Stalin

[Comrade Ceausescu]

???watd you think of what he did as a whole...?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I reckon you did not see the numerous other threads on this very same subject.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

aparently not.

[Just Joe]

I think the man was a derranged Communist. I think he most definatly was a Communist, unlike some on the left think, but I think his vision of Communism was a distorted one. He though it was about the people as a whole, who were represented by the state. He therefore saw the state as the ultimate power and that the state should come before everything. This meant he had little time for individual freedoms or human rights as long as the country as a whole was better off.

The only reasons Stalinists have any justification for there admiration of this man is that, the USSR clearly was better off as a nation when Stalin's time was up. He had performed an economic miracle which has never and will never be seen again really. However economics cannot be seperated from political repression and human rights abuses on a level only topped by Hitler and Pol Pot in the 20th century.

Thats basically my view on Stalin. A fine example of how Socialist economics can be made to work, but also a fine example of how Communist, or more specifically Leninist, political thought can lead to dictatorship and a police state.

[Comrade Raz]

Originally posted by Just [email protected] 4 2003, 02:02 PM
I think the man was a derranged Communist. I think he most definatly was a Communist, unlike some on the left think, but I think his vision of Communism was a distorted one. He though it was about the people as a whole, who were represented by the state. He therefore saw the state as the ultimate power and that the state should come before everything. This meant he had little time for individual freedoms or human rights as long as the country as a whole was better off.

The only reasons Stalinists have any justification for there admiration of this man is that, the USSR clearly was better off as a nation when Stalin's time was up. He had performed an economic miracle which has never and will never be seen again really. However economics cannot be seperated from political repression and human rights abuses on a level only topped by Hitler and Pol Pot in the 20th century.

Thats basically my view on Stalin. A fine example of how Socialist economics can be made to work, but also a fine example of how Communist, or more specifically Leninist, political thought can lead to dictatorship and a police state.
I share pretty much the exact same view of Stalin as u, comrade.

[TXsocialist]

Gladly, a positive image of him only exists in nostalgists' wet dreams and in the Workers World Headquarters, aka some very angry postman's secret cave of dead dreams and pictures of past soviet mayday parades.

[Cassius Clay]

I do like it how people are criticical of Stalin because of his views on the State without actually reading what his views on the state actually were.

TX Socialist, if you want to call the people of Ecaudor 'nostalgists' then go ahead but dont forget to add the people of Nepal, Phillipines, Albania, the former USSR and oh yeah Che Guervara to that list.

[Just Joe]

Cassius, I don't care what his views on the state were, I care what he did not what he thought.

I've read pieces by Stalin where he claims to hate wages, money and indeed, the state. However his overall ideology was that there was no sacrifice to great in order to achieve Communism. He held all the typical Communist beliefs, but he knew the USSR needed drastic action in order for his dream of Communism to stay alive. I don't buy into the Conquest version of history that he did bad things out of malice, I think he did them because he thought they were right. That doesn't mean they were right though.

[TXsocialist]

I do like it how people are criticical of Stalin because of his views on the State without actually reading what his views on the state actually were.


I'm glad you pointed out Stalin' abysmal hypocrisy when it comes to his writing.

as Joe said, stalin expresses a strong dislike for the state, and wages in general, but, I challenge you to look at the facts.

Under stalin, bureacracy flourished, the only ones benefitting from this were the elitist astards spewing their lies and living off the backs of the russian worker.

[Cassius Clay]

Joe precisly what were the 'bad' things Stalin did? Industrialise, Collectivisation?

TXsocialist, according to whom? Leon trotsky or Robert Conquest? Give me a break. Anyway I'm going to try and avoid this debate since there are beleive it or not other things to talk about other than Joe Stalin. Although I think temptation will get the better of me.

[TXsocialist]

according to the people not blineded by some strange obsession and respect for a ruthless dictator.

[Just Joe]

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 4 2003, 08:53 PM
Joe precisly what were the 'bad' things Stalin did? Industrialise, Collectivisation?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.UKRAIN.FAM.BODIES.JPG

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Just [email protected] 4 2003, 06:16 PM
Cassius, I don't care what his views on the state were, I care what he did not what he thought.

I've read pieces by Stalin where he claims to hate wages, money and indeed, the state. However his overall ideology was that there was no sacrifice to great in order to achieve Communism. He held all the typical Communist beliefs, but he knew the USSR needed drastic action in order for his dream of Communism to stay alive. I don't buy into the Conquest version of history that he did bad things out of malice, I think he did them because he thought they were right. That doesn't mean they were right though.
History is full of tyrants and war mongers who were sincere. I'm sure our very own Tony Blair genuinely believed he was right to bomb Iraq, doesn't stop him from being a war criminal though.

[Cassius Clay]

Well damn looks like I'm in this for the long run.

First TxSocialist, if the 'beuracracy' (read there was such a thing, it's infulence was vastly reduced under Stalin and as Lenin said those who dream of getting rid of it overnight are not living in reality.) Still how did Stalin 'benefit' from the back of Russian workers? In 1953 when he died there were NO millionaries in the USSR and all he had was a old military suit, somed boots and 90 roubles. Incidently after a former Trotskyite took over there were over 15,000 millionaires in the USSR.

Joe. First let me asume that that photo is real, is Stalin 100% responsible for that? Since he was not a dictator or tyrant such a thing is doubtful. The reason I say 'is it real' is because a number of photos were faked in the 1980's or wrongly atributed to 1930's Ukraine. This has all been admitted by the people who worked on the Reagen backed film/documentatry Harvest of Despair, what is also a known fact is that the sources for this 'famine' come from Nazis and their local collobarotors. It would seem to me that that photo most likely comes from the Volga famine in 1921, the reason I say this is because first of all that appears to be a cementary with religious crosses, a far more common site before the revolution than after. Second of all this is more likely is because there was a actual famine in the Volga in 1921, the Red Cross were there and it was well documentented at the time. Incidently the Nazi press at the time and later the Reagenites used Red Cross documents and photos and atributed it to the Ukraine in the 1930's.

Ofcourse Collectivisation tripled grain production and significantly increased the food and protien the average person was eating, so no one starved. All the journalists actually there reported that there was more than enough food going around. And how did our dear 'Historians' come to the conclusion of how many died in this 'famine', they came up with the mean average out of a dozen or so sources which were from Journalists who were never there (like people working for William Randolph Hurst), Nazi Diplomats, Nazi colloborators who pulled the guns at Babi Yar and Franco admirer guys like Soljenitsyn, who to quote one former 'dissitent' are well paid and not right in the head. More to the point a thing like half a nations population being killed doesn't suddenly go unoticed, and why did the Ukrainian people fight so hard in the war?

Who are you going to believe? Nazism or common sense?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I shocked someone has not super-imposed a smiling stalin in the background of that photo with an infant's leg poking out of his mouth. Now that would have been brilliant comedy to add to a photo that only shows someone decided to stack a bunch of corpses in a pile and take a photo of it.

