The Day Trotsky Died. [Archive]

Ismail

20th August 2009, 14:13

and keeping the flame of an independent Marxism burningHoxha and Mao did a pretty good job of having independent Marxist stands against Soviet social-imperialism. Enough to have their own internationals. Of course they're dreaded "Stalinists" so you don't care.

I suppose I might as well contribute Trotsky's secretary's account of that day as the only pro-Trotsky link on this subject that I can give: http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1940/10/end.htm

Yeah..Stalin shouldn't have ordered Trotsky's assassination; that DOES give Trotskyists an issue, to be precise, their ONLY issue.It isn't like Trotsky was standing idly by and waiting for a flying icepick to kill him. As Kahn notes:

In 1939, Trotsky was in contact with the Congressional Committee headed by Representative Martin Dies of Texas. The Committee, set up to investigate un-American activities, had become a forum for anti-Soviet propaganda. Trotsky was approached by agents of the Dies Committee and invited to testify as an "expert witness" on the menace of Moscow. Trotsky was quoted in the New York Times of December 8, 1939, as stating he considered it his political duty to testify for the Dies Committee. Plans were discussed for Trotsky's coming to the United States. The project, however, fell through... .He was also writing his wonderful biography of Stalin that I've described here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1510421&postcount=12

Also:

"Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . . The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold. . . . The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit." --1940
Leon Trotsky
"On the Future of Hitler's Armies"
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40)
(NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 113.

And once more from Kahn:

"The Stalinist version of the United Front," declared C.L.R. James, a leading British Trotskyist, "is not unity for action but unity to lead all workers into imperialistic war."

"A victory of France, of Great Britain and the Soviet Union... over Germany and Japan," Trotsky declared at the Hearings in Mexico in April 1937, "could signify first a transformation of the Soviet Union into a bourgeois state and the transformation of France into a fascist state, because for a victory over Hitler it is necessary to have a monstrous military machine... A victory can signify the destruction of fascism in Germany and the establishment of fascism in France."Trotsky led the "Fourth International." He was still doing his best to pretty much run counter to everything the Soviet Union was doing, and he wasn't heroically fighting against Soviet bureaucratism or whatever, he was taking absolutely horrible lines. So no matter how grisly his death sounded and such, it wasn't some totally unjustified act fueled by Stalin's Satanic desire to murder a goat.

Tower of Bebel

20th August 2009, 14:51

I don't agree with everything you write Ismael. Sometimes you use a hyperbole here and there. You know too well that Trotsky rather ran counter to everything Stalin was doing instead of what the Soviet Union was doing.

He didn't break from the Comintern, it was Stalin who expelled him. He didn't think it was necessary to found a new International until the mid 30's. Not because he was sectarian, but because his ideas were forbidden and the people who defended them were expelled, murdered, etc. The comming to power of Hitler was a turning point for Trotsky. Not because he thought that the Comintern had made a big mistake but because he could never defend his alternative. He and his comrades received a punishment they didn't deserve. You don't solve opposition by killing someone. Communists never "die", they live on forever because of their ideas.

Indeed, Trotsky's hand was shaking when he wrote about Stalin. And it started to affect his ideas about Stalin. But what did you expect from a man deprived of his right to live?

Die Neue Zeit

20th August 2009, 14:58

Did Trotsky have Parkinson's disease? :(

Invariance

20th August 2009, 15:06

Disgusting and cowardly murder by disgusting and cowardly thugs.

And even more disgusting that people not only try to defend it but try and paint it in a positive light.

Ismail

20th August 2009, 15:27

He didn't break from the Comintern, it was Stalin who expelled him. He didn't think it was necessary to found a new International until the mid 30's. Not because he was sectarian...Trotsky's line was quite different from the Comintern. I don't attack him for being a sectarian there at all. As J. Arch Getty noted, Trotsky didn't break with the Comintern also because it would have been seen as Trotsky going against the Soviet Union (see: this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1521611&postcount=7)). I don't really know why you mentioned the Comintern. Whether he praised it to the skies or damned it to hell, his lines were still bad in my view.

My point was that the Fourth International existed and was actively anti-Stalin/Comintern/whatever. Since I view Trotsky as being bad whereas I view Stalin to be good, and since I generally view Trotskyist parties in a bad light (particularly in the 30's-40's) due to following such horrible lines from Trotsky, well, yeah. I'm just saying that Stalin didn't just randomly kill Trotsky. Of course, you being pro-Trotsky (relatively or truly supportive), you'd obviously disagree with my views on him.

Hit The North

20th August 2009, 15:36

I'm just saying that Stalin didn't just randomly kill Trotsky. Of course, you being pro-Trotsky (relatively or truly supportive), you'd obviously disagree with my views on him.

No one's claiming the assassination was random. Trotsky was obviously the most prominent critic of Stalin and this provides the rationale for the cowardly murder.

Btw, Ismail, if you think Stalin was good, does this mean you fully support his extermination of practically the entire surviving revolutionary generation of Bolsheviks? Do you really believe that they had all become agents and spies of fascism and imperialism?

Ismail

20th August 2009, 17:49

No one's claiming the assassination was random. Trotsky was obviously the most prominent critic of Stalin and this provides the rationale for the cowardly murder.How was it cowardly, by the way? Trotsky had a gun on his desk, he had bodyguards (with tommyguns) and police stationed outside of his home, etc. Should Mercader have challenged Trotsky to hand-to-hand combat or something?

Btw, Ismail, if you think Stalin was good, does this mean you fully support his extermination of practically the entire surviving revolutionary generation of Bolsheviks? Do you really believe that they had all become agents and spies of fascism and imperialism?I'm pretty sure that it was Trotsky who was said to be an agent of Fascism or whatever, not Zinoviev and such. Those were more "They were reactionaries who collaborated with Trotsky" than "They were being cynically used by Hitler." It should be noted that there were plenty of revolutionary Bolsheviks from 1917, they just didn't have very high positions. By "revolutionary Bolsheviks" you probably mean "old Bolsheviks," of which Trotsky and Bukharin wouldn't qualify (they didn't really become Bolsheviks until 1917).

The thing is, it doesn't take much evidence to see that, say, Bukharin was a rightist. Just like Liu Shaoqi or Deng Xiaoping in China, both of whom were 'old/revolutionary Chinese Communists.' Zinoviev and Kamenev were opportunists, this is pretty easy to see. Trotsky himself noted how rightist Bukharin was and how opportunist Zinoviev and Kamenev were. Would you dispute this?

As a note, from Stalin and Yezhov: An Extra-Paradigmatic View:

Based on newly available archival material, J. Arch Getty, William Chase, Roberta Manning, and other historians performed interpretative statistical analyses of victims of the Yezhovshchina, such as Getty’s and Chase’s analysis of 898 members of the Soviet bureaucratic elite who held positions of power in 1936 (the start of Yezhovshchina), and Manning’s study of the numbers of Party members expelled in the Belyi Raion (Belyi district) of the Soviet Union. Modern scientific statistical methods were used to avoid, or at least minimize, bias and accession to preconceived ideas. In other words, the new wealth of evidence on the Purge’s victims was examined outside a paradigm as much as possible. The statistical methods used were the formation of contingency tables, multicellular analysis, and logit modeling...

Getty and Chase found that taking the above-mentioned 898 members of the Soviet elite as their sample group, 427 or 47.6% were purged. According to the totalitarian paradigm, the majority (at least 50.1%) of these 427 should have been "Old Bolsheviks," i.e., former revolutionaries who came up through the 1917 Revolution with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. al. Here the paradigm is utterly defeated, for neither Getty and Chase’s study, nor Manning’s, showed this. To quote Manning: "Contrary to popular belief, Old Bolsheviks of pre-Revolutionary vintage did not appear to be the main target of the Great Purges... ."

Who was primarily expelled from the Party or purged? Manning’s results show they were "local party members who joined (the Party) during the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921 - 1927... ." (The New Economic Policy was the Communist Party’s 1921 withdrawal from its previous policy of doctrinaire centralized socialism, which had been set forth in Lenin’s "21 conditions" at the Third International or Comintern. The NEP permitted freedom of trading, encouragement to foreign capitalists, ownership of private property, and other economic features that had just been abolished by the Revolution, permitting what may be called Lenin’s program of allowable private enterprise or private business under the control of the Proletarian Government.) Manning continues: "But the brunt of the purges fell most heavily on Communists who joined the party during the Civil War."

This fact had already been pointed out by Khrushchev decades ago in his much attended to "secret speech" to the Twentieth Party Congress, but has been completely ignored, since it does not conform well to the dominant paradigm. This is a good example of how an entrenched shared paradigm takes precedence over something everyone should have noticed before. According to Getty and Chase, there is "little support for Conquest’s assertion that there was a ‘plan to destroy the Old Bolsheviks,’ or for Armstrong’s claim that the ‘Great Purge almost eliminated from the apparatus the Old Bolsheviks, who entered the Party before the Revolution.’"

Who, then, according to these more scientific analyses of a greater amount of empirical evidence, was at risk to be purged? The statistically arrived at "profile" for a member of the risk group turns out to be someone who was village born, as opposed to urban born; not highly educated, but educated enough to have risen to some bureaucratic position or high rank in a certain field, especially a technical or military field; a Party member, as opposed to a non-Party member (many ardent Bolsheviks and Stalin-supporters, like the agrobiologist Trofim Lysenko, were non-Party); and who participated in the revolution in some way but later joined the opposition. To narrow it further, the most likely to be purged was a peasant who had joined the Party in 1912 - 1920; who was a military specialist and an opposition member.

According to Getty and Chase, "the most striking finding (of their study) is that elite members of the intelligentsia working in intellectual/artistic/scientific activities in 1936 were safest from arrest." This controverts the claim of Roy Medvedev, for example, that the diplomatic profession and especially the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs were "savagely purged." Also controverted by this study are the "histories" written by Roy’s brother Zhores and by Harvard’s indefatigable David Joravsky, both of whom have presented extensive studies on alleged purges of the intelligenty in artistic and scientific fields, such as genetics under Lysenko. Contrary to Zh. Medvedev and Joravsky, a member of this group - a poet, playwright, cosmologist, chemist - was safest from arrest. This fact clashes with the Orwellian version of the totalitarian paradigm for Stalinist society in which all scientific and artistic creation is minutely scrutinized and censored by "Big Brother’s thought police," the NKVD.

There is no doubt that there were many Old Bolsheviks among those purged in Getty’s and Chase’s sampling of members of the Soviet elite. As noted above, of the 898 sampled, 47.6% overall were purged. But only about 31% of all Old Bolsheviks perished. "Statistically, being an Old Bolshevik was not related to one’s vulnerability in the terror" (Getty and Chase, op. cit., p. 237). According to these analysts, "Old Bolsheviks in the present group suffered not because they were Old Bolsheviks, but because they held prominent positions within the Party, economic, and military elite," positions to which they no doubt rose in part because they had been Old Bolsheviks. This is quite different from what the totalitarian paradigmists have been asserting. Getty and Chase go on to say, "Old Bolsheviks were among the victims because of where they worked rather than because they were Old Bolsheviks." If one wanted to be safe during the Yezhovshchina then, it helped to be "an apolitical urban-born intellectual from the middle or upper class who received a higher education before the revolution and who avoided political or economic administrative work. ... Statistically, it was a purge of politicians - oppositionist or otherwise."

Intelligitimate

20th August 2009, 18:26

There is good evidence the Spanish Trotskyites did collaborate with the Nazis, and the USSR was well aware of it. Given the POUM's connection with Trotsky, it's not hard to see why they would think Trotsky was involved with the Nazis.

Originally posted by Grover Furr

German Intelligence, Communist Anti-Trotskyism, and the Barcelona “May Days” of 1937

I’m writing an article on the falsifications in Khrushchev’s infamous 1956 “Secret Speech.” A few weeks ago I ran across the following statement, in an article on the subject of this speech:

"...в угоду политической конъюнктуре деятельность Троцкого и его сторонников за границей в 1930-1940 годах сводят лишь к пропагандистской работе. Но это не так. Троцкисты действовали активно: организовали, используя поддержку лиц, связанных с абвером, мятеж против республиканского правительства в Барселоне в 1937 году. Из троцкистских кругов в спецслужбы Франции и Германии шли "наводящие" материалы о действиях компартий в поддержку Советского Союза. О связях с абвером лидеров троцкистского мятежа в Барселоне в 1937 году сообщил нам Шульце-Бойзен...Впоследствии, после ареста, гестапо обвинило его в передаче нам данной информации, и этот факт фигурировал в смертном приговоре гитлеровского суда по его делу." (| Судоплатов, П. "Разведка и Кремль." М., 1996, с. 88; | Haase, N. Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin, 1993, S. 105)1

English translation from Gen. Pavel Sudoplatov, _The Intelligence Service and the Kremlin, Moscow 1996, p. 58:

“In the interests of the political situation the activities of Trotsky and his supporters abroad in the 1930s are said to have been propaganda only. But this is not so. The Trotskyists were also involved in actions. Making us of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organized a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937. From Trotskyist circles in the French and German special intelligence services came “indicative” information concerning the actions of the Communist Parties in supporting the Soviet Union. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schuze-Boysen… Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this fact figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case.”

This passage is indeed in Sudoplatov’s book. But the footnote to the Haase volume is not. I assume it was added either by Lifshits, author of the Russian-language article, or by Trosten, author of the German version.

So I obtained the Haase volume. The text on pp. 105 ff. is the actual text of the German Reichskriegsgericht (Military Court of the Reich) against Harro Schulze-Boysen, charged with espionage for the Soviet Union (Haase, Norbert. Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin: Druckerei der Justizvollzugsanstalt Tegel, 1993).The relevant paragraph, also on p. 105, reads thus:

Anfang 1938, während des Spanienkrieges, erfuhr der Angeklagte dienstlich, daß unter Mitwirkung des deutschen Geheimdienstes im Gebiet von Barcelona ein Aufstand gegen die dortige rote Regierung vorbereitet werde. Diese Nachricht wurde von ihm gemeinsam mit der von Pöllnitz der sowjetrussischen Botschaft in Paris zugeleitet.

English translation:

“At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz, was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris.”

“Pöllnitz” was Gisella von Pöllnitz, a recent recruit to the “Red Orchestra” (Rote Kapelle) anti-Nazi Soviet spy ring who worked for United Press and who “shoved the report through the mailbox of the Soviet embassy” (Brysac, Resisting Hitler: Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra. Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 237).

* * * * *

By itself Sudoplatov’s statement only proves that Soviet intelligence sincerely believed that Trotskyists were involved with "persons with ties to German military intelligence" in preparing this revolt. By the time he wrote his memoirs, in the 1990s, Sudoplatov was very anti-Soviet, and showed much remorse for many of the things he had done in the Soviet secret service. The fact that he insisted that the Trotskyists were involved with the Nazis in the “May Days” revolt of 1937 in Barcelona surely means that he sincerely believed it was true.

The information from the German Military Court published by Haase provides independent confirmation of Sudoplatov’s statement and of Soviet contentions at the time. It fully confirms Communist suspicions that German intelligence was involved in planning the Barcelona revolt of May 1937. Communist hostility towards Trotskyists and Trotskyism becomes understandable in the light of this information.

