WWII Behind Closed Doors; Stalin, the Nazis and the West

[Bud Struggle]

I saw this show last night on PBS. It's from the BBC called World War II Behind Closed Doors Stalin, the Nazis and the West.

It's something of a verbatum re enactment of Stalin's pacts with the Nazis and his role in WWII based on the secret notes, files and memos by those that were actually at Stalin's meetings and only declassified after the fall of "Communism" in the USSR.

Pretty interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/

[trivas7]

I, too, enjoyed it. I was most struck by how little joy or genuine comradery there seemed to be in the lives of the most powerful men in Europe. :(

[Bud Struggle]

Stalin did come off a quite a friend of Hitler--and one bastard to the Poles. Now wonder they dislike him so much.

[communard resolution]

Stalin did come off a quite a friend of Hitler--and one bastard to the Poles. Now wonder they dislike him so much.

My dad's primary school teacher (in Poland) broke out in tears in the classroom the day Stalin died. However, that's s mass psychological phenomenon that often occurs when father-figurely leaders who seemingly 'hold it all together' die, regardless of their actual politics.

[khad]

Stalin did come off a quite a friend of Hitler--and one bastard to the Poles. Now wonder they dislike him so much.
The Polish nationalists murdered 80,000 Soviet POWs. Dislike is the least one could feel.

[Bud Struggle]

My dad's primary school teacher (in Poland) broke out in tears in the classroom the day Stalin died. However, that's s mass psychological phenomenon that often occurs when father-figurely leaders who seemingly 'hold it all together' die, regardless of their actual politics.

My mother (born in Poland and came to the USA in 1936) HATED Stalin to the day she died. She was a sweet little old lady--but she hated Stalin.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I saw it too.

I wanted to punch that fat fuck in the face. No offense to any Stalinists here.


I especially detested his blaming the generals for his own idiot tactical decisions. Between him and Hitler it's hard to determine who contributed more to their own defeats.

[Comrade Che]

Seems interesting, I'll add it to my DVR. Is it good?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ha, I'm not even going to waste my time watching this.

When the intro says "three men decided the fate of the world", you know its just going to be anti-historical bullshit. They have re-enactments for fucks sake! People who try to learn history from PBS need to get a clue.

[rednordman]

Stalin did come off a quite a friend of Hitler--and one bastard to the Poles. Now wonder they dislike him so much.Friend of Hitler...I doubt it. Bastard to the poles...(I hate to say it but) completely. To be fair Khad has a point also.

On this note. Have any of you seen the 2007 movie Katlyn.? Strangly enough, i was in Norway over the weekend and saw this movie in DVD format, but is was in the same format of the 'downfall' movie (same font). Even though downfall was a big success in UK and Europe, This movie never got any coverage in uk at all (as far as I know). Strange.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin did come off a quite a friend of Hitler

This is a lie to the extreme. He wasnt a "Friend" of hitler he only signed a pact with him for defensive purposes.

[heiss93]

The narrator bemoaned how the "well-off" citizens had their fancy linen stolen and how the Soviets gave their property to "those they deemed" working class.

[RGacky3]

When the intro says "three men decided the fate of the world", you know its just going to be anti-historical bullshit. They have re-enactments for fucks sake! People who try to learn history from PBS need to get a clue.

I wonder how coming to the conclusion that when people in power give orders, and people carry out those orders, that the cause of those orders can be blaimed on the person giving those orders is unhistorical.?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I wonder how coming to the conclusion that when people in power give orders, and people carry out those orders, that the cause of those orders can be blaimed on the person giving those orders is unhistorical.?

Well for starters, it unsurprisingly portrays Stalin as a psychotic, paranoid, ruthless killer, who was a "totalitarian" ruler. The first thing stated in the introduction is "Joseph Stalin, mass murderer..." Its pathetic really, but ultimately expected of such outlets like PBC and BBC.

Second, the whole notion that WWII played out behind closed doors, in a secret cabal type manner is pure hysterical nonsense. WWII happened in the field, in the midst of battle, where orders were in the back of your mind; but staying alive was your instinctive primary thought. So I highly doubt that when the people up top give orders, they can for see what the conditions those orders fall into, in the midst of the most destructive war in human history. Even if it did happen in this conspiratorial, hush-hush manner, there would have been many other people involved rather than simply Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin.

Honestly, this is just another one of those "history" programs that lacks any credibility, and is simply made to paint a picture for people who haven't researched the history on their own. Unfortunately, this picture is most likely reflecting bourgeois, liberal politics.

Oh, and RGacky, since you seem to learn your "history" from programs like this, it would be wise for you to do some research for yourself.

[GracchusBabeuf]

PBS has just manufactured your consent.

[RGacky3]

The first thing stated in the introduction is "Joseph Stalin, mass murderer..." Its pathetic really, but ultimately expected of such outlets like PBC and BBC.

I agree, clearly its bias and ignores a lot of background and the such.

But to excuse everything on material conditions (not that you did that, but many do), would assume that those things that Stalin ordered would have happened even if he did'nt have the authority to order those things, which is clearly rediculous.


So I highly doubt that when the people up top give orders, they can for see what the conditions those orders fall into, in the midst of the most destructive war in human history. Even if it did happen in this conspiratorial, hush-hush manner, there would have been many other people involved rather than simply Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin.

Honestly, this is just another one of those "history" programs that lacks any credibility, and is simply made to paint a picture for people who haven't researched the history on their own. Unfortunately, this picture is most likely reflecting bourgeois, liberal politics.

I agree, there are double standards, but we cannot have double standards either, we can't put what Stalin did on material conditions while putting the crimes that America does on the people that order them. Clearly its both, but orders start at the top, but its all intertwined.


Oh, and RGacky, since you seem to learn your "history" from programs like this, it would be wise for you to do some research for yourself.

I'm not saying I agree with the program, or programs like that, I've seen programs that are CLEARLY biased, and CLEARLY have double standards. but just because they do it, does'nt mean we should as well.

One could argue that the Iraq war is the result of material conditions, and in a way, it is, however, that does'nt mean, tha George Bush and his gang are not responsible for architecting, organizing and executing that war. The same goes for Stalin.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I agree, clearly its bias and ignores a lot of background and the such.
Which is standard for programs like this.


But to excuse everything on material conditions (not that you did that, but many do), would assume that those things that Stalin ordered would have happened even if he did'nt have the authority to order those things, which is clearly rediculous.
What 'things' are we talking about here?



I agree, there are double standards, but we cannot have double standards either, we can't put what Stalin did on material conditions while putting the crimes that America does on the people that order them. Clearly its both, but orders start at the top, but its all intertwined.
Roosevelt and Churchill's decisions were certainly influenced by material conditions. Their interests as ruling capitalists was to get out of the economic depression plaguing the whole world (except the Soviet Union) by conquering new markets, which the US quite evidently did. The CCCP however, didn't fight in WW2 to dominate new markets, in fact they signed non-aggression pacts with Germany, France, Japan, Poland, and others if I'm not mistaken, in order to avoid war. They eventually fought because they were invaded, with the entire western portion of the country (the eastern most they got was just west of cities like Petrograd, Moscow) was occupied by the German military. My point is that the nature of the Soviet Union's actions in World War 2 were primarily defensive, until their counter-offensive against Germany began. Britain found themseleves in a similar case.

But the US however, had a totally different agenda which involved tactics of a different nature. The US government's involvment in the war was primarily focused on eliminating the opposing imperialist powers, and capturing their land (i.e. markets, resources, laborers, etc). This is genuienly evidenced by the stranglehold US imperialism gained over Western Europe, and East Asia.

So we can't assign the same standards for both sides, because it's quite evident that there are two different situations, and goals for two vastly differnt countries.


I'm not saying I agree with the program, or programs like that, I've seen programs that are CLEARLY biased, and CLEARLY have double standards. but just because they do it, does'nt mean we should as well.
If for you a double-standard means defending socialism against imperialism, then by all means I am as biased as this program. The facts speak for themselves really, and if one wishes to apply the same standards for both sides, then I would say you've made a mistake in your analysis.