Now that's some serious "hard evidence' there.

[atlanticche]

Stalin wasn't to bad
i do not agree with what he did but he did help to develop what is wanted in communism

don't forget "Che" Guevara sentenced 1000s to death after the revolution in Cuba

unfortunately to find the dream of the proletariet some have to die ideas have to be changed people have to see the light large groups of people depose these ideas and something has to be done about them
what can we do throw them in jail, take their freedom, build up prisons spendinding more and more taxes on maintaning these prisons
well we can't "exterminate" them or make them disappear, history has taught us that

theres nothing that can be done about those who do not agree with the government, Stalin just practised one way that worked to an extent before he went insane with power and greed forgetting about whats important he became paranoid and got rid of anyone who got in his way, he didnt like or he saw as enemies

he wasn't to bad during the war or between the revolution and the end of the war

though i do noty think he was a communist he manipulated people to get people to power he had been a crook before the revolution and got caught up with the communist idea and had to carry out his job
he was one of two of the cleverist crooks in history

[tresa909]

right now, i am reading a book about stalin, "stalin, triumph and tragedy" by dmitri volkogonov and i must say that at this time i cannot conclude that he is the terrible monster that everyone says that he is. i say this for many reasons.

reason #1 he was a close and personal friend of lenin

reason #2 he was a hard worker and the best executor of lenin's ideas despite lenin's belief that stalin should step down as secretary general. i myself can understand why lenin felt this way, considering the time, there was no one that could fulfill the role that lenin was thinking about as his foresight was a bit premature despite the soviets defeat of the monarchy

reason #3 as men, we are not perfect, considering the accomplishments of their time, it was no easy task to continue ahead with lenin's vision due to political monopolies

as a statesman, i believe that stalin was an excellent manager. my own personal perception at this time was that external influences were primarily responsible for deaths of millions. i am not saying it was right, of course not, i am saying that it was not an easy task to do what the soviets had done. even after the revolution, they were not able to feed and empower the peasants for reasons that are not yet known to me.

if anything, we can learn a lot from the soviets. and we should be careful how we perceive any man of the revolution as none of us are perfect nor would we want to be perceived in such a light. the question should be...what will we do about the lessons laid down before us?

vive la revolucion!

tt

[crazy comie]

stalin beat up lenins wife. killed the origanel party members and 40 million are dead becuse of him

[Cassius Clay]

Sigh.

Even by the standards of this board that it is ludicrous. So when did Stalin 'beat up' Lenin's wife? Oh nevermind I'm sure your come with a source which originally came from Dr Goebbels propaganda ministry.

[crazy comie]

Even by the standards of this board that it is ludicrous. So when did Stalin 'beat up' Lenin's wife? Oh nevermind I'm sure your come with a source which originally came from Dr Goebbels propaganda ministry.

sorry he didn't do it one of his heanch men did maybe beat up isn't the right word phearhaps harasment . gought it of the B.B.c though so yes and no to your 2 charge.
he is suposed to have hapend just befor lenins death.
sorry

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 21 2003, 09:01 AM
stalin beat up lenins wife. killed the origanel party members and 40 million are dead becuse of him
Hmm, I think you mean insulted her in a phone call. I don't think he even Joe, as dim as he was, would beat up the wife of Lenin. You're right, he did kill alot of original members of the Bolsheviks who opposed him, and he did kill lots of people. I doubt 40 million is accurate though. I mean, where would you get the time to sign all those death warrants in between crocodile tears at funerals and signing pacts with Nazis?

[crazy comie]

i think the forty million could have included the results of the famines but im not sure. go to the post after the one you queted and see my answear.

[Cassius Clay]

Erm Stalin was GS of the Communist Party not a policeman or lawyer, if he had walked up to the NKVD and demanded they arrest someone they would of laughed in his face. I'm not sure where Stalin 'harrassed' anyone, especially Lenin's wife. Infact she couldn't stop insulting him and nothing happened to her, infact all the opposition freely criticised Stalin and the Bolshevik Pary. As for 'famines' and where would they be?

[ComradeJunichi]

It gets worse and worse every time, doesn't it Comrade Cassius? I'm sure you know, since you've been in every single one of these debates since you joined here.

Stalin, not only beat up Lenin's wife, but he later raped and then killed her. He killed her after she had her baby, this baby was ofcourse Stalin's for raping her. The man's name was Pol Pot, for some reason this man was Cambodian. We're thinking that Stalin created a machine to hide his physical genes and make the baby Cambodian instead of Georgian. Stalin raped more old Bolshevik wives, he had more and more babies. Children like: Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Oswald Mosley, Rockwell, Syngman Rhee, Sukharto, and such. He sent these babies out on a mission to terrorize the world. Stalin did not really die in 1953, he had thought his work was done and he escaped his polymorphed form and transformed back to his original form: The Revolted Angel, Satan. He went back home in the center ring of Hell.

Stalin's tentacles are still spreading around the earth, we must stop this madness immediately!

Sources:

http://www.robertconquestsaysso.org/stalin...eallysucks.html (http://www.robertconquestsaysso.org/stalinreallysucks/imeanhereallysucks.html)
http://www.christianity.com/stalinisthedev...evil/page4.html (http://www.christianity.com/stalinisthedevil/page4.html)
http://www.imacommunistbutiknownothing.net...rth/polpot.html (http://www.imacommunistbutiknownothing.net/stalinsminionsonplanetearth/polpot.html)

[Xvall]

Lol! That's was pretty funny.

Anyways; I was never too fond of the guy, but I'm not going to bash him or anything. He did a good job beating the crap out of Hitler.

Those links reminded me of the one where Chui claims communism is the ideology of the anti-christ. But it's so true. You know, once stalin was eating at a reastaurant, and this guy dropped his spoon, so he ordered the assassination of EVERYONE other than himself in the reastaurant. True Story.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

thats a good one drake...LOL :D

[Jesus Christ]

bad man

[crazy comie]

this famine 1932-1933 Great Famine in Ukraine that led to the deaths of anywhere from 5 million to 10 million people.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

not stalins fault.not like he meant to kill those people.

[crazy comie]

Wasn't it cheka then. Any way stalin had massive control over the party just before lenins death and had evrything lenin said monterd. He also had massive influence over Cheka.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

thats shite.

[crazy comie]

whats shite.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Any way stalin had massive control over the party just before lenins death and had evrything lenin said monterd


from what i've read thats not entirely true at all.

[crazy comie]

well from what ive watched on the b.bc it is true as well as what i have read indicats it is true.

.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

the bbc? :lol:

[crazy comie]

yes they had a program on stalin a month or so ago.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

i think the fact that it was on the bbc speaks volumes about it.

