecessary stuff, although that might be more from the civilian side than the military.

1941 and 1942 were incredibly tragic and steep learning curves for the Red Army, but it remains impressive how they still managed to turn the war and a testament to how sheer numbers can win a war with enough determination. 1941-1945 just meant death on such an unimaginable scale, really depressing to think about it sometimes.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes and the West is ignored about Russia bombing in Syria. Ignoring the other is a two way street.

Hey, bombing the country and the bombing terrorists are two different things.

Well that depends on how you look at things. The West was doing the right thing in its mind in Serbia. Russia is doing the same in Syria, but the West doesn't consider all the people Russia bombs terrorists, and there are the civilian casualties. Whoever's viewpoint is right depends on your own outlook.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 18:16:22


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Where to begin with this. First of all the Soviet Union did support Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured Germany's second front while it focused on Western Europe. Furthermore the Soviet Union provided the Nazis with critical resources they couldn't have gotten elsewhere from 1939 to 1941 such as almost a million tons of oil and hundreds of thousands of tons of rare metals. Without these resources Nazi Germany wouldn't even have been able to sustain its production to invade the Soviet Union. Soviet trade with the Nazis almost ensured their own destruction.

It is wrong to blame the USSR for supporting Germany with resources, since the main source of resources for them was the British and US. Even Canada participated in this, supplying 50% of all nickel. With the outbreak of the war, trade relations between the USSR and Germany ceased immediately, while Britain and the United States did not stop them. And it does not look very good. The involvement of Western countries in the German industry even during the war is so great that it can not be compared with the trade in resources of the USSR.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Hitler violated the terms of Versailles true, but France and Britain felt to be in no position for another war. Given territories is an overstatement. The only thing Britain and France really gave Hitler was the Sudetenland. Neither they nor the Soviet Union did much to prevent the Anschluss or the First Vienna Award, in which neither parties played a part. So no, not whole countries. France and Britain let him take Sudetenland for the same reason the Soviet Union let Hitler take Western Poland with their help, none of them felt to be in any position to wage a war with Germany at their times. Of course hindsight is a wonderful tool.

The letting Hitler attack the Soviets idea is a bit ridiculous. France and Britain put themselves on the line to stop Hitler in Poland and really lost in 1940. There was no secret plan to send Hitler off against the Soviets, which indeed was a fear of Stalin and later a feverish fantasy of some German officers. Both Hitler and Stalin recognized that eventually their ideologies were going to clash sooner rather than later. It was Hitler's original plan after all, he gambled that France and Britain wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. What's more, France and Britain actually sought to ally with the Soviets against Hitler in 1939, but Stalin choose to go with the partnership with Hitler, which came to bite the Soviets in the ass in a major way. France and Britain weren't even considering a war with the Soviets until the Finland War, during which they were already at war with Germany.

There was no help from the USSR for the German seizure of Poland:

Summer 1939: Britain tried to impose on the USSR the obligation to fight against Germany, while remaining free from any obligations
August 1939: Poland announced, that if war will begin, Polish army will rush into Germany and French army will do the same
14 th August: Britain and France avoided any alliance with the USSR, saying Poland should do it first. Poland refused, fearing that USSR with replace it's government to pro-soviet
The USSR was compelled to ask its enemy (Poland) for permission to defend it for the sake of an alliance with the Entente. Poland expressed fears that the Red Army would remain in Poland. Then the Soviet Union proposed to bring there Anglo-French troops, which would ensure that the Red Army did not "accidentally" change the government in Poland. Everyone refused.
Negotiations stalled
Ribbentrop began bombarding the USSR with proposals in fear of getting two fronts
17 August - nonresult negotiations with the Entente. It becomes obvious that they do not want to have any obligations to the USSR (which gives them opportunities, which are not good for the USSR)
21 August - Britain invites Germany to alternative negotiations. Germany agrees. Chamberlain is invited to Berlin.
23 August - Molotov Ribbentrop Pact signed, shocking Britain.
The result was to be the war of Poland, Britain and France against Germany.
1st September - the war started. Polish president left Warsaw
3 st September Britan and France declared war on Germany, but didn't actually participated despite of the fact that they had 3 times more forces against Germany there
They threw leaflets on Germany and ordered balls and cards, so as not to get bored. Betrayal!
10st September The Entente lied to the Polish about the offensive, while French troops were stayed at their positions and not even one British soldier there
11st September - Polish government prepearing to leave country. No acton from USSR.
12 st September French troops are ordered not to advance
17st September. Polish goverment left. USSR announced, that Poland state is not exist.It is dangerous for Ukrainian and Belorussian territories and while no treaties with the Polish are no longer valid, the USSR has the right to protect them.
What we have:
Polish government showed its inconsistency
Germany - bad guys
Entente - cowards and traitors (perhaps I'm exaggerating though)
USSR - not involved by diplomatic terms

Poor Polandball

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The thing Stalin understood was that he needed more time to postpone the inevitable, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 seemed like such a good idea. It turned out to be an almost fatal mistake. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a mistake for the Germans. It enabled the Germans to focus their whole army on a single front while obtaining critical resources from the Soviets. It prevented a two front war WW1 scenario for the Germans, of course Hitler thought the Pact was a great idea. The Pact was very much evil, because in 1939 Germany was in no way capable to fight a two front war or sustain it. It just strengthened the inevitable blow against the Soviet Union into an almost killing one. Of course that leaves aside the evil of the Soviets attacking the Baltics and Poland, leading to the Katyn Massacre. So yes, the Pact was very much stupid and very much evil.

It was evil for Brits, rushing their combination, in which they defeat two enemies at once. But in the end, Germany was defeated, and the USSR - not.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

It isn't normal. But free speech goes so far and Germany is actually quite hawkish on overstepping the bounds of free speech. So the AfD skirts the line of the legally acceptable and crosses far into the socially unacceptable. The AfD is in no way beneficial to the German ruling elite and economy however, because those are pretty pro-EU while the AfD isn't.

Well, it means that it is beneficial to someone from outside Germany. I will not poke a finger.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its a Red Alert joke In Red Alert Einstein builds a time machine and kills Hitler, leading to a war between the Allies and the Soviets because Nazi-Germany never existed. Actually the role and importance of Hitler as a figurehead is pretty important. None of the early followers of Hitler really had the gift for politics and public speaking he had. It would have been much much harder without Hitler, and of course much of the batgak insane gak of Nazi ideology came directly from Hitler himself and influenced his subordinates who wanted his favor. Without Hitler we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party as it came to power in 1933. Also the Entente played its part in creating Hitler, but so did the Soviet Union and a immense amount of other factors.

Rarely drew attention to the plot of these games. yes, he was a good speaker. but hardly the nazism would not be able to exist without him.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Thanks. You seem to be misreading what Churchill is saying. He is saying that he doesn't know why the Soviets do what they do, only that they do it out of national interest. But he believes that the Soviets will scare off Hitler from expanding further into Eastern Europe because of Soviet national interests in Eastern Europe. Nowhere does he actually state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a good idea, just that its actions are an enigma. Plus you have to take into account that Churchill in 1939 could only have been aware of the non-aggression side of the pact, not the secret part dividing up Eastern Europe. That part only came to light in 1946.

uh ... maybe, this is a British Jesuit speech, which evasively hints that he did

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Which is a ridiculous claim. The Soviet Union could have avoided the war with Germany if only it had ceded the land west of the Urals, but why would any sovereign country do so? The border area was vital for Finnish defense too and had a reasonably large city at the time. Being offered desolate and worthless territories does not make up for that.

I agree it was the reality of the time, but it was nowhere near necessary and as 1941 showed it only set up Finland to attack the Soviets again. To secure Leningrad the Soviet nearly lost Leningrad to the consequences of their own actions. There is a trend noticeable in long term Soviet planning between 1939 and 1941 don't you think

Karelia was not unnecessary. Finland dreamed of having it.
And they could ask for more and better territory and Stalin would have to agree.
ok ok, (why these small countries are so stubborn? ) Well fought, however.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well you would hope that your crews outlive more than one tank.

even if so. After the war, there were so many unused tanks that it was hardly possible to spend even in a new world war. while there was a shortage of tractors, engineering machines, fuel trucks, repair and evacuation equipment, no APCs

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

1941 and 1942 were incredibly tragic and steep learning curves for the Red Army, but it remains impressive how they still managed to turn the war and a testament to how sheer numbers can win a war with enough determination. 1941-1945 just meant death on such an unimaginable scale, really depressing to think about it sometimes.

Yes, and here there is a double attitude to Stalin among Russians. Undoubtedly, he is a tyrant and it is not permissible to have such people in power. But the other would not be able to withstand that catastrophe.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well that depends on how you look at things. The West was doing the right thing in its mind in Serbia. Russia is doing the same in Syria, but the West doesn't consider all the people Russia bombs terrorists, and there are the civilian casualties. Whoever's viewpoint is right depends on your own outlook.

let's look at it like this:

USA bombed Serbia. violating international law just because they don't like their president (I assume, because of independent economy) - bad
USA bombed two ISIL tractors - good, but violated Syrian territory without it's permission, it's act of agression
USA bombed Assad army, - bad. barbarism.
Russia bombed terrorists by asking from Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria and saved it - good. order, saved from terrorists life, Syria did not turn into another Libya





100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 19:54:19


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Where to begin with this. First of all the Soviet Union did support Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured Germany's second front while it focused on Western Europe. Furthermore the Soviet Union provided the Nazis with critical resources they couldn't have gotten elsewhere from 1939 to 1941 such as almost a million tons of oil and hundreds of thousands of tons of rare metals. Without these resources Nazi Germany wouldn't even have been able to sustain its production to invade the Soviet Union. Soviet trade with the Nazis almost ensured their own destruction.

It is wrong to blame the USSR for supporting Germany with resources, since the main source of resources for them was the British and US. Even Canada participated in this, supplying 50% of all nickel. With the outbreak of the war, trade relations between the USSR and Germany ceased immediately, while Britain and the United States did not stop them. And it does not look very good. The involvement of Western countries in the German industry even during the war is so great that it can not be compared with the trade in resources of the USSR.

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Hitler violated the terms of Versailles true, but France and Britain felt to be in no position for another war. Given territories is an overstatement. The only thing Britain and France really gave Hitler was the Sudetenland. Neither they nor the Soviet Union did much to prevent the Anschluss or the First Vienna Award, in which neither parties played a part. So no, not whole countries. France and Britain let him take Sudetenland for the same reason the Soviet Union let Hitler take Western Poland with their help, none of them felt to be in any position to wage a war with Germany at their times. Of course hindsight is a wonderful tool.

The letting Hitler attack the Soviets idea is a bit ridiculous. France and Britain put themselves on the line to stop Hitler in Poland and really lost in 1940. There was no secret plan to send Hitler off against the Soviets, which indeed was a fear of Stalin and later a feverish fantasy of some German officers. Both Hitler and Stalin recognized that eventually their ideologies were going to clash sooner rather than later. It was Hitler's original plan after all, he gambled that France and Britain wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. What's more, France and Britain actually sought to ally with the Soviets against Hitler in 1939, but Stalin choose to go with the partnership with Hitler, which came to bite the Soviets in the ass in a major way. France and Britain weren't even considering a war with the Soviets until the Finland War, during which they were already at war with Germany.

There was no help from the USSR for the German seizure of Poland:

Summer 1939: Britain tried to impose on the USSR the obligation to fight against Germany, while remaining free from any obligations
August 1939: Poland announced, that if war will begin, Polish army will rush into Germany and French army will do the same
14 th August: Britain and France avoided any alliance with the USSR, saying Poland should do it first. Poland refused, fearing that USSR with replace it's government to pro-soviet
The USSR was compelled to ask its enemy (Poland) for permission to defend it for the sake of an alliance with the Entente. Poland expressed fears that the Red Army would remain in Poland. Then the Soviet Union proposed to bring there Anglo-French troops, which would ensure that the Red Army did not "accidentally" change the government in Poland. Everyone refused.
Negotiations stalled
Ribbentrop began bombarding the USSR with proposals in fear of getting two fronts
17 August - nonresult negotiations with the Entente. It becomes obvious that they do not want to have any obligations to the USSR (which gives them opportunities, which are not good for the USSR)
21 August - Britain invites Germany to alternative negotiations. Germany agrees. Chamberlain is invited to Berlin.
23 August - Molotov Ribbentrop Pact signed, shocking Britain.
The result was to be the war of Poland, Britain and France against Germany.
1st September - the war started. Polish president left Warsaw
3 st September Britan and France declared war on Germany, but didn't actually participated despite of the fact that they had 3 times more forces against Germany there
They threw leaflets on Germany and ordered balls and cards, so as not to get bored. Betrayal!
10st September The Entente lied to the Polish about the offensive, while French troops were stayed at their positions and not even one British soldier there
11st September - Polish government prepearing to leave country. No acton from USSR.
12 st September French troops are ordered not to advance
17st September. Polish goverment left. USSR announced, that Poland state is not exist.It is dangerous for Ukrainian and Belorussian territories and while no treaties with the Polish are no longer valid, the USSR has the right to protect them.
What we have:
Polish government showed its inconsistency
Germany - bad guys
Entente - cowards and traitors (perhaps I'm exaggerating though)
USSR - not involved by diplomatic terms

Poor Polandball

You're kidding right? The secret pact neatly divided up Poland. While Germany invaded from the west the Soviets did so from the east.

France and Britain wanted an alliance with the Soviets, but the Poles absolutly refused to let Soviet troop on their territory to fight the Germans which is why talks faltered and completely understandable given soviet belligerence towards Poland. Also you keep saying betrayel, yet the Soviets made a deal with Hitler himself to backstab Poland. Its all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There is no room for doubt, Hitler and Stalin cooperated to divide Poland and Eastern Europe. That the Allies had such a shameful display of military power does not detract from the fact that Soviet AND German troops held a parade together in Warsaw after conquering Poland. Furthermore the Katyn Massacre showed what the Soviets were really doing, ruthless expansion and attempted national genocide by wiping out the Polish intelligentsia.