One could argue that the Iraq war is the result of material conditions, and in a way, it is, however, that does'nt mean, tha George Bush and his gang are not responsible for architecting, organizing and executing that war. The same goes for Stalin.
You are incredibly mistaken. Material conditions doesn't excuse people of misdeeds, hostile intent, or otherwise bad decisions; in fact material analysis seeks to explain why such decisions were made. I won't go into Iraq or anything, because its off-topic, but comparing the US invasion of Iraq, to Stalin's actions during world war two is simply absurd. I hope you can obviously see why.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I hope you can obviously see why.Its so obvious it literally blinds anyone who reads it. But seriously if SU's actions were defendable because the CPSU claimed they were "defending socialism", then why apply double standards to the neo-cons who claim they are "defending America" by their doctrine of preventive war or even Neo-Nazis who claim Nazi Germany's actions were fine because they were "defending the Aryan race" from the vile non-Aryans or etc?

If for you a double-standard means defending socialism against imperialism, then by all means I am as biased as this program. http://www.vorhaug.net/politikk/hungarian_tragedy/
http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/index1.htm

^very socialist indeed.:lol:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Its so obvious it literally blinds anyone who reads it. But seriously if SU's actions were defendable because the CPSU claimed they were "defending socialism", then why apply double standards to the neo-cons who claim they are "defending America" by their doctrine of preventive war or even Neo-Nazis who claim Nazi Germany's actions were fine because they were "defending the Aryan race" from the vile non-Aryans or etc?
What double standard? The Soviet Union was invaded by the German army, so their participation in the was was justified as a war for liberation; whereas the US and Third Reich were fighting wars for expansion. Your argument obviously stems for your opinion that the Soviet Union was not developing socialism at the time, rather than an analysis of the events and situations present during an around WW2. I don't necessarily agree with all of the CPSU's actions, but they were absolutely right in defending against and eventually defeating the German army.

I don't care if neo-cons claim they are "defending America" by committing acts of imperialism, because that's not what they are doing. They are simply lying about their pursiuit of greater domination of the world market. I also don't care if neo-Nazi's claim that Hitler was just defending the "Aryan race" by invading other countries, because once again that is a lie. But when the CPSU claims they were defending the USSR, then they are correct because they were actually attacked.





http://www.vorhaug.net/politikk/hungarian_tragedy/
http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/index1.htm

^very socialist indeed.:lol:

Both happened after WWII, you fail.

[Bud Struggle]

The point though is that the words uttered by Stalin were literally those uttered by Stalin taken down by people in the same room. The treaties were those written and signed by Stalin. The dinners, the friendships, the humor was all that was noted by people in the room.

Stalin's help in getting a Nazi ship acrossthe Artic to sink Allied shipping is documeted, Stalin's eager partition of Poland is documented. Stalin's casual murder of thousands of people is documented.

Sure Stalin fought Hitler when FORCED to. But as someone to loot to for ideology--he was a butcher.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No way man, Stalin was hero who always put the Working Class first!

Go read a history book you freak! Stop lying!

ARRRGGGGHHHH!

[Bud Struggle]

No way man, Stalin was hero who always put the Working Class first!

Go read a history book you freak! Stop lying!

ARRRGGGGHHHH!

I CONFESS. I was wrong. He was the GREATEST. He is was and will be all of what Communism is.

He WAS Communism. [Edit] IS Communism.

If Communist only believed in Reincarnation. :( I think Das Kapital said something about that--yea--it did! :thumbup1:

STALIN LIVES!!!!

[rednordman]

I really do struggle to understands peoples new passion to try and make Stalin and Hitler sound like ideological laceys. Stalin may well have been a monster, but if he had sympathes to Hitler, why did his SU end up loosing more people than any other during the war AGAINST nazi germany?

I mean, lets say you are correct that Stalin wanted to allie with the nazis, it poses the question of whether or not Stalin actually know what fascism and nazism was and stood for?

[Brother No. 1]

lets say you are correct that Stalin wanted to allie with the nazis,

He only sided with them for defenisve purposes and didnt believe the cappies when they said Hitler was going to attack him, but then who'd believe a cappie, and what was the situation of the CCCP? The situation was it wasnt even prepared to attack or defend. Winter wars showed us that the Red Army wasnt a moderized milirtary force.

[Bud Struggle]

I really do struggle to understands peoples new passion to try and make Stalin and Hitler sound like ideological laceys. Stalin may well have been a monster, but if he had sympathes to Hitler, why did his SU end up loosing more people than any other during the war AGAINST nazi germany?

I mean, lets say you are correct that Stalin wanted to allie with the nazis, it poses the question of whether or not Stalin actually know what fascism and nazism was and stood for?

The problem is that the Cult of Stalin is the most distructive thing that ever happened to Communism. the CPUSA is a product of that problem. so if the British CP. Look at all the Communists on RevLeft that make common cause with Stalinists.

Is it any different than Democratic Socialist making common cause with Hitler?

If RevLeft wants to be a SERIOUS Communist website--they need to forget about having problems with reasonable anti-abortion people and get rid of Stalinists.

[Glenn Beck]

The problem is that the Cult of Stalin is the most distructive thing that ever happened to Communism. the CPUSA is a product of that problem. so if the British CP. Look at all the Communists on RevLeft that make common cause with Stalinists.

Is it any different than Democratic Socialist making common cause with Hitler?

If RevLeft wants to be a SERIOUS Communist website--they need to forget about having problems with reasonable anti-abortion people and get rid of Stalinists.

If revleft wants to become a SERIOUS Communist website we need to start taking advice from self-professed capitalists who preach reformism and class-collaboration.

[rednordman]

The problem is that the Cult of Stalin is the most distructive thing that ever happened to Communism. the CPUSA is a product of that problem. so if the British CP. Look at all the Communists on RevLeft that make common cause with Stalinists.

Is it any different than Democratic Socialist making common cause with Hitler?. You would have a good point..up untill this particular point. Where exactly could a democratic socialist or even a stalinist make creditable common cause with Adolf Hitler? Many people can argue that the two models where the same as they both seemingly encorparated a command style economy, and where authoritarian. But the problem with that arguement is that they leave it there as if it is a total and final truth. I think the actual reality was that while they had similarities, they where very different indeed.

The whole final aims of these societies where at opposite scales of the spectrum. Stalin went wrong due to his unbearable paranoia of a nationalist and capitalist over throw and him loosing his endless power (and he had too much power). This ended up reflecting on the whole of Soviet society, thus opening pandoras box for anyone to make the accusation of 'class enemy' to be taken very seriously indeed.

Hitler blatently despised the notion of humanism and equality. His only way of just society lied in the notion of 'survival of the fittest' and he had an almost religious faith in the white race. He was a mystic and took that notion of race superiority to the fore of his world vision. - How can anyone other than a nazi find common ground with that?

The only conclusion I could think of is that Stalin miss calculated Hitler, but something tells me that he knew well that he was going to end up going to war with him.

[Bud Struggle]

You would have a good point..up untill this particular point. Where exactly could a democratic socialist or even a stalinist make creditable common cause with Adolf Hitler? Many people can argue that the two models where the same as they both seemingly encorparated a command style economy, and where authoritarian. But the problem with that arguement is that they leave it there as if it is a total and final truth. I think the actual reality was that while they had similarities, they where very different indeed.

The whole final aims of these societies where at opposite scales of the spectrum. Stalin went wrong due to his unbearable paranoia of a nationalist and capitalist over throw and him loosing his endless power (and he had too much power). This ended up reflecting on the whole of Soviet society, thus opening pandoras box for anyone to make the accusation of 'class enemy' to be taken very seriously indeed.

Hitler blatently despised the notion of humanism and equality. His only way of just society lied in the notion of 'survival of the fittest' and he had an almost religious faith in the white race. He was a mystic and took that notion of race superiority to the fore of his world vision. - How can anyone other than a nazi find common ground with that?

The only conclusion I could think of is that Stalin miss calculated Hitler, but something tells me that he knew well that he was going to end up going to war with him.

Not in the least. Both Stalin and Hitler were Totalitarian sociopaths. and the second you translate your philosopjy of life, or evonomics of polits into the mind of a madman--you wind up as madmen too.