[crazy comie]

in good or bad way as it is famed for having correct facts.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2003, 10:06 AM
I shocked someone has not super-imposed a smiling stalin in the background of that photo with an infant's leg poking out of his mouth. Now that would have been brilliant comedy to add to a photo that only shows someone decided to stack a bunch of corpses in a pile and take a photo of it.

Now that's some serious "hard evidence' there.
On top of that. There are a bunch of crosses. Everyone knows that the Soviet Union was pretty much athiestic.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 09:00 AM
not stalins fault.not like he meant to kill those people.
http://www.faminegenocide.com/newfindings.html
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/comfind.htm

Take things into consideration, Don't use the typical Maoist line of "Thats bullshit, Typical bougeoisie media."

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 04:00 AM
not stalins fault.not like he meant to kill those people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
maybe not, but he had the power to stop it, and he did nothing
coincidence? I THINK NOT

[Xvall]

I don't like Stalin or anything; but I really doubt he would just starve his own population for the hell of it.

[elijahcraig]

Here are some articles on the "engineered famines" and all that nonsense:

My Webpage (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html)

My Webpage (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html)

My Webpage (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam2.html)

My Webpage (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam3.html)

EDIT: Those are not my webpages, they are Village Voice, PLP.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 09:08 PM
Here are some articles on the "engineered famines" and all that nonsense:

My Webpage (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html)

My Webpage (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html)

My Webpage (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam2.html)

My Webpage (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam3.html)

EDIT: Those are not my webpages, they are Village Voice, PLP.
Oh yes, It's all just a hoax.

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/figure03.jpg
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.UKRAIANIAN.VICTIM.JPG
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/figure05.jpg
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/figure04.jpg

[elijahcraig]

I've seen those exact pics in this forum before, and in Conquest articles.

Here is some photography from a Trotskyist website on the USSR:

USSR in Photography (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/art/photography/)

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 09:54 PM
I've seen those exact pics in this forum before, and in Conquest articles.

Here is some photography from a Trotskyist website on the USSR:

USSR in Photography (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/art/photography/)
Being confronted with evidence, You change the subject... I'd like to hear your opinions on the pictures.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Nice evidence.


Proove how these photos are connected to Stalin in ANY way.


good luck son.

[elijahcraig]

My point exactly.

[Jesus Christ]

i knew it!

[elijahcraig]

ahaha, that's proof right there! :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/figure03.jpg

This photo merely shows a bunch of corpses in a pile. The could have easily been the result of other famines.
Besides that, how does this "prove" million died of starvation? It doesn't even prove that this photo was even taken in Russia!

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.UKRAIANIAN.VICTIM.JPG

Is this woman even dead?

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/figure05.jpg

She sure looks nice and plump for having a starving baby. Is it not possible this child suffers from some sort of disease? Is this child even Russian? What year was this photo taken and by whom?

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/figure04.jpg

He looks slavic but that's all you got. Now, prove what year this photo was snapped. Also, prove it was taken in the Ukraine.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22 2003, 11:10 PM
Nice evidence.


Proove how these photos are connected to Stalin in ANY way.


good luck son.
Actually, When i go back to school, In three weeks. I'll go and get some books out the library and scan pictures of the ukrainian famine from a book, just for you. :) I'll scan the caption, Too.

But then of course, It will just be dismissed at Trotskyite and/or Bourgeoisie lies.

[elijahcraig]

Look what else Evil Stalin did:

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0916/genocide.jpg

http://www.nlnnet.com/netnews/genocide.jpg

Let us not forget...dun dun dun::::

http://www.lyrics.com/v/village.people/the.very.best.village.people.jpg

:lol:

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 11:31 PM
Look what else Evil Stalin did:

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0916/genocide.jpg

http://www.nlnnet.com/netnews/genocide.jpg

Let us not forget...dun dun dun::::

http://www.lyrics.com/v/village.people/the.very.best.village.people.jpg

:lol:
It's lovely how you wait for RAF or Mao to come into the thread, Then you hide behind them.

[elijahcraig]

How am I hiding Richard?

http://www.joanprice.com/images/simmons.jpg

:lol:

[Deniz Gezmis]

http://maddox.xmission.com/commujism/smu4.gif

[elijahcraig]

:lol:

[Jesus Christ]

"I LOVE GOLDEN SHOWERS!"

[Deniz Gezmis]

Yes.

[Jesus Christ]

haha

[tresa909]

i am reporting this post.

by the way, i thought most of you were sensible enough to blame the death of millions on the U.S. maybe i should be satisfied that you are not. although, i did run into some declassified material about the u.s. and how it intends to deal with the population growth which by the way is way out of hand.

if we could rely on earth expansion, that is ensuring that space exploration gets enough money to sustain life on other planets then instead of killing off millions of people we cannot feed we can just shift people around from planet to planet. doesn't that sound revolutionary? answer me! :rolleyes:

[Vinny Rafarino]

What exactly are you trying to say.


This is a message board. Please clarify whatever it is you are trying to convey. I'm not even sure if you were talking about comrade Stalin at all..


Precisely what post are you going to "report"?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 01:36 AM
i am reporting this post.

by the way, i thought most of you were sensible enough to blame the death of millions on the U.S. maybe i should be satisfied that you are not. although, i did run into some declassified material about the u.s. and how it intends to deal with the population growth which by the way is way out of hand.

if we could rely on earth expansion, that is ensuring that space exploration gets enough money to sustain life on other planets then instead of killing off millions of people we cannot feed we can just shift people around from planet to planet. doesn't that sound revolutionary? answer me! :rolleyes:
i am reporting this post.

You can report what you like... you wont achive a fucking thing.

by the way, i thought most of you were sensible enough to blame the death of millions on the U.S. maybe i should be satisfied that you are not.

Are you talking about people killed by american in general or those killed by stalin which has been put down as propaganda?

i did run into some declassified material about the u.s. and how it intends to deal with the population growth which by the way is way out of hand.


WTF are you on about now?

if we could rely on earth expansion, that is ensuring that space exploration gets enough money to sustain life on other planets then instead of killing off millions of people we cannot feed we can just shift people around from planet to planet. doesn't that sound revolutionary?

Seriously what does that have to do with anything? How does that even remotly relate to Stalin and the history of his rule etc?

I feal I may have report your post as being simply irrelavant bullshit. :rolleyes:

[tresa909]

whatever. don't get a fresh mouth with me or i will poop down your neck. i got a lashing on this bb for saying a passive statement about homosexuals yet no one gets in trouble for putting up offensive pornographic pictures. i was going to post my picture here once, except the pictures on the link were so dirty, it was not funny. too bad the bb only stands up for gays and not women of color. are you guys gay? i never ask anyone that question because normally i dont care. in this case, it is just plain rude. don't hate me cause i am a beautiful female who can get guys with the toot of a dog whistle.

come on now. everything is so intertwined that when millions die around the world it's because of bad policy and bureaucracy.

read on the farming cooperatives of the u.s. and you will find material that imposes world population problems. i cannot go into detail at this time. let me find my material and i will get back to you.