The Soviet Union was up to its neck in the diplomacy in the summer of 39, seeing which side would offer them a better deal. As it stands Stalin made a deal with Hitler to wipe out Poland. That the Soviets waited on the Germans to do the bulk of the fighting does not mean that they came in for benevolent reasons.

Yes the Soviets later won the war in Europe, but lets not forget what they did to make it much worse in the first place.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The thing Stalin understood was that he needed more time to postpone the inevitable, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 seemed like such a good idea. It turned out to be an almost fatal mistake. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a mistake for the Germans. It enabled the Germans to focus their whole army on a single front while obtaining critical resources from the Soviets. It prevented a two front war WW1 scenario for the Germans, of course Hitler thought the Pact was a great idea. The Pact was very much evil, because in 1939 Germany was in no way capable to fight a two front war or sustain it. It just strengthened the inevitable blow against the Soviet Union into an almost killing one. Of course that leaves aside the evil of the Soviets attacking the Baltics and Poland, leading to the Katyn Massacre. So yes, the Pact was very much stupid and very much evil.

It was evil for Brits, rushing their combination, in which they defeat two enemies at once. But in the end, Germany was defeated, and the USSR - not.

You're so focussed on Britain you're completely ignoring the fact that Britain put its foot down and tried to stop Hitler in 1939. Meanwhile Stalin gave Hitler the opportunity to wage war undisturbed and actually supported by the Soviets in 1939. Its pretty clear in hindsight which was worse. Hitler was always going to attack the Soviets, imagined British support or otherwise. If Britain really wanted to have the Soviets lose why did they and the US provide lend-lease to support the Soviet war effort?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

It isn't normal. But free speech goes so far and Germany is actually quite hawkish on overstepping the bounds of free speech. So the AfD skirts the line of the legally acceptable and crosses far into the socially unacceptable. The AfD is in no way beneficial to the German ruling elite and economy however, because those are pretty pro-EU while the AfD isn't.

Well, it means that it is beneficial to someone from outside Germany. I will not poke a finger.

Well Putin is a big fan of the European populist movements such as those of Le Pen and Wilders, if that's what you're implying in the AfD case.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its a Red Alert joke In Red Alert Einstein builds a time machine and kills Hitler, leading to a war between the Allies and the Soviets because Nazi-Germany never existed. Actually the role and importance of Hitler as a figurehead is pretty important. None of the early followers of Hitler really had the gift for politics and public speaking he had. It would have been much much harder without Hitler, and of course much of the batgak insane gak of Nazi ideology came directly from Hitler himself and influenced his subordinates who wanted his favor. Without Hitler we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party as it came to power in 1933. Also the Entente played its part in creating Hitler, but so did the Soviet Union and a immense amount of other factors.

Rarely drew attention to the plot of these games. yes, he was a good speaker. but hardly the nazism would not be able to exist without him.

Honestly without Hitler Nazism wouldn't have existed. It would likely have been fascism in the Italian form if Germany would have gone down the far right path. Hitler was pretty crucial to the mass murdering aspects that made Nazism Nazism.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Thanks. You seem to be misreading what Churchill is saying. He is saying that he doesn't know why the Soviets do what they do, only that they do it out of national interest. But he believes that the Soviets will scare off Hitler from expanding further into Eastern Europe because of Soviet national interests in Eastern Europe. Nowhere does he actually state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a good idea, just that its actions are an enigma. Plus you have to take into account that Churchill in 1939 could only have been aware of the non-aggression side of the pact, not the secret part dividing up Eastern Europe. That part only came to light in 1946.

uh ... maybe, this is a British Jesuit speech, which evasively hints that he did

No, you're reading too much into it. The date of the speech was far too early to have revealed other aspects of the secret part of the pact. All Churchill cpuld see was a non-aggression pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland out of national interest which he called an "enigma". No where does he voice support.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Which is a ridiculous claim. The Soviet Union could have avoided the war with Germany if only it had ceded the land west of the Urals, but why would any sovereign country do so? The border area was vital for Finnish defense too and had a reasonably large city at the time. Being offered desolate and worthless territories does not make up for that.

I agree it was the reality of the time, but it was nowhere near necessary and as 1941 showed it only set up Finland to attack the Soviets again. To secure Leningrad the Soviet nearly lost Leningrad to the consequences of their own actions. There is a trend noticeable in long term Soviet planning between 1939 and 1941 don't you think

Karelia was not unnecessary. Finland dreamed of having it.
And they could ask for more and better territory and Stalin would have to agree.
ok ok, (why these small countries are so stubborn? ) Well fought, however.

Would he have given better though? Doubtful, seeing as Stalim was harf at work enlarging the SU, not make it smaller.
Small countries tend to be stubborn because history shows that giving in only means they will be back later for more. Plus you're turning over your citizens who live there to another government.

But at least a small consolation is that Finland helped the Soviets prepare to beat the Nazis.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

1941 and 1942 were incredibly tragic and steep learning curves for the Red Army, but it remains impressive how they still managed to turn the war and a testament to how sheer numbers can win a war with enough determination. 1941-1945 just meant death on such an unimaginable scale, really depressing to think about it sometimes.

Yes, and here there is a double attitude to Stalin among Russians. Undoubtedly, he is a tyrant and it is not permissible to have such people in power. But the other would not be able to withstand that catastrophe.

Yet there will always remain an important question. If it wasn't for Stalin's horrible mismanagement and purges, would it ever have gotten as bad as it was? Or in other words, was Stalin the only person who could save the Soviet Union from the unprepared mess he had created?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well that depends on how you look at things. The West was doing the right thing in its mind in Serbia. Russia is doing the same in Syria, but the West doesn't consider all the people Russia bombs terrorists, and there are the civilian casualties. Whoever's viewpoint is right depends on your own outlook.

let's look at it like this:

USA bombed Serbia. violating international law just because they don't like their president (I assume, because of independent economy) - bad
USA bombed two ISIL tractors - good, but violated Syrian territory without it's permission, it's act of agression
USA bombed Assad army, - bad. barbarism.
Russia bombed terrorists by asking from Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria and saved it - good. order, saved from terrorists life, Syria did not turn into another Libya

Serbia was violating plenty of international laws. It was hardly an unprovoked intervention.
The US has only bombed the Syrian Army by mistake really. Its avoiding a direct confrontation with Assad. It wants IS gone.
Assad, a murdering dictator, asked the Russians to help him prosecute a civil war against his own people in which he violated a ton of international laws and killed tens of thousands of his own civilians. For God sake the Russians are helping a man that routinely bombed aid convoys amd hospitals. There is no moral high ground to be claimed from saying Assad represents the 'legitimate' government.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 20:00:57


Post by: Iron_Captain


Yeah, a fact that often is conveniently forgotten is that the USSR only made a treaty with Germany after being refused by the West. With no support from the West, this was the only way to protect the USSR from the Nazis. Of course, in the end Hitler turned out to have a total disregard for treaties and invaded anyways, but that is in hindsight.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 20:03:44


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, a fact that often is conveniently forgotten is that the USSR only made a treaty with Germany after being refused by the West. With no support from the West, this was the only way to protect the USSR from the Nazis. Of course, in the end Hitler turned out to have a total disregard for treaties and invaded anyways, but that is in hindsight.

Not really refused. France and Britain were slow and undecisive in negotiations, frustrating Stalin. Hitler offered Stalin a much better deal, but one that also went far beyond self preservation for the Soviets. The Allies lost Stalin because they weren't fully prepared to do business yet, their own affairs weren't in order for it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/11 20:14:20


Post by: Vaktathi


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, a fact that often is conveniently forgotten is that the USSR only made a treaty with Germany after being refused by the West. With no support from the West, this was the only way to protect the USSR from the Nazis. Of course, in the end Hitler turned out to have a total disregard for treaties and invaded anyways, but that is in hindsight.
lets be real, the Soviet Union didnt have much regard for them either, the Red Army, despite having been nearly decaiptated by purges, was still built almost entirely on an offensive warfare paradigm and not for fighting on its own soil (part of why the USSR's western defenses were so weak in 1941). The Red Army was expected to be fighting in an offensive capacity (which in some ways bore fruit later in the war) outside its own borders, it was a matter of "who will break this first", rather than "*will* someone break this?".

The USSR also wasnt exactly friendly to Western states pre-war. There are reasons for this, both valid and invalid on both sides, but the Western nations generally had no more reason to see the USSR more favorably than the Germans (and, to be fair, the USSR didnt have much more reason to like them more than the Germans either), and Stalin was almost supernaturally paranoid of the British.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 05:31:18


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're kidding right? The secret pact neatly divided up Poland. While Germany invaded from the west the Soviets did so from the east.

You say that as if Poland were torn in half. No. One side was a real Poland, and the other was a previously captured territory. this was recognized by the League of Nations. But now the West decided to rewrite history in order to justify its aggression. Defending these falsifications, you help imperialism!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

France and Britain wanted an alliance with the Soviets, but the Poles absolutly refused to let Soviet troop on their territory to fight the Germans which is why talks faltered and completely understandable given soviet belligerence towards Poland.

What they offered did not suit the USSR at all and threatened its security. Britain wanted the USSR to get involved in the war, without giving any obligations and sitting on its own land. And since it would have no obligations, Britain had the right to declare war on the USSR later. What was unacceptable for the Soviet. The cunning policy of Britain once again caused others to suffer

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also you keep saying betrayel, yet the Soviets made a deal with Hitler himself to backstab Poland. Its all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There is no room for doubt, Hitler and Stalin cooperated to divide Poland and Eastern Europe.

This is the result of difficult negotiations with Britain. Blame Chamberlain for what happened.
And do not use expression "backstabbing" for two reason:
1) For "backstabbing", you had to have a valid agreements violated.
2) You have to act before Poland state is ceased

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

That the Allies had such a shameful display of military power does not detract from the fact that Soviet AND German troops held a parade together in Warsaw after conquering Poland.

You are an another victim of Goebbels propaganda.
It was a Brest (modern Belarus). The German troops were stationed there and they had to give the Brest to Soviets. after the negotiations, the Germans agreed to leave. Guderian suggested holding a joint parade, but this was refused by the commander Krivoshein. And the Soviet troops were angry. Then they decided to hold a ceremony of transferring the city, where Soviet troops acted as spectators. Krivoshein wanted to shake Guderian's hand, but he refused to leave the small podium and stood on it. Then Krivoshein had to stand beside him. And Guderian detained him with a conversation while the photographers shoot them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Furthermore the Katyn Massacre showed what the Soviets were really doing, ruthless expansion and attempted national genocide by wiping out the Polish intelligentsia.

this is a fake, which Khrushchev came up with for the de-Stalinization campaign. Later faked documents found by Gorbachev cried and asked for forgiveness from the west, and then Yeltsin began to deal with them. They all grabbed for any lie, just to gak the Soviet Union. The figure of 20 thousand shot Polish officers is impossible. a little more than 4 thousand Polish officers were captured after Red Army er... entered the territory formerly owned by the Polish. By the time of Germany's attack on the USSR, the fate of prisoners of war was watched by Britain, so that she could not fail to notice if they were shot by the Soviets. after the war with Germany started, the Soviets began the formation of the Polish army and amnestied the captured Poles. Because of this, Hitler decided to fabricate a provocation, which is now known as the Katyn tragedy. Later, this fabrication was used by the Polish government in exile to break off relations with the USSR. In the USSR, they could not understand who had "shot" Polish officer prisoners and had begun an investigation after the Germans had driven out of this land. On January 26, 1944, a report was given that showed the falsity of the accusations made by the nazis. In addition, in 1939-40 the Katyn was a public place where people were constantly walking and if there was a mass execution there would have to be witnesses. but with the appearance of the Germans, this place was forbidden to visit and there was an inscription that people who had entered here would be shot
from the declared by the Germans witnesses of execution the commission has found only one. others died or were in German captivity. He said that he had not seen any execution and that it was impossible, since Katyn was at that time available to everyone. And to sign his testimony, he was beaten by Germans. The Germans had insufficiently collected signatures of testimony and they offered a reward for the testimony about the execution, but no one came. An analysis of the things found on the corpses showed that this was done by the Germans, since at that time they were on this site. Also, the holes from the bullets correspond to German weapons, and not Soviet. Finally, an end to falsification is possible only when there is no total control of the West over history

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Soviet Union was up to its neck in the diplomacy in the summer of 39, seeing which side would offer them a better deal. As it stands Stalin made a deal with Hitler to wipe out Poland. That the Soviets waited on the Germans to do the bulk of the fighting does not mean that they came in for benevolent reasons.

Yes the Soviets later won the war in Europe, but lets not forget what they did to make it much worse in the first place.

Other options were worse:
1) Germany offered the Polish to attack the USSR together. Poland declined. if it had not refused, the USSR would have been crushed, and then nazis would have attacked the rest
2) The USSR attacks Germany and repeats history as in the WW1, not profitable for the USSR, when it becomes dependent on Britain and, possibly, suffering defeat from Germany
3) Entente concludes an agreement with Germany. Imperialism wins.

What best could happen:
The Entente concludes an agreement with the USSR and helps Poland by entering into a real war. The USSR helps the Entente without interference in the Polish cause. Even if the Polish fell, we could have won by common efforts. But Britain wanted to gak the Soviet Union and prevent it from intensifying

What could happen after the Pact:
Poland is defeated, but the Anglo-French troops seize Germany from behind. Hitler is caught under the bridge. The army of Germany surrenders. Poland was rebuilt, but without the territories captured in 1920. The USSR either prepares for war with the entente, or is friends with them. or both simulateusly.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Honestly without Hitler Nazism wouldn't have existed. It would likely have been fascism in the Italian form if Germany would have gone down the far right path. Hitler was pretty crucial to the mass murdering aspects that made Nazism Nazism.