The second you make your bed with a Hitler or a Stalin you begin to justify murders and beatings and purges and deathcamps.

That's no basis for a Communist society. That's no basis for a free humanity. It's crazy that any real Communist would have any commuon cause with Mao or Stalin or any other Great Leader. And here in RevLeft--so called REAL Communist just brush things like that off.

It's horrific.

[rednordman]

[QUOTE=TomK;1438730]Not in the least. Both Stalin and Hitler were Totalitarian sociopaths. and the second you translate your philosopjy of life, or evonomics of polits into the mind of a madman--you wind up as madmen too.[QUOTE]I would just like to add that my post wasnt a defence of Stalin. I think this line of your post is a very poignent one that I have alot of respect for you for saying it, but I fear for the future of our societies in any direction of politics, especially with the youth. The things that made western liberal democracy a powerfull force are now that same things that are tearing it apart from the inside out. in my opinion.

Its a scary, cold, and lonely world out there for the next generations. They will look to the darker side of ideology (and i stress ideology), to give them a false sense of hope, Common identity (could be any ideology) and desperatly needed direction and virtue. I just think thats how the world works.

Things that bother me the most is how they are going to deal with all this excess hate in the world (and hate does breed hate) - That is why I worry.

[Il Medico]

Roosevelt was a capitalist, Churchill was a capitalist, Hitler was a bastard Nazi, Mussolini was a fascist, and Stalin was a fascist masquerading as a "communist". WWII was the biggest war between capitalist of all time and the workers paid the 77 million life price of this capitalist "competition".:cursing:
I say "Fuck them all" comrades!
Captain Jack

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin was a fascist masquerading as a "communist".

We have already have a thread that said "Was Stalin a Facist?" so the answer to this is that no he was not a Facist. Not even the bolshevik, majority, of the Anti-Stalin people would say hes a Facist but a dictator that "runied" Socialism in the CCCP.




WWII was the biggest war between capitalist of all time


WW2 was the war against Facism/Nazism and Nazi Germany with her allies. Hell the Cappies in the west did nothing to stop Hitler, infact they allowed him to go through some countries without resistance, and Stalin couldnt attack Nazi Germany for the CCCP/Red Army wasnt prepared for a attack and wasnt a moderized military.

[Raúl Duke]

And here in RevLeft--so called REAL Communist just brush things like that off.

It's horrific.

You know...I have noticed this amongst some members and sometimes it does disturbe me a little.

While I understand that a revolution, whether it's Leninist or anarchist, would have a fair share of casualties in it's natural course that I'm fine with I'm absolutely not fine with some of the crazy stuff, like the paranoic purges and the crazy amounts of people sent to labor camps or death (some in ridiculous charges.), that happened in Stalin's Russia and other Leninist regimes. I mean, they could have just exiled them/let them go or whatever.

[Il Medico]

We have already have a thread that said "Was Stalin a Facist?" so the answer to this is that no he was not a Facist. Not even the bolshevik, majority, of the Anti-Stalin people would say hes a Facist but a dictator that "runied" Socialism in the CCCP.





Hell the Cappies in the west did nothing to stop Hitler, infact they allowed him to go through some countries without resistance,
This is true polish soviet, an brave communist fought fascism everywhere.

and Stalin couldnt attack Nazi Germany for the CCCP/Red Army wasnt prepared for a attack and wasnt a moderized military.
The CCCP produced the most revolutionary tank of world war two in the thousands (and two years after the war the most prolific gun ever). Stalin had modernized the country with his programs (however brutal) before WWII. However, Stalin as a totalitarian saw no need to stop hitler, probably even liked the guy. He betrayed the russian revolution and
though he may he preached communism, his actions tell other wise.
1.) He brutally crushed all opposition as do fascist.
2.) He create camps for enemies as do fascist.
3.) He used national pride to stir hatred for others. As did fascist.
the list goes on.
However, the only conclusion a sane person would reach is that Stalin was a fascist, and if not, at least a right winger. Some capitalist have done more to promote the people's revolution then he did. To defend the man is indefensible. The reason there is no more USSR is because of stalin. Wake up man!

[Il Medico]

No way man, Stalin was hero who always put the Working Class first!

Go read a history book you freak! Stop lying!

ARRRGGGGHHHH!
That is complete bullshit! he put himself first and thus destroyed the Russian people's best hope for equality!

My friend I think it is you who need to brush up on your history.

[Brother No. 1]

The CCCP produced the most revolutionary tank of world war two in the thousands

Remeber the Nazi germany production of the Panzers? Now if though they had thounsands apon thousands of so and so machines does it mkae them a moderized force? No. The soldiers werent well trained and we can see that from the Winter Wars. The CCCP was focusing on building its army up though machine power, man power, and army experience.





However, Stalin as a totalitarian saw no need to stop hitler, probably even liked the guy.


Sure... and the Trots just love us "Stalinists.":rolleyes:

Stalin had the problems of the CCCP, such as moderization and industry, to have time to even think about facing Hitler and the 3rd Reich. The 3rd Reich could have been stoped by the cappies they had the chance. But did they? No. Infact they helped Hitler by sending him moeny,allowing his armies to cross into other's terrtories, and allowing me to break the treaty of versitles.





He betrayed the russian revolution

Strange for didnt the October Revolution end in 1922?




1.) He brutally crushed all opposition as do fascist.

so are you going to say Lenin is a Facist for he dismantled the oppostion to the Bolsheviks and led them to Revolution against the Czars? He was also Democraticly elected into power.





3.) He used national pride to stir hatred for others. As did fascist.


Nationalism, Russian Nationalism was never promoted, The Soviet Union was one of the first countries in the world to grant full national rights to nations within a single country.




However, the only conclusion a sane person would reach is that Stalin was a fascist

So you are implying I am insane just because I am Marxist-Leninist? Just because I defend Stalin's name?




The reason there is no more USSR is because of stalin. Wake up man!


Sure....and Mao brought down the Peoples Republic of China and Nika was a good guy.:rolleyes:

You blame one single man for the entire collaspe of the Union of Soviet Socialsit Republics? No comrade Stalin was not at fault it was Revisionism that caused the fall. Revisionism came in when Nika was in power and after him someone revised his rule and so forth same thing. the constant change of how goverment should act/do things made the people doubt and not have faith in the goverment. Stalin, in my oppion, was the last Socialist leader for the Socialsit state.

[Revy]

The problem is that the Cult of Stalin is the most distructive thing that ever happened to Communism. the CPUSA is a product of that problem. so if the British CP. Look at all the Communists on RevLeft that make common cause with Stalinists.

Is it any different than Democratic Socialist making common cause with Hitler?

If RevLeft wants to be a SERIOUS Communist website--they need to forget about having problems with reasonable anti-abortion people and get rid of Stalinists.

lol wtf?
"Forget about having problems with reasonable anti-abortion people"? Not going to happen.

There are not that many communists here that support Stalin. And I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say "Democratic Socialist making common cause with HItler".

Yeah, you're not making much sense...

[Revy]

WW2 was the war against Facism/Nazism and Nazi Germany with her allies. Hell the Cappies in the west did nothing to stop Hitler, infact they allowed him to go through some countries without resistance, and Stalin couldnt attack Nazi Germany for the CCCP/Red Army wasnt prepared for a attack and wasnt a moderized military.

There is a huge difference between not attacking Nazi Germany and signing some ridiculous "pact " with it that involved closer relations. " Oh but it was all a secret plan of Stalin's!" Of course it was...:rolleyes:

In fact, the Soviet Union almost became a fourth member of the Axis.

[Il Medico]

Remeber the Nazi germany production of the Panzers? Now if though they had thounsands apon thousands of so and so machines does it mkae them a moderized force? No. The soldiers werent well trained and we can see that from the Winter Wars. The CCCP was focusing on building its army up though machine power, man power, and army experience.






Sure... and the Trots just love us "Stalinists.":rolleyes:

Stalin had the problems of the CCCP, such as moderization and industry, to have time to even think about facing Hitler and the 3rd Reich. The 3rd Reich could have been stoped by the cappies they had the chance. But did they? No. Infact they helped Hitler by sending him moeny,allowing his armies to cross into other's terrtories, and allowing me to break the treaty of versitles.