[elijahcraig]

You are all over the place, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm bisexual, do you hate homosexuals?

[tresa909]

i don't hate anyone. bisexual? you mean you are a nyphomaniac? why don't more bisexuals speak out for rights like homosexuals do? is it because no one takes bisexuals serious?

i am asexual. :D

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well AK47.....I think we are going to need Ralphie's little orpahn Annie triple dog-secret decoder ring to figure this chick out.


Fuck it. I ain't got the time to deal with someone who's bottle is up over somethingorother. Specifically when this individual was asked twice to clarify whetever they were on about.


Anyway,


Elijah quit trying to push you Bi-agenda on me. What we had was just a fling man, I was desparate and needed the quid. Stop tormenting me.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 04:23 AM
i am asexual. :D
excuse me while I crack a rib...

[tresa909]

comrade raf...thats it!

i am not all over the place...I am imaginative and I'm sorry, and yeah you don't get it.

lol what happened between you and ... thats crazy :D

[Vinny Rafarino]

Let me explain something to you;


When you are the ONLY one that can make sense out of your own words, you either possess genius that our pitiful little minds cannot comprehend or you are simply from pluto.


I can easlily conclude that you do not possess genius beyond my own based on the content of your posts, so I must surmise you are from pluto.


Welcom back to earth. Now be quiet.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 04:32 AM
Let me explain something to you;


When you are the ONLY one that can make sense out of your own words, you either possess genius that our pitiful little minds cannot comprehend or you are simply from pluto.


I can easlily conclude that you do not possess genius beyond my own based on the content of your posts, so I must surmise you are from pluto.


Welcom back to earth. Now be quiet.
RAF strikes again, showing no mercy...

tresa909 at leat your not a monkey, unlike some people according to RAF here... <_<

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:07 AM
You are all over the place, what the hell are you talking about?


I just mean to say that everyone who hates america cannot have a valid reason other than it is a good focus for hate, I understand this, I am guilty of this as well and I believe it is due to feeling frustrated and powerless. Only, I really do believe that we can change the course of history I just don&#39;t know if it can be done within political parties. I only say this because it is these same political parties who wheel and deal and the result is policies that render ineffective and murderous.

Seriously, how can we blame only the U.S. when the nation was founded by Europe and Germany and England who seized the land from the Native Americans? Why can&#39;t we all assume responsibility and move on? Maybe I take this too serious, hell, I don&#39;t even like politics. I like to goof around a lot though, maybe that is why I come here. :D

[Vinny Rafarino]

&#39;Cmon AK47 that was ages ago. I have been being quite civil to you these days. A few posts above this I even spoke to you without asking if you will do a backflip for a bushel of bananas.

[elijahcraig]

i don&#39;t hate anyone. bisexual? you mean you are a nyphomaniac? why don&#39;t more bisexuals speak out for rights like homosexuals do? is it because no one takes bisexuals serious?

? No, I mean I am bisexual. Speak our for rights? I am pro-gay rights completely, what are you talking about? Bisexuals serious...hmm, now that&#39;s something only a complete fucking moron would say.



What the hell are you doing in a "Stalin" thread rambling on about something NO ONE here can understand?

RAF,

Fling? Please, you were crying when I had to leave you. All alone in your bed. :lol:

[tresa909]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 03:32 AM

I can easlily conclude that you do not possess genius beyond my own based on the content of your posts, so I must surmise you are from pluto.


Welcom back to earth. Now be quiet.
well, then we are even (uh, i can&#39;t believe i said that) because you make no sense to me and i know what my iq is and unless yours is at least 140 you are no genius either.

and i will be more than happy to share my earth expansion theory with you, just not tonight. forgive me, i am not personally attacking anyone here, nor do i take any offense to any of you. i was kidding about reporting the post, i would much rather prefer to put my beautiful black shinny boot in your bun hole. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 04:39 AM
&#39;Cmon AK47 that was ages ago. I have been being quite civil to you these days. A few posts above this I even spoke to you without asking if you will do a backflip for a bushel of bananas.
LOL, OK, its always best to let dead dogs lie I suppose.

[Vinny Rafarino]

comrade Eijah,

Cryin&#39;? Please. You&#39;re lucky I gave you cab fare.


trese,



don&#39;t hate me cause i am a beautiful female who can get guys with the toot of a dog whistle.



I happen to also be quite attractive. Don&#39;t hate me because I am a beautiful man who can get chicks with the sound of a credit card swiping the terminal in Harrond&#39;s shoe department.

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:41 AM

? No, I mean I am bisexual. Speak our for rights? I am pro-gay rights completely, what are you talking about? Bisexuals serious...hmm, now that&#39;s something only a complete fucking moron would say.




Seriously, I am for human rights for everyone only why is it that only the homosexuals get involved why not other sexual groups?

A very good friend of mine is a bisexual and the fact the she is the same sex as me she has never appealed to me yet she does admit to be a bit of a nymphomanic. If her boyfriend cuts her off just to be mean, she calls up a girlfriend. Now, she needs security (of course she is a loving person) so she is going to marry a man whom she loves. I am just confused by her sexuality and the fact that she admits to being a nymphomanic helps me to understand her bisexuality. I just thought bisexuals were incapable of monogomous relationships due to the fact that it has more to do with being popular and having fun. I find it strange when I can attract both sexes, you immediately sense the dynamics, I just don&#39;t go with it because I am not bisexual. Am I wrong?

[tresa909]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 03:46 AM
comrade Eijah,

Cryin&#39;? Please. You&#39;re lucky I gave you cab fare.


trese,



don&#39;t hate me cause i am a beautiful female who can get guys with the toot of a dog whistle.



I happen to also be quite attractive. Don&#39;t hate me because I am a beautiful man who can get chicks with the sound of a credit card swiping the terminal in Harrond&#39;s shoe department.
you guys are cold-blooded.

and i was lying, i don&#39;t even own a dog whistle. :P

[Vinny Rafarino]

I was lyin&#39; too.







I never shagged comrade Elijah (much to his dismay) &#39;cos i&#39;m not gay.

[Rastafari]

sorry, RAF. I like old people. the only thing bad about this story is that he buddied up with Nazis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/internat...ope/23FPRO.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/international/europe/23FPRO.html)

[Jesus Christ]

you cant help but feel bad for the old man
i mean, being forced to go fight on the front lines by the Nazis, having to hide for years in the woods from ravenous Red Army soldiers
getting captured and tortured by the Stalinesque KGB and being sentenced to 25 years hard labor, with no left arm because it had to be amputated
and on top of that, the hard labor had to be served in prison after prison in the Ural Mountain area
then after his term having to leave the Union in 72 hours
im mean, cmon
and before any of you dismiss this as western propaganda, the New York Times is a very accurate souce of information

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 01:59 PM
sorry, RAF. I like old people. the only thing bad about this story is that he buddied up with Nazis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/internat...ope/23FPRO.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/international/europe/23FPRO.html)
he buddied up with the nazi&#39;s?

stalin? they were suppose to get together with the socialist democrats to start a world revolution. they were forced to make a treaty with the germans so that their people would not starve.

stalin was not the only one who buddied up with the nazi&#39;s.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Stalin never "buddied" up to the nazis. There are many threads about the soviet/german non-aggression pact (many of you were involved in those debates so I can clearly see you continued statements about Stalin "being buddies" with Hitler are purely rhetorical) where the myth that Stalin buddied up with Hitler is completely debunked.