There's good evidence that the real panic over clandestine Trotskyists did not take place, even in the USSR, until after the May Days in Barcelona, 1937. Stalin's speeches (two of them) to the February - March 1937 Central Committee Plenum, minimized the dangers of Trotskyists; declared them marginalized; and encouraged CC members not to discriminate against people who used to be Trotskyists but no longer were.2

By June or July this had all changed. At the enlarged session of the Military Soviet, held on June 1-4 to discuss the just-uncovered and very serious Tukhachevsky conspiracy, Stalin gave a speech in which he states that Tukhachevsky and the rest “tried to make out of the USSR another Spain.”3 The meant create a civil war, of course. But specifically it seems to have meant: Do what the Trotskyists and others had done in the May Days in Barcelona -- stab the USSR in the back in the course of a war with the fascists.

The Soviet NKVD had very credible evidence that Trotskyists were collaborating with the German military and Japanese. Soviet leaders certainly believed it. Pavel Sudoplatov believed it, in his memoirs, and he became very, very "anti-Stalin" and anti-Soviet in his old age.

The real panicked hunt for hidden oppositionists, Rights, Trotskyists, and others, began after that Plenum, in the atmosphere of the Tukhachevsky conspiracy. But the Tukhachevsky conspiracy was preceded by the Barcelona “May Days” revolt.

The German Military Court evidence cited above shows that the German Secret Service was involved in the planning of the “May Days” revolt. Later in May 1937 Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky wrote out by hand a lengthy statement in which he admitted to conspiring against the Soviet Union with the German General Staff.4 Tukhachevsky stated that the commanders discussed their planned revolt with Trotsky. These events provide the most likely explanation for the beginning of the fervent persecution by Communists of Trotskyists in Spain.5

[1] S Lifshits, “Preslovutyi Doklak Khrushcheva, ili CACATUM NON EST PICTUM”. In Moskva Sadovoe Kol’tso, http://m-s-k.newmail.ru (http://m-s-k.newmail.ru/) , downloaded July 5 2004. The same article is published as a pamphlet in German: Gersch Troston, Chruschtschows berüchtigte Rede, oder CACATUM NON EST PICTUM (hingeschissen ist nicht gemalt). «Marxistisch-leninistische Schriftenreihe für Geschichte, Politik, Ökonomie und Philosophie» (ISSN 1861-2954), Heft 45. Berlin: Ernst-Thaelmann-Verlag, n.d. I have verified all the Russian and English quotations in this article with the originals.

[2] J.V. Stalin, Mastering Bolshevism. NY: Workers Library Publishers, 1937, pp. 26-7; 43-4. Cited from http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/MB37.html

[3] J.V. Stalin, “Speech by J.V. Stalin at the Ministry of Defense,” Secret Documents. Toronto, CA: Northstar Compass, n.d. [1996], p. 115: “These people tried to make out of the USSR another Spain…” Original in Lubianka. Stalin i Glavnoe Upravlenie Gosbezopasnosti NKVD 1937-1938. Eds. V.N. Khaustov et al. Moscow: “Materik”, 2004, p. 206; Stalin, Sochineniia [Collected Works], vol. 14, at http://grachev62.narod.ru/stalin/t14/t14_48.htm

[4] Partial English translation in Steven J. Main, “The Arrest and ‘Testimony’ of Marshal of the Soviet Union M.N. Tukhachevsky (May – June 1937),” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 10, No. 1 (1997), 151-195. Trotsky and his followers are mentioned throughout Tukhachevsky’s statement.

[5] It’s important to emphasize that there is no evidence that any Trotskyists were killed by Soviet or other communists in Spain, with the exception of Andres Nin, POUM leader and former secretary of Trotsky. See Grover Furr, “Fraudulent Anti-Communist Scholarship From A "Respectable" Conservative Source: Prof. Paul Johnson,” at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol...hnsonfraud.html (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pauljohnsonfraud.html)

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

20th August 2009, 18:34

Look guys, regardless who was right, fact is that Stalin and Trotsky were sworn enemies and were both planning to kill one another.
Stalin was first and got Trotsky killed. If he hadn't done this, Trotsky would have sent an assassin to kill Stalin some day.
That's it. It was Stalin or Trotsky.

Radical

20th August 2009, 18:37

If Trotsky was to be anybody else but a Bolshevik member, he would have been killed long before 1940. The very reason Trotsky lasted so long was out of special treatment from Stalin. If it had been anybody else, they would have been killed long ago.

Ismail

20th August 2009, 18:38

Stalin was first and got Trotsky killed. If he hadn't done this, Trotsky would have sent an assassin to kill Stalin some day.
That's it. It was Stalin or Trotsky.If we are to believe the Moscow trials...

"Shortly before they left for Russia, Trotsky's emissaries, Konon Berman-Yurin and Fritz David, were summoned to special conferences with Trotsky himself. The meetings took place in Copenhagen toward the end of November 1932. Konon Berman-Yurin later stated:

'I had two meetings with him [Trotsky]. First of all he began to sound me on my work in the past. Then Trotsky passed to Soviet affairs. Trotsky said: 'The principal question is the question of Stalin. Stalin must be physically destroyed.' He said that other methods of struggle were now ineffective. He said that for this purpose people were needed who would dare anything, who would agree to sacrifice themselves for this, as he expressed it, historic task. . . .

In the evening we continued our conversation. I asked him how individual terrorism could be reconciled with Marxism. To this Trotsky replied: problems cannot be treated in a dogmatic way. He said that a situation had arisen in the Soviet Union which Marx could not have foreseen. Trotsky also said that in addition to Stalin it was necessary to assassinate Kaganovich and Voroshilov. . . .

During the conversation he nervously paced up and down the room and spoke of Stalin with exceptional hatred. . . . He said that the terrorist act should, if possible, be timed to take place at a plenum or at the congress of the Comintern, so that the shot at Stalin would ring out in a large assembly.'"
(Kahn, A. E., and M. Sayers. The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1946., pp. 248-49.)

If Trotsky was to be anybody else but a Bolshevik member, he would have been killed long before 1940. The very reason Trotsky lasted so long was out of special treatment from Stalin. If it had been anybody else, they would have been killed long ago."In his speeches he [Stalin] was moderate and reasonable. He handled criticisms with apparent good humor, and even when attacking the opposition he was less savage than Lenin or Zinoviev. In Politburo meetings he sought to be agreeable. Writing of the first Politburo meeting that he attended and a time when the struggle between the three leaders [Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev] and Trotsky was tense, Bazhanov noted that 'Trotsky was the first to arrive for the session. The others were late, they were still plotting . . . . Next entered Zinoviev. He passed by Trotsky and both behaved as if they had not noticed one another. When Kamenev entered he greeted Trotsky with a slight nod. At last Stalin came in. He approached the table at which Trotsky was seated, greeted him in a most friendly manner and vigorously shook hands with him across the table.' It was during this time that, although in opposition to him, Trotsky described Stalin to his close friend and translator, Max Eastman, as 'a brave and sincere revolutionary.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 194.)

Grey's source for Trotsky's words: Max Eastman, Since Lenin Died (London, 1925), p. 55. As for Bazhanov's words; B. Bazhanov, Stalin der Rote Diktator (Berlin, 1931), p. 13.

Hit The North

20th August 2009, 18:46

How was it cowardly, by the way? Trotsky had a gun on his desk, he had bodyguards (with tommyguns) and police stationed outside of his home, etc. Should Mercader have challenged Trotsky to hand-to-hand combat or something?

So insinuating himself into the Trotsky camp, then one day sneaking up behind the old man and hitting him in the head with an icepick isn't a cowardly act in your book? Interesting.

I'm pretty sure that it was Trotsky who was said to be an agent of Fascism or whatever, not Zinoviev and such.Zinoviev aside, this was the allegation leveled against Bukharin, along with Rykov, Yagoda, Krestinsky, Rakovsky and fifteen others:

At the direction of TROTSKY, the accused cooperated with German, Polish and Japanese intelligence to commit acts of wrecking and diversion in industry, transport, agriculture and distribution, and to commit murder and terrorism, with the goal of overthrowing the Government, dismembering the USSR and restoring capitalism. They'd been busy!

The thing is, it doesn't take much evidence to see that, say, Bukharin was a rightist. Just like Liu Shaoqi or Deng Xiaoping in China, both of whom were 'old/revolutionary Chinese Communists.' Zinoviev and Kamenev were opportunists, this is pretty easy to see.
Ok, so you do think it was justified. It's good to know you and Uncle Joe read from the same book. We know where we stand.

Trotsky himself noted how rightist Bukharin was and how opportunist Zinoviev and Kamenev were. Would you dispute this? Maybe, but Trotsky never called these men fascists, but then he wouldn't, being one himself, right? :rolleyes:

Btw, all of those murdered men I mentioned above were pre-revolutionary bolsheviki.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

20th August 2009, 19:28

Trotsky called for an armed rebellion against the Communist government in 1939, at the time when nazi-Germany was busy planning their attack on the USSR.
What a revolutionary hero:rolleyes:

LOLseph Stalin

20th August 2009, 20:13

Seems my predictions were correct on the first page that this would transform into a tendency war... :rolleyes:

It was a cowardly move by Stalin to kill Trotsky, plain and simple. Besides, by 1940 Trotsky's health was already beginning to go downhill. Not sure how much longer he would have lasted...

Conquer or Die

20th August 2009, 20:21

Ismail

20th August 2009, 20:37

So insinuating himself into the Trotsky camp, then one day sneaking up behind the old man and hitting him in the head with an icepick isn't a cowardly act in your book? Interesting.The alternative method was... what? I just don't see how "cowardly" could be used here.

Zinoviev aside, this was the allegation leveled against Bukharin, along with Rykov, Yagoda, Krestinsky, Rakovsky and fifteen others:Rykov was a rightist like Bukharin, Yagoda was a supporter of the Left Opposition back in the late 20's, etc. Unless the prospect of the early emergence of state-capitalism in the USSR is appealing to you, I'd rather not have them take over the USSR.

Ok, so you do think it was justified.Deng Xiaoping brought state-capitalism to China, for example, so yeah it'd be pretty awesome if Mao had done something a bit more permanent against him. (Mao wasn't physic though) The thing is, Deng wasn't seen as being in a position where he could try to dislodge Mao from the leadership (nor did Deng want too, IIRC, he had more security in 'defending' Mao, just like Khrushchev 'defended' Stalin, and waited 'till after he died). Zinoviev, etc. were different though, they actively tried to get rid of Stalin. I would say the purges against the 'main' opponents (Bukharin, Zinoviev, etc.) were justified, yes.

Maybe, but Trotsky never called these men fascists, but then he wouldn't, being one himself, right?I don't see how Trotsky calling them fascists is relevant. Did Stalin call them fascists?

Tower of Bebel

20th August 2009, 21:43

Trotsky called for an armed rebellion against the Communist government in 1939, at the time when nazi-Germany was busy planning their attack on the USSR.
What a revolutionary hero:rolleyes:
To re-interprete doing away with stalin as "destroying the Soviet Union" doesn't bring you closer to reality. Yet you see Trotsky's actions in this light. You don't distinguish between the revolution and the bureaucracy. But it could be worse of course: some even claim that Trotsky "wanted to destroy the Soviet Union". But look how he wanted to destroy Russia's workers revolution:

The USSR thus embodies terrific contradictions. But it still remains a degenerated workers’ state. Such is the social diagnosis. The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers’ state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism.
Although it is thus impermissible to deny in advance the possibility, in strictly defined instances, of a “united front” with the Thermidorian section of the bureaucracy against open attack by capitalist counterrevolution, the chief political task in the USSR still remains the overthrow of this same Therrnidorian bureaucracy.

Down with the bureaucratic gang of Cain-Stalin!

Long live Soviet democracy!
Long live the international socialist revolution!The Transitional Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tia38.htm)

And let's not forget how much he hated fascism for destroying the workers movements in Italy and Germany. Lets not forget that he believed that eventually the next imperialist war would bring about the socialist revolution. He knew what it would mean for the workers movement if the Soviet Union would fall: a set-back.

Such a betrayal of the revolution. He wrote a book about himself you know: The Revolution Betrayed.

Devrim

20th August 2009, 22:30

“In the interests of the political situation the activities of Trotsky and his supporters abroad in the 1930s are said to have been propaganda only. But this is not so. The Trotskyists were also involved in actions. Making us of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organized a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937. From Trotskyist circles in the French and German special intelligence services came “indicative” information concerning the actions of the Communist Parties in supporting the Soviet Union. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schuze-Boysen… Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this fact figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case.”

Well as there were 8 members of the Trotskyist organisation, Section Bolshevik Leninista in Spain that seems pretty impresive to me. Of course, the truth was that it was a massive spontaneous working class uprising against the bourgoise state.

Devrim

Devrim

20th August 2009, 22:32

If we are to believe the Moscow trials...

We would be a bunch of deluded Stalinists. Some people believe the world is flat too.

Devrim

RotStern

20th August 2009, 23:33

Trotsky was going to betray the USSR. Stalin was right.

20th August 2009, 23:51

I never supported Trotsky, and not even now, but i just want to ask, where do people base their opinions on posts like this:

Trotsky was busy planning how to destroy the USSR and the achievements of Lenin. So yes, this day is a glorious one.
and this:

It was a glorious day for Stalin saved many people's lives doing so. Those 2 "arguments" are plain weird, and i cant find their connection with truth, especially by people supporting USSR... So Stalin saved many peoples lives, so you are implying that trotsky was going to kill many people( i wouldnt dispute that, though from his place in Mexico, seems a bit unlikely to have many chances) and all those people stalin saved them, arent included on the millions died under stalins orders?Just wondering.

Trotsky was going to betray the USSR. Stalin was right.

I guess this argument is a prediction of what would happen..I dont think "predictions" are valid as arguments..Everyone can make his/her own "predictions" to back up any argument.

Intelligitimate

21st August 2009, 00:28

We would be a bunch of deluded Stalinists. Some people believe the world is flat too.

Devrim

We know for a fact that what Trotsky was accused of, namely organizing anti-Soviet groups from abroad, is true. We know this from Trotsky's own papers.

After Trotsky’s exile in 1929, Trotsky maintained contact with Lev Sedov in the USSR until 1938. These communications are known as the “Exile Correspondence” sections in the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, opened in January 1980. Trotsky lied about having contact with former followers in the USSR in his Biulleten’ oppozitsii and to the Dewey Commission, which was setup to defend Trotsky of charges against him made in the show trials.

In 1932, he sent letters to former oppositionists Radek, Sokolnikov, Preobrazhenskii, and others. These letters were removed from Trotsky’s papers by someone, but they forgot to remove the certified-mail receipts signed by Trotsky’s secretaries. In October that same year, E. S. Gol’tsman met Sedov in Berlin and gave him some internal memorandum regarding the Soviet economy. He also brought Sedov a proposal from Left Oppositionists to form a united bloc consisting of Trotskyists, Zinovievists, members of the Lominadze group, and others. The proposal came from Ivan Smirnov.

Sedov wrote back to Trotsky, who wrote “The proposition of the bloc seems to me completely acceptable,” but “it is a question of a bloc, not a merger.” “How will the bloc manifest itself? For the moment, mainly through exchanging information. Our allies will keep us up to date on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Comintern.” Trotsky also stipulated that the opposition should sent materials to be published in Biulleten', and that capitulationists should be excluded from the bloc. Smirnov proposed that Rightists should be allowed into the bloc, which Trotsky rejected: “The allies’ opinion that one must wait until the rights can easily join does not have my approval.”