Strange for didnt the October Revolution end in 1922?





so are you going to say Lenin is a Facist for he dismantled the oppostion to the Bolsheviks and led them to Revolution against the Czars? He was also Democraticly elected into power.







Nationalism, Russian Nationalism was never promoted, The Soviet Union was one of the first countries in the world to grant full national rights to nations within a single country.





So you are implying I am insane just because I am Marxist-Leninist? Just because I defend Stalin's name?






Sure....and Mao brought down the Peoples Republic of China and Nika was a good guy.:rolleyes:

You blame one single man for the entire collaspe of the Union of Soviet Socialsit Republics? No comrade Stalin was not at fault it was Revisionism that caused the fall. Revisionism came in when Nika was in power and after him someone revised his rule and so forth same thing. the constant change of how goverment should act/do things made the people doubt and not have faith in the goverment. Stalin, in my oppion, was the last Socialist leader for the Socialsit state.
Polish Soviet, I don't want to argue. Leftist should be helping each other not arguing. Lets just agree to disagree.
Captain Jack
P.S The revolution Stalin betrayed was not the October revolution, but the world wide revolution with his doctrine of single state socialism. He also did not help the cause by portraying communists as evil totalitarians who hate freedom.
P.S.S Also comrade, I would work on your spelling, a neat argument is more convincing! So to better make your points take the time to check spelling and grammar. It helps!;)

[Cumannach]

Polish Soviet, I don't want to argue. Leftist should be helping each other not arguing. Lets just agree to disagree.
Captain Jack
P.S The revolution Stalin betrayed was not the October revolution, but the world wide revolution with his doctrine of single state socialism. He also did not help the cause by portraying communists as evil totalitarians who hate freedom.
P.S.S Also comrade, I would work on your spelling, a neat argument is more convincing! So to better make your points take the time to check spelling and grammar. It helps!;)

You're not a school teacher. Look after the quality of your own terrible posts and you'll be doing well.

[Brother No. 1]

P.S The revolution Stalin betrayed was not the October revolution, but the world wide revolution with his doctrine of single state socialism.

And where was this world wide Revolution? All Revolutions ,expect Russian Revolution, failed. Socialism in one country is not to be exactly Socialism in one single country. It was to help build up the Soviet Union. The CCCP wasnt a industrilized, at first, nation when Stalin was leader.



Polish Soviet, I don't want to argue. Leftist should be helping each other not arguing. Lets just agree to disagree.

Well you did start the whole argument. It does help when you dont rage that Stalin=facist.


" Oh but it was all a secret plan of Stalin's!" Of course it was...http://www.revleft.com/vb/wwii-behind-closed-t108428/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
Now did I say this? Or are you asuming I did. Stalin didnt expect for the Facist to strike early and the Non-Agression pact was for defensive purposes. Stalin was already facing the Finish in the Winter war so you tell me hoe could Stalin have victory by fighting more then one front and having less and less supplies each day due to both Fronts?

[Il Medico]

You're not a school teacher. Look after the quality of your own terrible posts and you'll be doing well.
No I am not a school teacher, though I am majoring in English. However, it does not matter how good your argument is if nobody will listen to you because you sound like a bungling idiot! And do you really find my post terrible? :(

[Brother No. 1]

And do you really find my post terrible?

He means the constant nagging on Stalin=Facist and Stalin made the CCCP a Capitalist state. Im know some Trotskyists and they wouldnt even call Stalin a Facist but they do call him a bueratic Dictator alot.

[Il Medico]

Thanks for clearing that up. I am a Marxist not a Trotskyist and I apologize for calling Stalin a fascist. I use that term loosely. However, he was a totalitarian dictator who was no better then most fascist.

[rednordman]

In fact, the Soviet Union almost became a fourth member of the Axis.Give me strength!:rolleyes: - I suppose now kids will learn in schools about about how the western powers would have thrashed the Revised axis (including the soviet union) in the name of freedom, liberty, and God. But had to pay lip service to the SU, for no reason instead.

[Brother No. 1]

In fact, the Soviet Union almost became a fourth member of the Axis.

Sure and I'm a Cultist hero-worshiping Stalinist.:rolleyes: The SU never became apart of the Axis. The Axis was formed after The French/Brittish declared War on the Nazi germans.

[Jack]

Ha, I'm not even going to waste my time watching this.

When the intro says "three men decided the fate of the world", you know its just going to be anti-historical bullshit. They have re-enactments for fucks sake! People who try to learn history from PBS need to get a clue.

BAHAHAHAHAH OMFG OMFG HHAAAHAAHHHHHHA!!!!!

You're right, comrade, the only people we can trust is Communist state run media! Glory to comrade Stalin!

[Jack]

Sure and I'm a Cultist hero-worshiping Stalinist.:rolleyes: The SU never became apart of the Axis. The Axis was formed after The French/Brittish declared War on the Nazi germans.

No, the Axis was in existance years before that. France and Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, and the allies were like "oh no, not this shit again".

[Oktyabr]

I saw it too.

I wanted to punch that fat fuck in the face. No offense to any Stalinists here.


I especially detested his blaming the generals for his own idiot tactical decisions. Between him and Hitler it's hard to determine who contributed more to their own defeats.

Do you mean TomK when you say fat fuck?

[Il Medico]

Sure and I'm a Cultist hero-worshiping Stalinist.:rolleyes:
As far as I can tell you are.
The SU never became apart of the Axis.
Only because it was attacked, and the people would have overthrown Stalin if he had tried to do so.
The Axis was formed after The French/Brittish declared War on the Nazi germans.
That is untrue, Germany and Italy already had formal alliances.

[Brother No. 1]

Germany and Italy already had formal alliances.

The European axis. I mean the whole Axis: Impeiralist Japan,Facist Italy, and Nazi Germany.



Do you mean TomK when you say fat fuck?

He means Joseph Stalin for he thinks he is fat. Yet he doesnt think the Capitalist pigs/Elite arent fat in their chairs commanding everything without lifting a finger. (Metophoricly speaking.)




France and Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland

The Elite in France/Britain hated it when the Germans invaded poland yet they loved it when they invaded Austria and Czechslovakia.

[mykittyhasaboner]

BAHAHAHAHAH OMFG OMFG HHAAAHAAHHHHHHA!!!!!

You're right, comrade, the only people we can trust is Communist state run media! Glory to comrade Stalin!

What is the point of this? Besides of course, trying to bait me into debating something I don't think is true.

If you want to discuss the credibility of program, please do it in a manner where your actually laying down an argument, instead of throwing around wild sarcastic comments that only make you look like an idiot.

[Il Medico]

I second the above thought.:thumbup1:

[Il Medico]

The European axis. I mean the whole Axis: Impeiralist Japan,Facist Italy, and Nazi Germany.
Still the Axis was there before hand even though it only had the two members. That is like saying that America was not imperialist before all 50 states joined.




He means Joseph Stalin for he thinks he is fat. Yet he doesnt think the Capitalist pigs/Elite arent fat in their chairs commanding everything without lifting a finger. (Metophoricly speaking.)Stalin was a bit pudgy, but hey so am I! :lol:






The Elite in France/Britain hated it when the Germans invaded poland yet they loved it when they invaded Austria and Czechslovakia.
They did not love it, they tolerated it because they did not want another large war that would hurt the global recovery from the great depression. Like Mafia families not going to war to protect business.

[Brother No. 1]

They did not love it, they tolerated it

Tolerated or Allowed? The small Territory next to france that Germany couldnt have, due to Treaty of Versitles, but did the Frnech Tolerate or allow the Germans to enter the Territory.



because they did not want another large war

I dont think "Large War" is appropiate for Germany wasnt the power it was in the 40s like the 30s. Britain could have defated the Germans if they hadnt allowed the Germans to go into Austria, Czechslovakia, and the one territory.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Do you mean TomK when you say fat fuck?

No, I mean that Georgian fuck.