Only soneone with absolutely no knowledge of politics and history would think such a juvenile thought.


Rasta,

What exactly is the point of that article? I can dig around the Former Soviet Union proper and find ald men that will ***** about the Soviets.


Primus,


We all know the New York Times would NEVER make up anything to sell newspapers now would it?

[Jesus Christ]

youre ridiculous
the New York Times is very neutral
you just go ahead and think everything is propaganda

[elijahcraig]

the New York Times is very neutral

:lol:

Wow, now we know you are a complete moron&#33;

:lol:

[tresa909]

okay, i have a statement to make about stalin, first let me say something off topic...ready?

i admit, sometimes i do not understand why homosexuals are part of the human rights movement other than the fact that they are human and people have the basic right to unite and speak out in anyway they choose. i don&#39;t have a problem with it, i just wonder why it is as such. now, i think i know why. (well it is starting to make sense) in some ancient cultures homosexuality is the norm, for example i found this phrase in a book i was reading today, "if you were a man in the sambian tribe of new guinea, you would likely engage in homosexual behavior until you were married." (critical thinking by kirby, goodpaster, & levine, 1994, pp. 14, para. 1) very interesting&#33;

yesterday, i found something out about the 1945-1948ish era that made me go hmm. maybe it is not a big deal only it adds to my curiosity about things.

in one book, "stalin, triumph & tragedy" by volkogonov the author states that stalin was irritated by a certain writer named platonov and his book "in store". the book was known as a western classic and stalin being generally suspicious of the west took note of the author. so what is the deal?

the deal is that stalin (according to the author) was suspicious of the west because of the "disintegrating" democracy in the west. this to me, substantiates leninism as truly being democratic in its original form. (okay so not such a big deal) only stalin is not the only one who believes in this "disintegrating" democracy occuring in the west. read on...(please)

another author kaplan, who edited the book "recent american foreign policies, conflicting interpretations" when speaking on the political personality of the soviet power also makes claim to the same observation "disintegrating" democracy in the west. am i to think that this is in reference to the u.s. west or european west? neither book makes it clear??? does anyone know about the author platonov and his book "in store?"

[blackemma]

why don&#39;t more bisexuals speak out for rights like homosexuals do?

I&#39;m bisexual and staunchly pro-gay. I&#39;ve been complimented by many queers for having done much to make the world a little more tolerant, so I&#39;m not sure who you&#39;re talking about. I think you should retract that comment.

[elijahcraig]

Yes, I don&#39;t know what that comment was based on. I&#39;m a pro-gay bisexual as well.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 03:04 AM
youre ridiculous
the New York Times is very neutral
you just go ahead and think everything is propaganda
It is a bourgeois-capitalist-imperialist newspaper. It may be neutral as far as the hard-right are concerned.

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 08:27 PM

why don&#39;t more bisexuals speak out for rights like homosexuals do?

I&#39;m bisexual and staunchly pro-gay. I&#39;ve been complimented by many queers for having done much to make the world a little more tolerant, so I&#39;m not sure who you&#39;re talking about. I think you should retract that comment.
you people are not listening. why? do you hate me because i am not gay. elija called me a terrible name like i was attacking him personally. i guarantee you he would not talk to me that way if he was in my face. why all the sensitivity? in my opinion, you are not making it easy for anyone to understand homosexuality, you are getting defensive. why?

i am a woman of color (chicana, cherokee, irish & black) so i have every right to question why i am grouped with a sex group, don&#39;t you understand? i am asexual so why would i have a judgement against gays? if anything, elija owes me an apology for being so rude and calling me a name, like if i hurt his feelings or something. don&#39;t worry elija i am not asking one from you. if you do not feel it in your heart to retract your name calling who am i to ask?

i will say that if i offended anyone with my curiousity and ignorance then i am sorry. gays and bi&#39;s love me. :P

are any of you guys minorities or are you anglos?

[elijahcraig]

you people are not listening. why? do you hate me because i am not gay. elija called me a terrible name like i was attacking him personally. i guarantee you he would not talk to me that way if he was in my face. why all the sensitivity? in my opinion, you are not making it easy for anyone to understand homosexuality, you are getting defensive. why?

I am not sensitive, I am just calling you what you are. I have beaten up rednecks for calling me that, believe me I would say it to your face.


i am a woman of color (chicana, cherokee, irish & black) so i have every right to question why i am grouped with a sex group, don&#39;t you understand? i am asexual so why would i have a judgement against gays? if anything, elija owes me an apology for being so rude and calling me a name, like if i hurt his feelings or something. don&#39;t worry elija i am not asking one from you. if you do not feel it in your heart to retract your name calling who am i to ask?

stfu you idiot. Asexual? Wtf are you talking about?

[tresa909]

blackemma, are you in the rock and roll business?

[elijahcraig]

Tresa, do you live in a trailor park?

[tresa909]

right. elija. whatever, i am through talking about this with you.

[elijahcraig]

http://familydoctor.org/healthfacts/036/cover.jpg


Tresa, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :lol:

[tresa909]

well...okay i am that cute.

[elijahcraig]

http://familydoctor.org/healthfacts/036/cover.jpg

[tresa909]

awww...he&#39;s beautiful&#33;

[Invader Zim]

I am actually with elijahcraig on this... dont get too used to it though. Tresa909, you are not A-sexual, unless you are a piece of bacteria or a plant or fungus of some kind.

A-Sexual reproduction is where a cell splits, creating another cell. This is what bacteria do, it is not sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction, is where a Male fertalises a female, and reproduction takes place.

Sorry if my description is not all that brilliant, it has been a long while since I have done this, and my memory for it is at best hazy. But I am sure you get the general idea, I am sure someone will elaborate.

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 01:14 AM
I am actually with elijahcraig on this... dont get too used to it though. Tresa909, you are not A-sexual, unless you are a piece of bacteria or a plant or fungus of some kind.

A-Sexual reproduction is where a cell splits, creating another cell. This is what bacteria do, it is not sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction, is where a Male fertalises a female, and reproduction takes place.