The bloc was disrupted by the arrest of Zinoviev, Smirnov, and Kamenev, but Sedov didn’t think they had found anything on them regarding the bloc (they were arrested for other matters).

This block didn’t come out till 1936, during Ezhov’s participation with the NKVD. Stalin was suspicious of the late discovery of this bloc. Yagoda’s sympathy for the defeated oppositionists was documented by Serdiuk to the Twenty-Second Congress in 1961 (Pravda, Oct. 31, 1961). But perhaps Yagoda just discovered it in 1936.

Getty: Origin of the Great Purges, pages 119-128.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 01:07

Trotsky was going to betray the USSR. Stalin was right.

No, he was going to betray the Party Bureaucracy. Big difference.

RotStern

21st August 2009, 01:54

Oh >.<. Thank you for correcting me Insertnamehere. :lol:

Il Medico

21st August 2009, 01:58

Trotsky called for an armed rebellion against the Communist government in 1939, at the time when nazi-Germany was busy planning their attack on the USSR.
What a revolutionary hero:rolleyes:
So advocating the overthrow of a despotic dictator by the workers in a supposedly 'communist' country is counter revolutionary because another despotic dictator was secretly planning to invade despite the two nations non-aggression pact? Makes perfect sense. Trotsky betrayed Stalin, yes. But Stalin betrayed the revolution.

Bright Banana Beard

21st August 2009, 02:32

Abc

21st August 2009, 02:45

There is good evidence the Spanish Trotskyites did collaborate with the Nazis, and the USSR was well aware of it. Given the POUM's connection with Trotsky, it's not hard to see why they would think Trotsky was involved with the Nazis.
i dont care if i get banned for saying this...your a idiot if you belive the P.O.U.M. was working for the fascists the P.O.U.M. millias helped hold back the fascists, and how come the Franco didnt reward them when he won, instead of killing them (the ones who had not been killed by stalin or fled)
please pull your head from your ass before you post. also the P.O.U.M. was not trotskyist, many trotskyists joined the P.O.U.M, but all trotskyist officers were kicked out later on

Zolken

21st August 2009, 02:54

So advocating the overthrow of a despotic dictator by the workers in a supposedly 'communist' country is counter revolutionary because another despotic dictator was secretly planning to invade despite the two nations non-aggression pact? Makes perfect sense. Trotsky betrayed Stalin, yes. But Stalin betrayed the revolution.

Stalin remarked in a speech how that certain members are bound to fall off the party cart whenever it makes a decisive turn .. Trotsky himself was such an unfortunate member. As for Stalin betraying the revolution, how did you arrive at this? .. or could it be that Stalin merely represented a higher stage of the revolution?

Ismail

21st August 2009, 03:05

because another despotic dictator was secretly planning to invade despite the two nations non-aggression pact?"Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that." - Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., 1938. Works, Vol. 14. London: Red Star Press Ltd., 1978.

Devrim

21st August 2009, 03:30

We know for a fact that what Trotsky was accused of, namely organizing anti-Soviet groups from abroad, is true. We know this from Trotsky's own papers.

Personally I think that part of the problem was that Trotsky didn't attempt to organise 'anti-Soviet' groups, but in fact continued to argue that workers should supportthis so-called 'workers' state' even when it had become clear that it was behaving just like any other imperialist power and that there was nothing at all socialist about it.

Devrim

Intelligitimate

21st August 2009, 03:31

i dont care if i get banned for saying this...your a idiot if you belive the P.O.U.M. was working for the fascists the P.O.U.M. millias helped hold back the fascists, and how come the Franco didnt reward them when he won, instead of killing them (the ones who had not been killed by stalin or fled)
please pull your head from your ass before you post. also the P.O.U.M. was not trotskyist, many trotskyists joined the P.O.U.M, but all trotskyist officers were kicked out later on

This post doesn't address anything, though that it is typical of anarchist/Trots who are confronted with evidence against their cultish religion.

Hit The North

21st August 2009, 03:31

Stalin remarked in a speech how that certain members are bound to fall off the party cart whenever it makes a decisive turn ... Trotsky himself was such an unfortunate member.

He didn't fall off the cart he was pushed. Even the most craven Stalinist historian would admit that.

As for Stalin betraying the revolution, how did you arrive at this? .. or could it be that Stalin merely represented a higher stage of the revolution?A higher stage in what way? The only real indicator of advancement in revolutionary terms would be if the proletariat had surer, more direct and more democratic control over the means of production. This was patently not the case. Stalin increased the power and control of the bureaucratic state apparatus.

Intelligitimate

21st August 2009, 03:33

Personally I think that part of the problem was that Trotsky didn't attempt to organise 'anti-Soviet' groups

It's hysterical you say this, when I just presented pretty much irrefutable evidence it was the case he did. Why is it you are simply incapable of reading anything that goes against your beliefs?

Abc

21st August 2009, 03:39

This post doesn't address anything, though that it is typical of anarchist/Trots who are confronted with evidence against their cultish religion.
:confused: since you seem to be confused let me break it down what i said
1: P.O.U.M. was NOT trotskyist
2:If the P.O.U.M. was working with the fascists then why did they hold the line as long as they did
3: Your a idiot if you think the P.O.U.M. was fascist
4: Howcome franco did not reward instead of kill members of the P.O.U.M. after he won
and for some new points
5: What about all the P.O.U.M. members who died fighting against fascists?
6:What about all the forieaners who fought for the P.O.U.M were they fascist too??
this is as clear as i can get
as for "cultish religion" if your going to use that then use "cultish religions" claiming anything left of you is all one big cult is just ignorant, we are accually made up of many small cults :D

Devrim

21st August 2009, 03:42

It's hysterical you say this, when I just presented pretty much irrefutable evidence it was the case he did. Why is it you are simply incapable of reading anything that goes against your beliefs?

I think that it is quite well known that the Trotskyists tried to organise within the Soviet union. I think the problem though is that they weren't anti-Soviet, and if you look at all Trotsky's writings, it is very clear that he continued to call for the defence of the Soviet Union.

It wasn' a problem of 'bad leadership' but of the state ıtself being capitalist and imperialist. Trotsky never argued for a social revolution in the USSR.

Devrim

Intelligitimate

21st August 2009, 03:54

1: P.O.U.M. was NOT trotskyistThe POUM most certainly was affiliated with Trotsky. Nin knew Trotsky personally, and their line was almost totally Trotskyist in nature. That they went against the will of the 'master' and he 'broke' with them doesn't mean much.

2:If the P.O.U.M. was working with the fascists then why did they hold the line as long as they didThe POUM and anarchist didn't "hold the line" at all, if you're talking in military terms. The Andalusian Front was always a joke.

3: Your a idiot if you think the P.O.U.M. was fascistTranslation: I'm committed to the anti-communist reading of Spanish history, and can't think outside of it.

4: Howcome franco did not reward instead of kill members of the P.O.U.M. after he wonAccording to Faupel, Franco himself took credit for it:

"Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent's reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn't intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results."

5: What about all the P.O.U.M. members who died fighting against fascists?What about them?

6:What about all the forieaners who fought for the P.O.U.M were they fascist too?? this is as clear as i can getAnd? People like Orwell (who became an agent of the British) ended up with them completely on accident. Why should anyone expect everyone in the POUM was a fascist? Who even said working with fascists necessarily makes you a fascist?

Abc

21st August 2009, 04:23

The POUM most certainly was affiliated with Trotsky. Nin knew Trotsky personally, and their line was almost totally Trotskyist in nature. That they went against the will of the 'master' and he 'broke' with them doesn't mean much.
Accually as i said in my first post most trotskyist officers were kicked out of the P.O.U.M. after trotsky ordered his followers to try to change the policy and direction of the P.O.U.M.

The POUM and anarchist didn't "hold the line" at all, if you're talking in military terms. The Andalusian Front was always a joke.ummm then who held the line, god? or maybe stalin came down a held the line all by himself by shooting lazers from his eyes that sounds like something you would belive. and what do you think anarchists and P.O.U.M. members were doing in the trenches all day?

Translation: I'm committed to the anti-communist reading of Spanish history, and can't think outside of it.Translation: i'm sheep who sucks up every single word of propaganda the U.S.S.R. put out

According to Faupel, Franco himself took credit for it:

"Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent's reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn't intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results."ummm the street fighting was started by the civil guards who were working for the the Communsits

What about them?uhhhh they died!! usally when you are working for somebody you dont suffer massive causltys from the people you work for

And? People like Orwell (who became an agent of the British) ended up with them completely on accident. Why should anyone expect everyone in the POUM was a fascist? Who even said working with fascists necessarily makes you a fascist?yep all those working classe people in the P.O.U.M. who gave there lives fighting AGAINST fascism were fascist, all they time they suffered from lack of food on the front, being shot at by the people you claim they were "working for" it was all a lie they were in leaque with the fascists all along good job on disproving me! makes alot of sense

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 06:16

Trotsky called for an armed rebellion against the Communist government in 1939, at the time when nazi-Germany was busy planning their attack on the USSR.
What a revolutionary hero:rolleyes:

I seem to remember Stalin being Hitler's buddy in 1939. Oh yeah, thats because Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with a fascist dictator.

So out of curiostity, how was Trotsky supposed to know that in 1939 Hitler was planning on betraying Stalin in 1941? Also, how do you deal with the fact that Stalin tried to become a permanent member of the Axis to work closely with two fascist dictators and an imperialistic empire in 1940?

Ismail

21st August 2009, 06:28

I seem to remember Stalin being Hitler's buddy in 1939. Oh yeah, thats because Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with a fascist dictator.Stalin signed non-aggression pacts with the Baltic states and Poland too. Don't confuse non-aggression pacts with alliances.

So out of curiostity, how was Trotsky supposed to know that in 1939 Hitler was planning on betraying Stalin in 1941?Trotsky viewed war between Nazi Germany and the USSR as inevitable, which was a correct analysis and was also shared by Stalin. Trotsky's view was that during the war, the USSR would be defeated due to its armies being demoralized (he cited the ex-Tsarist army purges of 1937), and that the workers of both Germany and the Soviet Union would overthrow Hitler and the "Stalinist bureaucracy."

Also, how do you deal with the fact that Stalin tried to become a permanent member of the Axis to work closely with two fascist dictators and an imperialistic empire in 1940?Citation needed.

cb9's_unity

21st August 2009, 06:48

Trotsky viewed war between Nazi Germany and the USSR as inevitable, which was a correct analysis and was also shared by Stalin. Trotsky's view was that during the war, the USSR would be defeated due to its armies being demoralized (he cited the ex-Tsarist army purges of 1937), and that the workers of both Germany and the Soviet Union would overthrow Hitler and the "Stalinist bureaucracy."While Trotsky may have been wrong about the workers uprisings against the stalinist bureaucracy the war could have gone a very different way.

In 1939 no one could have predicted the extent to which Hitlers idiocy would ruin the German campaign against Russia. If Germany's leader wasn't a total fool (in the fact that he made very specific decisions that most historians view as crippling) and they had invaded at any other time in the year it is hard to argue that Russia could have survived the initial German onslaught. Who knows what would have happened if Germany's generals had run the war, as I think I would assume most people predicted pre-war.

And also lets not forget the tool Stalin used to save moral in the USSR. Nationalism and "The Great Patriotic War".

Ismail

21st August 2009, 06:50

And also lets not forget the tool Stalin used to save moral in the USSR. Nationalism and "The Great Patriotic War".Nationalism was bad and reinforced Russian chauvinism, yes. But there were many people who in fact fought to preserve what they viewed as a system worth defending. I hear that Robert W. Thurston's book The People's War: Responses to World War II in the Soviet Union is a good read on this subject.

LeninKobaMao

21st August 2009, 07:15

Disgusting and cowardly murder by disgusting and cowardly thugs.

And even more disgusting that people not only try to defend it but try and paint it in a positive light.

Well what is more important millions of people's lives or one man brutally murdered?

LeninKobaMao

21st August 2009, 07:19

I seem to remember Stalin being Hitler's buddy in 1939. Oh yeah, thats because Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with a fascist dictator.

So out of curiostity, how was Trotsky supposed to know that in 1939 Hitler was planning on betraying Stalin in 1941? Also, how do you deal with the fact that Stalin tried to become a permanent member of the Axis to work closely with two fascist dictators and an imperialistic empire in 1940?

And your a fucking moron he only signed it so he had some time to mobilize his army without those 3 years Hitler would have won and MILLIONS of people would have died! What you think Trotsky could have won the war if he joined in with the allies in 1939?

cb9's_unity

21st August 2009, 07:33

And your a fucking moron he only signed it so he had some time to mobilize his army without those 3 years Hitler would have won and MILLIONS of people would have died! What you think Trotsky could have won the war if he joined in with the allies in 1939?

Haha, because clearly Stalin was just mobilizing his troops during that period. Obviously he wasn't invading Poland or Finland, proving the weakness and incompetence of the soviet army in the latter.

Face it, Stalin consistently made idiotic mistakes. The period during the non-aggression when Russia was fighting Finland instead of Germany obviously did nothing to fix the Red Army as it was nothing but a fluke that Russia wasn't crushed in the very early stages of the war.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 07:40

Well what is more important millions of people's lives or one man brutally murdered?

Millions of people would have died regardless or who was leader. WW II was already unavoidable as others have said, so there were troops who were going to die. Sure, maybe Stalin was able to delay it in the USSR by a few years, but that doesn't really change much. Trotsky's murder was still cowardly.

(History clearly isn't my strong point so I'm going to leave this topic up to those who have a better understanding...)

LeninKobaMao

21st August 2009, 09:34

Millions of people would have died regardless or who was leader. WW II was already unavoidable as others have said, so there were troops who were going to die. Sure, maybe Stalin was able to delay it in the USSR by a few years, but that doesn't really change much. Trotsky's murder was still cowardly.

(History clearly isn't my strong point so I'm going to leave this topic up to those who have a better understanding...)

Fair enough history isn't your strong point but if Hitler did win millions of Jews, Slavs, Roma and homosexuals would have been slaughtered most certainly. And don't tell me that if the U.S.S.R didn't join in the allies still would have won the war.

The Bear

21st August 2009, 10:06

I seem to remember Stalin being Hitler's buddy in 1939. Oh yeah, thats because Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with a fascist dictator.

So out of curiostity, how was Trotsky supposed to know that in 1939 Hitler was planning on betraying Stalin in 1941? Also, how do you deal with the fact that Stalin tried to become a permanent member of the Axis to work closely with two fascist dictators and an imperialistic empire in 1940?

Most of USSR elite troops were situated in far east, technicals and similar, because USSR was expecting war with japan... they needed almost 1 year to transfer them to european theater .... non-agression pact was that time ...

Also, how do you deal with the fact that Stalin tried to become a permanent member of the Axis to work closely with two fascist dictators and an imperialistic empire in 1940? from A to Z , Bullshit

Revy

21st August 2009, 10:43

I think I'm going to throw up.

How can anybody glorify the murder of Trotsky? :cursing:

Ismail

21st August 2009, 10:57

How can anybody glorify the murder of Trotsky? :cursing:I think he shouldn't have been killed...

just so WWII could discredit him further.

Tower of Bebel

21st August 2009, 13:50

Posts trashed.