[rednordman]

The fact that stalin was a tyrant is unquestionable. The truth about these "documentories" though is that they want to revise history. They cannot accept that a totally moral force was ever created in history, so that the have to resort to pathetic programs that try and throw all emphasis on easy targets so they can throw sushine on themselves... (just remember - the west represents all that is good in the world and cannot under any circumstances do any wrong-at all:rolleyes:)the problem is that whether or not this documentory made the fighters within the British and other allied forces look like tyrants, just because the modern day media doesnt like the idea of their heroic armies of ww2 being allies with the soviet union. - just because times change doesnt mean they can change history.

The Soviet Union collapsed - this doesnt simply mean that the western media can try and totally dissociate itself with it, just so it can wipe its hands clear of it.

Truth be told there was alot of communist sympathisers during that time in the west. Sure they did not understand totally, the brutal nature of stalin regime. But this had alot to do with the foreign policy of churchill. Imagine if he had of allied with the nazis? they where more closer to his political ideology (i say this realising that he was a liberal and far from a nazi).
He knew what sort of reaction he would have got in Europe if he had decided to go to war with the soviet union. Sure the outrage would have been realised as being abit over done after crushevs speach after stalins death (in the 60s sometime), but still, at least they understood the importance at the time of having the soviet union as an ally.

Documentories like this remind me of an arrogant school kid who secretly befriends a intellegent but unfasionable classmate so he can attain a better grade, just to publicly humiliate him because he doesnt want to get associated with the "ideal" that helped him succeed. Though i totally undestand peoples dislike of Stalin, something inside me finds this documentory a little bit spineless.

[Jack]

The European axis. I mean the whole Axis: Impeiralist Japan,Facist Italy, and Nazi Germany.




He means Joseph Stalin for he thinks he is fat. Yet he doesnt think the Capitalist pigs/Elite arent fat in their chairs commanding everything without lifting a finger. (Metophoricly speaking.)





The Elite in France/Britain hated it when the Germans invaded poland yet they loved it when they invaded Austria and Czechslovakia.

The Axis (of Japan, Germany, and Italy) was formed in 1936. Three other countries joined later. Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary later joined, but were minor players.

Have you seen the rebel billionare guy? He is one fit motherfucker. If Stalin wasn't fucking batshit crazy I would pick a fight with his pudgy ass any day over the Rebel Billionare.

[Jack]

Tolerated or Allowed? The small Territory next to france that Germany couldnt have, due to Treaty of Versitles, but did the Frnech Tolerate or allow the Germans to enter the Territory.




I dont think "Large War" is appropiate for Germany wasnt the power it was in the 40s like the 30s. Britain could have defated the Germans if they hadnt allowed the Germans to go into Austria, Czechslovakia, and the one territory.

Germany had the best land army in the world at the outbreak of WWI. Japan even modeled its army on the German army (and its Navy after the British Navy). Plus there was the alliance with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottomon Empire. The Central powers were about half of Europe (excluding Russia) in terms of territory, and maybe moreso in population.

15 million people died, do you know nothing of history?

And that "one territory" was Belgium, which Britain had an agreement with to protect from attack, and the French were in an alliance with Russia (who was being attacked by Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary) and Britain, which drove them into war.

[Jack]

What is the point of this? Besides of course, trying to bait me into debating something I don't think is true.

If you want to discuss the credibility of program, please do it in a manner where your actually laying down an argument, instead of throwing around wild sarcastic comments that only make you look like an idiot.

"you know its just going to be anti-historical bullshit. They have re-enactments for fucks sake! People who try to learn history from PBS need to get a clue."

Yet I'm going to look like an idiot? You're implying that PBS (probably the most balanced source for things like this) is some bourgeios propaganda meant to defame our glorious comrade Stalin.

Maybe we should trust documentaries on Stalin to the PSL, WWP, or various other Stalinist parties. Just like we can trust the Republican party when they tell us the wonders of glorious comrade Bush.

[khad]

The Axis (of Japan, Germany, and Italy) was formed in 1936. Three other countries joined later. Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary later joined, but were minor players.

Have you seen the rebel billionare guy? He is one fit motherfucker. If Stalin wasn't fucking batshit crazy I would pick a fight with his pudgy ass any day over the Rebel Billionare.

What the fuck ever.

[Jack]

I never implied the USSR was a member of the Axis, but the evidence is clear that they cooperated with them (like the joing victory march through a Polish city I can't remember).

[Brother No. 1]

Germany had the best land army in the world at the outbreak of WWI.

Yes i know of the German army in 1914. It was able to keep the Allied armies at bay at the "No mans lands."





15 million people died, do you know nothing of history?
Yes I know 15 millions people died when World War 1 was over.

And that "one territory" was Belgium,


Thank you for telling me that.




but the evidence is clear that they cooperated with them

The Non-Agression act was, in Stalin's mind, a way to make the Soviet Union's capital far away from the Nazis. Also was the Soviet Union prepared to fight the Germans? They werent wining against the Finish so I'm pretty sure they thought they'd die against the germans. Lenin had also made an agreement with Germany for the new Scoialist republic was already in civil war and it wasnt in the best shape for a World War, if the Czarist couldnt win then how could the Bolsheviks win, and lets not forget the Russian army was not like the German army.


Have you seen the rebel billionare guy? He is one fit motherfucker.

No I havent actually.




If Stalin wasn't fucking batshit crazy I would pick a fight with his pudgy ass any day over the Rebel Billionare.

Sure...and when he picked up Tito in the 1950s was just Tito's skinny body. (sarcastic)

Stalin was a Gerogrian Wrestler and was strong, even in his last years, so I doubt you'd win.

[Jack]

Yes i know of the German army in 1914. It was able to keep the Allied armies at bay at the "No mans lands."





Yes I know 15 millions people died when World War 2 was over. But did they kill when they went into those countries? Was there in Relatiation? Thanks for telling me the aftermath when I already knew this.





Thank you for telling me that.

I was saying 15 million people died in WWI, in WWII it was 70 million people, and took place on 6 continents (WWI was only in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe)

[khad]

You're putting words in my mouth, I never implied the USSR was a member of the Axis, but the evidence is clear that they cooperated with them (like the joing victory march through a Polish city I can't remember).
So did Poland. They even proposed a joint invasion of Ukraine with the Nazis before the Nazis turned on them.

What's your point?

[Brother No. 1]

I was saying 15 million people died in WWI, in WWII it was 70 million people, and took place on 6 continents (WWI was only in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe)

Oh ok sorry. But lets get back on topic which refers to World War 2.

Edit: I changed my last post to make it more acurate.

[Jack]

Stalin didn't put Tito or Hoxha in power

[khad]

Why does the left even bother to blame Stalin over the non-aggression pact when Poland had already made a non-aggression pact in 1934 and was actively trying to ingratiate itself as a regional partner?

By 1939, Nazi Germany had either bought off or annexed all of its immediate neighbors, and the choice presented to Stalin was either to have all of fucking Eastern Europe gang up on the USSR or cut a deal.

This debate should have been dead 70 years ago.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin didn't put Tito or Hoxha in power

No he literualy picked Tito up. With one of the meetings he had with the Yugslavian leader he actually picked him up with he bare hands. I never said he put Tito in power.

[RedKnight]

The problem is that the Cult of Stalin is the most distructive thing that ever happened to Communism. the CPUSA is a product of that problem. so if the British CP. Look at all the Communists on RevLeft that make common cause with Stalinists.

Is it any different than Democratic Socialist making common cause with Hitler?

If RevLeft wants to be a SERIOUS Communist website--they need to forget about having problems with reasonable anti-abortion people and get rid of Stalinists.


The problem is that the Cult of Stalin is the most distructive thing that ever happened to Communism. the CPUSA is a product of that problem. so if the British CP. Look at all the Communists on RevLeft that make common cause with Stalinists.

Is it any different than Democratic Socialist making common cause with Hitler?