Sorry if my description is not all that brilliant, it has been a long while since I have done this, and my memory for it is at best hazy. But I am sure you get the general idea, I am sure someone will elaborate.
i know what asexual means, and according to websters dictionary 3rd definition "lacking interest in or desire for sex."

meaning, when i meet people, the last thing i am concerned about is there sexual preference. i don&#39;t mistreat anyone, i think it is a bad thing to do. if homosexuals get treated badly i am sorry, i got treated badly many times and i just think the person who treats me wrong is not a good person. you don&#39;t know the half of it, only i am not asking for pity. so, i guess i don&#39;t understand, i wish i did.

i don&#39;t live in a trailer park, and where i live, elijah would not survive it, living in a hole is where i live. it is a nice hole though.

anyway, i am tired, i was hoping someone would answer the history question i posted. thanks anyway.

[ComradeJunichi]

What the hell? Did someone delete my post that I made on page 5? Towards NY Times and the Non Aggression Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Where the hell did it go?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

how the fuck did this conversation turn from stalin to homosexuality?

[Jesus Christ]

read through the topic and find out

[crazy comie]

STALIN SUCKS BECUSE HE BELIVED IN A DICKTATORSHIP OF HIMSELF AND NOT THE PROLITARIAN.

[ComradeJunichi]

Stop deleting god damn posts. My post should have been in here, it made perfect sense.

Crazy Commie, you&#39;re a fucking idiot. That&#39;s all.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Crazy Commie, you&#39;re a fucking idiot. That&#39;s all.


in total agreement

[crazy comie]

bollocks your the brain washed load of bulls bollocks.

[Saint-Just]

I know Cheguevara717 has not been brainwashed, since I have not seen him largely influenced by any of the Stalinists here. What you call brainwashing is known to others as an education.

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 27 2003, 02:23 PM
bollocks your the brain washed load of bulls bollocks.
My brain is brainwashed? I think that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, I couldn&#39;t tell by the horrible grammar you have. I&#39;m not the one saying Stalin beat up Lenin&#39;s wife and whatever other type of rubbish you have in your head.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 26 2003, 12:49 PM
STALIN SUCKS BECUSE HE BELIVED IN A DICKTATORSHIP OF HIMSELF AND NOT THE PROLITARIAN.
I assume you are not aware of the theory that is "the dictatorship of the Proletariat". It is not an actual "dictatorship" led by workers, it is simply a centralized vanguard (the communist party) that leads the proletariat in overthrowing the bourgeoisie and eliminating all class antagonisms.

-Red

[Viet_Nam_Communist_Youth_Union©]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 12:12 AM
???watd you think of what he did as a whole...?
Well, at least he aided us (Vietnamese) in fighting with US and Frenchies, so I appieted (damn I forgot that word) / thank him alot, and I don&#39;t care how he did with his people, with the ukraine,etc because this is HIS OWN PROBLEM.... :P

/edit

IHMO that we are ALL BRAINWASHED™, from our side or "other side" :D in a braindwashed™ world...YAhoooooooooooooooooooooooooo :D :D :D

[crazy comie]

true he may of done some god stuf like help vietnam.

[crazy comie]

ComradeJunichi i think you will find i corrected my miss frasing. bolshivika dictatorship of the prolitarian means rule of the prolitarian.in other words democracy.

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 28 2003, 09:28 AM
ComradeJunichi i think you will find i corrected my miss frasing. bolshivika dictatorship of the prolitarian means rule of the prolitarian.in other words democracy.
The term democracy is so overused, one cannot draw out what it really means. Democracy, such a broad and general term. Tell me, what is "democracy"?

[crazy comie]

Rule of the masses.

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 28 2003, 01:03 PM
Rule of the masses.
That&#39;s the exact phrase I thought you would say. A bunch of rhetoric. Besides all this rhetoric you hear and throw back out, do you understand anything?

You&#39;re the one who hated Stalin and the Soviet Union, yet you have the Soviet Union emblem in your avatar?

You&#39;re pathetic.

[crazy comie]

i didn&#39;t realise it had the star on it.

[crazy comie]

by rule of the mases i meant somthing like the workers soviets but with control over evry member and aspect of goverment. They would not be pupts of the party either.

[Scottish_Militant]

Just because someone is anti-stilinist does not mean they are anti-USSR

The USSR was founded on principles very different to the principles of the CP in the 30s/40s and onwards

[crazy comie]

I&#39; m just anti u.s.s.r after lenins death.

[ComradeJunichi]

Post Stalin USSR was nothing but a long road of revisionism to collapse. Pre-Stalin USSR wasn&#39;t even called the USSR, it was known as the RSFSR.

How was the &#39;USSR&#39; under Lenin different from the USSR under Stalin?

[crazy comie]

It was under n.e.p then and the soviets had more control. Where as stalins industrealisation plans killed millions.

[Scottish_Militant]

"How was the &#39;USSR&#39; under Lenin different from the USSR under Stalin?"

Mainly on the question of internationalism

[crazy comie]

far more pepole died under stalin aswell

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 28 2003, 03:29 PM
It was under n.e.p then and the soviets had more control. Where as stalins industrealisation plans killed millions.
The New Economic Policy was created in order to stabilize the economy, not because Lenin was a capitalist. Stalins industrialization plans actually saved people, if you remember that event called the Second World War.


far more pepole died under stalin aswell

Stalin also lasted a lot longer in power than Lenin did. Lenin used just as many harsh measures to stop opposition as Stalin did.


Mainly on the question of internationalism

Yes, there are different levels of priorities though.

[YKTMX]

Stalin also lasted a lot longer in power than Lenin did. Lenin used just as many harsh measures to stop opposition as Stalin did.

Yes, he was ruthless but it was in a context. The civil war and the invading armies, along with the death of the Russian working class forced him to be harsh in some circumstances. Even the most right wing of commentators recognise that Lenin&#39;s "repression" was altogether diffirent in character and scale than Stalin&#39;s.

[crazy comie]

i never said lenin was a capitalist. stalin forced pepole to hard as well as having far more ruthless purges.After all he killed stalin that is 40 million lenin killed far less than a million. And stalin was inpaitiont he hurried industriealisation.

[ComradeJunichi]

What about Stalins situation with the kulaks, when they slaughetered animals and burned farmland? What about one of the greatest wars in history; World War II? What about the economic turmoil that comes after Civil War?

i never said lenin was a capitalist. stalin forced pepole to hard as well as having far more ruthless purges.After all he killed stalin that is 40 million lenin killed far less than a million. And stalin was inpaitiont he hurried industriealisation.

You misunderstand my point. The New Economic Policy was put in place because it was necessary, not because Lenin was "nicer". How did Stalin push people too hard? When did Stalin kill 40 million people? The USSR was coming close to war with Nazi Germany, there&#39;s a reason for industrialization.

Crazy Commie, you&#39;re an idiot.

[YKTMX]

Wait a minute, the industrialization started in the late twenties, early thirties, way before Hitler was even close to power. I don&#39;t think even his staunchest (stupidest?) supporters would say that a looming war with Germany was the reason Stalin rushed industrialization.