Please LeninKobaMao, don't flame. I know calling Hitler Stalin's buddy isn't very productive, but that does not make one a moron.

tehpevis

21st August 2009, 14:02

(For the record, this is the first time I've posted on Revleft in several months)

I, personally, like Trotsky for his opposition to Stalin's bureaucratic regime, but I'm also much closer to an Anarchist or Libertarian Socialist than a Bolshevik.

About this time last year, however, I didn't know much about the separation between the two, and simply called myself a Communist, rather than one of the leftist sub-ideologies.

Искра

21st August 2009, 14:06

Why do you delete all negative posts about Trotsky?
If somebody wants to say that he was a contra revolutionary prick what's wrong with that? Where's democracy?

Tower of Bebel

21st August 2009, 14:24

Why do you delete all negative posts about Trotsky?
If somebody wants to say that he was a contra revolutionary prick what's wrong with that? Where's democracy?
I did not delete every (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1524760&postcount=9) negative (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1524887&postcount=16) post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1525033&postcount=22) about Trotsky. I deleted flame-bait (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1524883&postcount=1) and posts that said nothing (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1525159&postcount=3) at all. If you want a comparison just look for the differences between Intelligitimate's first (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1525040&postcount=2) and second (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1525060&postcount=23) post in this thread.

As for the question of democracy: Either you accept that there is a difference between calling someone a prick and proving that someone's theories and practices are counterrevolutionary; or you just make 200 qualitative posts, join the CC before its November and vote against me during Revleft's annual mod and admin recall.

(I hope by democracy you ment open discussion and not just a fig leaf for sectarian spam posts like drive-by ad-Hitlerums and other unproductive stuff.)

(edit) I trashed posts. I did not delete them.

khad

21st August 2009, 14:33

I seem to remember Stalin being Hitler's buddy in 1939. Oh yeah, thats because Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with a fascist dictator.

Ok. *deep breath*

SHUT UP

Will you liberals stop whining about the non-aggression pact? Where is all the moral outrage and indignation over the Polish-Nazi non-aggression pact, which was signed in 1934? Countries like Poland and Hungary were openly complicit with Nazi geopolitics, the territory they gained through the German annexation of Czechoslovakia being a prime example. Nazi Germany was encircling the USSR with its satellites, supported at every step of the way by Western capitalist powers.

The USSR had its back to the wall, and under the circumstances, it took the most productive path available--to sign a pact to carve up a Nazi enabler (Poland) and gain some buffer space in the process. I do not disagree with the decision.

MÃ¤lli

21st August 2009, 14:51

In the memory of Trotsky! :trotski::hammersickle:

Искра

21st August 2009, 16:07

Where is all the moral outrage and indignation over the Polish-Nazi non-aggression pact, which was signed in 1934?
You cant compare Polish-Nazi pact and Russian-Nazi pact.

Off course, both are Hitler's clever political moves. With 1st he tried to look like 3rd Reich will never attack Poland, so that England and France cool down. Polish government accepted it, because they were shit scared of military strong Germany, because, as you said they were 1st zone of Germans interests. Russian-Nazi pact is something different. That's pact which clearly divided Poland, and other territories between Russian and 3rd Reich.

Also, that opened space for Soviet aggression on Baltic countries, Finland etc.

Zolken

21st August 2009, 17:16

He didn't fall off the cart he was pushed. Even the most craven Stalinist historian would admit that.
This was because Stalin was in control of the cart, ... ie .. in the game of power politics Trotsky was simply no match for Stalin. This in fact has as much to do with Trotsky distancing himself from party members whose support he would need in opposition to Stalin as to any political maneuvering on behalf Stalin himself.

A higher stage in what way? The only real indicator of advancement in revolutionary terms would be if the proletariat had surer, more direct and more democratic control over the means of production. This was patently not the case. Stalin increased the power and control of the bureaucratic state apparatus. Once in control of the party Stalin directed the revolution. This was the Bolshevik Revolution - NOT a workers revolution, .. so why bother talking of the proletariat and their lack of control seeing that they had no part in the revolution other than being used as an instrument by which to seize power.

The Bear

21st August 2009, 19:18

You cant compare Polish-Nazi pact and Russian-Nazi pact.

Off course, both are Hitler's clever political moves. With 1st he tried to look like 3rd Reich will never attack Poland, so that England and France cool down. Polish government accepted it, because they were shit scared of military strong Germany, because, as you said they were 1st zone of Germans interests. Russian-Nazi pact is something different. That's pact which clearly divided Poland, and other territories between Russian and 3rd Reich.

Also, that opened space for Soviet aggression on Baltic countries, Finland etc.

The thing most of liberals probably dont understand is , why wasnt Stallin a naive ignorant ***** , who would dance the way west would play , and why didnt he act so stupid and attacked nazi's in 1939 , get stormed in 3 months and earned title "the most fair and noble person of world war 2". Instead USSR was the one to wave its flag over berlin and celebrate the crush of nazi state...

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 19:35

Stalin signed non-aggression pacts with the Baltic states and Poland too. Don't confuse non-aggression pacts with alliances.

I'm not. Just because Stalin betrayed Poland and invaded them doesn't mean he wasn't trying to be friendly with Hitler.

Trotsky viewed war between Nazi Germany and the USSR as inevitable, which was a correct analysis and was also shared by Stalin. Trotsky's view was that during the war, the USSR would be defeated due to its armies being demoralized (he cited the ex-Tsarist army purges of 1937), and that the workers of both Germany and the Soviet Union would overthrow Hitler and the "Stalinist bureaucracy."

"It is quite possible, of course, that there are madmen in Germany who dream of annexing the elephant, that is, the Soviet Ukraine, to the gnat, namely, the so-called Carpathian Ukraine. If there really are such lunatics in Germany, rest assured that we shall find enough straitjackets for them in our country. (Thunderous applause.) But if we ignore the madmen and turn to normal people, is it not clearly absurd and foolish to seriously talk of annexing the Soviet Ukraine to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine? Imagine : The gnat comes to the elephant and says perkily : "Ah, brother, how sorry I am for you . . . Here you are without any landlords, without any capitalists, with no national oppression, without any fascist bosses. Is that a way to live? . . . As I look at you I can't help thinking that there is no hope for you unless you annex yourself to me . . . (General laughter.) Well, so be it :
I allow you to annex your tiny domain to my vast territories . . ." (General laughter and applause.)"

Josef Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the 18th Congress, 1939

Citation needed.

For a basic overview
Go to Wikipedia and look up German-Soviet Axis Talks.

It further recommends a long list of books on the subject.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 19:40

And your a fucking moron he only signed it so he had some time to mobilize his army without those 3 years Hitler would have won and MILLIONS of people would have died!

Citation needed to prove Stalin's intent. "Fucking moron" is not an arguement.
1941-1939=2 years.
Once again, buddy buddy talks with Hitler in 1940. He liked working with Hitler. BTW, millions did die.

What you think Trotsky could have won the war if he joined in with the allies in 1939?

I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 19:42

Most of USSR elite troops were situated in far east, technicals and similar, because USSR was expecting war with japan... they needed almost 1 year to transfer them to european theater .... non-agression pact was that time ...

I'd like proof that Stalin was moving troops during this time.

from A to Z , Bullshit

Check my post where I give the cite.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 19:48

Ok. *deep breath*

SHUT UP

Will you liberals stop whining about the non-aggression pact? Where is all the moral outrage and indignation over the Polish-Nazi non-aggression pact, which was signed in 1934? Countries like Poland and Hungary were openly complicit with Nazi geopolitics, the territory they gained through the German annexation of Czechoslovakia being a prime example. Nazi Germany was encircling the USSR with its satellites, supported at every step of the way by Western capitalist powers.

The USSR had its back to the wall, and under the circumstances, it took the most productive path available--to sign a pact to carve up a Nazi enabler (Poland) and gain some buffer space in the process. I do not disagree with the decision.

Do you have proof that Stalin's intent was to fight Hitler instead of joining up with him?

The Bear

21st August 2009, 19:56

do you have a proof he wanted to join him ? Text written by unknown person isnt proof. I can writte one myself and link it... Esspecially not wikipedia , where people writte with different intentions

Искра

21st August 2009, 20:03

do you have a proof he wanted to join him ? Text written by unknown person isnt proof. I can writte one myself and link it... Esspecially not wikipedia , where people writte with different intentions
Hm? Stalin-Hitler's pact? Ribbentrop-Molotov? What was that?
They were together, they had a pact. It wasn't alliance, I think that nobody is saying such things.

Искра

21st August 2009, 20:06

The thing most of liberals probably dont understand is , why wasnt Stallin a naive ignorant ***** , who would dance the way west would play , and why didnt he act so stupid and attacked nazi's in 1939 , get stormed in 3 months and earned title "the most fair and noble person of world war 2". Instead USSR was the one to wave its flag over berlin and celebrate the crush of nazi state...
So you are calling me a liberal? The guy which says that he's and anti-authoritarian Leninist...and from your post I can say that you are a Stalinist, also.
I don't care about Stalin, I just quoted post about pacts and said my opinion. What kind of answer is this? This has nothing to do with stuff you quoted from me.

Hoggy_RS

21st August 2009, 20:11

I think the soviet union had worse enemies than Trotsky so gloating over his death is pretty pointless. His death was a shame but he wasn't the only one to suffer during Stalins time in power.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 20:14

So you are calling me a liberal?

Don't bother. Seems anybody who disagrees with Stalin is automatically a liberal. :rolleyes:

Искра

21st August 2009, 20:18

Don't bother. Seems anybody who disagrees with Stalin is automatically a liberal. :rolleyes:
I don't bother. I don't care.
To me it's just a funny situation, but after all class struggle is not posting on forum, nor defending Stalin.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 20:26

do you have a proof he wanted to join him ? Text written by unknown person isnt proof. I can writte one myself and link it... Esspecially not wikipedia , where people writte with different intentions

There are also books listed I recommened those.

Additionally Stalin's Other War by Albert Weeks deals with this subject starting on page 75. You can find it on google books.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 20:28

Rest in Peace Trotsky, one of the greatest revolutionaries of all.

The Bear

21st August 2009, 20:41

I don't bother. I don't care.
To me it's just a funny situation, but after all class struggle is not posting on forum, nor defending Stalin.

exactely which is why i dont understand why are you rubbing stallin into every marxist-lenninist's nose , and why cant you quit stallin-discussions and dedicate to future

and from your post I can say that you are a Stalinist, also.

stallinism doesnt exist. therefore im not stallinist (forgive me my grammar) , it was a word invented by kruschev later... still you denounce every success stalin made , and just keep putting his name wherever it could fit in any way and continue the thrashing of his policy... i agree stalling had a bad side , but he certainly doesnt deserve to be in history thrahs can togheter with hitler and other scum... and i dont find any other person in USSR history except lenin that made better progress then him in matter that are crucial for workers

Искра

21st August 2009, 21:13

Rest in Peace Trotsky, one of the greatest revolutionaries of all.
LMAO
Say that to Kronstandt sailors. Ops, I'm being liberal now. Where's Čeka?

Искра

21st August 2009, 21:14

exactely which is why i dont understand why are you rubbing stallin into every marxist-lenninist's nose , and why cant you quit stallin-discussions and dedicate to future
And where did I do that mr. anti-authoritarian Leninist.

stallinism doesnt exist. therefore im not stallinist (forgive me my grammar) , it was a word invented by kruschev later... still you denounce every success stalin made , and just keep putting his name wherever it could fit in any way and continue the thrashing of his policy... i agree stalling had a bad side , but he certainly doesnt deserve to be in history thrahs can togheter with hitler and other scum... and i dont find any other person in USSR history except lenin that made better progress then him in matter that are crucial for workers Blah,blah, blah
Stalin fan club = Stalinists

EDIT: Give me the good sides then, and explain me where's communism in Stalin's politics.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 21:26

LMAO
Say that to Kronstandt sailors. Ops, I'm being liberal now. Where's Čeka?

No one's perfect. I consider that to be his biggest mistake (other than supporting Stalin over other capitalists). It was an overreaction on his part and they really should have given in to the demands, so your right about that issue (he also should have supported the worker's opposistion). Hindsight is 20/20 and he clearly fucked up.

Cheka was needed to stablize the situation in Russia. I'm sorry it existed.

Искра

21st August 2009, 21:35

Cheka was needed to stablize the situation in Russia. I'm sorry it existed.
I don't agree.
Where's freedom when you have a secret police?

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 21:48

I don't agree.
Where's freedom when you have a secret police?

Let me make myself more clear, I believe that its original intent of being used to arrest bourgeosise who still lived in Russia to be neccessary. They needed to be taken care of to stablize the country. When it was expanded that was wrong, but not entirely detrimental to freedom. During the Civil War when they were taking Anarchists, was a standard governmental response during war, which was unwarrented. But, once again hindsight is 20/20.

Искра

21st August 2009, 22:04

Let me make myself more clear, I believe that its original intent of being used to arrest bourgeosise who still lived in Russia to be neccessary. They needed to be taken care of to stablize the country. When it was expanded that was wrong, but not entirely detrimental to freedom. During the Civil War when they were taking Anarchists, was a standard governmental response during war, which was unwarrented. But, once again hindsight is 20/20.
I just remembered a funny thing.
Communist/anarchists agree that police is here to protect system so it's bad, but then Cheka is good because they were here to protect the revolution?
Hm... Cheka was a secret police. It's task was to destroy government opposition. As Bolsheviks wanted to keep power thew wiped up whole opposition.
Argument about Cheka being here to "arrest bourgeoisie" is funny, since members of bourgeoisie were in Red Army - The Czarist generals for example.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 22:08

members of bourgeoisie were in Red Army - The Czarist generals for example.

Which were later purged by Stalin, considering the bourgeoisie are clearly Anti-Working class. During the civil war the Reds needed all the support they could get even if it meant using Tsarist generals.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 22:10

I just remembered a funny thing.
Communist/anarchists agree that police is here to protect system so it's bad, but then Cheka is good because they were here to protect the revolution?
Hm... Cheka was a secret police. It's task was to destroy government opposition. As Bolsheviks wanted to keep power thew wiped up whole opposition.
Argument about Cheka being here to "arrest bourgeoisie" is funny, since members of bourgeoisie were in Red Army - The Czarist generals for example.

Your misrepresenting certain points. Cheka was good for putting down bougeosise power. It wasn't good for attacking others, yet it wasn't completely detrimental to freedom.

The opposistion you speak of was mostly comprised of people who never supported the Soviets; those who supported a bourgeosise Constituent Assembly.

The Czarist Generals were advisors who were closely watched and under constant threat of death for misleading the army.

The Bear

21st August 2009, 22:42

And where did I do that mr. anti-authoritarian Leninist.
in every second of your posts mr. Anarcho-syndicalist

Blah,blah, blah
Stalin fan club = Stalinists

EDIT: Give me the good sides then, and explain me where's communism in Stalin's politics. Yes stright away sir. Explain me where is anarchism in... Oh yes anarchist are in blabbering phase since their existence

Radical

21st August 2009, 22:53

I seem to remember Stalin being Hitler's buddy in 1939. Oh yeah, thats because Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with a fascist dictator.

So out of curiostity, how was Trotsky supposed to know that in 1939 Hitler was planning on betraying Stalin in 1941? Also, how do you deal with the fact that Stalin tried to become a permanent member of the Axis to work closely with two fascist dictators and an imperialistic empire in 1940?