I doubt the importance of just one person while there is an ideology. there could be a smaller scale, but still...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, you're reading too much into it. The date of the speech was far too early to have revealed other aspects of the secret part of the pact. All Churchill cpuld see was a non-aggression pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland out of national interest which he called an "enigma". No where does he voice support.

it would be interesting to know whether there is an explanation of his speech in his books and whether the intelligence of Britain about the secret part was known. if there is time, I will search for

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Would he have given better though? Doubtful, seeing as Stalim was harf at work enlarging the SU, not make it smaller.

Leningrad was more important, he was too vulnerable. and yes, Stalin did bargaining lands.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Small countries tend to be stubborn because history shows that giving in only means they will be back later for more. Plus you're turning over your citizens who live there to another government.

But many times it happened that small countries disappeared instantly

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


But at least a small consolation is that Finland helped the Soviets prepare to beat the Nazis.


If the army remained in the condition in which it was before the war with the Finns ... catastrophe in cube

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yet there will always remain an important question. If it wasn't for Stalin's horrible mismanagement and purges, would it ever have gotten as bad as it was? Or in other words, was Stalin the only person who could save the Soviet Union from the unprepared mess he had created?

If Stalin had been removed just before the war, then perhaps the war would have lost.

If another came earlier (for example, Kirov?) Without terror. people who are not afraid for their actions and are active. alive officers and generals. alive engineers. I think the army would be stronger than the decapitated

And if there was a Trotsky, then we all would live in a barracks

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Serbia was violating plenty of international laws. It was hardly an unprovoked intervention.
The US has only bombed the Syrian Army by mistake really. Its avoiding a direct confrontation with Assad. It wants IS gone.
Assad, a murdering dictator, asked the Russians to help him prosecute a civil war against his own people in which he violated a ton of international laws and killed tens of thousands of his own civilians. For God sake the Russians are helping a man that routinely bombed aid convoys amd hospitals. There is no moral high ground to be claimed from saying Assad represents the 'legitimate' government.

so, for example, if it were in the 1800s US:

1) Russia in Syria
The Confederates revolted and attacked. Britain threatens Lincoln that he must leave and not kill pregnant southerners from gatlings and cannons. Britain is drowning in the US fleet. Confederates advance. Britain cries about the war crimes of Lincoln. Part of the confederates turns into devils and cooks people in oil. The devils win, only some of the cities that are cut off from each other remain surrounded. Lincoln is accused of killing civilians and announces that instead of the US there must be a British colony. And Lincoln asks for help from Russia. The Russian fleet sails, chases the British fleet, destroys devils and saves Lincoln and the United States. Britain cries about war crimes of Russia.

2) US in Serbia
Imagine that after the civil war, the US has only a few states left. In Canada, the crisis, crowds of Frenchmen are walking with weapons. And then a lot of Frenchmen, inclined against the United States, penetrate into the Vermont. there is an incident that is blown out in the world as the genocide of the French. Britain orders the US to withdraw from Vermont and begins a "humanitarian intervention." Bomb from the ships of the US cities and destroy the US Army in Vermont. The Republic of Vermont was created. Britain is the holy savior of the world. The US is an infernal tyrant and a murderer. The new Hampshire also decided to secede. Suddenly, the people of America "have received sight" and from the beloved Lincoln turned into a tyrant. and he was tried. During the trial, Lincoln died somehow. The United States is turning into a British colony.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 10:27:59


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.

Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.

And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.

The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're kidding right? The secret pact neatly divided up Poland. While Germany invaded from the west the Soviets did so from the east.

You say that as if Poland were torn in half. No. One side was a real Poland, and the other was a previously captured territory. this was recognized by the League of Nations. But now the West decided to rewrite history in order to justify its aggression. Defending these falsifications, you help imperialism!

Because Poland was torn in half. Both sides were the 'real' Poland. Furthermore the attempt at a rebuttal completely ignores German-Soviet military cooperation and the Katyn massacre. There was nothing excusable about the Soviet invasion of Poland. Here is the part of the secret clause, emphasis mine, note the use of "areas belonging to the Polish state":

On the occasion of the signature of the Nonaggression Pact between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics the undersigned plenipotentiaries of each of the two parties discussed in strictly confidential conversations the question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. These conversations led to the following conclusions:

1. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

2. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

France and Britain wanted an alliance with the Soviets, but the Poles absolutly refused to let Soviet troop on their territory to fight the Germans which is why talks faltered and completely understandable given soviet belligerence towards Poland.

What they offered did not suit the USSR at all and threatened its security. Britain wanted the USSR to get involved in the war, without giving any obligations and sitting on its own land. And since it would have no obligations, Britain had the right to declare war on the USSR later. What was unacceptable for the Soviet. The cunning policy of Britain once again caused others to suffer

It didn't threaten Soviet security unless stopping Hitler in 39 would. But you're right it did not suit Stalin at the time, which is why he went for the Pact. Britain did not want the SU to get involved without any obligations, Britain actually agreed on the Soviet plan on how to react to German aggression. It failed because Polish disagreement was the stumbling block, but they also ran out of time. And Britain had the right to declare war on the Soviets later? What? You actually think they wanted that guarantee in the tripartite talks? No, the tripartite talks would lead to a military alliance with France and Britain instead of the Germans, much more reliable partners as the UK was in no position to actually wage war against the Soviets. This was just Stalin's paranoia.

Also the "cunning" policy of Britain? Britain didn't force the Soviets to sign a pact with Hitler. That was their own choice.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also you keep saying betrayel, yet the Soviets made a deal with Hitler himself to backstab Poland. Its all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There is no room for doubt, Hitler and Stalin cooperated to divide Poland and Eastern Europe.

This is the result of difficult negotiations with Britain. Blame Chamberlain for what happened.
And do not use expression "backstabbing" for two reason:
1) For "backstabbing", you had to have a valid agreements violated.
2) You have to act before Poland state is ceased

No, just no. Stalin could have refused the France-UK alliance without getting into bed with Hitler. I fully blame Stalin for that decision.

Also yes backstabbing is accurate because the Polish state was defending itself against Hitler. When the Soviets invaded Poland, they violated the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, furthermore Poland never surrendered, so the Polish state didn't cease to be before the Soviet invasion, which is why some 5000 Soviet troops died fighting. So I think back stab is pretty accurate, seeing as how it actually fits within your two reasons.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

That the Allies had such a shameful display of military power does not detract from the fact that Soviet AND German troops held a parade together in Warsaw after conquering Poland.

You are an another victim of Goebbels propaganda.
It was a Brest (modern Belarus). The German troops were stationed there and they had to give the Brest to Soviets. after the negotiations, the Germans agreed to leave. Guderian suggested holding a joint parade, but this was refused by the commander Krivoshein. And the Soviet troops were angry. Then they decided to hold a ceremony of transferring the city, where Soviet troops acted as spectators. Krivoshein wanted to shake Guderian's hand, but he refused to leave the small podium and stood on it. Then Krivoshein had to stand beside him. And Guderian detained him with a conversation while the photographers shoot them.

A victim of Goebbels' propaganda? Are you kidding? Knock off the accusations. There is clear historical evidence behind all this.
Yes, I mis-remembered, tt was a victory parade in Brest-Litovsk. The reason Krivoshein didn't want to let the Soviet troops parade was because the Soviet army looked like a mess next to the Germans and he was very conscious of that. It was friendly enough. The fact that the parade even happened showed that the Soviets and Germans were cooperating. There were possibly other parades, but the Brest-Litovsk one is the best documented.


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Furthermore the Katyn Massacre showed what the Soviets were really doing, ruthless expansion and attempted national genocide by wiping out the Polish intelligentsia.

this is a fake, which Khrushchev came up with for the de-Stalinization campaign. Later faked documents found by Gorbachev cried and asked for forgiveness from the west, and then Yeltsin began to deal with them. They all grabbed for any lie, just to gak the Soviet Union. The figure of 20 thousand shot Polish officers is impossible. a little more than 4 thousand Polish officers were captured after Red Army er... entered the territory formerly owned by the Polish. By the time of Germany's attack on the USSR, the fate of prisoners of war was watched by Britain, so that she could not fail to notice if they were shot by the Soviets. after the war with Germany started, the Soviets began the formation of the Polish army and amnestied the captured Poles. Because of this, Hitler decided to fabricate a provocation, which is now known as the Katyn tragedy. Later, this fabrication was used by the Polish government in exile to break off relations with the USSR. In the USSR, they could not understand who had "shot" Polish officer prisoners and had begun an investigation after the Germans had driven out of this land. On January 26, 1944, a report was given that showed the falsity of the accusations made by the nazis. In addition, in 1939-40 the Katyn was a public place where people were constantly walking and if there was a mass execution there would have to be witnesses. but with the appearance of the Germans, this place was forbidden to visit and there was an inscription that people who had entered here would be shot
from the declared by the Germans witnesses of execution the commission has found only one. others died or were in German captivity. He said that he had not seen any execution and that it was impossible, since Katyn was at that time available to everyone. And to sign his testimony, he was beaten by Germans. The Germans had insufficiently collected signatures of testimony and they offered a reward for the testimony about the execution, but no one came. An analysis of the things found on the corpses showed that this was done by the Germans, since at that time they were on this site. Also, the holes from the bullets correspond to German weapons, and not Soviet. Finally, an end to falsification is possible only when there is no total control of the West over history

Really, you're calling the Katyn Massacre fake? I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 11:41:19


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.

And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.

The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.

Well, how could the Germans buy these resources if they had nothing to pay? Western companies gave loans to which Germany bought resources or could exchange them for others. Again, this is all in the German economy, not only built by the West, but also owned by the West, with a guarantee of capital preservation. It is impossible to imagine the USSR as supplying Hitler with such facts.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Because Poland was torn in half. Both sides were the 'real' Poland. Furthermore the attempt at a rebuttal completely ignores German-Soviet military cooperation and the Katyn massacre. There was nothing excusable about the Soviet invasion of Poland. Here is the part of the secret clause, emphasis mine, note the use of "areas belonging to the Polish state":

It was already uncontrolled wasteland without government, when Soviet entered ex-Poland territory. The Polish troops were ordered to surrender. The inflation from this as the reason for the defeat of the Polish is an unsuccessful attempt to hide the fact that the Polish was captured because of the betrayal of the Entente.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

It didn't threaten Soviet security unless stopping Hitler in 39 would. But you're right it did not suit Stalin at the time, which is why he went for the Pact. Britain did not want the SU to get involved without any obligations, Britain actually agreed on the Soviet plan on how to react to German aggression. It failed because Polish disagreement was the stumbling block, but they also ran out of time. And Britain had the right to declare war on the Soviets later? What? You actually think they wanted that guarantee in the tripartite talks? No, the tripartite talks would lead to a military alliance with France and Britain instead of the Germans, much more reliable partners as the UK was in no position to actually wage war against the Soviets. This was just Stalin's paranoia.

It was not caused by paranoia. Stalin thought strategically well enough. Britain was quite aggressive towards the USSR and at the same time refused to bind itself with obligations. And why did she start alternative talks with Germany? To attack the Stalin together? Mmm?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also the "cunning" policy of Britain? Britain didn't force the Soviets to sign a pact with Hitler. That was their own choice.

This was rather unusual and could be caused only by a dangerous situation that threatened the security of the USSR. Otherwise, there would be no such haste.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, just no. Stalin could have refused the France-UK alliance without getting into bed with Hitler. I fully blame Stalin for that decision.

He could not. Otherwise he just would not do anything.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

When the Soviets invaded Poland, they violated the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, furthermore Poland never surrendered, so the Polish state didn't cease to be before the Soviet invasion, which is why some 5000 Soviet troops died fighting.

The Polish army had no right to resist. she had to surrender. Officers who ordered to open fire did so at their own will. also, the gendarmes and the militia fired, who took advantage of the fact that they did not obey the command of the army
And 5000 is a killed and wounded number. Where do you get information from?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A victim of Goebbels' propaganda? Are you kidding? Knock off the accusations. There is clear historical evidence behind all this.
Yes, I mis-remembered, tt was a victory parade in Brest-Litovsk. The reason Krivoshein didn't want to let the Soviet troops parade was because the Soviet army looked like a mess next to the Germans and he was very conscious of that. It was friendly enough. The fact that the parade even happened showed that the Soviets and Germans were cooperating. There were possibly other parades, but the Brest-Litovsk one is the best documented.

Not a Warsaw. Not a parade. There were no "other parades". unfounded propaganda

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Really, you're calling the Katyn Massacre fake? I

What is for certain is that Polish officers were shot.
It is known that they were shot from German weapons.
It is known that the found bimetallic cases were manufactured in Germany after 1939
It is not known when exactly they were shot
It is known that the declared "NKVD troika" could not shoot them, because all NKVD troikas were liquidated in 1938
It is known that at that time prisoners in the USSR could not keep the insignias and documents with them bceause it held in other place to not be used for escape or other actions
We know that the Germans started it all. We know that it was against the USSR.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 13:24:38


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.

Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.

The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.
It was not an alliance. It was a non-aggression treaty. If the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was an alliance then the Munich treaty could also be considered an alliance. That is not what an alliance means. Simply coming to an understanding and signing a treaty with another country doesn't mean that you suddenly are in an alliance with them.
Also, the Soviets were hardly the only country that supported Nazi Germany by trading with them. The Netherlands also traded with Germany right until the invasion, and neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland continued trading with the Nazis until the very end. Fact is that everyone wanted to appease Hitler and made deals with the Nazis until the Nazis came for them (and sometimes even after, see for example the US companies that continued to do business with the Nazis through German subsidiaries throughout the war). The Allies and the Poles helped the Germans with the partition of Czechoslovakia. The Soviets helped the Germans in the partition of Poland. The Soviets in this regard are no different from the West. That Soviet trade was more critical to Germany than for example Dutch or British trade is a logical consequence of the fact that the Soviet Union is a hundred times larger than those countries (yet being communist, had a lot less trading partners) and therefore simply had more resources available for trade with Germany as well as a result of the fact that Germany by 1939 did not have a whole lot of trading partners left. Blaming the Soviets more than blaming the British, Dutch or Swedish is unfair and reeks of Cold War propaganda. Quite frankly, I think that any blaming in this regard is unfair. Blaming people is easy with hindsight, but people at that time did not have knowledge of what Hitler and the Nazis would do in the future.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 15:48:23


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.

Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.

Well international trade was the norm, even the Soviets participated in trade and with Germany as well. If you are aware that General Motors owned Opel, you must also be aware that there it is debate to what extent General Motors had active control over Opel once WW2 started. The awards they got were pre-39 for their service. So yes, Western economic cooperation helped once the Nazis decided to switch those factories towards war production. But operations in Germany by these companies also goes back a lot further than 1933. Soviet trading relations with Germany for example accounted for almost a quarter, until Hitler came to power and dropped off. After 39 they significantly increased again. If its about economic cooperation the Soviets aren't innocent either. And you would have to have a debate of business versus state trading with Germany.

On the other hand I could state that without all the secret German army preparations in the Soviet Union, the Germans might not have been as prepared for war in 39 as they had been. The Soviets actively helped Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles by for example helping the Germans develop their tank designs that led to the Panzerkampfwagen family

I have indeed heard of sanctions, just as you will have heard between the difference of lending from private versus state entities. Plus most of the borrowed money or trade deficit was with countries outside of the Allied sphere, not Allied countries themselves. But international economic sanctions weren't nearly as common back in the first half of the 20th century and countries were often afraid to use them so as not to provoke war. Not even the Soviets sanctioned Germany.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.

The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.
It was not an alliance. It was a non-aggression treaty. If the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was an alliance then the Munich treaty could also be considered an alliance. That is not what an alliance means. Simply coming to an understanding and signing a treaty with another country doesn't mean that you suddenly are in an alliance with them.
Also, the Soviets were hardly the only country that supported Nazi Germany by trading with them. The Netherlands also traded with Germany right until the invasion, and neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland continued trading with the Nazis until the very end. Fact is that everyone wanted to appease Hitler and made deals with the Nazis until the Nazis came for them (and sometimes even after, see for example the US companies that continued to do business with the Nazis through German subsidiaries throughout the war). The Allies and the Poles helped the Germans with the partition of Czechoslovakia. The Soviets helped the Germans in the partition of Poland. The Soviets in this regard are no different from the West. That Soviet trade was more critical to Germany than for example Dutch or British trade is a logical consequence of the fact that the Soviet Union is a hundred times larger than those countries (yet being communist, had a lot less trading partners) and therefore simply had more resources available for trade with Germany as well as a result of the fact that Germany by 1939 did not have a whole lot of trading partners left. Blaming the Soviets more than blaming the British, Dutch or Swedish is unfair and reeks of Cold War propaganda. Quite frankly, I think that any blaming in this regard is unfair. Blaming people is easy with hindsight, but people at that time did not have knowledge of what Hitler and the Nazis would do in the future.

It was by far not just a non-aggression pact. Most non-aggression pacts don't have secret clauses about a military campaign by both parties to divide up a third country. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divided up Europe and allied Hitler and Stalin in the destruction of Poland. The Munich Agreement never went that far, its disingenuous to say they were equal treaties. An alliance at its most basic is the act of allying, Hitler and Stalin did exactly that against Poland. It was a temporary military alliance with a specific goal, not just a non-aggression pact.

Of course the Netherlands did, but the Netherlands had declared itself neutral in any event. Stalin with the provision of critical war supplies and the invasion of Poland actively sided with Hitler. The position of neutral countries is important to consider. Sweden for example would have certainly been invaded to gain acces to their critical war resources. Yet Hitler was in no position to invade the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin made the deal to supply Hitler, knowing that Hitler while not strong enough would eventually turn on him. It was just stupid to include a trade deal by Stalin.

Again, its disingenuous to state that the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland are equal. Czechoslovakia grudgingly accepted the Munich Agreement because the alternative was to face war and the destruction of the entire country, plus neither the Soviets nor the French were prepared to help the Czechs in a war or in any real state to help in the case of the Soviets. Stalin was mostly angry for not being invited. Meanwhile Poland was an actual invasion during a war. Nothing was requested, because what was required was not handing over some territory, it was the destruction of the entire state and the elimination of its people by the Germans and the national identity by the Soviets through actions such as at Katyn. So yes, in that sense the Soviets were very different from the West.

I'm not saying this makes the Soviets any worse than the others for trading with Hitler, but the fact of the matter is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secret clause did make the Soviets a lot worse than the other countries. Trading was in the end just stupid for countries such as the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, but the Soviets suffered a lot more because of it. I'm also not blaming the Soviets directly for the non-aggression part of the Pact, Stalin imagined France and Germany would murder each other. Yet what I can blame the Soviets for is engaging in the exact same type of activities Hitler engaged in by forcefully annexing countries, then going on the systematically eliminate what Stalin saw as the enemy in those populations. That part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is frequently forgotten because Hitler went on to do far worse things.

So no, I don't blame the Soviets for trading and neither for not wanting to go to war at the time. Of course in hindsight but even at the time in 39 Stalin knew those resources would help his future enemy grow stronger.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 16:42:06


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]

It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 17:57:27


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]

It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.



Poland WAS invaded by the USSR, no matter how hard you try to spin it.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 17:58:59


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]

It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.


The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.

A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 19:15:45


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.

Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.

Well international trade was the norm, even the Soviets participated in trade and with Germany as well. If you are aware that General Motors owned Opel, you must also be aware that there it is debate to what extent General Motors had active control over Opel once WW2 started. The awards they got were pre-39 for their service. So yes, Western economic cooperation helped once the Nazis decided to switch those factories towards war production.
Don't pretend those factories weren't making military equipment before. The German army did not just jump out of a hole in the ground in 1939. It was built up over the preceding years, which would not have been possible without the aid of Western companies and governments.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But international economic sanctions weren't nearly as common back in the first half of the 20th century and countries were often afraid to use them so as not to provoke war. Not even the Soviets sanctioned Germany.
And that is exactly the point I want to make. No one sanctioned Germany. You are really singling out the Soviet Union for cooperating with the Nazis here, but the truth is that all countries happily cooperated with the Nazis. They all are guilty of allowing Hitler to build up his massive war machine and allowing him to invade countries at will. As a Dutchman (or an Englishman, American, Swede or pretty much everyone from the developed world) saying 'but the Soviets cooperated with and helped the Nazis' is hypocritical. It is a pot calling a kettle black. We all cooperated with and helped the Nazis.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It was by far not just a non-aggression pact. Most non-aggression pacts don't have secret clauses about a military campaign by both parties to divide up a third country. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divided up Europe and allied Hitler and Stalin in the destruction of Poland. The Munich Agreement never went that far, its disingenuous to say they were equal treaties. An alliance at its most basic is the act of allying, Hitler and Stalin did exactly that against Poland. It was a temporary military alliance with a specific goal, not just a non-aggression pact.

Of course the Netherlands did, but the Netherlands had declared itself neutral in any event. Stalin with the provision of critical war supplies and the invasion of Poland actively sided with Hitler. The position of neutral countries is important to consider. Sweden for example would have certainly been invaded to gain acces to their critical war resources. Yet Hitler was in no position to invade the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin made the deal to supply Hitler, knowing that Hitler while not strong enough would eventually turn on him. It was just stupid to include a trade deal by Stalin.

Again, its disingenuous to state that the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland are equal.

Indeed, they are not equal. Allied contribution to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was much greater than Soviet contribution to the invasion of Poland. In the invasion of Poland, the Red Army only gave the final blow to the heavily damaged Polish army that had already fought tooth and nail against the German invaders. In the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Allies eliminated the entire Czechoslovak military, allowing the Germans to march in unopposed and without spilling a single drop of blood. If I were to invade a country, I sure know which kind of aid I would rather want to have.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Czechoslovakia grudgingly accepted the Munich Agreement because the alternative was to face war and the destruction of the entire country,
Which in the end, was exactly what they got even though they accepted the treaty, is it not? The Czechoslovak government did not want to accept the treaty at all, they wanted to fight. But the British and French threatened them into accepting the treaty (violating their previously made treaties with Czechoslovakia). Czechoslovakia had a powerful military and strong fortifications backed by a very capable military industry. The Soviets had already promised to send troops if Czechoslovakia was attacked and if they had also gotten Allied help the Nazis might very well have been stopped there and the Second World War would have been done with a good deal less misery, genocide and bloodshed. But that is of course in hindsight.
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Meanwhile Poland was an actual invasion during a war. Nothing was requested, because what was required was not handing over some territory, it was the destruction of the entire state and the elimination of its people by the Germans and the national identity by the Soviets through actions such as at Katyn. So yes, in that sense the Soviets were very different from the West.
Are you implying that the invasion of Czechoslovakia wasn't an actual invasion? I have a Slovak housemate, shall I ask him what he thinks of that? Czechoslovakia was as much as an invasion as Poland, the only difference is that in the first invasion, the Allies had forced the Czechoslovaks to not fight back. The Munich Agreement (or Munich Betrayal, as they called it in Czechoslovakia) wasn't just about handing over a bit of territory either. It was about the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist after the invasion as much as Poland did after it was invaded. And it is not like the Allies could not have known that would happen. The Czechs already told them that would happen.
Sure, you could argue the Allies never actually sent soldiers to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia (although Poland, who would join the Allies less than a year later, did send soldiers to annex part of Czechoslovakia and prevented the Soviets from coming to the aid of the Czechoslovaks), but they worked together with Germany and sent diplomats that were far more effective in fighting Czechoslovakia than the entire combined military might of Germany, France and Britain ever could have been. If, by your loose definition of alliance, that is not an alliance between the Allies and Germany, then you need to redefine your definition.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm not saying this makes the Soviets any worse than the others for trading with Hitler, but the fact of the matter is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secret clause did make the Soviets a lot worse than the other countries. Trading was in the end just stupid for countries such as the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, but the Soviets suffered a lot more because of it. I'm also not blaming the Soviets directly for the non-aggression part of the Pact, Stalin imagined France and Germany would murder each other. Yet what I can blame the Soviets for is engaging in the exact same type of activities Hitler engaged in by forcefully annexing countries, then going on the systematically eliminate what Stalin saw as the enemy in those populations. That part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is frequently forgotten because Hitler went on to do far worse things.

Aye, you can blame the Soviets for those things. But you can not blame them for cooperating with the Germans. At least, not more than you can blame the other countries of Europe.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So no, I don't blame the Soviets for trading and neither for not wanting to go to war at the time. Of course in hindsight but even at the time in 39 Stalin knew those resources would help his future enemy grow stronger.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that Stalin misjudged Hitler. Stalin was much more afraid of Britain and other capitalist powers than he was of Hitler (somewhat understandable if you look at the recent history at the time of Britain and the USSR and compare that to the recent history at the time of Germany and the USSR. Germany had aided the USSR, while Britain was one of its most fervent opponents and even tried to invade what would become the USSR in 1918). He also knew that Hitler, while he was strongly anticommunist, was also very much anti-British. Stalin actually entertained the thought of joining the Axis and teaming up with Germany to fight Britain. Only after that did he plan to attack Hitler.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]

It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.


The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.

A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.

There is a great deal of propaganda about the Katyn massacres, Freakazoitt is right in that. It is kind of logical considering that the entire story originates as Nazi propaganda. But it is true that the Soviets executed Polish officers at Katyn and other places. There is no denying that crime. The Soviet government itself has admitted that and apologised for it, and the Russian government has made public most of the surviving files that relate to the massacres. People who still deny the Katyn massacres are eithr fooling themselves or are hardline communists who idolise Stalin. Which kinda is the same thing I guess.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/12 21:18:49


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.

What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.

The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.

Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.

Well international trade was the norm, even the Soviets participated in trade and with Germany as well. If you are aware that General Motors owned Opel, you must also be aware that there it is debate to what extent General Motors had active control over Opel once WW2 started. The awards they got were pre-39 for their service. So yes, Western economic cooperation helped once the Nazis decided to switch those factories towards war production.
Don't pretend those factories weren't making military equipment before. The German army did not just jump out of a hole in the ground in 1939. It was built up over the preceding years, which would not have been possible without the aid of Western companies and governments.

Actually they weren't. The GM-Opel factories weren't used for war production until the actual outbreak of war, you could argue though that after all those trucks were seized by the army the pre 39 production became war equipment. But Opel didn't start of producing tanks or aircraft until later. The German Army did build itself up rapidly, but if for example you look at the total amount of tanks build before 1939 (just small ones even) they only build around 600 a year. A vast difference from the thousands to tens of thousands a year during the war. The Germans really didn't have that much material in 1939, they just used it better.

What was and wasn't possible due to the economic aid of Western companies and governments and what was possible due to military and economic help from the Soviets is a hard question. Most economic help wasn't meant to or immediately redirected into the war effort until 1939.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But international economic sanctions weren't nearly as common back in the first half of the 20th century and countries were often afraid to use them so as not to provoke war. Not even the Soviets sanctioned Germany.
And that is exactly the point I want to make. No one sanctioned Germany. You are really singling out the Soviet Union for cooperating with the Nazis here, but the truth is that all countries happily cooperated with the Nazis. They all are guilty of allowing Hitler to build up his massive war machine and allowing him to invade countries at will. As a Dutchman (or an Englishman, American, Swede or pretty much everyone from the developed world) saying 'but the Soviets cooperated with and helped the Nazis' is hypocritical. It is a pot calling a kettle black. We all cooperated with and helped the Nazis.