If RevLeft wants to be a SERIOUS Communist website--they need to forget about having problems with reasonable anti-abortion people and get rid of Stalinists.
I concur. The problem with many Communist parties is that they insist on enforcing a narrow partyline. What is the point of even having discussions, if the "commie Club, resrticts people for holding unpopular opinions. I am still a socialist of sorts, and consider myself to be Communist too. But I also feel that in regards to issues that are not essential to Marxist-Leninist ideology, we should be allowed to agree to disagree. The Opposing Ideology board should be for deliberate trolls, and capitalists only. And incidently the "right oppositionist", Nils Flyg, did form common cause with the Nazis. Back to the original post, I feel that it is the victors who write the history. The Allies like to focus on Axis attrocities, rather than events like the air strike on Dresden, and/or the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. They do this in order to make World War II seem like a "good war" against Fascism, despite the fact that Spain and Portugal were both still Fascist, after the war. Both of these before mentioned countries later joined NATO too. And by comparing Stalin to Hitler, it makes it appear that Communism is just as oppressive by nature as Fascism.

[rednordman]

Back to the original post, I feel that it is the victors who write the history. The Allies like to focus on Axis attrocities, rather than events like the air strike on Dresden, and/or the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. They do this in order to make World War II seem like a "good war" against Fascism, despite the fact that Spain and Portugal were both still Fascist, after the war. Both of these before mentioned countries later joined NATO too. And by comparing Stalin to Hitler, it makes it appear that Communism is just as oppressive by nature as Fascism.I think you have hit the nail on the head here, if i have understood you correctly. The allies definitly wrote the history after WW2. They do focus on the axis attrocities and gloss over their own as if it means nothing. And now low and behold, im hearing suggestion from all sorts of sources that the soviets saught to be part of the axis as well, so guess what - people in the west can put them into the same pot as the axis, just to suit them.

I always remember reading an article in a norwiegien mag about the british bombing oslo and killing many non-nazi citizens. Though those kinds of things do happen in war, it was the first time i had ever heard about the story and was shocked as the norwegiens always hold the british in almost god like regard for their help in liberating them (despite big help from the french, polish and soviet union). As i have said prior, it just doesnt get the same kind of notice.

You are very right that when people compare Stalin to hitler, they may think that they are comparing two individuals, when in truth what they are really subconciously doing is comparing the whole ideology of communism to be as bad if not worse than the fascists.

I can definitly see why todays western governments would like it this way (they just cannot handle the thought of people not agreeing with capitalist exploitation and social and economic heirachies), but the plain simple fact is that it isnt as simple as that. You cannot just tell the next generation of kids at school that they where exactly the same thing, because then that would be a lie.

[rednordman]

Also, isnt place where the atom bomb hit in Hiroshima now called "freedom park"?

[Green Dragon]

This is a lie to the extreme. He wasnt a "Friend" of hitler he only signed a pact with him for defensive purposes.


He joined Hitler in invading Poland.
They were allies.

[Green Dragon]

I was saying 15 million people died in WWI, in WWII it was 70 million people, and took place on 6 continents (WWI was only in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe)

It occurred in the Pacific and Asia as well. Japan went to war against Germany in 1915, captured German Pacific possessions, and had it ratified at the Paris peace conferences.

China also went to war against Germany, and seized some of the German ports in China.

[Brother No. 1]

They were allies.

Oh and I'm sure allies invade each other to be friendly.:rolleyes:


He joined Hitler in invading Poland.

Stalin had a choice. #1: sign the Non-agression pact and try to build up the Red Army/CCCP for attack from the germans and build up the defensive/moral and to get the capital as far away from german forces as possible. #2: attack the Germans and hopefuly try to break them.

[Il Medico]

Stalin had a choice. #1: sign the Non-agression pact and try to build up the Red Army/CCCP for attack from the germans and build up the defensive/moral and to get the capital as far away from german forces as possible. #2: attack the Germans and hopefuly try to break them.
No offense man, but Stalin had plenty of time to build up the red army. Russian communist had been fighting fascist expansion for a long time before Germany invaded Poland. He had the opportunity to stop Hitler and squandered it.

[Brother No. 1]

No offense man, but Stalin had plenty of time to build up the red army.

did he have time fighting the Finish? did he have time during the Moderizations? The Red Army wasnt a moderized army. They famines during the Revolution aslo contriubuted to the not powerful Red Army at the time. They didnt have the best weapons and if they were to show power it was through Military marches.



He had the opportunity to stop Hitler and squandered it

Tell me when was the opportunity? For it seemed He didnt have a opportunity.

[Il Medico]

did he have time fighting the Finish?
That was a war caused by his own imperialistic ambition. Imperialism, not something a communist country should be doing, right? He even used the same pretext as his former ally (Hitler used the same one when invading Poland).


did he have time during the Moderizations? Yes, I think Modernizing is the point of Modernizations.


The Red Army wasnt a moderized army. It should have been, they had Modernizations and an experienced officer core from the revolution... Oh, wait, I forgot, Stalin purged them all because he thought they were going to take his power away!


They famines during the Revolution aslo contriubuted to the not powerful Red Army at the time. Yes, the famines he caused when he tried to collectivize the farms, his own misguided policies did that, causing millions of workers to die. Another fellow did something similar, Mao I think his name was. His collectivization cost even more lives (because it was the same as Stalin's failed policy). But somehow he still had the man power in the PLA to kick the collective asses of the collation troops in Korea!

They didnt have the best weapons and if they were to show power it was through Military marches. Not the best in the thirties no, but it would have helped if Stalin had not thrown all the weapons designers in the gulag. They also had good enough to fight the Germans and win. Plus, their revolutionary T-34 (just rated #1 tank of all time by the Military channel, the US military channel, so you know it is damn good) was just about done. And yes the Russians do like marches.:lol:





Tell me when was the opportunity? For it seemed He didnt have a opportunity.He could have attacked in 1939 when Germany was distracted with France. Divide and Conquer. As well as the 30's when Hitler was still rebuilding the German army.

Give up, Stalin was a complete fuck up. If he had not been so imperialistic, paranoid, and indecisive, he could have stopped Hitler. Thus saving 77 million people and being hailed as the hero (instead of the West). If Stalin had been a real communist, instead of a megalomaniac, communism could very well be a reality.

[Brother No. 1]

That was a war caused by his own imperialistic ambition. Imperialism, not something a communist country should be doing, right? He even used the same pretext as his former ally (Hitler did when invading Poland).


Oh the words Communist and country must never be put together for the CCCP never = Communist it =Socialist for a period of time. The War with the Finish was to give Leningrad more space. The Finish werent so happy and keen on moving back their territory. Leningrad was one of the places hitler attacked and if Hitler surrounded the city what was the CCCP to do? It'd be another Stalingrad basicly.




Yes, I think Modernizing is the point of Modernizations.

Now tell me whats more important during Modernizations? The economy/industry or the Army? The Economy/Industry needed to be worked on first then the army would be attended to.



It should have been, they had Modernizations and an experienced officer core from the revolution... Oh, wait, I forgot, Stalin purged them all because he thought they were going to take his power away!

Oh of course he must have had parinaoia all the time.:rolleyes:

like I said before the Moderization of the Economy/Industry needed to be done first and Stalin made some mistakes like I said. One of his mistakes were the purges.





Yes, the famines he caused when he tried to collectivize the farms,


Some didnt want to do the farms and killed the live stock/burned the crops and Tell me was there another way for the CCCP to grow? "With every action there is a negative and postive reaction." Its not like he choses something and everything will be all happy and peaceful. There was oppsition to things Stalin did.




Another fellow did something similar, Mao I think his name was. His collectivization cost even more lives (because it was the same as Stalin's failed policy).


Mao-Tse Tung was his name. notice the land-terrain of China for it was sometimes not suited for certain things. The Colectiveation in China was severe for a Famine at struck and with the colective farms this famine had a cause effect dominao play. Something went wrong it all went wrong. But you think of a way to feed/supply all those people.






Not the best in the thirties no, but it would have helped if Stalin had not thrown all the weapons designers in the gulag.

Sure...and the Revolution death toll with the allied invasion/famine death toll was no part of it.:rolleyes:

One factor isnt the cause of it all comrade. For why/how could you blame one simple thing for a massive thing? Even if they had more eginers would it have helped? No for they'd create more of the same thing for that was one of the most productive machines. If you create entirely something new you have to wait for it to multiply.




They also had good enough to fight the Germans and win. Plus, their revolutionary T-34 (just rated #1 tank of all time by the Military channel, the US military channel, so you know it is damn good)

Good enough what? Good enough weapons? Sure....and yet they didnt win the Winter War againist the fins with their "good enough weapons."