Stalin had no desire to share a permanent non-aggresson pact with him. Stalin already predicted that Hitler wanted to invade Russia because Hitler said so in "Mein Kamph". Stalin signed the non-aggression pact because Russia needed more time to prepare for the war.

The Bear

21st August 2009, 23:04

Stalin had no desire to share a permanent non-aggresson pact with him. Stalin already predicted that Hitler wanted to invade Russia because Hitler said so in "Mein Kamph". Stalin signed the non-aggression pact because Russia needed more time to prepare for the war.

Dont worry this logical explanation wont last long under the wave of anarchist and trot berserkers trying to prove Stalin was working round o clock on self destruction

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 23:09

Stalin had no desire to share a permanent non-aggresson pact with him. Stalin already predicted that Hitler wanted to invade Russia because Hitler said so in "Mein Kamph". Stalin signed the non-aggression pact because Russia needed more time to prepare for the war.

German-Soviet Union Axis Talks. I keep pointing this out. Soviet Union was trying to be the fourth member of the Axis.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 23:10

Dont worry this logical explanation wont last long under the wave of anarchist and trot berserkers trying to prove Stalin was working round o clock on self destruction

Sorry, but I have yet to recieve any evidence that during this prep time Stalin was doing anything but invading Finland.

Woland

21st August 2009, 23:18

Soviet Union was trying to be the fourth member of the Axis.

Oh man.

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 23:25

German-Soviet Union Axis Talks. I keep pointing this out. Soviet Union was trying to be the fourth member of the Axis.

Erm...do you have links to back this up? I don't particulary support Stalin, but somehow I'm skeptical about this. Stalin was an opponant of Fascism, not trying to join up with them.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 23:28

Oh man.

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.

I provided sources. Look at them and stop telling me I'm making shit up.

ChrisK

21st August 2009, 23:33

Erm...do you have links to back this up? I don't particulary support Stalin, but somehow I'm skeptical about this. Stalin was an opponant of Fascism, not trying to join up with them.

I provided them earlier. Here's the best one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0YzPUy3n1psC&pg=PA75&dq=german-soviet+axis+talks&ei=PSCPStzSLZPolQTow4S3Bw#v=onepage&q=german-soviet%20axis%20talks&f=false

It starts on page 75.

There is also a wikipedia article on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

The Bear

21st August 2009, 23:40

I provided them earlier. Here's the best one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0YzPUy3n1psC&pg=PA75&dq=german-soviet+axis+talks&ei=PSCPStzSLZPolQTow4S3Bw#v=onepage&q=german-soviet%20axis%20talks&f=false

It starts on page 75.

There is also a wikipedia article on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks and i can link you 100 of pro-stallin books and what now? Soviet in axis ? Wake up man , think with your own head. Are you pretending ignorant or what ? Sorry my stomach is to weak for this crap... Officialy out of discussion , pardon , bullshit competition.

Искра

22nd August 2009, 00:06

The Beer you are funny guy. You don't give and evidence, nor you put any kind of argument. You are not even funny nor anything... You just write some stuff that has nothing to do with post's you quote...
Every time I asked you here, or in Zapadni Balkan's place to explain or argument something, you just started to write something about attacks etc. which has nothing to do with quotes etc.

Yes, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. So what? That's my ideology. But can you explain what's anti-authoritarian Leninism?!
Stalinists here jump and scream on every "anti-authoritarian" phrase, and tag it as liberal. So, by that logic, are you liberal Leninist?

Also it's a funny thing that if I was posting such nonsenses my posts will be in trash and I'll get 10 red marks...

Now, let's get to "business".

Originally posted by: ChristoferKoch
Your misrepresenting certain points. Cheka was good for putting down bougeosise power. It wasn't good for attacking others, yet it wasn't completely detrimental to freedom.
The point of revolution itself is not that secret police "put down" the power of ruling class. Point of revolution is not that we restore or keep State institutions and other various repressive institutions and claim that they are in interest of everybody. Cheka was not working for the masses, it was working for the Party, and we all know that in 1917 Bolsheviks were minority (when we talk about revolutionary forces).
Also, Cheka's job was not to "keep freedom" or something like that. Their job was to perform Party's orders. That meant to oppress working class if Party said so. Do you remember Petrograd before Krosntandt insurrection? Do you remember those strikes? Who put them down? Cheka.
Who was marching on the Kronstandt when Trotsky said "let's go"? Cheka + "hardcore Bolshevik" forces.

The opposistion you speak of was mostly comprised of people who never supported the Soviets; those who supported a bourgeosise Constituent Assembly.
I don't speak about that opposition. I speak as opposition in general. There were a lot of anarchists and communists who were murdered by Cheka.
I don't care about bourgeoisie.

The Czarist Generals were advisors who were closely watched and under constant threat of death for misleading the army.
Can I laugh now?
The point of Czarist Generals was that they will keep their heads if they help Bolsheviks to keep their power and to win a civil war. Is it right to make a revolution and to keep old exploiters on their positions?

Historical truth is that Hitler has offered an full alliance to Stalin, but Stalin didn't want it because they had same interests in Poland, Ukraine etc.

Wanted Man

22nd August 2009, 00:13

I provided them earlier. Here's the best one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0YzPUy3n1psC&pg=PA75&dq=german-soviet+axis+talks&ei=PSCPStzSLZPolQTow4S3Bw#v=onepage&q=german-soviet%20axis%20talks&f=false

It starts on page 75.

If that's your best source, maybe you should read it better, because it contradicts you. Your author says that talks were held, but an alliance "never materialized" because of Soviet demands, which were more aimed at securing the USSR's short-term interests, rather than committing to a long-term Unholy Alliance aimed at conquering the world and evildoing in general...

One of the negotiations between Molotov and Ribbentrop took place in an underground bunker, because of British bombing. Ribbentrop made grand declarations about how Britain would be finished soon, to which Molotov replied: "If that is so, why are we in this shelter, and whose are these bombs which fall?" The USSR was not dealing with a trusted soon-to-be fascist ally, but with a series of talks that could potentially improve their situation (which was still weak, as we saw at the beginning of Barbarossa), a chance that had to be investigated further, rather than dismissed out of hand because it looks better ideologically in the post-war history books.

Of course, it soon turned out that something like that was not possible. After the suggestion for an alliance was made, the Soviets came with the following demands:

1. That German troops are immediately withdrawn from Finland, which... belongs to the Soviet Union's sphere of influence... 2. That within the next few months the security of the Soviet Union in the Straits is assured by the conclusion of a mutual-assistance pact between the U.S.S.R. and Bulgaria... and by the establishment of a base for land and naval forces by the Soviet Union within range of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles by means of a long-term lease. 3. That the area south of Batum and Baku in the general direction of the Persian Gulf is recognized as the center of the aspirations of the Soviet Union. 4. That Japan renounce her rights to concessions for coal and oil in northern Sakhalin.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;idno=ABZ0764.0001.001;seq=8 23

Hitler said about this:

Stalin is clever and cunning. He demands more and more. He's a cold-blooded blackmailer. A German victory has become unbearable for Russia. Therefore: she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible."
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;idno=ABZ0764.0001.001;seq=8 24

So you're right about the existence of the talks, which nobody denies, not even Stalin himself. But yours is an interpretation that your own source doesn't even make. You also seem to forget all the grievances with Germany that Molotov brought up earlier in November of 1940. By that time, it was either going to be an alliance where Russia's interests would be fully secured, which was impossible, or the eventual breakdown that actually happened. There was this little thing called Barbarossa, but I don't think you need to be reminded of that.

It was not the case that Stalin was principally prepared to sell the USSR out and make it part of the fascist bloc, and to "form an imperialistic empire with them", but to formulate that an alliance would only be possible if those demands were met. Only under those conditions would such an alliance be in the interests of the USSR's security, and Germany was never going to meet them just for the sake of having the USSR in the axis. Hitler himself was clear on this.

So there was no collusion between two evil empires eager to join hands, but there were discussions that were very significant in deciding the course of the next few years. Politics like that are harsh, they have little to do with the romantic struggle against the fascists, red flag in hand. But there is little room for mistake when you're dealing with a large fascist power at your doorstep, poised to strike as soon as they felt they had the advantage (luckily for all of us, they ended up underestimating the USSR...), and also little room for idealist reasonings (that the idea of socialism was too beautiful to negotiate with the fascists).

What would it have been like if Trotsky and his followers had been at the helm? It's hard to judge, because "what-if" is kind of pointless. Besides, we only have Trotsky's performance at Brest-Litovsk as past precedent, which doesn't reflect very well on him. ;)

I'd like proof that Stalin was moving troops during this time.

You are right, and the other person is wrong here, if I recall correctly - the forces under Zhukov were still in the far east during the invasion. So the other person got his facts wrong, but on the other hand, you can't exactly deny that the 2 years were a very important breathing space, industrially, militarily and politically. It would be extremely ignorant to argue that the only thing that happened in that period was "invading Finland" (out of some evil imperialistic machinations, no doubt...).

Zhukov conceded in his memoirs that, at the time, the USSR was gearing up for war, in which Stalin personally concerned himself with the defence industry, dealing with dozens of engineers and other persons, realising their plans with determination. I say conceded, because Zhukov was free to criticise Stalin at the time he wrote (after destalinisation), and had plenty of reason to criticise the man.

It's also difficult to deny that all the horrible imperialist invasions (I don't intend to justify the invasion of Finland, for instance, but it's not black and white either) in fact provided the USSR with a vast defensive buffer, that may well have been important in the end. They still made gross mistakes in the early stages of the war, but had a lot more room to eventually emerge from them.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 00:48

and i can link you 100 of pro-stallin books and what now? Soviet in axis ? Wake up man , think with your own head. Are you pretending ignorant or what ? Sorry my stomach is to weak for this crap... Officialy out of discussion , pardon , bullshit competition.

And strangely I can find hundreds of histories that reference this happening including citing the person who proposed it and what it entailed. Wake up man, think with your own head, not what Stalin told you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_u6RUrOZi8UC&pg=PA199&dq=german-soviet+axis+talks&ei=kyOPSqS1CYSmkATeyN26Bw#v=onepage&q=german-soviet%20axis%20talks&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5GCFUqBRZ-QC&pg=PA427&dq=Stalin%27s+Wars:+From+World+War+to+Cold+War,+19 39%E2%80%931953,+Yale+University+Press&ei=dSiPSueTCaWQkAT12-GmBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
pg 58-59

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 01:12

If that's your best source, maybe you should read it better, because it contradicts you. Your author says that talks were held, but an alliance "never materialized" because of Soviet demands, which were more aimed at securing the USSR's short-term interests, rather than committing to a long-term Unholy Alliance aimed at conquering the world and evildoing in general...

I never said it came into being, I said that it was desired. The Soviet demands existed to protect The Soviets when they join.

One of the negotiations between Molotov and Ribbentrop took place in an underground bunker, because of British bombing. Ribbentrop made grand declarations about how Britain would be finished soon, to which Molotov replied: "If that is so, why are we in this shelter, and whose are these bombs which fall?" The USSR was not dealing with a trusted soon-to-be fascist ally, but with a series of talks that could potentially improve their situation (which was still weak, as we saw at the beginning of Barbarossa), a chance that had to be investigated further, rather than dismissed out of hand because it looks better ideologically in the post-war history books.

Of course I actually have sources, you on the other hand are making conjectures based on a quote.

Of course, it soon turned out that something like that was not possible. After the suggestion for an alliance was made, the Soviets came with the following demands:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;idno=ABZ0764.0001.001;seq=8 23

Hitler said about this:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;idno=ABZ0764.0001.001;seq=8 24

All you've done is shown the obvious, which is that Russia was looking after its interests and they conflicted with Hitlers. I'm not contending that, I'm contending that they were seeking an alliance, which is what the talks were.

So you're right about the existence of the talks, which nobody denies, not even Stalin himself. But yours is an interpretation that your own source doesn't even make. You also seem to forget all the grievances with Germany that Molotov brought up earlier in November of 1940. By that time, it was either going to be an alliance where Russia's interests would be fully secured, which was impossible, or the eventual breakdown that actually happened. There was this little thing called Barbarossa, but I don't think you need to be reminded of that.

It was not the case that Stalin was principally prepared to sell the USSR out and make it part of the fascist bloc, and to "form an imperialistic empire with them", but to formulate that an alliance would only be possible if those demands were met. Only under those conditions would such an alliance be in the interests of the USSR's security, and Germany was never going to meet them just for the sake of having the USSR in the axis. Hitler himself was clear on this.

Your misrepresenting my arguement. My point is that Stalin was seeking an alliance with Hitler. The implication is that he would have been working with fascists and fighting on the same side as fascists. I never argued that Stalin wasn't looking out for his national interests.

What would it have been like if Trotsky and his followers had been at the helm? It's hard to judge, because "what-if" is kind of pointless. Besides, we only have Trotsky's performance at Brest-Litovsk as past precedent, which doesn't reflect very well on him. ;)

I honestly don't care what Trotsky would have done.

You are right, and the other person is wrong here, if I recall correctly - the forces under Zhukov were still in the far east during the invasion. So the other person got his facts wrong, but on the other hand, you can't exactly deny that the 2 years were a very important breathing space, industrially, militarily and politically. It would be extremely ignorant to argue that the only thing that happened in that period was "invading Finland" (out of some evil imperialistic machinations, no doubt...).

Oh, breathing space is important if you use it for mobilization, which they only partially achieved before Operation Barbarossa.

On Finland I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 01:20

The point of revolution itself is not that secret police "put down" the power of ruling class. Point of revolution is not that we restore or keep State institutions and other various repressive institutions and claim that they are in interest of everybody. Cheka was not working for the masses, it was working for the Party, and we all know that in 1917 Bolsheviks were minority (when we talk about revolutionary forces).

Your going to have to explain that as I can provide sources that the Bolsheviks had a 60% majority.

Also, Cheka's job was not to "keep freedom" or something like that. Their job was to perform Party's orders. That meant to oppress working class if Party said so. Do you remember Petrograd before Krosntandt insurrection? Do you remember those strikes? Who put them down? Cheka.
Who was marching on the Kronstandt when Trotsky said "let's go"? Cheka + "hardcore Bolshevik" forces.

I never said Cheka was perfect, I criticise its expanded powers after 1917 so honestly all these points you make mean nothing to me.

I don't speak about that opposition. I speak as opposition in general. There were a lot of anarchists and communists who were murdered by Cheka.
I don't care about bourgeoisie.

Again, I'm against that too.

Can I laugh now?
The point of Czarist Generals was that they will keep their heads if they help Bolsheviks to keep their power and to win a civil war. Is it right to make a revolution and to keep old exploiters on their positions?

They would keep thier heads if they beat the White Army. You can't say that White victory would have been more desireable.

Historical truth is that Hitler has offered an full alliance to Stalin, but Stalin didn't want it because they had same interests in Poland, Ukraine etc.

Stalin sent Molotov to try and make it work, ergo he wanted it. Hitler wouldn't make concessions so it failed.

communard resolution

22nd August 2009, 01:39

I'm not anti-Trotsky - I appreciate Leon's contribution to the Russian revolution, and I like his book The Revolution Betrayed. But for some reason, I've never warmed up to the man quite as much as I should have.