I'm singling out the Soviets because of their critical cooperation with the Nazis in the years between 39 and 41. I'm not passing judgement on it, I'm just making a point that the Soviets did this knowing they would be the next target. They did more to help Hitler prepare for the invasion of the Soviet Union than anyone else in that sense. Of course France losing didn't help, but they couldn't even help themselves

Romania and Sweden remained important resource countries for Germany even after 41, but the equation the found themselves in versus the one the Soviets found themselves in in 39 was slightly different. They were different degrees of lets say 'willing' cooperation. Everyone chipped in doing it, but only the Soviet Union had it backfire that spectacularly.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It was by far not just a non-aggression pact. Most non-aggression pacts don't have secret clauses about a military campaign by both parties to divide up a third country. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divided up Europe and allied Hitler and Stalin in the destruction of Poland. The Munich Agreement never went that far, its disingenuous to say they were equal treaties. An alliance at its most basic is the act of allying, Hitler and Stalin did exactly that against Poland. It was a temporary military alliance with a specific goal, not just a non-aggression pact.

Of course the Netherlands did, but the Netherlands had declared itself neutral in any event. Stalin with the provision of critical war supplies and the invasion of Poland actively sided with Hitler. The position of neutral countries is important to consider. Sweden for example would have certainly been invaded to gain acces to their critical war resources. Yet Hitler was in no position to invade the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin made the deal to supply Hitler, knowing that Hitler while not strong enough would eventually turn on him. It was just stupid to include a trade deal by Stalin.

Again, its disingenuous to state that the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland are equal.

Indeed, they are not equal. Allied contribution to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was much greater than Soviet contribution to the invasion of Poland. In the invasion of Poland, the Red Army only gave the final blow to the heavily damaged Polish army that had already fought tooth and nail against the German invaders. In the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Allies eliminated the entire Czechoslovak military, allowing the Germans to march in unopposed and without spilling a single drop of blood. If I were to invade a country, I sure know which kind of aid I would rather want to have.

Invasion of Czechoslovakia? Are you referring to the First Vienna Award? The Allies had nothing to do with the actual disappearance of Czechoslovakia as happened after the Munich Agreement. The Allies didn't eliminate the Czechoslovakian army, they just gave away the Sudetenland, the fortified border. The Czechoslovakian chose not to resist the German invasion because they knew it would be futile.

So your statement is more along the lines of, if I had to chose between giving up an important slice of territory and being bloodily crushed between two armies you would choose the latter? The Allies didn't know Hitler would take all of the Sudetenland, that as you said is hindsight. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was quite clear on the fate of Poland however.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Czechoslovakia grudgingly accepted the Munich Agreement because the alternative was to face war and the destruction of the entire country,
Which in the end, was exactly what they got even though they accepted the treaty, is it not? The Czechoslovak government did not want to accept the treaty at all, they wanted to fight. But the British and French threatened them into accepting the treaty (violating their previously made treaties with Czechoslovakia). Czechoslovakia had a powerful military and strong fortifications backed by a very capable military industry. The Soviets had already promised to send troops if Czechoslovakia was attacked and if they had also gotten Allied help the Nazis might very well have been stopped there and the Second World War would have been done with a good deal less misery, genocide and bloodshed. But that is of course in hindsight.

Yes the Munich Agreement was one of the weirdest displays of diplomacy I have seen. Two much stronger nations dealing with a weaker aggressive Germany, threatening with, but absent from the conference, Soviet military intervention to make Hitler accept less.

Realistically the Soviets were in no position to intervene due to the weakened army and Poland refusing entry. If France however would have put their foot down (and removed that foot up the French army's ass) they might have actually stopped Hitler. Its the tragedy of thinking at the time Hitler would settle for something instead of everything.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Meanwhile Poland was an actual invasion during a war. Nothing was requested, because what was required was not handing over some territory, it was the destruction of the entire state and the elimination of its people by the Germans and the national identity by the Soviets through actions such as at Katyn. So yes, in that sense the Soviets were very different from the West.
Are you implying that the invasion of Czechoslovakia wasn't an actual invasion? I have a Slovak housemate, shall I ask him what he thinks of that? Czechoslovakia was as much as an invasion as Poland, the only difference is that in the first invasion, the Allies had forced the Czechoslovaks to not fight back. The Munich Agreement (or Munich Betrayal, as they called it in Czechoslovakia) wasn't just about handing over a bit of territory either. It was about the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist after the invasion as much as Poland did after it was invaded. And it is not like the Allies could not have known that would happen. The Czechs already told them that would happen.
Sure, you could argue the Allies never actually sent soldiers to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia (although Poland, who would join the Allies less than a year later, did send soldiers to annex part of Czechoslovakia and prevented the Soviets from coming to the aid of the Czechoslovaks), but they worked together with Germany and sent diplomats that were far more effective in fighting Czechoslovakia than the entire combined military might of Germany, France and Britain ever could have been. If, by your loose definition of alliance, that is not an alliance between the Allies and Germany, then you need to redefine your definition.

It was an actual invasion. But the invasion and the Munich Agreement are two separate events in which the Allies were only involved in the second. Also Slovak housemate? Wouldn't he view it slightly different as for Slovakia it was the chance to become independent? I guess it depends on his views on Czechoslovakia, but not all Slovaks were that happy to die for the Czechs at the time. The Munich Agreement did lead to the later invasion, but that was never the intend. Again, the key difference between the Munich Agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Well they didn't ally to destroy Czechoslovakia like Germany and the SU did for Poland. Its different enough to not consider it allying in that sense. But I agree that Allied cooperation left Czechoslovakia very vulnerable for the separate blow afterwards.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm not saying this makes the Soviets any worse than the others for trading with Hitler, but the fact of the matter is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secret clause did make the Soviets a lot worse than the other countries. Trading was in the end just stupid for countries such as the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, but the Soviets suffered a lot more because of it. I'm also not blaming the Soviets directly for the non-aggression part of the Pact, Stalin imagined France and Germany would murder each other. Yet what I can blame the Soviets for is engaging in the exact same type of activities Hitler engaged in by forcefully annexing countries, then going on the systematically eliminate what Stalin saw as the enemy in those populations. That part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is frequently forgotten because Hitler went on to do far worse things.

Aye, you can blame the Soviets for those things. But you can not blame them for cooperating with the Germans. At least, not more than you can blame the other countries of Europe.

Well I can blame them for killing Poland in cooperation with Germany, but beyond that no it wasn't that different.


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So no, I don't blame the Soviets for trading and neither for not wanting to go to war at the time. Of course in hindsight but even at the time in 39 Stalin knew those resources would help his future enemy grow stronger.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that Stalin misjudged Hitler. Stalin was much more afraid of Britain and other capitalist powers than he was of Hitler (somewhat understandable if you look at the recent history at the time of Britain and the USSR and compare that to the recent history at the time of Germany and the USSR. Germany had aided the USSR, while Britain was one of its most fervent opponents and even tried to invade what would become the USSR in 1918). He also knew that Hitler, while he was strongly anticommunist, was also very much anti-British. Stalin actually entertained the thought of joining the Axis and teaming up with Germany to fight Britain. Only after that did he plan to attack Hitler.

Yes, Stalin was paranoid of Britain and thought even in June 41 felt that they were setting him up for a war with Hitler. But Stalin himself was aware that he would have to fight Hitler eventually, but the Soviets wouldn't be ready until at least 42-43 with rebuilding their army.

I get were it comes from and to an extent it wasn't unreasonable of course. But it ended up clouding his view to a dangerous extent. Hitler himself however didn't hate the British much, he loathed the French. But Hitler for his part thought that Britain might be neutral or perhaps side with him in the war against the Soviets. Once France was beaten Hitler didn't need to keep fighting Britain, its what Britain wanted.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]

It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.


The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.

A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.

There is a great deal of propaganda about the Katyn massacres, Freakazoitt is right in that. It is kind of logical considering that the entire story originates as Nazi propaganda. But it is true that the Soviets executed Polish officers at Katyn and other places. There is no denying that crime. The Soviet government itself has admitted that and apologised for it, and the Russian government has made public most of the surviving files that relate to the massacres. People who still deny the Katyn massacres are eithr fooling themselves or are hardline communists who idolise Stalin. Which kinda is the same thing I guess.

Yes, but saying it is manufactured Nazi propaganda is wrong, although they did happily use it.

I guess some people still want to deny it because it reflects badly upon 'Russian' history. I don't think it does, as they were entirely different circumstances and a single chapter doesn't ruin the entire book so to speak.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 03:53:03


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.

That's what it is.
Who is to blame for the fate of Poland:
Hitler's Germany
Entente
You can also add the government of Poland
But instead of all this, a screaming slogan comes to the fore "Soviet invasion in Poland"and is reinforced by a photograph of what you call a" joint parade in Warsaw ". And it is repeated many times in a suitable time for political reasons. This is the technology of Goebbels. moreover - it is his own work.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.

First, there are no obvious facts pointing to the NKVD. But there are those that point to the Nazis. At least it is necessary to finish the investigation of this case, and not to inflate the campaign with the next slogan "Katyn!".
Secondly, this is not so important an event to turn it into the title illustration of the Second World War.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I guess some people still want to deny it because it reflects badly upon 'Russian' history. I don't think it does, as they were entirely different circumstances and a single chapter doesn't ruin the entire book so to speak.

I do not care who is to blame for their execution. But I see obvious violations of the principles of history as a science, and not a means of propaganda.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 11:33:37


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

But then the Entente didn't agree to carve up Poland once Germany called the Ententes bluff of not wanting to actually go to war for any of it's treaties.

Not that it's an excuse, but there's a reason "perifidious Albion" is a moniker about the British.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 12:18:07


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is quite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 12:30:52


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.


Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 17:02:58


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.


Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.

Actually the USSR wanted to send troops to aid Czechoslovakia, but Poland would not let them pass. And the Western Allies (despite France being bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia) refused to aid Czechoslovakia as well and even forced them to surrender a significant part of their territory, leaving Czechoslovakia weak and easily destroyed by Hitler a few months later. Saying appeasement was a strategy to buy more time for war preparations is revisionist nonsense. They wanted to avoid war altogether. "Peace for our time" remember? There were lots of people prepared to fight. In hindsight, Hitler could have been easily stopped in Czechoslovakia. But Hitler saw that the governments of France and England were unwilling to fight, and he exploited that.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 18:13:48


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.

That's what it is.
Who is to blame for the fate of Poland:
Hitler's Germany
Entente
You can also add the government of Poland
But instead of all this, a screaming slogan comes to the fore "Soviet invasion in Poland"and is reinforced by a photograph of what you call a" joint parade in Warsaw ". And it is repeated many times in a suitable time for political reasons. This is the technology of Goebbels. moreover - it is his own work.

I admitted that Warsaw was a mistake in remembering. But that victory parade did happen. And so did the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the end of the day Germany and the Soviet Union hold final responsibility for the destruction of Poland as they physically marched in troops to end it.

Quit it with the Goebbels crap. Its ridiculous deflection.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.

First, there are no obvious facts pointing to the NKVD. But there are those that point to the Nazis. At least it is necessary to finish the investigation of this case, and not to inflate the campaign with the next slogan "Katyn!".
Secondly, this is not so important an event to turn it into the title illustration of the Second World War.

No, everything points towards the NKVD. We know those who got killed were captured by the Soviet army, not the Germans. In 1940 the head of the NKVD Beria made the decision with the approval of Stalin. Plus the Soviets themselves documented the Katyn Massacre. The fact that German pistols were used is the weakest counter argument, as the Soviets had access to German pistols and it was even said they were preferred over Soviet ones by the NKVD.

The investigations are finished, its clear, it was the Soviets. Even the Soviet and Russian governments have admitted to it. Denying it is just silly.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I guess some people still want to deny it because it reflects badly upon 'Russian' history. I don't think it does, as they were entirely different circumstances and a single chapter doesn't ruin the entire book so to speak.

I do not care who is to blame for their execution. But I see obvious violations of the principles of history as a science, and not a means of propaganda.

You obviously do care, as you're doing your best to deny the accusations against the country that did it.

There are no violations of the principles of history. Furthermore history is not a science. Take that from someone academically trained as a historian (amongst others), its not science its a humanities subject. You're the one ignoring historical reality and countering with 1940's Soviet propaganda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is quite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.


You're literally arguing that they should have avoided war by going to war against Hitler?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.


Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.

Actually the USSR wanted to send troops to aid Czechoslovakia, but Poland would not let them pass. And the Western Allies (despite France being bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia) refused to aid Czechoslovakia as well and even forced them to surrender a significant part of their territory, leaving Czechoslovakia weak and easily destroyed by Hitler a few months later. Saying appeasement was a strategy to buy more time for war preparations is revisionist nonsense. They wanted to avoid war altogether. "Peace for our time" remember? There were lots of people prepared to fight. In hindsight, Hitler could have been easily stopped in Czechoslovakia. But Hitler saw that the governments of France and England were unwilling to fight, and he exploited that.

Eh, in part the appeasement partly being about delaying for war preparations is true. Of course they tried to guarantee peace, but the British thought themselves nowhere near ready to face another conflict in 1938 (and really, 1940 showed they weren't). They didn't know of course that Hitler himself was very weak in 38.

Hitler would have backed off, but its not an overstatement to say that no party was ready for a war but France, but France had its own military and political mess that would show in 1940.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/13 18:34:57


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


Spoiler:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.

How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.


Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.

Actually the USSR wanted to send troops to aid Czechoslovakia, but Poland would not let them pass. And the Western Allies (despite France being bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia) refused to aid Czechoslovakia as well and even forced them to surrender a significant part of their territory, leaving Czechoslovakia weak and easily destroyed by Hitler a few months later. Saying appeasement was a strategy to buy more time for war preparations is revisionist nonsense. They wanted to avoid war altogether. "Peace for our time" remember? There were lots of people prepared to fight. In hindsight, Hitler could have been easily stopped in Czechoslovakia. But Hitler saw that the governments of France and England were unwilling to fight, and he exploited that.


I wonder why Poland wouldn't want Russian troops moving through Poland

As I said, the political climate in Britain, before 1939 was one of not wanting to do WW1 all over again, so appeasement was the option they went for.
The time was more in regards to the USSR needing to move stuff over the Urals and get their house in some sort of vague semblance of order, as both Hitler and Stalin knew he would eventually head that way.