Also when did they rate this Tank? 1950s after World War 2?




He could have attacked in 1939 when Germany was distracted with France.


Remember the 5 year plan? That was still taking in affect so he couldnt deal with Hitler for that reason and also how can you get from The Soviet Union, that didnt have Estonia,Lithuania, and that other state, so they couldnt just go through all those countries without retaliation.



As well as the 30's when Hitler was still rebuilding the German army.


5 year plans, Collective farms, Moderization were during those times.





Give up, Stalin was a complete fuck up. If he had not been so imperialistic, paranoid, and indecisive, he could have stopped Hitler.

Sure...and the Capitalists would praise him with such pride and turn to our side.:rolleyes:



Thus saving 77 million people and being hailed as the hero (instead of the West).

No thats incorrect. Even if Hitler was "Stoped by Stalin during the 30s" the Japanses would still attack the Chinese and the Italians would still have their facist leader for the war would not make his seemigly "popularity" go down and then he didnt have to be a pawn. The Nationalists would still be fighting the Communists and the Japanese would still have korea if the CCCP didnt step in, in 1945, and there was a difference between the Japanses Imperial army in the 1930s and in 1945.

[RGacky3]

like I said before the Moderization of the Economy/Industry needed to be done first and Stalin made some mistakes like I said. One of his mistakes were the purges.

THAT WAS NOT A F#%king MISTAKE, he did it consciously and with purpose, that purpose being to stop dissent and solidify his power.

Btw, any Pro-American Government poster who critizises Stalin for making a pact with hitler is discustingly hypocritical.

[Jia]

I especially detested his blaming the generals for his own idiot tactical decisions. Between him and Hitler it's hard to determine who contributed more to their own defeats.

The difference between Stalin and Hitler was that Stalin realised he was no General!

[Il Medico]

THAT WAS NOT A F#%king MISTAKE, he did it consciously and with purpose, that purpose being to stop dissent and solidify his power.
Agreed.


Btw, any Pro-American Government poster who critizises Stalin for making a pact with hitler is discustingly hypocritical.There are pro-American government posters!?!:confused:
But then again, this is posted in the OI forum, so i guess there could be some.

[Brother No. 1]

There are pro-American government posters!?!

I think that is Tomk comrade for he did create the thread and bash Stalin for the Non-agression pact. He is the most common OIer you'll hear about.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Polish Soviet;1441551]Oh and I'm sure allies invade each other to be friendly.:rolleyes:


They were allies 1939-1941.




Stalin had a choice. #1: sign the Non-agression pact and try to build up the Red Army/CCCP for attack from the germans and build up the defensive/moral and to get the capital as far away from german forces as possible. #2: attack the Germans and hopefuly try to break them.


It sounds like the non-aggression pact was conceived by Stalin as some sort of brilliant plan to delay the inevitable. Its easier an explanation than the obvious: Two socialist gangsters working together to advance their own interests.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Polish Soviet;1441575]did he have time fighting the Finish? did he have time during the Moderizations? The Red Army wasnt a moderized army. They famines during the Revolution aslo contriubuted to the not powerful Red Army at the time. They didnt have the best weapons and if they were to show power it was through Military marches.


There were a few reasons why the Germans were able to rip thwir way through the USSR in 1941:

1. Surprise- Stalin simply did not believe the Germans would attack. He ignored not merely the British, but his own spies in Japan who were all warning about an inevitable attack. He could not conceive that Hitler would betray him.

2. Soviet millitary was in shambles- It was not in the process of being "modernised" in 1941- it had been dismantled and shredded during the purges. The profesional soldiers (the commanders anyways) had long been arrested and purged, and were replaced by party hacks. They were no match against the professional German officer corps.





Tell me when was the opportunity? For it seemed He didnt have a opportunity.


There was no opportunity as he looked fr none. Stalin was quite content with a nazi Germany- pre 6/22/41 of course.

[Bright Banana Beard]

1. Surprise- Stalin simply did not believe the Germans would attack. He ignored not merely the British, but his own spies in Japan who were all warning about an inevitable attack. He could not conceive that Hitler would betray him.
Stalin knew the Nazis would attack the Russia from the quote of Slav being inferior, but he did not know when it will happen and the pact helped him get ready for mobilization. Even if the Nazis did receive the winter supply, the Russian are able to hold it due to their conscription policy.


Stalin was quite content with a nazi Germany- pre 6/22/41 of course. Content? He never gives supports or aids to them. The condition is Russia is so terrible that this was one viable option. The Allies was shocked on this pact because it shows the Nazis will focus on the Western Front that they held influence on it.

[RGacky3]

There are pro-American government posters!?!http://www.revleft.com/vb/wwii-behind-closed-t108428/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

Maybe not posters but people in general, some might be very quick to forget the American government making pacts with the most vilist of dictators, if not even putting them in power.

[RGacky3]

I would posit though Hitler is different. He actually wanted to rule the world and conquor everyone and all under the banner of race superiority. Pinochet was indeed a bad person and he was a cruel and nasty dictator--and he murdered his opponents, but he was nothing compared to Hitler and he had no uniform belief of racial superiority. For that matter Stalin's apologiests use that argument for him--maybe Stalin killed more people than Hitler but his political ideology was a "good" one.

Yeah I agree, Hitler was a different breed. Stalins political ideology is really irrelivent, he shaped it to support whatever suited him, either that or he ignored it in practice.

That being said the United States pretty much does rule most of the world, be it directly or indirectly. Point in case, what other country feels they have the right to invade another country without outside interferance? In order to persue its own countries national interests. What country other than the United States has "regime change" as an international option? What country other than the United States can make or break a third world econony basedon political desicions? The United States IS THE world power.


Stalinists and Stalinism besmerch the principals of Communism and as long as REAL Marxists, Communist and Socialists associate with then, find common cause with them, Communism really can't be taken seriously, can it?

They don't in general, only as far as political action and protests go.

That bieng said, American anti-immigration people and neo-nazi racists protest the same things as well. But I agree with you, to me Stalinism is as bad if not worse as Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah I agree, Hitler was a different breed. Stalins political ideology is really irrelivent, he shaped it to support whatever suited him, either that or he ignored it in practice.


Stalin's ideology may be unimportant to you and me, but to a lot of people in the world he's the go to guy when some one mentions the word "Communism." Stalin gives Communism a really negative connotation to lots and lots of people.

And sure there are a lot of finesses of agrument that say maybe he didn't kill ALL those people and that other people did this and that that was bad--but in the end he's a black eye on the face of Communism. Stalinists are worse than an honest OIer who mearly wishes to put their ideology's interest above Communism. Stalinists pervert Communism in its core beliefs and on the face it shows the world.

Personally, I think they beling in OI more than most Capitalists.

[superiority]

Personally, I think they beling in OI more than most Capitalists.

I believe Stalinists used to be restricted, way back when. I'm fairly certain that they were when I joined. Not sure when this was changed, but I would guess the reasoning would be something like "inconsistency". Personally, I don't see the logic in restricting Stalinists but not Leninists, Trotskyists or Maoists.

With regard to Molotov-Ribbentrop, it seems obvious to me that Stalin was not a fan of Hitler (popular front, anyone?). Given Stalin's dislike of fascism, and Hitler's hatred of "Jewish Bolshevism" and Slavs, I have a hard time thinking of Barbarossa (or some variant upon it) as anything but inevitable. Given that, and that Molotov had a hard time getting certain guarantees of support from the British, the non-aggression pact seemed a logical move. Without it, Germany would have taken Poland right up to the Soviet border. As it turned out, the Wehrmact had to cross half of Poland before they got to the actual USSR (not that it slowed them down much in the end). Of course, they probably would have been in a better position without the purges, and if they had moved production east from the beginning, but frankly, it seems to me like M-R was a useful stop-gap measure, especially from the POV of Stalin who was probably terrified of getting overrun by Nazis.

[Jia]

Yeah I agree, Hitler was a different breed. Stalins political ideology is really irrelivent, he shaped it to support whatever suited him, either that or he ignored it in practice.