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:13 PM
Wait a minute, the industrialization started in the late twenties, early thirties, way before Hitler was even close to power. I don&#39;t think even his staunchest (stupidest?) supporters would say that a looming war with Germany was the reason Stalin rushed industrialization.
My point was the industrialization was beneficial. Also, after the Civil War they wanted to &#39;Westernize&#39; the USSR (similar to Peter the Great, I believe) and began industrializing Russia; following way behind, as countries like Britain and Germany achieved this in the Age of Imperialism (1800&#39;s).

[ernestolynch]

The Imperialists had already invaded once, but strikes and mutinies by their forces and workers stopped that. It would only be a matter of time before the forces of capital tried to invade the USSR again.

The Soviet Union had to catch up with the West quickly or else get crushed like a beetle underfoot.

And under the guidance of Cde Stalin the USSR moved advanced from feudalism to Space Age in less than forty years.

Luckily the Trot had nothing to do with it, otherwise Hitler would have been goosing around the Kremlin. Although, if Trot had won the vote (instead of only getting 5%) to become GS of the CP the USSR would have collapsed long before then and Capital wouldn&#39;t have needed to install Hitler in power in 1933.....

[Scottish_Militant]

Lynch, are you aware of the main reason for Hitler invading the USSR?

Obviously not...

[ernestolynch]

Le....le.....leb.....it&#39;s on the tip of my tongue.....lebens.....no, enlighten me, kid.

:rolleyes:

[Scottish_Militant]

Kid? The last one to try this was RAF, he quickly shut up when I informed him that ive been an active communist since 1968...

Whats with the Stalinists and age discrimination anyway?

Anyway, you might like to know that Hitler stated his main reason for preparing to invade the USSR was that Stalin had killed all the best generals off, he assumed then that the Red Army would be weak, what he didn&#39;t take into account was the revolution and the spirit of the red army.

Nevertheless, with his purges, Stalin all but invited Hitler to invade

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:18 PM
Kid? The last one to try this was RAF, he quickly shut up when I informed him that ive been an active communist since 1968...


It get&#39;s worse comrade. First it&#39;s kid, then it&#39;s liberal, then it&#39;s facist, then it&#39;s counter revolutionary. There is a scale of insults that you have to go through. Comrade RAF will know more about it, he&#39;s been using it since the late 80&#39;s.

[ernestolynch]

These wouldn&#39;t be the Tsarist officers that Trotty allowed into the Red Army would they?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 06:19 PM
These wouldn&#39;t be the Tsarist officers that Trotty allowed into the Red Army would they?
God that&#39;s weak. You accuse Trotsky of being an "idealist", yet when he is very pragmatic in knowing that the Red Army could not defeat the Whites without the military expertise of Tsarist officers, you still criticise him. Go and get some new arguments.

[Cassius Clay]

Actually the Red Army coped fine without Trotsky and his goons, that&#39;s why the military demanded &#39;that Trotsky play no role in military affairs&#39;. Wherever Trotsky went he would set about putting his bazare theory of &#39;Labour Armies&#39; into practice and hey ho the workers revolted, good for them I say. True hero&#39;s of the Civil War, were apart from the mass of workers Kamenev, Voroshilov, Stalin and Budyenny.

It&#39;s good that CR says that Hitler invaded the USSR because of this sole reason that Stalin supposedly shot all his Generals. This is where all the anti-Stalin and in effect anti-communists get their information, from the propaganda ministry of the Third Reich. Himmler in a speech in 1943 reffered to &#39;Show Trials&#39; and &#39;Victims of Stalinism&#39;. But let&#39;s not let a thing like facts get in the way of the truth, never mind that numerous sources testify to the fact their was a military conspiracy, never mind that officers who defected to the west wrote on how they planned to carry out the coup. Even Goebbels acknowledged later on what the truth was, he said that if it hadn&#39;t been for the USSR getting rid of all the Fifth collums in the military then Germany would of allready won.

Never mind that the number of officers doubled in the Red Army during this period. Was this not the army which produced Zhukov, Konev, Rokkosovsky, Timoshenko and Chuikov from it&#39;s officer ranks? All of whom remained pro-Stalin or spoke positvely of him after he had died. Rokkosovsky was told by Khrushchev to join in the anti-Stalin smears, he refused and defended Stalin from the lies. Bare in mind that Rokkosovsky had even been arrested for a short period in relation to the coup plans. Why would he of done that if their were no plans for a coup?

Some say Trotsky defended the USSR, that he was proved right. What&#39;s the truth?


We always started from the fact that the international policy of the Kremlin was determined by the new aristocracy&#39;s ... incapacity to conduct a war.
«... the ruling caste is no longer capable of thinking about tomorrow. Its formula is that of all doomed regimes `after us the deluge’...
«The war will topple many things and many individuals. Artifice, trickery, frame-ups and treasons will prove of no avail in escaping its severe judgement» (Statement to the British capitalist press on Stalin - Hitler&#39;s Quartermaster).
«Stalin cannot make a war with discontented workers and peasants and with a decapitated Red Army» (German-Soviet Alliance).
«The level of the USSR&#39;s productive forces forbids a major war. ... the Involvement of the USSR in a major war before the end of this period would signify in any case a struggle with unequal weapons
«The subjective factor, not less important than the material, has changed in the last years sharply for the worse...
«Stalin cannot wage an offensive war with any hope of victory.
«Should the USSR enter the war with its innumerable victims and privations, the whole fraud of the official regime, its outrages and violence, will inevitably provoke a profound reaction on the part of the people, who have already carried out three revolutions in this century. ...
«The present war can crush the Kremlin bureaucracy long before revolution breaks out in some capitalist country. ...» (The Twin Stars: Hitler-Stalin).



Can we, however, expect that the Soviet Union will come out of the coming great war without defeat? To this frankly posed question we will answer as frankly; if the war should only remain a war, the defeat of the Soviet Union will be inevitable. In a technical, economic and military sense, imperialism is incomparably more strong. If it is not paralysed by revolution in the west, imperialism will sweep away the regime which issued from the October Revolution» (Revolution Betrayed, p.216).


So where was Trotsky proved right? No where, and thankgod for humanity that he was proved wrong. The Soviet people went through enourmous suffering and they out-produced Imperialism and smashed it, they rallied around the regime because it was not what Trotsky had described. If it were a fraction as bad as you Trots picture it they would of deserted just like they did the Tsar.

But it cant be, Stalin was the head of a &#39;beuracratic elite&#39; which &#39;oppressed the workers more than in the west&#39; and they only fought hard because &#39;The Nazis were evil&#39;. Just one problem. Why did Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Britain, Holland and Belgium fall so fast? The German Army spent more time overcoming one fortress at Brest-Litovsk than conquering the British Army, the German Army had lost more men in a month against the Socialist USSR than they had in the entire campaign in the west.