Britain and France were hoping he'd have his fill if they handed over the chunk of Czechoslovakia. This turned out to be false, but that's what they went with.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 09:22:52


Post by: pelicaniforce




As said, the political climate in Britain, before 1939 was one of not wanting to do WW1 all over again, so appeasement was the option they went for.
The time was more in regards to the USSR needing to move stuff over the Urals and get their house in some sort of vague semblance of order, as both Hitler and Stalin knew he would eventually head that way.

Britain and France were hoping he'd have his fill if they handed over the chunk of Czechoslovakia. This turned out to be false, but that's what they went with.


As it happens, there are many quotes by western leaders hoping that the Nazis would kill off the Soviet union. After all, the Bolsheviks had kilometre czar and expropriated property, and Hitler was a business-friendly westerners who had a mutual admiration with Henry Ford and the boss of AT&T. It was a good expectations around, since the very purpose of the early Nazi and Italian fascist parties was as a group of thugs paid by heavy industry and agriculture to beat up union members and socialists, and that's the only reason that the Nazis had enough cars and money to send speakers all over Germany and become a competitive political party.

Britain and France weren't too tired after ww1, they were part of the nineteen countries who invaded Russia after ww1. They weren't fully mobilized but they had enough pep for a few marauding expeditionary groups.




Of course in this jubilee year, there are still a few moments to say happy birthday to the freedom fighters Steve Biko, hero of anti-apartheid, and of course the man of steel himself, Joseph Stalin, of blessed memory.



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 10:16:49


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 13:26:02


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Well his 10 million victims sure would like to disagree on blessed with pelicaniforce. Sadly they can't because Stalin murdered them...

This thread has certainly brought out the weird fantasizers. Also "the only reason" really made me laugh, good stuff.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 16:24:41


Post by: pelicaniforce


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that Hitler was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas. And they might tell you it's a joke, or purely a historical, academic appreciation, not an endorsement. They have their own style guide, it says to pretend they are just kidding, just joking. It says they can tell themselves it's a joke, just to make it easier. It says to draw false equivalencies to slander your victims, it says to hide in centrism, it says to make enough contradictory claims that people listening can't tell what is real or what you really believe. Something like three percent of the time, these people are cops.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 18:08:20


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.


There is nothing unusual in using the Germans against the Soviet Russia. Immediately after the signing of the Versailles Treaty, Britain forced the Germans to occupy former Russian territories, suppress leftist sentiments there and establish anti-Soviet regimes. These are the very Baltic states, which as you call "were seized by the Soviets." By modern standards, they were rather "democratized" by the Soviets. In addition, let us recall the "Unthinkable operation". The war of Britain against the USSR was not so illusory and the Chamberlain's negotiations with the Nazis could well have been applicable to the weakening of the soviets. But there was a Pact as result of very difficult intricacy of relations between Britain adn USSR. In the end, everyone won, except the Nazis. Than you are not happy?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

I wonder why Poland wouldn't want Russian troops moving through Poland

These are the territories of Ukraine and Belarus, captured by Poland, into which Soviet troops entered after the disappearance of the Polish as an able state. In those days, this was not objectionable. Only now they are shouting about this. because Polish politicians are not allowed to talk about anything else. Well, think for yourself - what else can they talk about?


Disciple of fate wrote:
I admitted that Warsaw was a mistake in remembering. But that victory parade did happen. And so did the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the end of the day Germany and the Soviet Union hold final responsibility for the destruction of Poland as they physically marched in troops to end it.

Quit it with the Goebbels crap. Its ridiculous deflection.

This pressure on emotions and nothing more. And do not deny the fact that Goebbels personally put his hand to staging all this as a "joint action on the ruins of the defeated Polish".

Disciple of fate wrote:
No, everything points towards the NKVD. We know those who got killed were captured by the Soviet army, not the Germans. In 1940 the head of the NKVD Beria made the decision with the approval of Stalin. Plus the Soviets themselves documented the Katyn Massacre. The fact that German pistols were used is the weakest counter argument, as the Soviets had access to German pistols and it was even said they were preferred over Soviet ones by the NKVD.

The investigations are finished, its clear, it was the Soviets. Even the Soviet and Russian governments have admitted to it. Denying it is just silly.

The only thing that is known reliably is the lack of direct evidence and the falsity of documents on which Gorbachev relies. All existing "evidence" does not have a real basis and exist only due to the russophobia media background.
The pistols you're talking about are the Walter PPK in 7.65mm caliber. Very standard weapons for the NKVD, right? No. In fact, they usually had a Nagant revolver. And where did they get the German bimetallic cartridges produced since 1940, if no German weapons were supplied since 1933? This is a decadent Western philosophy, based on emotions, and not on reality

Disciple of fate wrote:
You obviously do care, as you're doing your best to deny the accusations against the country that did it.

There are no violations of the principles of history. Furthermore history is not a science. Take that from someone academically trained as a historian (amongst others), its not science its a humanities subject. You're the one ignoring historical reality and countering with 1940's Soviet propaganda.

We can not unequivocally blame the NKVD for Katyn until we have enough evidence. So far, the correct scientific approach will have several versions of what happened. but this is not done because of the of agressive politics, which has subordinated everything to itself.

Disciple of fate wrote:
You're literally arguing that they should have avoided war by going to war against Hitler?

This is their direct duty, according to the Treaty of Versailles. And common sense. The Entente was to enter the troops and disarm Germany. And what did they expect from an aggressive force that is gaining strength, which openly announces its aggressive plans?



100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 18:11:57


Post by: Luciferian


Pelicanforce, you might as well have given birthday wishes to Hitler. No false equivalency here - if you sat Hitler and Stalin down for a friendly chat they probably would have agreed on just about everything but economics. Both were shameless authoritarians whose actions led to the murder of millions of people. I don't care what ideology that's in service of, it's wrong.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 18:33:20


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Might want to fix your qoutes as part of the last ones are mine and not Mozzyfuzzy's.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.


There is nothing unusual in using the Germans against the Soviet Russia. Immediately after the signing of the Versailles Treaty, Britain forced the Germans to occupy former Russian territories, suppress leftist sentiments there and establish anti-Soviet regimes. These are the very Baltic states, which as you call "were seized by the Soviets." By modern standards, they were rather "democratized" by the Soviets. In addition, let us recall the "Unthinkable operation". The war of Britain against the USSR was not so illusory and the Chamberlain's negotiations with the Nazis could well have been applicable to the weakening of the councils. But there was a Pact as result of very difficult intricacy of relations between Britain adn USSR. In the end, everyone won, except the Nazis. Than you are not happy?

No, Germany had already gained the Russian areas thanks to the Soviet-German Brest-Litovsk agreement. Lenin ceded those territories to the Germans. Nothing British about it.

"Democratized"? Is that what were calling invading and violently suppressing the independence of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union these days?

Also operation unthinkable is nonsense to bring up, you know why? Because all countries have plans for wars against opponents. The US had one for Britain. The Soviets had one for Nazi-Germany etc etc. Its in the same vein as people arguing that Hitler was just defending himself against an imminent Soviet strike, a theory that gained some popularity with Icebreaker. Of course its pure garbage, but then a lot of popularized history doesn't take historical accuracy very far.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

I wonder why Poland wouldn't want Russian troops moving through Poland

These are the territories of Ukraine and Belarus, captured by Poland, into which Soviet troops entered after the disappearance of the Polish as an able state. In those days, this was not objectionable. Only now they are shouting about this. because Polish politicians are not allowed to talk about anything else. Well, think for yourself - what else can they talk about?

No, those were territories of Poland, gained after Polish independence after Brest-Litovsk. That Stalin moved the border of 1945 Poland westwards does not diminish that fact.

Actually the invasion was objectionable, as it was of course in extreme violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviets invaded Poland, why deny it?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
I admitted that Warsaw was a mistake in remembering. But that victory parade did happen. And so did the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the end of the day Germany and the Soviet Union hold final responsibility for the destruction of Poland as they physically marched in troops to end it.

Quit it with the Goebbels crap. Its ridiculous deflection.

This pressure on emotions and nothing more. And do not deny the fact that Goebbels personally put his hand to staging all this as a "joint action on the ruins of the defeated Polish".

Its pure debating deflection crap and you know it. The Soviets willingly went along with it, no need to get Goebbels involved anywhere in this.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, everything points towards the NKVD. We know those who got killed were captured by the Soviet army, not the Germans. In 1940 the head of the NKVD Beria made the decision with the approval of Stalin. Plus the Soviets themselves documented the Katyn Massacre. The fact that German pistols were used is the weakest counter argument, as the Soviets had access to German pistols and it was even said they were preferred over Soviet ones by the NKVD.

The investigations are finished, its clear, it was the Soviets. Even the Soviet and Russian governments have admitted to it. Denying it is just silly.

The only thing that is known reliably is the lack of direct evidence and the falsity of documents on which Gorbachev relies. All existing "evidence" does not have a real basis and exist only due to the russophobia media background.
The pistols you're talking about are the Walter PPK in 7.65mm caliber. Very standard weapons for the NKVD, right? No. In fact, they usually had a Nagant revolver. And where did they get the German bimetallic cartridges produced since 1940, if no German weapons were supplied since 1933? This is a decadent Western philosophy, based on emotions, and not on reality

Holy hell, you can't be serious. You just declare all the evidence to be 'fake' because it suits your narrative.

Actually yes, its pretty well documented that the NKVD used German pistols because the recoil was easier on the wrists during executions. Prolonged use of Nagant revolvers by executioners sometimes ended up in broken wrists, which is why German pistols were preferred. Look it up, the Soviets got German equipment until at least 1940 thanks to the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, they even got German aircraft in 1940 thanks to it... Its just another weak deflection of a small detail buried under a mountain of evidence the NKVD did it.

Maybe you should stop with the "decadent Western philosophy, based on emotions" drivel if you're the one not aware of the facts and historical reality.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
You obviously do care, as you're doing your best to deny the accusations against the country that did it.

There are no violations of the principles of history. Furthermore history is not a science. Take that from someone academically trained as a historian (amongst others), its not science its a humanities subject. You're the one ignoring historical reality and countering with 1940's Soviet propaganda.

We can not unequivocally blame the NKVD for Katyn until we have enough evidence. So far, the correct scientific approach will have several versions of what happened. but this is not done because of the of agressive politics, which has subordinated everything to itself.

We have enough evidence, up to and including the paper trail. Stalin himself could rise from the grave and inform you the NKVD did it and you would still deny it.

The correct historical approach based on source material only has one really obvious version that has been confirmed by even the Soviets and later Russia itself. The other versions are only pushed by fringe groups furthering their own narrative. I mean the 'evidence' that the Germans did it is so weak that even the Soviets in 46 couldn't back that up in court. There is a reason that even now the Russian state still keeps certain files on Katyn classified. Why would they do that if it proves their innocence?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
You're literally arguing that they should have avoided war by going to war against Hitler?

This is their direct duty, according to the Treaty of Versailles. And common sense. The Entente was to enter the troops and disarm Germany. And what did they expect from an aggressive force that is gaining strength, which openly announces its aggressive plans?


The point was arguing that they should go to war to avoid war is a paradox. I'm fine with the argument that they should have stopped Hitler sooner, but there is something to say for the fact that breaking the Treaty of Versailles was only natural, in 38 it obviously crossed the line,


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 21:36:39


Post by: Iron_Captain


pelicaniforce wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 21:41:28


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Luciferian wrote:
Pelicanforce, you might as well have given birthday wishes to Hitler. No false equivalency here - if you sat Hitler and Stalin down for a friendly chat they probably would have agreed on just about everything but economics. Both were shameless authoritarians whose actions led to the murder of millions of people. I don't care what ideology that's in service of, it's wrong.


I posit that they would not. In support of this claim I offer the attempt of the nazis to exterminate the slavic peoples and the efforts of the USSR under Stalin to prevent this.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 22:12:52


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
pelicaniforce wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

While I agree with the overall sentiment on perception and how history is shaped, I have to disagree on the blessed part. We can certainly lets say appreciate the impact and influence Stalin had on history. Yes he beat Hitler, which is an important part in some 'forgiving' what Stalin did. But the point is that history has clearly been updated since Soviet propaganda times. History on Stalin is now nuanced, not just written by victors. We even have German historians writing about Stalin for example. That is the key difference between 70 years ago and now.

In the current day with information available at almost the touch of a button, nobody should ever combine Stalin with the word "blessed". Its just such an incredible disconnect with empathy for other humans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Luciferian wrote:
Pelicanforce, you might as well have given birthday wishes to Hitler. No false equivalency here - if you sat Hitler and Stalin down for a friendly chat they probably would have agreed on just about everything but economics. Both were shameless authoritarians whose actions led to the murder of millions of people. I don't care what ideology that's in service of, it's wrong.


I posit that they would not. In support of this claim I offer the attempt of the nazis to exterminate the slavic peoples and the efforts of the USSR under Stalin to prevent this.

While there are many many differences between Hitler and Stalin that Luciferian ignores, in essence he is right. Just because Stalin beat Hitler doesn't excuse the millions he killed, like Luciferian says, it is wrong.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 22:17:49


Post by: Luciferian


Rosebuddy wrote:


I posit that they would not. In support of this claim I offer the attempt of the nazis to exterminate the slavic peoples and the efforts of the USSR under Stalin to prevent this.


The USSR killed millions of its own people. It was directly responsible for the starvation of 7 million ethnic Ukrainians in one year, among other atrocities. About the only thing they ever accomplished with efficiency.

The spirit of the Bolshevik Revolution died the day that Trotsky turned the guns on the sailors at Kronstadt in 1921. The Bolsheviks themselves probably all ended up dead or imprisoned shortly after, at the hands of Stalin none the less. So if that's the kind of guy you want to carry water for, at least you know what you have to look forward to, I guess.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/19 22:37:00


Post by: feeder


TIL that, despite waging the most bloody and costly war in the history of mankind against each other, Hitler and Stalin were actually BFFs.