That being said the United States pretty much does rule most of the world, be it directly or indirectly. Point in case, what other country feels they have the right to invade another country without outside interferance? In order to persue its own countries national interests. What country other than the United States has "regime change" as an international option? What country other than the United States can make or break a third world econony basedon political desicions? The United States IS THE world power.



They don't in general, only as far as political action and protests go.

That bieng said, American anti-immigration people and neo-nazi racists protest the same things as well. But I agree with you, to me Stalinism is as bad if not worse as Capitalism.

Luckily China is quickly rising to tackle the USA monoploy on power. We may not have a perfect government- far from it, but we are quickly putting states to pro-china. Including Africa, which always has been considered a Western backyard.

[RGacky3]

Luckily China is quickly rising to tackle the USA monoploy on power. We may not have a perfect government- far from it, but we are quickly putting states to pro-china. Including Africa, which always has been considered a Western backyard.


Well whooptidoo, Africa now has the same shit from a different asshole.

China is imperialist, America is imperialist. Being ruled by one or the other does'nt change that your being oppressed and exploited.

[Kronos]

A guy once told me "communism was financed by Wallstreet."

I thought "holy guacamole! This means that the whole thing was a trick. The west knew the revolutions would fail.....which would mean those countries would be stalled industrially, so that western capitalism could get ahead. OMG. Poor Stalin, poor Mao....they believed the west! That's how the west did it- they helped the communist countries destroy themselves. Ain't that a *****."

[Brother No. 1]

so9 then what is the difference between a Nationalistic state and a Stalinist Communist one?

Oh of course there is such a thing as a Communist state and the USSR was a Commie state since 1917.:rolleyes:

What you refer to "Stalinism" as is Marxism-Leninism. "Stalinism" isnt Nationalistic for do you remeber WW2 or has that sliped your mind? It was used to boost moral among the troops.




Stalinism throws Communism down on the ground with all those other ideologies and dilutes the true meaning of Communism.

Oh and Capitalist Propaganda had nothing to do with making us look bad.:rolleyes:

The Capitalists made propaganda that made the Maoists look bad, made Eastern Europe look evil, made the USSR look like the "Evil Empire, ect.

[Brother No. 1]

Well Stalin and the Soviets called WWII "the Great Patriotic War" that means it was "Nationalistic."

And the whole world used to call WW1 the "Great War" Plus Russian Nationalism, as I said, was used to boost moral of the troops. Only reason why they used that.





Also Stalin was proponent of Communism in One Country--which also means Nationalism.


Oh course course he was and the CCCP was also apart of the Axis in seceret.:rolleyes:

You take "Socialism in one country" and make it your own phrase. Socialism in one country isnt what it phrase implies. It means to build up the economy,industry,ect in that One Socialist country, that was the only Socialist country in the world, and when it was strong enough it'd help other Revoutions around the world. Also what else were they do to? Wait untill the Facists rose while they werent building up their nation? Permeant Revolution couldnt happen then for all other Revolutions failed and the USSR was the only Socialist country out there in the Cappie world. Also Communism in one country??? What the hell? Communism= classless,stateless society so I'm very certain Stalin couldnt build up Communism in the USSR at that time.





The Polish ones in the Katyn Forest?

The ones in the Soviet Territory. You know when the German nazis attacked in 1941 when they broke the Non-agression pact. Stalingrad, Leningrad, ect.

[communard resolution]

And the whole world used to call WW1 the "Great War" Plus Russian Nationalism, as I said, was used to boost moral of the troops. Only reason why they used that.

Nationalism is always used by someone to some end. If the Soviet leaders use nationalism to "boost the morale of the troops", they are as guilty of nationalism as anyone else.

It doesn't matter if Stalin really spends hours masturbating over a USSR flag in the privacy of his home or not - other nationalist leaders don't do that either, they just use the ideology of nationalism to unite the people against a real or perceived enemy, 'boost the morale', and qualm dissent.

Nationalism is nationalism.

[RGacky3]

Oh and Capitalist Propaganda had nothing to do with making us look bad.http://www.revleft.com/vb/wwii-behind-closed-t108428/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

The Capitalists made propaganda that made the Maoists look bad, made Eastern Europe look evil, made the USSR look like the "Evil Empire, ect.

Well they gave the Capitalist propegandists a LOT to work with. The Zapatistas they just keep quite about for the most part (they don't give them a lot to work with).


Also Communism in one country??? What the hell? Communism= classless,stateless society so I'm very certain Stalin couldnt build up Communism in the USSR at that time.


If one man is building communism, its not communism and never will be, as long as the one dude is building it.

[Il Medico]

Maybe not posters but people in general, some might be very quick to forget the American government making pacts with the most vilist of dictators, if not even putting them in power.
Worked with the Mafia in WWII. Promoted "democracy" while supporting dictators and kings. America is the biggest asshole in the world.

[Jia]

Why the fuck on every forum I see recently is everyone saying "Strawman"?

Stop it. :cursing:

[Kronos]

Why the fuck on every forum I see recently is everyone saying "Strawman"?

The use of calling the strawman fallacy as a defensive measure by those who claim to be misunderstood is merely convenient, and most who call it either don't understand what it means....or have failed to provide a clear argument in the first place....which necessitates the misunderstanding. However, the difference to be noted is that in more cases than not, people do not commit the strawman fallacy simply because there is no clear argument to misunderstand....and therefore no main premises to be avoided.

Really it is a case where somebody types the term "strawman", people read the post, wonder what it means, googles the term, and briefly looks over the definition of the fallacy. Because it is one of the most universal and easily applied fallacies....people throw the word around carelessly when all they want to say is "don't disagree with me!"

But how can someone disagree with a badly crafted argument?

That aside, again, more often then not, several other fallacies are commited in argumentation here but nobody can identify them. The strawman is the easiest- it is the multipurpose homeowners edition logical fallacy.

Another popular trend here at this forum is trying to use historical circumstances as a template with which to try to prove a method, practice, or activity is futile, contradictive, or impossible.

For example, somebody will mention that X happened during the Chinese revolution, and X was bad, as well as a Maoist principle, therefore that Maoist principle, for that reason, is incompatible with any revolutionary scenario.

You are bascially seeing the "communism won't work because it has been tried before and failed" argument. The reason why this argument is bunk is because the same context cannot be repeated, cannot be recreated and will never exist again. Therefore, it cannot be said that a "principle" won't work....but only a principle didn't work in X circumstances.

Of course, the old adage "learn for history so it doesn't repeat itself" has some merit, but it cannot be taken literally.

You very often see two comrades comparing and contrasting historical scenarios of communist activity and using various events therein as an attempt to prove what will work and what won't work, what is universally true, and how certain premises can't work if they failed in the past. The moment one disagrees with the other- the other calls "strawman"!

It is slightly entertaining to watch.

[RGacky3]

Sticking by principles means nothing

hah, yeah, stalinist. Why even be a communist then?

[Jihad ///]

It is not right, that Stalin made CCCP to be capitalist. Because Stalin stopped all the capitalist things in CCCP like NEP and Private of agroculture. But it is right that Stalin made byrocracy regime in CCCP. He had more power that Napoleon in France, or Mikuláš II in Russia. Leninism talking about punish the capitalist, but Stalin punished a lot of working people. Communism is talking about freedom, but in CCCP you must have a approve from byrocracy that you may visit another city !

[Robert]

What a strange world those photos depict! I don't know that they are fairly representative, but they do enhance my preconception of a collapsing society.

Those "soldiers sent in to negotiate," the Nazi motorcyclist protesting importation of American chicken, and the armed guard at the tax court are the strangest. Also love the pentecostal women awaiting the rapture and the "icon corner."

That decorated veteran smoking the cigarette on veterans' day looks like he saw his fair share of action against the Wermacht, doesn't he?

[RGacky3]

But it is right that Stalin made byrocracy regime in CCCP. He had more power that Napoleon in France, or Mikuláš II in Russia.

What in hell is a "Beurocracy regime", its a term that people love to throw at the CCCP, but I have yet to know exactly what it is, and how it caused the CCCPs problems. Your second statement is correct however, and that was the problem.