His idea of militarising the workforce was very dodgy and smacked of contempt for the common worker. On another occassion, he even made a remark to the avail of "the party cannot subject itself to all the whimses and moods of the workers councils."

He was a Menshevik and became a Bolshevik only in 1917 - maybe a Troskyist can tell me what key experience convinced him to change his position so drastically in that year? Because as it is, it just seems to me that he checked which way the wind blew and joined the crew that was most likely to succeed and get him somewhere. Much as I despise Stalin, he was an excellent revolutionary in the years leading up to 1917, risked his life many times, made huge sacrifices, and fought against all odds. He had dedicated his entire life to the revolution.

If we speak of Trotsky's theoretical contribution, his work is invaluable. Having been one of the most influential Bolsheviks and right at the centre of action, he was well equipped to criticise negative developments of the Revolution, and he did so very eloquently. If we speak of him as a person, though, my impression is not the greatest, and I often think his policies wouldn't have been any less anti-worker than his greatest rival's policies had Leon got the job instead.

These are just impressions, and I might be completely wrong. I request to be corrected should this be the case.

Искра

22nd August 2009, 02:18

Your going to have to explain that as I can provide sources that the Bolsheviks had a 60% majority.
I was referring to revolutionary force as a proletariat. I admit that I picked up wrong phrase.

I never said Cheka was perfect, I criticise its expanded powers after 1917 so honestly all these points you make mean nothing to me.They should never exist. If one small Party has a secret police which terrorizes working class that a serious issue.

They would keep thier heads if they beat the White Army. You can't say that White victory would have been more desireable.I never said that White victory would be good thing, but also I don't see how can we talk about social revolution and keep some people on their positions and they continue to exploit working class with their luxury.

Stalin sent Molotov to try and make it work, ergo he wanted it. Hitler wouldn't make concessions so it failed.As I said: They never wanted REAL alliance both Russia and 3rd Reich wanted same territories. Both wanted Poland, Ukraine... Stalin wanted Russians territory from Czarist times, Hitler wanted Europe.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 02:32

I was referring to revolutionary force as a proletariat. I admit that I picked up wrong phrase.

True, the bolsheviks didn't have all the proletariats in the party, but the fact of the matter is that they were supported by close to 60% of the proletariat.

They should never exist. If one small Party has a secret police which terrorizes working class that a serious issue.

They didn't terrorize the working class, not until the Petrograd uprisings. But you have to understand the Bolsheviks position in this one, the nation was on the verge of complete collapse. They couldn't afford anymore dissent. Now, I think they went about this the wrong way, but I have to empathize with them on this issue.

I never said that White victory would be good thing, but also I don't see how can we talk about social revolution and keep some people on their positions and they continue to exploit working class with their luxury.

The generals had no power. Their entire job was to give advice that was usually accepted because it was good advice.

As I said: They never wanted REAL alliance both Russia and 3rd Reich wanted same territories. Both wanted Poland, Ukraine... Stalin wanted Russians territory from Czarist times, Hitler wanted Europe.

You have given no proof of this, just speculation. I have proof that there was a serious attempt to gain an allience.

Искра

22nd August 2009, 02:42

True, the bolsheviks didn't have all the proletariats in the party, but the fact of the matter is that they were supported by close to 60% of the proletariat.
I don't agree. Proletariat supporter the revolution not the Bolsheviks. There were various groups there.
Also, if you remember Bolsheviks didn't get enough votes when they thought that they will be elected by people. Also, if we moved to the villages (and Russia was pesant's country, more to say almost feudal one) where nobody cared about Bolsheviks, you can't say that they had support.

They didn't terrorize the working class, not until the Petrograd uprisings. But you have to understand the Bolsheviks position in this one, the nation was on the verge of complete collapse. They couldn't afford anymore dissent. Now, I think they went about this the wrong way, but I have to empathize with them on this issue.
They didn't have enough power in their hands to start terrorizing working class from the start. Once they got power they bash all the strikes, all uprisings, destroyed non-Bolshevik organizations, unions, etc.

The generals had no power. Their entire job was to give advice that was usually accepted because it was good advice.
The world "general" = power. And they were not just an advice.

You have given no proof of this, just speculation. I have proof that there was a serious attempt to gain an allience.
I can also give you a proof that their alliance wouldn't last because they wanted same territories. Its a book by Renoven (I probably didn't spell his name quite right) French historian.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 03:12

I don't agree. Proletariat supporter the revolution not the Bolsheviks. There were various groups there.
Also, if you remember Bolsheviks didn't get enough votes when they thought that they will be elected by people. Also, if we moved to the villages (and Russia was pesant's country, more to say almost feudal one) where nobody cared about Bolsheviks, you can't say that they had support.

"The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met on October 25-26, 1917, at 22:40, in the Smolny Institute. Of the 649 delegates elected to the Congress of Soviets, representing 318 provincial/local soviets, 390 were Bolshevik, 160 Socialist-Revolutionaries (about 100 were Left SRs), 72 Mensheviks, 14 Menshevik Internationalists, and 13 of various groups." Marxist Internet Archive

390 out of 649 is about 60%. Add in the Left SRs (who formed the government with the bolsheviks) and you have 490 out of 649 and you have 75.5% support for the Bolshevik-Left SR grouping. Thats a majority support either way you look at it.

They didn't have enough power in their hands to start terrorizing working class from the start. Once they got power they bash all the strikes, all uprisings, destroyed non-Bolshevik organizations, unions, etc.

Source of information?

The world "general" = power. And they were not just an advice.

Trotsky disagrees with you:
"All the officers, all the doctors and engineers, all the educated specialists who have hitherto been zealously engaged in sabotage, will be dragged out into the open. It is said that the attitude of the former officers is counter-revolutionary, that it will be dangerous to entrust them with military work in a socialist army. But, in the first place, they will be allotted only the technical and operational-strategic aspects of the work, while the entire apparatus of the army as a whole, its organisation and internal structure will be entirely and completely a matter for the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. And, in the second place, the officers and generals were objects of fear to us only when they controlled the entire mechanism of state power. Now, they are helpless to shake and undermine the foundations of Soviet power. But let every one of them realize, and firmly keep in mind, that if they make the slightest attempt to use their position for counter-revolutionary purposes, they will suffer severe punishment, they will be dealt with in accordance with the full strictness of revolutionary order, they will be shown no mercy!"
Leon Trotsky, 1918

I can also give you a proof that their alliance wouldn't last because they wanted same territories. Its a book by Renoven (I probably didn't spell his name quite right) French historian.

Your avoiding the issue. The issue is they wanted an alliance and made an effort for it. The fact that neither side would back down about their interests is a side issue.

LeninKobaMao

22nd August 2009, 06:52

BTW, millions did die.

... :confused:

BUT MILLIONS MORE WOULD HAVE DIED WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?????????

If the Axis won they would have exterminated anyone that was 'inferior' to the 'aryan' race which would be over half the worlds population!!!!

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 06:56

... :confused:

Seeings that if the Axis won they would have exterminated anyone that was 'inferior' to the 'aryan' race which would be over half the worlds population!!!!

Well thats actually not true. They actually tried to not kill the Jews at first, just send them away (yes I know thats still horrible anti-semitism). Show me where Hitler said this. I know he didn't.

LeninKobaMao

22nd August 2009, 07:20

Well thats actually not true. They actually tried to not kill the Jews at first, just send them away (yes I know thats still horrible anti-semitism). Show me where Hitler said this. I know he didn't.

http://www.dmko.info/auschwitz1.jpeg

http://www.7is7.com/otto/travel/photos/20031019/auschwitz_auschwitzcrematoriumoven.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~dchapin/_uimages/MassKill.gif

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/OldPhotos/MassGrave03.jpg

Enough proof? I think we have a Nazi sympathizer here! It's not what Hitler said it is what Hitler ordered.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 07:28

http://www.dmko.info/auschwitz1.jpeg

http://www.7is7.com/otto/travel/photos/20031019/auschwitz_auschwitzcrematoriumoven.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~dchapin/_uimages/MassKill.gif

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/OldPhotos/MassGrave03.jpg

Enough proof? I think we have a Nazi sympathizer here! It's not what Hitler said it is what Hitler ordered.

I don't like being called a Nazi sympathizer. I never said that the holocost didn't happen, I said Hitler didn't order the deaths of all inferior races. You haven't given evidence of this being wrong, you've shown holocost graves. All I'm doing is saying that your saying things without evidence. If you have proof I'd love to see it.

LOLseph Stalin

22nd August 2009, 07:37

I don't like being called a Nazi sympathizer. I never said that the holocost didn't happen, I said Hitler didn't order the deaths of all inferior races. You haven't given evidence of this being wrong, you've shown holocost graves. All I'm doing is saying that your saying things without evidence. If you have proof I'd love to see it.

Well to be fair, Hitler did write about the supposed inferiority of Jews and other ethnic groups in "Mein Kampf". I think that's plenty of evidence that Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Maybe, they weren't killed as rapidly at the beginning but his eventual goal was to wipe them out.

LeninKobaMao

22nd August 2009, 07:39

Well to be fair, Hitler did write about the inferiority of Jews and other ethnic groups in "Mein Kampf". I think that's plenty of evidence that Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Maybe, they weren't killed as rapidly at the beginning but his eventual goal was to wipe them out.

InsertNameHere said exactly what I was going to say thanks InsertNameHere. I rest my case.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 07:40

Well to be fair, Hitler did write about the inferiority of Jews and other ethnic groups in "Mein Kampf". I think that's plenty of evidence that Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Maybe, they weren't killed as rapidly at the beginning but his eventual goal was to wipe them out.

I can definatly give you that. There were policies, however, to send the Jews away at first, but when no country would accept them they went back to Germany where Hitler came up with the final solution.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 07:41

InsertNameHere said exactly what I was going to say thanks InsertNameHere. I rest my case.

Well, I would like you to explain how the Jews are over half the Earth's population.

LOLseph Stalin

22nd August 2009, 07:44

I can definatly give you that. There were policies, however, to send the Jews away at first, but when no country would accept them they went back to Germany where Hitler came up with the final solution.

Jews tried to leave Germany and other countries occupied by the Nazis because of the discrimination they were enduring. For many they left by their own choice only to be turned down by other countries. They really had no choice but to return to Europe where many were later killed. Canada in particular let in almost no Jewish immigrants before WW II. We had prejudiced immigration policies stating that pretty much only Christian English and French immigrants could enter.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 07:49

Jews tried to leave Germany and other countries occupied by the Nazis because of the discrimination they were enduring. For many they left by their own choice only to be turned down by other countries. They really had no choice but to return to Europe where many were later killed. Canada in particular let in almost no Jewish immigrants before WW II. We had prejudiced immigration policies stating that pretty much only Christian English and French immigrants could enter.

Glanced at one of my history books and you're right. Thank you for bringing that to my attention or else I'd be remebering incorrectly still :blushing:.

The Bear

22nd August 2009, 09:29

Wanted Man

22nd August 2009, 09:32

(I'll get to Christofer's response later, I just thought this was interesting to comment on)

Jews tried to leave Germany and other countries occupied by the Nazis because of the discrimination they were enduring. For many they left by their own choice only to be turned down by other countries. They really had no choice but to return to Europe where many were later killed. Canada in particular let in almost no Jewish immigrants before WW II. We had prejudiced immigration policies stating that pretty much only Christian English and French immigrants could enter.

Some European countries had policies like that too. The Netherlands, for one, stuffed the Jewish refugees into camps near the border. So once the Germans invaded, the camp infrastructure was already made for them, they only had to make a railway so that these people could be sent over to Auschwitz...

LeninKobaMao

22nd August 2009, 10:03

Well, I would like you to explain how the Jews are over half the Earth's population.

Not just Jews I feel like i'm wasting my time here. He hated: Jews, Slavs, Roma, Black People, Menatlly and Physically unstable, Homosexuals, Asians to an extent and basically anyone who wasn't 'aryan'. That is over half of the earth's population. Asia is the home to most of the world's population on it's own.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 10:07

Not just Jews I feel like i'm wasting my time here. He hated: Jews, Slavs, Roma, Black People, Menatlly and Physically unstable, Homosexuals, Asians to an extent and basically anyone who wasn't 'aryan'. That is over half of the earth's population. Asia is the home to most of the world's population on it's own.

Your not providing evidence. He was okay with Slavs, Celts, Greek and Latino.

The proof I'm asking for is proof that he wanted them all dead and not just in subservient roles.

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 14:54

He was a Menshevik and became a Bolshevik only in 1917

Trotsky was a Menshevik for little over a year. The split happened around August 1903, Trotsky left the Mensheviks in September 1904.

maybe a Troskyist can tell me what key experience convinced him to change his position so drastically in that year? Because as it is, it just seems to me that he checked which way the wind blew and joined the crew that was most likely to succeed and get him somewhere.

Because the Bolsheviks were the only organization who supported his thesis of permanent revolution (which said that socialist revolution was possible in Russia), and he agreed with Lenin on this (and pretty much everything else) entirely, while Stalin accepted the Menshevik stageist theory which said that socialist revolution was impossible and the Bolsheviks should enter a coalition with the Mensheviks and SR's:

“Order of the day: Tseretelli’s proposal for unification.

“STALIN: We ought to go. It is necessary to define our proposal as to the terms of unification. Unification is possible along the lines of Zimmerwald-Kienthal.”

This is why Lenin said of Trotsky:

As for a compromise – I cannot even speak about that seriously. Trotsky said long ago that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf04.htm)

Much as I despise Stalin, he was an excellent revolutionary in the years leading up to 1917, risked his life many times, made huge sacrifices, and fought against all odds. He had dedicated his entire life to the revolution.

Trotsky was elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet in 1905. And a lot more stuff he did in the period before 1917 that I'm not really interested in telling you about. Read up on it; he didn't just sit around and sip tea and then suddenly rise through the ranks in 1917.

These are just impressions, and I might be completely wrong. I request to be corrected should this be the case.

I have fulfilled your request. You have been corrected.

I don't understand why you don't just read up about this stuff instead of posting on Revleft and asking to be corrected, though.

Ismail

22nd August 2009, 16:03

Zeppelin is right as far as Stalin being a generally 'moderate' person went. As bourgeois historian Ian Grey notes in his 1979 work Stalin: Man of History (pages 56-7):

At the Stockholm congress [of 1906] the Mensheviks argued in favor of municipalization of the land, which meant vesting it in locally elected councils to be administered for the benefit of the peasants. Lenin and the Bolsheviks proposed nationalization by vesting the land in the central government and, so they claimed, making it the property of all citizens. Argument raged around these two proposals.

[...] In the congress Stalin bluntly condemned both municipalization and nationalization and proposed as a "temporary" expedient what he called distributism, which meant seizing and sharing out the land directly among the peasants. This was what they wanted and this alone would win their support. Lenin and others attacked his proposal, but he stood his ground, maintaining that it was the obvious practical policy. He argued further that in fostering rural capitalism his proposal was in accordance with Marxist doctrine and a logical advance towards the socialist revolution. And in 1917 his policy, by then endorsed by Lenin, produced the slogan "All land to the peasants," which gained the party wide support on the land and was a major factor in its victory.And pages 89-90:

On March 12 [1917], the day of his return to Petrograd, the bureau considered the question of Stalin's admission to its membership.... Three days after his return he was elected to the bureau's Presidium with full voting rights and was appointed Bolshevik representative on the Executive Committee (Excom) of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Deputies. With Kamenev he also took over Pravda... Stalin dominated the party during the three weeks until Lenin's return. Recognizing that Lenin's violent opposition to the war and to the provisional government would antagonize most party members and people outside the party, he pursued a moderate policy. He advocated limited support for the provisional government on the grounds that the bourgeois-democratic revolution was not yet complete and that there would be a period of years before conditions were ripe for the socialist revolution. It made no sense, therefore, to work to destroy the government at this stage.