You know who was actually BFFs? Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler. They probably even both got drunk and said "I love you, man" at some point.

edit: spelling derp


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/20 01:25:00


Post by: Luciferian


Who would be villain enough to have a beer with a capitalist, am I right? You're right, Stalin is the mass murderer who deserves our praise.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/20 15:42:32


Post by: Iron_Captain


 feeder wrote:
TIL that, despite waging the most bloody and costly war in the history of mankind against each other, Hitler and Stalin were actually BFFs.

You know who was actually BFFs? Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler. They probably even both got drunk and said "I love you, man" at some point.

edit: spelling derp

Actually, Hitler and Stalin absolutely despised one another. They were both brutal dictators whose regimes killed many people, but that is where all similarities end. They were fundamentally opposed to one another and the only thing that stopped them from instantly trying to murder the other at the beginning of the war was that they had a common enemy in Great Britain. And even then, both tried to ally with Great Britain against the other first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
pelicaniforce wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

While I agree with the overall sentiment on perception and how history is shaped, I have to disagree on the blessed part. We can certainly lets say appreciate the impact and influence Stalin had on history. Yes he beat Hitler, which is an important part in some 'forgiving' what Stalin did. But the point is that history has clearly been updated since Soviet propaganda times. History on Stalin is now nuanced, not just written by victors. We even have German historians writing about Stalin for example. That is the key difference between 70 years ago and now.

In the current day with information available at almost the touch of a button, nobody should ever combine Stalin with the word "blessed". Its just such an incredible disconnect with empathy for other humans.

And yet many people would not hesitate at all to agree with the statement that Stalin's memory is blessed. And it is not that these people are lacking in empathy. Yes, more nuanced writing is now available. But that is not what is going to stick in the public mind. Stalin's image in the public mind has already been firmly set in place by propaganda. Propaganda always wins out over nuanced scholarly writing in the end.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/20 17:03:45


Post by: feeder


 Luciferian wrote:
Who would be villain enough to have a beer with a capitalist, am I right?

It was their shared fondness for efficiency in the workplace that made them friends, but it was their virulent antisemitism that made them lovers.

You're right, Stalin is the mass murderer who deserves our praise.

Does he, though? It's 2017. I've lost the ability to tell when someone is serious on the internet or not.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/20 19:47:41


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
pelicaniforce wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

While I agree with the overall sentiment on perception and how history is shaped, I have to disagree on the blessed part. We can certainly lets say appreciate the impact and influence Stalin had on history. Yes he beat Hitler, which is an important part in some 'forgiving' what Stalin did. But the point is that history has clearly been updated since Soviet propaganda times. History on Stalin is now nuanced, not just written by victors. We even have German historians writing about Stalin for example. That is the key difference between 70 years ago and now.

In the current day with information available at almost the touch of a button, nobody should ever combine Stalin with the word "blessed". Its just such an incredible disconnect with empathy for other humans.

And yet many people would not hesitate at all to agree with the statement that Stalin's memory is blessed. And it is not that these people are lacking in empathy. Yes, more nuanced writing is now available. But that is not what is going to stick in the public mind. Stalin's image in the public mind has already been firmly set in place by propaganda. Propaganda always wins out over nuanced scholarly writing in the end.

Well if you're talking about the general public that is less well informed and aware than sure, saying blessed is odd, but they might not know enough.

Knowing the history and then talking about a blessed memory as an individual however, that shows a great lack of human empathy.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 05:28:14


Post by: Freakazoitt


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, Germany had already gained the Russian areas thanks to the Soviet-German Brest-Litovsk agreement. Lenin ceded those territories to the Germans. Nothing British about it.

We are talking about the fact that Germany was forbidden to have troops everywhere ... except for territories captured in the east. and it continued to seize new territories. and established there anti-Soviet regimes under British pressure. And it was the Versailles peace that forced them to continue the invasion campaign, which abolished the peace treaty of Soviet Russia with Germany. Moreover, it questioned the legitimacy of the existence of Soviet Russia as a country. Such a "noble" act. The ugly face of imperialism, spitting even on the millions of victims of the war of its own people and making its offspring - Nazism, as result of such imperialistic politics and ogranized economy depression. What a shame!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Democratized"? Is that what were calling invading and violently suppressing the independence of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union these days?

And what is the situation better now? There was one Union, now another Union. Only the color of the flag changed from red to blue. The same helpless government that operates at the behest of a big brother and the absence of its own economy. And the NATO troops who occupied them under the stupid and naive pretext "the Russians are coming!".

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also operation unthinkable is nonsense to bring up, you know why? Because all countries have plans for wars against opponents. The US had one for Britain. The Soviets had one for Nazi-Germany etc etc. Its in the same vein as people arguing that Hitler was just defending himself against an imminent Soviet strike, a theory that gained some popularity with Icebreaker. Of course its pure garbage, but then a lot of popularized history doesn't take historical accuracy very far.

At least read the details of this plan. This is an offensive plan, not a defensive one. In the long run, it was aimed at the Soviet regime. In addition, it admitted to some extent the restoration of the Nazi regime. All this has long-standing roots from the plans of Britain against the Russian Empire and is not a plan "just in case". About the Icebreaker. The book, of course, is very strange and looks like a rough trolling for uneducated people. But preparations for war really were. Only they were for a longer period and serious mistakes were made in assessing the tactics and weapons of Germany. Also, the poorly organized communications, supply and command .

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, those were territories of Poland, gained after Polish independence after Brest-Litovsk. That Stalin moved the border of 1945 Poland westwards does not diminish that fact.

Actually the invasion was objectionable, as it was of course in extreme violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviets invaded Poland, why deny it?

Because it makes everyone perceive this as a simultaneous blow to Poland from both sides, while it was a blow from Germany with the inactivity of the Entente and the arrogant optimism of the Polish government with it's incopetence in reality. Obviously, the agreement with Poland was a forced step. In the occupied Polish territories, belarusians and ukrainians lived, whom the Poles regarded as their servants. These were lands received as new estates for the polish masters, and not as the birthplace of the poles. it would be a doubtful step, after all this, to give people to Germany. Of course, one can challenge the formal validity of this. But at that time, many agreements were already broken, especially on the part of Germany. Again, the Entente's guilt that she did not follow the observance of all treaties.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

ts pure debating deflection crap and you know it. The Soviets willingly went along with it, no need to get Goebbels involved anywhere in this.

As long as Goebbels propaganda is used about how this happened, Goebbels will be involved in this.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually yes, its pretty well documented that the NKVD used German pistols because the recoil was easier on the wrists during executions. Prolonged use of Nagant revolvers by executioners sometimes ended up in broken wrists, which is why German pistols were preferred. Look it up, the Soviets got German equipment until at least 1940 thanks to the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, they even got German aircraft in 1940 thanks to it... Its just another weak deflection of a small detail buried under a mountain of evidence the NKVD did it.

The version of Goebbels, which is now considered "official" - is simply absurd. Polish officer prisoners are for some reason taken from different camps to the one that will later be in the German occupation. And they are shot in the territory of the active pioneer camp (camp for children's recreation and open for visiting by all people) ... not far from the boss's house. With the... german pistols, which were not in the regular arsenal of the NKVD. on the verdict of the NKVD troika, which liquidated two years ago in reality. and it happens precisely on the territory that will then be fenced by the Germans and for tresspassers being shot there without a warning? add here the fake documents that were forged under Gorbachev ... Guys, it obviously requires an investigation

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The point was arguing that they should go to war to avoid war is a paradox.

If you include logic, and not play with words, then there is no paradox.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 06:20:37


Post by: pelicaniforce


Of blessed memory is an honorific and means that the speaker is blessed to carry a memory of the decedent.

Today is the birthday (100) of the Cheka, the secret police force formed by Lenin, without which it would have taken much fewer than seventy years for the forces of reaction and the US to destroy the soviet republics, and millions of people may never have been fed and the free people of the planet may never have reached space.

Iron_Captain wrote:
pelicaniforce wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...


You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.



You know there are two kinds of propaganda. One is that Stalin certainly was not called a winner in our country, he was not taught more than a mention. It's a bit like when my elementary teacher would give a lesson about Dr. King. We had a parent in the classroom that day, who was black, and she spoke up and said actually she thought Malcom X happened to have been more influential entail on the specific topic that day. It was as if a crime had been committed and we could all get in trouble. Just saying the name was sedition. The teacher, who is white, said that include Malcom X, she didn't know much but he was less important and he was a radical, dangerous.

The other kind of propaganda is that I didn't mean thousands of people saying Stalin did good, I said you don't have to imagine people praising Hitler for supposedly doing good. Right now at this moment, people are telling "jokes" about loving butler, "jokes" and sincere allegations that Jews did this or that. These are also the same people who claim to be anti communist, that communism killed more russIans or more Chinese than there were Russians or Chinese also be at the time. These people are actually telling you something important: that they are entitled, hateful, and will say anything to obfuscate how hateful they are.



feeder wrote:
 Luciferian wrote:
Who would be villain enough to have a beer with a capitalist, am I right?

It was their shared fondness for efficiency in the workplace that made them friends, but it was their virulent antisemitism that made them lovers.

You're right, Stalin is the mass murderer who deserves our praise.

Does he, though? It's 2017. I've lost the ability to tell when someone is serious on the internet or not.


No this is a real question though. Who is more disgusting: Adolf Hitler, or the industrialist who encouraged him and funded him, helped William Hearst hide the fascists' crimes, built tires for the Nazis' extermination trucks even while people were fighting to defeat them? Yeah, having a beer with henry Ford is a horrible stain on anyone.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 12:37:01


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 13:00:09


Post by: Freakazoitt


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

If this appeal to me, then none of this is true.
There is no point in hiding that everyone knew who these green men were in the Crimea. I myself wonder how the radiation leakage occurred on Mayak and there is no benefit from having this contaminant responsible for numerous accidents and pollution. Sochi is known to me only as a vivid example of corruption. And the crimes of Stalin are obvious. But this does not mean that you can invent fairy tales and throw dirt. Do you know that in the Baltics censorship, infringement of the rights of the population, brainwashing, artificially inflated hysteria and a dead economy? But Russia has no political or economic interest in climbing into their affairs. Pumped with hysteria in the media do not notice how to step over the line and turn into just russophobes.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 13:01:56


Post by: Disciple of Fate


pelicaniforce wrote:
Of blessed memory is an honorific and means that the speaker is blessed to carry a memory of the decedent.

Today is the birthday (100) of the Cheka, the secret police force formed by Lenin, without which it would have taken much fewer than seventy years for the forces of reaction and the US to destroy the soviet republics, and millions of people may never have been fed and the free people of the planet may never have reached space.

Well its certainly horrific to use.

Also the Cheka, really? If it wasn't for the Cheka and its successors millions of Soviet citizens might also not have gotten murdered. What a horrible world that would have been to live in. /sarcasm


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 13:16:54


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

If this appeal to me, then none of this is true.
There is no point in hiding that everyone knew who these green men were in the Crimea. I myself wonder how the radiation leakage occurred on Mayak and there is no benefit from having this contaminant responsible for numerous accidents and pollution. Sochi is known to me only as a vivid example of corruption. And the crimes of Stalin are obvious. But this does not mean that you can invent fairy tales and throw dirt. Do you know that in the Baltics censorship, infringement of the rights of the population, brainwashing, artificially inflated hysteria and a dead economy? But Russia has no political or economic interest in climbing into their affairs. Pumped with hysteria in the media do not notice how to step over the line and turn into just russophobes.


Whataboutistm, as expected. How is the economic situation of the Baltics or any censorship there related to Russian wrongdoing? I'll give you a hint, in big, bolded letters: IT ISN'T . Stop deflecting.

As for the "fairy tales", you're the one trying to claim the Soviet Union's innocence in an event that even Russia has admitted was perpetrated by the Soviet Union. When even the dead horse you're beating is asking you to stop, perhaps you should take notice?


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 13:19:24


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, Germany had already gained the Russian areas thanks to the Soviet-German Brest-Litovsk agreement. Lenin ceded those territories to the Germans. Nothing British about it.

We are talking about the fact that Germany was forbidden to have troops everywhere ... except for territories captured in the east. and it continued to seize new territories. and established there anti-Soviet regimes under British pressure. And it was the Versailles peace that forced them to continue the invasion campaign, which abolished the peace treaty of Soviet Russia with Germany. Moreover, it questioned the legitimacy of the existence of Soviet Russia as a country. Such a "noble" act. The ugly face of imperialism, spitting even on the millions of victims of the war of its own people and making its offspring - Nazism, as result of such imperialistic politics and ogranized economy depression. What a shame!

Actually the Versailles Treaty invalidated Brest-Litovsk. But that doesn't negate the Soviets gave up what would become Poland in 1917.

Meanwhile you complain about imperialism which is exactly what the Soviets engaged in in 1939. Its the pot calling the kettle black.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Democratized"? Is that what were calling invading and violently suppressing the independence of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union these days?

And what is the situation better now? There was one Union, now another Union. Only the color of the flag changed from red to blue. The same helpless government that operates at the behest of a big brother and the absence of its own economy. And the NATO troops who occupied them under the stupid and naive pretext "the Russians are coming!".

Better now? You mean with the Baltics free of Soviet opression, yes very much better for their people.

The equation with the EU is laughable. Let me know when the EU sends in its secret police to murder people fighting for independence! NATO and the EU were a choice, 39 wasn't. For the Baltics the Russians came not once, but twice. Sorry its easy to dismiss that fear if you're not the one invaded and brutalized.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also operation unthinkable is nonsense to bring up, you know why? Because all countries have plans for wars against opponents. The US had one for Britain. The Soviets had one for Nazi-Germany etc etc. Its in the same vein as people arguing that Hitler was just defending himself against an imminent Soviet strike, a theory that gained some popularity with Icebreaker. Of course its pure garbage, but then a lot of popularized history doesn't take historical accuracy very far.