In his policy towards the war he was equally common-sensed, writing that "when an army faces the enemy, it would be the most stupid policy to urge it to lay down arms and go home." In response to the general demand among Social Democrats, he was even prepared to consider reunion with acceptable elements in the Menshevik party, and on his initiative the bureau agreed to convene a joint conference.

Pravda reflected this policy of moderation. Articles received from Lenin were edited, and the abusive references to the provisional government and to the Mensheviks were toned down or cut. According to Shlyapnikov, jaundiced by his summary displacement, the "editorial revolution was strongly criticized by Petrograd workers, some even demanding the expulsion of Stalin, Kamenev and Muranov from the party."Source cited on Stalin on war and the demands for his expulsion: A.G. Shlyanpikov, The Year 1917: Second Book (Moscow and Petrograd, 1923), p. 179, 183.

Trotsky was a Menshevik for little over a year. The split happened around August 1903, Trotsky left the Mensheviks in September 1904.To my understanding he was, in effect, a moderate, pro-unification Menshevik in words if not formally. I don't think I need to point out occasions where he praises various Mensheviks and condemns Lenin from 1905-1915 or so.

"I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism." (Leon Trotsky, Mezhrayontsi conference, May 1917, quoted in Lenin, Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., 1925, p. 303.)

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 16:17

To my understanding he was, in effect, a moderate, pro-unification Menshevik in words if not formally. I don't think I need to point out occasions where he praises various Mensheviks and condemns Lenin from 1905-1915 or so.

He was a conciliator, i.e., tied to neither party but criticizing both. He left the Mensheviks due to their reactionary positions, which included calling for an alliance with liberals and opposing reunification with the Bolsheviks. Also their reactionary position on the 1905 revolution in which he actively participated as a revolutionary.

If you can point out occasions where he praises various Mensheviks and condemns Lenin, I can point out occasions where he praises Bolsheviks and condemns Martov and other Menshevik leaders from the same period, so let's be honest here.

"I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism." (Leon Trotsky, Mezhrayontsi conference, May 1917, quoted in Lenin, Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., p. 303.)

Are you not aware of Trotsky's purpose in the Mezhrayontsi? He was ready to immediately join the Bolsheviks upon his arrival in Petrograd, but the Bolsheviks asked him to join the Mezhrayontsi instead in order to sway them even closer to the Bolsheviks and eventually fuse the two, which is what happened:

I did not enter the Bolshevik organization immediately upon my arrival from Canada. Why? Was it because I had disagreements? You are trying to concoct them now in retrospect. Whoever lived through the year 1917 as a member of the central kernel of the Bolsheviks knows that there was never a hint of any disagreement between Lenin and me from the very first day. On my arrival in Petrograd – or rather at the Finland Station – I learned from the comrades sent to meet me that there existed in Petrograd an organization of revolutionary internationalists (the so-called “Mezhrayontsi” [5]) which was postponing the question of fusion with the Bolsheviks; in addition, certain of the leading members of this organization linked their decision on this question with my arrival. Among the personnel of the “Mezhrayontsi” organization, which comprised about 4,000 Petrograd workers, were Uritsky, A.A. Joffe, Lunacharsky, Yurenev, Karakhan, Vladimirov, Manuilsky, Pozern, Litkens and others.

Here is the characterization of the “Mezhrayontsi” organization given in a note (pp.488f.) in Volume XIV of Lenin’s Collected Works:

“On the war question the ‘Mezhrayontsi’ held an internationalist position and in their tactics were close to the Bolsheviks.”

From the earliest days of my arrival, I stated first to comrade Kamenev, afterward to the editorial hoard of Pravda, in the presence of Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev, that I was ready to join the Bolshevik organization immediately in view of the absence of any disagreements whatever but that it was necessary to decide the question of the quickest possible way of attracting the “Mezhrayontsi” organization into the party. I remember that some one of those present raised the question of how I thought the fusion should be carried out (what member of the “Mezhrayontsi” should go into the editorial board of Pravda, who into the Central Committee, etc.). I answered that for me that question had no political importance what so ever in view of the absence of any disagreements.

Among the membership of the “Mezhrayontsi” organization there were elements which tried to impede the fusion, advancing this or that condition, etc. (Yurenev and, in part, Manuilsky). Between the Petersburg Committee of the party and the “Mezhrayontsi” organization there had piled up, as always in such circumstances, old grudges, lack of confidence, etc. That and that alone caused the delay in our fusion until July.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf04.htm)

Also, where did you get that quote from exactly? I could not find it in Lenin's collected works on MIA and a google search didn't help either.

communard resolution

22nd August 2009, 16:20

Trotsky was elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet in 1905. And a lot more stuff he did in the period before 1917 that I'm not really interested in telling you about.

No problem at all, perhaps somebody else will.

I don't understand why you don't just read up about this stuff instead of posting on Revleft and asking to be corrected, thoughBecause I'm already reading 5 books at the same time, and then there's life beyond reading books as well. Revleft gives me the chance to compare glimpses of information against other people's knowledge and, in the best case, straighten out my prejudices or misconceptions. In this spirit, thank you for your replies.

Ismail

22nd August 2009, 16:21

Also, where did you get that quote from exactly? I could not find it in Lenin's collected works on MIA and a google search didn't help either.MIA doesn't have everything by Lenin, and different language versions of collected works generally have different stuff in them. If you look up Miscellany IV on Google or MIA, though, you can see that MIA does have stuff from it translated into English. As for the quote itself, a Russian Trotskyist sent it to me once, so I saved it.

As a note on Stalin and the question of revolution, it seems that by August Stalin said that revolution was possible in Russia. As Grey notes on pages 95-6:

Dissenting from a proposal that revolution was possible "on condition of a proletarian revolution in the West," he [Stalin] said [at the Sixth Party Congress of August 1917] that "the possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the country that blazes the trail to socialism.... It is necessary to give up the outworn idea that Europe alone can show us the way. There is a dogmatic Marxism and a creative Marxism. I stand on the ground of the latter."Source cited is Shestoi s'ezd RSDRP (b) August 1917 gode (Moscow, 1958), pp. 174-75.

Also, pages 100-102:

The Second Russian Congress of Soviets [of October 1917] had approved the new government... the Congress formally appointed Lenin's Council of People's Kommissars by decree, and then elected a Central Executive Committee of 101 members. The Bolsheviks won 62 seats on this committee, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who had formed a separate party, 29 seats, and other parties 10.... Lenin thus succeeded nominally in basing his government on the three main classes—workers, peasants, and soldiers. But he had not yet met the demand in Sovnarkom, in the Central Executive Committee, and within his own party for a coalition of all socialist parties. Right-wing Bolsheviks in particular were determined to force a coalition with the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. Zinoviev, Rykov, Milyutin, Vladimir Nogin, and Lunacharsky, who had all opposed the Bolshevik seizure of power but, after its success, had accepted office in Sovnarkom, now resigned.

They and Kamenev also were even prepared to consider a Menshevik proposal that Lenin and Trotsky should be excluded from any coalition government. The agitation continued until, with the approval of the majority of the Bolshevik Central Committee, a statement, signed by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, threatened the agitators with expulsion from the party.... Stalin... signed the statement warning the right-wing members, who were agitating for coalition, and he had rejected the Menshevik proposal that Lenin and Trotsky should be excluded from a coalition government.

communard resolution

22nd August 2009, 16:27

He was okay with Slavs

No, he was not.

The proof I'm asking for is proof that he wanted them all dead and not just in subservient roles.You're right here. Hitler wanted Slavs to serve the Germans as slaves, not exterminate them.

Led Zeppelin

22nd August 2009, 16:33

No problem at all, perhaps somebody else will.

The problem is that when somebody tells you something, they may be biased and not tell you the truth (that happens a lot, especially on Revleft). That is why I wondered about asking others about historical issues which are interpreted by ideology and therefore involve a lot of bias rather than facts, instead of reading about it yourself (from various perspectives).

Regarding Trotsky's revolutionary activity before 1917 I can suggest Deutscher's Prophet series, specifically the first part called The Prophet Armed (http://www.versobooks.com/books/cdef/d-titles/deutscher_prophet_v1.shtml)

Because I'm already reading 5 books at the same time, and then there's life beyond reading books as well. Revleft gives me the chance to compare glimpses of information against other people's knowledge and, in the best case, straighten out my prejudices or misconceptions. In this spirit, thank you for your replies.

Fair enough, I understand that you can't read everything at the same time. I myself am reading 4 books at the moment. However, I still think that the best way to get fact-based answers is to read on these issues in-depth rather than asking about it on Revleft.

By the way, I'm not exempt from that criticism myself. I acknowledge that my answers aren't sufficiently detailed or in-depth either. For example, what I wrote to you as a reply in my previous post was pretty superficial when compared to the historical facts offered in Deutscher's book.

Искра

22nd August 2009, 17:03

Uh..

Originally posted by: ChristoferKoch
"The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met on October 25-26, 1917, at 22:40, in the Smolny Institute. Of the 649 delegates elected to the Congress of Soviets, representing 318 provincial/local soviets, 390 were Bolshevik, 160 Socialist-Revolutionaries (about 100 were Left SRs), 72 Mensheviks, 14 Menshevik Internationalists, and 13 of various groups." Marxist Internet Archive

390 out of 649 is about 60%. Add in the Left SRs (who formed the government with the bolsheviks) and you have 490 out of 649 and you have 75.5% support for the Bolshevik-Left SR grouping. Thats a majority support either way you look at it.

I was talking about Noveber 25th 1917.

Trotsky disagrees with you:
"All the officers, all the doctors and engineers, all the educated specialists who have hitherto been zealously engaged in sabotage, will be dragged out into the open. It is said that the attitude of the former officers is counter-revolutionary, that it will be dangerous to entrust them with military work in a socialist army. But, in the first place, they will be allotted only the technical and operational-strategic aspects of the work, while the entire apparatus of the army as a whole, its organisation and internal structure will be entirely and completely a matter for the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. And, in the second place, the officers and generals were objects of fear to us only when they controlled the entire mechanism of state power. Now, they are helpless to shake and undermine the foundations of Soviet power. But let every one of them realize, and firmly keep in mind, that if they make the slightest attempt to use their position for counter-revolutionary purposes, they will suffer severe punishment, they will be dealt with in accordance with the full strictness of revolutionary order, they will be shown no mercy!"
Leon Trotsky, 1918
Wasn't Trotsky War Commesair? Why would I believe him? His speeches and writings are mostly propaganda.
Also, my point is that Czarist generals and other Czarist buerocrates, kept their privileged class position, because new government needed them. So, what we have is revolution "class vs. class", and we have privileged class keeping it's exploiters position. You can't say that one Czarist general and one proletarian from Petrograd lived same life of luxury in 1917 - blabla.

Your avoiding the issue. The issue is they wanted an alliance and made an effort for it. The fact that neither side would back down about their interests is a side issue.
And what is the issue? That Hitler and Stalin were negotiating? That's a fact. They also had an pact. You claim that they wanted an alliance? That's not true. They wanted pact. Nazism was always against "communism" and communism. Hitler wanted alliance with England.

Your not providing evidence. He was okay with Slavs, Celts, Greek and Latino.
This is not true. He was maybe OK with Celts and Greeks, but not with Slavs. Hitler claimed that Slavs are "slave race" and that they should live behind Urals and work for Master race. Only Slavic nation which got "master race" status was Croatian, since Ustashe were fighting in Stalingrad and their leadership was exterminating Jews, Romas etc in Croatia and Bosnia.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 19:26

No, he was not.

You're right here. Hitler wanted Slavs to serve the Germans as slaves, not exterminate them.

Thats what I meant by okay with them. They were impure Aryans so they could live, albeit as slaves. In other words he could stand them enough to polish his boots.

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 20:07

Uh..

I was talking about Noveber 25th 1917.

The Peasant Congress? That concluded pro-Bolshevik?

http://marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/ch12.htm

Thats from Ten Days that Shook the World.

Wasn't Trotsky War Commesair? Why would I believe him? His speeches and writings are mostly propaganda.
Also, my point is that Czarist generals and other Czarist buerocrates, kept their privileged class position, because new government needed them. So, what we have is revolution "class vs. class", and we have privileged class keeping it's exploiters position. You can't say that one Czarist general and one proletarian from Petrograd lived same life of luxury in 1917 - blabla.

You should believe him since you have no proof otherwise.

"The old ranks were not restored, but thousands of former imperial officers were returned to service as 'military specialists' under the watchful supervision of political commissars. In this way, badly needed command experience and technical knowledge were provided until a new corps of Red Commanders could be trained."- Paul Avrich Kronstadt 1921

There that supports Trotsky's interpretation.

They didn't get their old privilleges. Find me proof they did.

And what is the issue? That Hitler and Stalin were negotiating? That's a fact. They also had an pact. You claim that they wanted an alliance? That's not true. They wanted pact. Nazism was always against "communism" and communism. Hitler wanted alliance with England.

Look at the book that was posted by wanted man and the books posted by me. The talks in late 1940 were to try to get Russia into the Axis as a permenant member.

This is not true. He was maybe OK with Celts and Greeks, but not with Slavs. Hitler claimed that Slavs are "slave race" and that they should live behind Urals and work for Master race. Only Slavic nation which got "master race" status was Croatian, since Ustashe were fighting in Stalingrad and their leadership was exterminating Jews, Romas etc in Croatia and Bosnia.

Maybe okay was the wrong word. When I'm saying okay I'm saying will let them live as lesser humans.

Radical

22nd August 2009, 20:22

I provided them earlier. Here's the best one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0YzPUy3n1psC&pg=PA75&dq=german-soviet+axis+talks&ei=PSCPStzSLZPolQTow4S3Bw#v=onepage&q=german-soviet%20axis%20talks&f=false

It starts on page 75.

There is also a wikipedia article on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

I'm not Pro-Stalin. However I give him major credit for the achievements he and his policies made on Russia.

He fullfilled his Historical mission, which was to transform Russia from a Peasant society into an industrial super power.

Stalin continually re-read and Studied "Mein Kamph" and already knew of Hitlers desire to invade to the east, in particular RUSSIA. Stalin wasen't that fucking dumb to think a lasting Alliance would be made with Nazi Germany.

Nazism is Anti-Communist. Communism is Anti-Fascist.

I think you have an obbsessive fetish with thinking Stalin was a Fascist. (Like a lot of Anarchists/Trots)

ChrisK

22nd August 2009, 20:31

I'm not Pro-Stalin. However I give him major credit for the achievements he and his policies made on Russia.

He fullfilled his Historical mission, which was to transform Russia from a Peasant society into an industrial super power.

Stalin continually re-read and Studied "Mein Kamph" and already knew of Hitlers desire to invade to the east, in particular RUSSIA. Stalin wasen't that fucking dumb to think a lasting Alliance would be made with Nazi Germany.