At least read the details of this plan. This is an offensive plan, not a defensive one. In the long run, it was aimed at the Soviet regime. In addition, it admitted to some extent the restoration of the Nazi regime. All this has long-standing roots from the plans of Britain against the Russian Empire and is not a plan "just in case". About the Icebreaker. The book, of course, is very strange and looks like a rough trolling for uneducated people. But preparations for war really were. Only they were for a longer period and serious mistakes were made in assessing the tactics and weapons of Germany. Also, the poorly organized communications, supply and command .

So? Planning for war is what militaries are supposed to do. Operation Unthinkable was literally unthinkable because the Allies had nowhere near the required troops. It was a fantasy you try to put up as some definitive proof. Its exactly what Suvurov did in Icebreaker. They are horrible pieces of fantastical writing to create the perception of a real threat.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, those were territories of Poland, gained after Polish independence after Brest-Litovsk. That Stalin moved the border of 1945 Poland westwards does not diminish that fact.

Actually the invasion was objectionable, as it was of course in extreme violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviets invaded Poland, why deny it?

Because it makes everyone perceive this as a simultaneous blow to Poland from both sides, while it was a blow from Germany with the inactivity of the Entente and the arrogant optimism of the Polish government with it's incopetence in reality. Obviously, the agreement with Poland was a forced step. In the occupied Polish territories, belarusians and ukrainians lived, whom the Poles regarded as their servants. These were lands received as new estates for the polish masters, and not as the birthplace of the poles. it would be a doubtful step, after all this, to give people to Germany. Of course, one can challenge the formal validity of this. But at that time, many agreements were already broken, especially on the part of Germany. Again, the Entente's guilt that she did not follow the observance of all treaties.

No it was very much a simultaneous blow. The fact it wasn't timed exactly the same is because of Nazi secrecy.

Neither the Soviets nor the Poles treated minority populations on their direct border well. You can't blame the Western Allies for the Soviet invasion of Poland. That's on the Soviet Union.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
[q
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

ts pure debating deflection crap and you know it. The Soviets willingly went along with it, no need to get Goebbels involved anywhere in this.

As long as Goebbels propaganda is used about how this happened, Goebbels will be involved in this.

As long as people keep trying to bring up Goebbels to deflect from historical reality I will point out what crap it is.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually yes, its pretty well documented that the NKVD used German pistols because the recoil was easier on the wrists during executions. Prolonged use of Nagant revolvers by executioners sometimes ended up in broken wrists, which is why German pistols were preferred. Look it up, the Soviets got German equipment until at least 1940 thanks to the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, they even got German aircraft in 1940 thanks to it... Its just another weak deflection of a small detail buried under a mountain of evidence the NKVD did it.

The version of Goebbels, which is now considered "official" - is simply absurd. Polish officer prisoners are for some reason taken from different camps to the one that will later be in the German occupation. And they are shot in the territory of the active pioneer camp (camp for children's recreation and open for visiting by all people) ... not far from the boss's house. With the... german pistols, which were not in the regular arsenal of the NKVD. on the verdict of the NKVD troika, which liquidated two years ago in reality. and it happens precisely on the territory that will then be fenced by the Germans and for tresspassers being shot there without a warning? add here the fake documents that were forged under Gorbachev ... Guys, it obviously requires an investigation

No need, we had several. The perpetrator admitted it even, it really is case closed no matter how many ridiculous points you bring up, like this:

The Kuomintang had German weapons in the 1930's war against Japan. Now German weapons obviously meant that Germans were fighting Japanese by your logic.
Also the NKVD death squads were mostly disabled, but still were reactivated as required such as in Katyn.

No serious historian disagrees that the Soviets did it, neither did the Soviets or the Russians. Face reality and stop with the "emotions" as you call it.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The point was arguing that they should go to war to avoid war is a paradox.

If you include logic, and not play with words, then there is no paradox.

You literally said to avoid war they should have gone to war. No twisting words required for that paradox.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 13:37:20


Post by: Freakazoitt


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Whataboutistm, as expected. How is the economic situation of the Baltics or any censorship there related to Russian wrongdoing? I'll give you a hint, in big, bolded letters: IT ISN'T . Stop deflecting.

As for the "fairy tales", you're the one trying to claim the Soviet Union's innocence in an event that even Russia has admitted was perpetrated by the Soviet Union. When even the dead horse you're beating is asking you to stop, perhaps you should take notice?

Whataboutism? Do you want a dispute for the sake of argument, clinging to me a cliche of "Internet warriors". In the Baltic there is no threat of "Russian attack". But there are other bad things happening there. And what is the reaction of the West? No. It is forbidden to talk about this. But about invented threats - you can scream. And what is the result? Russia turns away from the Baltic, there is no trade, there are no ties. The oil pipeline will go through the Baltic Sea. And they let them continue to yell about the invented threat and not to interfere with their occupation by the troops of NATO. Shameful "governments" that has no independence, but believe they freed from evil USSR and evil russians. Do you know that any country can be so accused, that it turns out to an evil empire? And when the lie is invented by the State Department and they are echoed by puppets from the EU, it turns out to be a very loud lie. And attempts to say something against even the most obviously dubious examples of accusations, you call the reason to "everyone" can hate the country? it's very impudent.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually the Versailles Treaty invalidated Brest-Litovsk. But that doesn't negate the Soviets gave up what would become Poland in 1917.

Lenin thought that the Polish and other countries would also want to change the regime, but was mistaken. And then Poland appeared as a country that was hostile to socialism and Soviet Russia, casting doubt on the idea of ​​a world revolution. here you can already talk about the direct confrontation between two different countries, hostile to each other. we could condemn the hypothetical war of the USSR with Poland, where there would be no outside forces and the USSR would be the first to attack, but it did not happen. However, the emergence of Nazi Germany was an even greater threat. the incompetence of the Polish government and the indistinct position of Britain led to such a strange and ugly Pact of the Molotov-Ribbentrop. But if you look at the whole picture, it's a forced measure. Also, it must be understood that the territories torn away from Poland would fall into the hands of the Nazis, where the population would be methodically destroyed. I foresee objections that Stalin also killed people. But eliminating certain dangerous for the regime people is not the same thing as total elimination of the whole nation. And Nazis certainly whould't stop if they were not stopped

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Better now? You mean with the Baltics free of Soviet opression, yes very much better for their people.

You are right. This is their choice how they want to live. At least they can now emigrate if there are problems with income (and by the way they are actively doing it). But to call the Soviet regime evil and supressing, forgetting that before they had a dictatorship (yes, all three of them) - this is one-sided view.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The equation with the EU is laughable. Let me know when the EU sends in its secret police to murder people fighting for independence! NATO and the EU were a choice, 39 wasn't. For the Baltics the Russians came not once, but twice. Sorry its easy to dismiss that fear if you're not the one invaded and brutalized.

There is no direct similarity in everything, but there is no independent economy and politics. people's thoughts are dictated from outside exactly as it was dictated from Moscow. This are similarities.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So? Planning for war is what militaries are supposed to do. Operation Unthinkable was literally unthinkable because the Allies had nowhere near the required troops. It was a fantasy you try to put up as some definitive proof. Its exactly what Suvurov did in Icebreaker. They are horrible pieces of fantastical writing to create the perception of a real threat.

I did not say that the Operation unthinkable was supposed to be real, but that Britain perceived the USSR as a possible enemy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No it was very much a simultaneous blow. The fact it wasn't timed exactly the same is because of Nazi secrecy.

This is how the rewriteers of history want to present it. This is the invasion of Germany into Poland, which crushed the army and the Polish government ceased to exist. This is the main thing. And the participation of the Red Army could not change the fate of the Polish. And again I repeat that the territory occupied by the USSR was not the territory where the Poles originally lived. The Entente drew a line where the Polish ends and recognized that the Red Army has the right to occupy these territories. And surprise - this line is still the border of Poland. maybe, it is necessary that the Polish should attack the Belarus and the Ukraine in order to "return" them? So you need to take into account all the details of this, and not draw a picture of a coordinated simultaneous strike from both sides, tearing up the Poland. Because this is a purposeful representation of the country as "evil." It was a black page of history, but one does not have to give oneself completely to a one-sided view of what is happening, because if this goes on, then it turns out that Nazism is the kindness that saved Europe from evil.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Neither the Soviets nor the Poles treated minority populations on their direct border well. You can't blame the Western Allies for the Soviet invasion of Poland. That's on the Soviet Union.

Allies? Acted more like traitors

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No need, we had several. The perpetrator admitted it even, it really is case closed no matter how many ridiculous points you bring up, like this:

This is how Polish politicians behave. they are afraid that new facts may appear and do not want an investigation. when russia found another burial, it invited the Poland for a joint survey (otherwise everyone would have accused Russia that it had set up the results of the investigation). But the Polandball did not agree and even banned mentioning the finding on it's media. So, we will not know the truth.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Kuomintang had German weapons in the 1930's war against Japan. Now German weapons obviously meant that Germans were fighting Japanese by your logic.

This is not just a "logical" conclusion, but knowledge of the specifics as how NKVD was armed. Walther PPK could fall into the hands of the NKVD-man only as a personal weapon. but then the personal weapons did not have enough ammunition to arrange a mass execution. And it's not easy to get these weapons. The trade treaty that was mentioned was a planes and resourses. I did not hear anything about pistols.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also the NKVD death squads were mostly disabled, but still were reactivated as required such as in Katyn.

It was impossible. Liquidation is liquidation. Stalin would have shot those NKVD members.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No serious historian disagrees that the Soviets did it, neither did the Soviets or the Russians. Face reality and stop with the "emotions" as you call it.

It does not matter they agree or disagree. If two gangsters have agreed and dumped blame on their deceased accomplice - this does not mean that he is guilty. It requires a routine investigation as it is done in the investigation of murders. Refuse to do this and rely on the version of the criminal? I do not want.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You literally said to avoid war they should have gone to war. No twisting words required for that paradox.

To prevent violence it's requires to cause violence against the bandit. Same situation. They did nothing to stop Hitler and he inevitably began to cause violence. And then other countries still had to use violence against him. it was inevitable Many people died because he wasn't stopped. that's what I mean.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Look, in 1917 the Baltics managed to shake off Russian opression. In 1991 the Soviets finally left and the Baltics invited NATO to make sure the Russians wouldn't be back a third time. Its hardly an unfounded fear when less than 30 years ago they were still occupied. Sure it would likely not happen again, but when it already did twice the last 100 years you better make damn sure there isn't going to be a third time. NATO being the 'occupier' is hilarious though, I think your dictionary has messed up definitions.

Russia will not get away from them anywhere. It's a neighbor who can not just disappear, no matter what they try to do. And they can choose what to do-or play a fictional threat, forcing Russia to turn away from them or to be friends, having at least taxes for transporting goods through their territory. They choose the first, having nothing useful from that choice. In general, now most of the swollen conflicts are to get the country to get into debt. The majority of possible wars or preparations for wars will end in the fact that the country will be in debt. Hence, war is an integral part of capitalism.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 14:22:20


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Frankly, not being allowed to talk about things is not an issue for you. The issue for you is that you're making any sort of reasoned discussion impossible in the first place.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 15:28:08


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Look, in 1917 the Baltics managed to shake off Russian opression. In 1991 the Soviets finally left and the Baltics invited NATO to make sure the Russians wouldn't be back a third time. Its hardly an unfounded fear when less than 30 years ago they were still occupied. Sure it would likely not happen again, but when it already did twice the last 100 years you better make damn sure there isn't going to be a third time. NATO being the 'occupier' is hilarious though, I think your dictionary has messed up definitions.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 16:29:52


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

That is very unfair to say. Firstly because all governments and all countries are extremely reluctant to admit they do or did something wrong. Russia is far from unique in that regard. Secondly because Stalin wasn't the leader of Russia, but of the Soviet Union. Stalin wasn't Russian at all. And also, the present-day Russian government, which does see itself as the successor of the Soviet Union, is quite open about Stalin's crimes. Hell, even the Soviet Union was already very open about Stalin's crimes as soon as Khrushchev came to power and destalinisation began. "Stalin did nothing wrong" fell apart as soon as Stalin died. Many people still see him as a hero, but the Russian government certainly is not treating him as a hero. Instead, they tend to approach Stalin as the controversial figure he is, acknowledging he did both great good and great evil. Furthermore, the presence of Russian soldiers in Crimea was also acknowledged as soon as the secrecy was no longer required for the military operation. It is everything but a fault. It in fact was a very well-executed operation.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 17:03:28


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

That is very unfair to say. Firstly because all governments and all countries are extremely reluctant to admit they do or did something wrong. Russia is far from unique in that regard.


"Everyone does it!" is the stock excuse used to defend Russia whenever this argument is brought up, but it's simply not true. Not everyone runs state-sponsored cheating programmes for the Olympics, not everyone denies nuclear accidents after everyone and their dog knows something's gone wrong, and not everyone invades neighbouring countries while pretending nothing's going on. It's just blatantly not true.

Are other countries also reluctant to admit to having done something wrong. Sure, it's human nature. There's an important difference in degree, however.

I'll take your point about de-Stalinification, but what the government of Russia does and what its population does is two separate things. There's plenty of people like Freakazoit who will pop up to defend Stalin in absurdum. The argument about Stalin being Georgian is a bit irrelevant; Hitler was Austrian, but he led Germany. The Soviet Union was, for all intents and purposes, Russia and Friends.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 17:14:43


Post by: Freakazoitt


AlmightyWalrus, you violate the bounds of decency, no one owes you anything.


100th year of the REVOLUTION @ 2017/12/21 17:21:52


Post by: djones520


 Freakazoitt wrote:
AlmightyWalrus, you violate the bounds of decency, no one owes you anything.


Who said anything about owing anyone?

You're the one who started this thread, you can't attack people for calling out how bogus the entire premise is.