The hullabaloo raised by the British, French and American press over the Soviet Ukraine is characteristic.

The gentlemen of the press there shouted until they were hoarse that the Germans were marching on Soviet Ukraine, that they now had what is called the Carpathian Ukraine, with a population of some seven hundred thousand, and that not later than this spring the Germans would annex the Soviet Ukraine, which has a population of over thirty million, to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine. It looks as if the object of this suspicious hullabaloo was to incense the Soviet Union against Germany, to poison the atmosphere and to provoke a conflict with Germany without any visible grounds.

It is quite possible, of course, that there are madmen in Germany who dream of annexing the elephant, that is, the Soviet Ukraine, to the gnat, namely, the so-called Carpathian Ukraine. If there really are such lunatics in Germany, rest assured that we shall find enough straitjackets for them in our country. (Thunderous applause.) But if we ignore the madmen and turn to normal people, is it not clearly absurd and foolish to seriously talk of annexing the Soviet Ukraine to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine? Imagine : The gnat comes to the elephant and says perkily : "Ah, brother, how sorry I am for you . . . Here you are without any landlords, without any capitalists, with no national oppression, without any fascist bosses. Is that a way to live? . . . As I look at you I can't help thinking that there is no hope for you unless you annex yourself to me . . . (General laughter.) Well, so be it :

I allow you to annex your tiny domain to my vast territories . . ." (General laughter and applause.)

Here we have Stalin telling the Congress that we don't need to worry. They won't try to annex us. It just doesn't make sense. So yes, he tried to make an alliance later.

Nazism is Anti-Communist. Communism is Anti-Fascist.

I think you have an obbsessive fetish with thinking Stalin was a Fascist. (Like a lot of Anarchists/Trots)

No, Stalin was the head of a State Capitalist regime. He wasn't a fascist at all.

Ismail

23rd August 2009, 00:04

Your Stalin quote is from this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm

It becomes quickly apparent from reading at least a little of the stuff provided in the MIA link that you just took that quote out of context. Stalin talks about German, Italian and Japanese imperialism, and also his concept of aggressor states which intentionally singles out Germany, Italy and Japan for scorn:

It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily England, France and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.In this case, the "aggressor states" are Germany, Italy and Japan; they have more to gain than to lose by such rampant imperialism, as opposed to the "status-quo" states of Britain, France, etc.

Also this quote (which comes right before the stuff you quoted):
Or take Germany, for instance. They let her have Austria, despite the undertaking to defend her independence; they let her have the Sudeten region; they abandoned Czechoslovakia to her fate, thereby violating all their obligations; and then began to lie vociferously in the press about "the weakness of the Russian army," "the demoralization of the Russian air force," and "riots" in the Soviet Union, egging the Germans on to march farther east, promising them easy pickings, and prompting them : "Just start war on the Bolsheviks, and everything will be all right." It must be admitted that this too looks very much like egging on and encouraging the aggressor.

And a bit after the quote you posted:
Far be it from me to moralize on the policy of non-intervention, to talk of treason, treachery and so on. It would be naive to preach morals to people who recognize no human morality. Politics is politics, as the old, case-hardened bourgeois diplomats say. It must be remarked, however, that the big and dangerous political game started by the supporters of the policy of non-intervention may end in a serious fiasco for them...

The war has created a new situation with regard to the relations between countries. It has enveloped them in an atmosphere of alarm and uncertainty. By undermining the post-war peace regime and overriding the elementary principles of international law, it has cast doubt on the value of international treaties and obligations. Pacifism and disarmament schemes are dead and buried. Feverish arming has taken their place.

Everybody is arming, small states and big states, including primarily those which practise the policy of non-intervention. Nobody believes any longer in the unctuous speeches which claim that the Munich concessions to the aggressors and the Munich agreement opened a new era of "appeasement." They are disbelieved even by the signatories to the Munich agreement, Britain and France, who are increasing their armaments no less than other countries.

Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not ignore these ominous events. There is no doubt that any war, however small, started by the aggressors in any remote corner of the world constitutes a danger to the peacable countries. All the more serious then is the danger arising from the new imperialist war, which has already drawn into its orbit over five hundred million people in Asia, Africa and Europe. In view of this, while our country is unswervingly pursuing a policy of preserving peace, it is at the same time doing a great deal to increase the preparedness of our Red Army and our Red Navy.

The fact that people were laughing at some of Stalin's words indicates pretty clearly that he was being ironic when they did and was speaking in such a tone (which words cannot always express).

RHIZOMES

23rd August 2009, 00:28

Today is the day Trotsky was attacked by a NKVD agent sent by Stalin to kill him.

Lets all have a moment for this Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist theorist.

He was one of the leaders of the Russian October Revolution, second only to Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs and later as the founder and commander of the Red Army and People's Commissar of War. He was also among the first members of the Politburo.

Glorious dear leader Leon Trotsky

ChrisK

23rd August 2009, 00:54

Your Stalin quote is from this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm

It becomes quickly apparent from reading at least a little of the stuff provided in the MIA link that you just took that quote out of context. Stalin talks about German, Italian and Japanese imperialism, and also his concept of aggressor states which intentionally singles out Germany, Italy and Japan for scorn:

It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily England, France and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.

In this case, the "aggressor states" are Germany, Italy and Japan; they have more to gain than to lose by such rampant imperialism, as opposed to the "status-quo" states of Britain, France, etc.

He's also making fun of concession giving. He's calling the aggressors assholes for being imperialists and he's showing obvious disdain for those who grant concessions.

Also this quote (which comes right before the stuff you quoted):

Or take Germany, for instance. They let her have Austria, despite the undertaking to defend her independence; they let her have the Sudeten region; they abandoned Czechoslovakia to her fate, thereby violating all their obligations; and then began to lie vociferously in the press about "the weakness of the Russian army," "the demoralization of the Russian air force," and "riots" in the Soviet Union, egging the Germans on to march farther east, promising them easy pickings, and prompting them : "Just start war on the Bolsheviks, and everything will be all right." It must be admitted that this too looks very much like egging on and encouraging the aggressor.

Yes, he's saying that the west wants Hitler to attack Russia to distract him from them. That means absolutely nothing.

And a bit after the quote you posted:

Far be it from me to moralize on the policy of non-intervention, to talk of treason, treachery and so on. It would be naive to preach morals to people who recognize no human morality. Politics is politics, as the old, case-hardened bourgeois diplomats say. It must be remarked, however, that the big and dangerous political game started by the supporters of the policy of non-intervention may end in a serious fiasco for them...

The war has created a new situation with regard to the relations between countries. It has enveloped them in an atmosphere of alarm and uncertainty. By undermining the post-war peace regime and overriding the elementary principles of international law, it has cast doubt on the value of international treaties and obligations. Pacifism and disarmament schemes are dead and buried. Feverish arming has taken their place.

Everybody is arming, small states and big states, including primarily those which practise the policy of non-intervention. Nobody believes any longer in the unctuous speeches which claim that the Munich concessions to the aggressors and the Munich agreement opened a new era of "appeasement." They are disbelieved even by the signatories to the Munich agreement, Britain and France, who are increasing their armaments no less than other countries.

Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not ignore these ominous events. There is no doubt that any war, however small, started by the aggressors in any remote corner of the world constitutes a danger to the peacable countries. All the more serious then is the danger arising from the new imperialist war, which has already drawn into its orbit over five hundred million people in Asia, Africa and Europe. In view of this, while our country is unswervingly pursuing a policy of preserving peace, it is at the same time doing a great deal to increase the preparedness of our Red Army and our Red Navy.

All that shows is that he was preparing for war like everyone else was.

The fact that people were laughing at some of Stalin's words indicates pretty clearly that he was being ironic when they did and was speaking in such a tone (which words cannot always express).

You can't honestly being arguing this. What sort of incompetent rulers laugh at how weak they are? Were they all just sitting around going, "Oh hahahaha what easy pickings we are for the Germans! We could be seriously stomped HAHA! This requires a good belly chuckle!"

No, this is clearly a joke of absurdity.

LeninKobaMao

23rd August 2009, 02:20

Thats what I meant by okay with them. They were impure Aryans so they could live, albeit as slaves. In other words he could stand them enough to polish his boots.

But millions of them still would have died in disgusting conditions as slaves. You must be insane honestly...

ChrisK

23rd August 2009, 02:26

But millions of them still would have died in disgusting conditions as slaves. You must be insane honestly...

Once again, not half of the worlds population. Millions, most likely, half the worlds population... no way.

Ismail

23rd August 2009, 03:49

He's also making fun of concession giving. He's calling the aggressors assholes for being imperialists and he's showing obvious disdain for those who grant concessions.Well yes, giving into concessions is a bad idea, especially since these concessions by the Western powers just happened to expand Hitler's power in the east. What's your point? The aggressors (Germany, Italy) were "assholes," weren't they?

Yes, he's saying that the west wants Hitler to attack Russia to distract him from them. That means absolutely nothing.Stalin tried to pursue a collective security pact with the British and French, until he realized that the British were significantly anti-Soviet and that the French did not want to offend the British. Thing is, he clearly views Hitler as an aggressor, he doesn't think that the USSR and Germany can live together in peace or whatever. That's my point. Unless you'd argue that Stalin wanted at first to carve up Europe with Britain and France.

All that shows is that he was preparing for war like everyone else was.Yes, against Germany (and Japan). Not exactly the setting for the creation of an alliance and it contradicts your "Here we have Stalin telling the Congress that we don't need to worry. They won't try to annex us." Not to mention that a year earlier from March 1939 (the date of that speech), Stalin stated in February of 1938 (as I've noted earlier in this thread) that: "Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that." (On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm)) And that was before the Munich Pact of September 1938. I'm pretty sure Stalin would have even more of a reason to, you know, be more alert to Hitler, rather than less alert due to Munich.

You can't honestly being arguing this. What sort of incompetent rulers laugh at how weak they are? Were they all just sitting around going, "Oh hahahaha what easy pickings we are for the Germans! We could be seriously stomped HAHA! This requires a good belly chuckle!"People were laughing because he was making a joke about a gnat and elephant, while also making a point that, once again, the British and French wanted to provoke a conflict between Hitler and the USSR. He is also saying how free the Ukraine is under the Soviet Union and that the people of the Ukraine would choose a life of no exploitation and independence (within the Union) than the alternative: capitalism, hence why the "gnat" is saying to the "elephant" that living under socialism is "no way to live," which is why people were laughing.

That is how I see it anyway. The sentence structure seems rather awkward, as Russian jokes translated into English tend to be. Where do you see admissions of weakness?

ChrisK

23rd August 2009, 04:21

Well yes, giving into concessions is a bad idea, especially since these concessions by the Western powers just happened to expand Hitler's power in the east. What's your point? The aggressors (Germany, Italy) were "assholes," weren't they?

My point is that both are considered bad in this statement.

Stalin tried to pursue a collective security pact with the British and French, until he realized that the British were significantly anti-Soviet and that the French did not want to offend the British. Thing is, he clearly views Hitler as an aggressor, he doesn't think that the USSR and Germany can live together in peace or whatever. That's my point. Unless you'd argue that Stalin wanted at first to carve up Europe with Britain and France.

Now, all this proves is that Stalin was working for military pacts with both sides. In conjunction with the statement I made above shows that Stalin was aiming at working with either side that he considers to be "bad".

You have in no way disproven that Stalin was willing to work with fascists.

Yes, against Germany (and Japan). Not exactly the setting for the creation of an alliance and it contradicts your "Here we have Stalin telling the Congress that we don't need to worry. They won't try to annex us."

No, but it does disprove my earlier point that Stalin didn't think there would be an invasion.

People were laughing because he was making a joke about a gnat and elephant, while also making a point that, once again, the British and French wanted to provoke a conflict between Hitler and the USSR. He is also saying how free the Ukraine is under the Soviet Union and that the people of the Ukraine would choose a life of no exploitation and independence (within the Union) than the alternative: capitalism, hence why the "gnat" is saying to the "elephant" that living under socialism is "no way to live," which is why people were laughing.

That is how I see it anyway. The sentence structure seems rather awkward, as Russian jokes translated into English tend to be. Where do you see admissions of weakness?

Semantical difference. When you said he was being ironic I went with the saying one thing and meaning another definition.

Which would make the joke mean that Germany is infact not a gnat.

My apologies.

LeninKobaMao

23rd August 2009, 05:34

Once again, not half of the worlds population. Millions, most likely, half the worlds population... no way.

Hmmm... I'll restate it. About a billion would have been exterminated and another billion or two would have perished working as slaves. Don't be a smart ass.

ChrisK

23rd August 2009, 05:52

Hmmm... I'll restate it. About a billion would have been exterminated and another billion or two would have perished working as slaves. Don't be a smart ass.

I wasn't. Your stating speculation as fact. You have no proof of what Nazi slavery would have been like. You do have evidence of how they treated those they were going to kill later, but not of what it would be like to be a non-semetic slave. So don't claim to know how many would die.

Ismail

23rd August 2009, 08:15

My point is that both are considered bad in this statement.Because they were bad. Bourgeois states content with letting Hitler go on his merry way towards Moscow and Fascist states that had imperial ambitions were both bad. Equally? No, but to say that either were "good" makes no sense.

Now, all this proves is that Stalin was working for military pacts with both sides. In conjunction with the statement I made above shows that Stalin was aiming at working with either side that he considers to be "bad".No, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact didn't occur until after the collective security talks failed/stagnated into oblivion.

Check this out: http://web.archive.org/web/20020918065827/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/WBBJVSNaziPact.htm

No, but it does disprove my earlier point that Stalin didn't think there would be an invasion.So the Germans would invade, but... they wouldn't annex the USSR? (Or defeat it and set up a puppet state, or put it in such a position that it was effectively doomed, etc.) Also, he isn't telling the Congress that no one needed to worry about an invasion (as if his constant words about the "aggressor states" hadn't made that clear), he's basically saying that the USSR would hold its own.

As Albert E. Kahn notes in the 1946 book The Great Conspiracy (quoting the same thing we're discussing; the March 10 1938 Eighteenth Party Congress):

The Soviet Union still wanted international co-operation against aggressors and a realistic policy of collective security; but, Stalin made clear, such co-operation must be genuine and wholehearted... Finally, if the worst came, the Red Army was confident of its own strength and of the unity and loyalty of the Soviet people. As Stalin put it:

"... in the case of war, the rear and front of our army... will be stronger than those of any other country, a fact which people beyond our border who love military conflicts would do well to remember."So yeah, sounds like the text you're quoting is contradicting your conclusions from it on all fronts.

You have in no way disproven that Stalin was willing to work with fascists.He was willing to "work with fascists" only inasmuch as to buy time for his own state. For example, in Molotov's 1970's-80's recollections of events (taken from 1994's Molotov Remembers), he recalls an incident:

When we received Ribbentrop, of course he toasted Stalin and me—on the whole he was my best friend. (Molotov's eyes twinkled) Stalin unexpectedly suggested, "Let's drink to the new Anti-Cominternist—Stalin!" He said this mocking and winked at me. He had made a joke to see Ribbentrop's reaction. Ribbentrop rushed to phone Berlin and reported ecstatically to Hitler. Hitler replied, "My genius minister of foreign affairs!" Hitler never understood Marxists.