Glory to the Red Army&#33;

[crazy comie]

Part of that is due to hitler bieing a morron and makeing the same mistake as Napolean and not preapering his army for winter.. The another reason the soviet union on was becuse they had the most pepole and sacraficed 20 million.I explained earllyer how 40 million where killed. Alot of the pepole put in Gulags where put there becuses they had a simple disagrement with Stalins policys.

[Cassius Clay]

The Soviets had to fight in the winter aswell you know.

It wasn&#39;t just Hitler who thought the USSR would collapse, Trotsky, Churchill, Roosevelt all thought the same because they bought their own propaganda. 40 million hey? Am I really supposed to take you seriesly with a comment like that? Go and read what really happened.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

You say you explained it, well if you go to alt-politics-white-power your also find Fascists explaining how evil Stalin was, more on the scale of a 100 million though.

[crazy comie]

The russians lived in the cold inviroment they could handel it and they brought the right cloths for the conditions..

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:18 PM
Kid? The last one to try this was RAF, he quickly shut up when I informed him that ive been an active communist since 1968...

Whats with the Stalinists and age discrimination anyway?

Anyway, you might like to know that Hitler stated his main reason for preparing to invade the USSR was that Stalin had killed all the best generals off, he assumed then that the Red Army would be weak, what he didn&#39;t take into account was the revolution and the spirit of the red army.

Nevertheless, with his purges, Stalin all but invited Hitler to invade
You would not know it by is posts eh?


Relax pops, don&#39;t have a stroke on us now.

[crazy comie]

oh and the Soviets where on home ground.

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah they were on &#39;Home Ground&#39; when they destroyed Army Group Centre (a bigger catch than Stalingrad) in Poland in 1944. Sigh. If it was just because they were on &#39;Home Ground&#39; and because the Germans didn&#39;t have winter clothing one winter then why do you explain Kursk or the wipping the Fascists got in 1945?

The French also fought on &#39;Home Ground&#39; you know.

[crazy comie]

I was talk&#39;in about the begining. there being 3 fronts also helped as well as the germans being tired after the winter.

[Saint-Just]

What about the tanks the Soviets used; they were far superior to the Nazi tanks. Nazi tanks could not destroy them because the armor was impervious to the Nazi shells.

This is down to the scientific prowess of the Soviet Union and the economic policies of the CPSU under the leadership of Stalin. They were able to produce these tanks very quickly.

[crazy comie]

one god dessign with crap gear boxes wich ment half of them where put out of action by fulty gearboxes

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 2 2003, 07:18 PM
one god dessign with crap gear boxes wich ment half of them where put out of action by fulty gearboxes
I tried that through Altavista Babelfish but still had no results. Any comrades here know what "Comie" is on about?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Not a clue comrade. My secret decorder ring has yet to arrive in the post.

[crazy comie]

I was on about the fact the more T-34 tanks went out of action from falty Gearbox is then bieing blown up.The t-34 being the best ww2 soviet tank.

[Vinny Rafarino]

This is just absurd. Mr. X. I know you still want to play footsies with me however I realised a while back you are full of shit. Now Im just rib you as your arguments are the same bollocks over and over again...Let me guess, you&#39;re gonna come back with some stupid remark about how I&#39;m dumb and spout rhetoric. Yeah, okay mate, whatever you say...get lost kid. You&#39;re worse than herpes.

Crazy "commie",

Forget about ever winning a nobel prize kiddo. To be honest, you should just swith sides right now. When you and the cripple finish graduate school, come talk to me. Until then you are simply pests.



Get a grip on reality trotties. We see right through you. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:20 AM
This is just absurd. Mr. X. I know you still want to play footsies with me however I realised a while back you are full of shit. Now Im just rib you as your arguments are the same bollocks over and over again...Let me guess, you&#39;re gonna come back with some stupid remark about how I&#39;m dumb and spout rhetoric. Yeah, okay mate, whatever you say...get lost kid. You&#39;re worse than herpes.



Not a clue comrade. My secret decorder ring has yet to arrive in the post.

I think I&#39;ll need one those things aswell. What the hell are you talking about RAF? Are you finally going mad from 50 years of the Weekly Worker.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No shit. What the fuck was I talking about?

[YKTMX]

:D I forgive you.

[ComradeJunichi]

I don&#39;t remember the specific model numbers, but the Soviets had upgraded their tanks to become easier to make and faster. The armor was not as good as, say, the King Tiger (but tell me a tank that is). Good armor, cheap and easy to make, fast moving vehicle. These tanks played a significant role out of the many factors in the victory in Stalingrad (as well as the other cities of the Nazi invasion/siege.

[crazy comie]

The point was that deisigen could have been deisigend by eny enginer and the u.s.s.r had crap electronics becuse of buerocracy. It had the best militery but it spent almost all of the countries money on the millitary.

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 3 2003, 04:56 PM
The point was that deisigen could have been deisigend by eny enginer and the u.s.s.r had crap electronics becuse of buerocracy. It had the best militery but it spent almost all of the countries money on the millitary.
Who was the first man in space, comie?

What was the first satellite in space?

Who built the first space-station?

Who was the first woman in space?

Who did the first space-walk?

[Scottish_Militant]

From the Lynch child&#39;s little website...

"During the second world war when the Soviet Union was fighting for its life in a deadly struggle with German fascism, Trotskyists encouraged workers in Britain to go on strike, thus undermining the war effort at the moment in history when the only beneficiaries would be fascism. By undermining the war effort in Britain after the Soviet Union became embroiled in the struggle against fascism, these Trotskyists became tools of fascism in the struggle against the Soviet Union."

This is absolutley unbeleivable, I thought I was reading The Sun for a minute there. It&#39;s a long time since I have seen such blatant anti-working class propoganda&#33;

Where else would I hear about workers being critiscised for going on strike when they are forced to work under shocking conditions, where else would I hear the chauvanistic "war effort" ramblings?

You need to have a long hard look at yourselves :angry:

[Saint-Just]

The T-34 has been credited as having been a great turning point in the war against the Nazis. I have never heard anything about the gearboxes. Only that they were fast and such was the design of the armour Nazi shells had little to no effect on them. I have seen a historian acredit the entire victory to the design and production of the T-34. As I say, not only was it the design but the labour and massive factories created to build so many so quickly.

ernestolynch, You can also include the first nuclear-powered submarine. A great technological achievement.

[FistFullOfSteel]

all who critise communism says that all is stalins fault..hmm maybe..but i think communism will never die out&#33;

[crazy comie]

The first nukeler sub was actually the american USS Nautilus. look the soviet union had better millitary. The ussr how ever did not invest as much as it should have done in new technolgys like electronics it also made things inifechently becuse of beuracrcy. The ussr didn&#39;t have a rich inuf population to invest annd get a return in the advanset tecnolgy unless it had military benifts.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Mr. crazy commie,


Stick to what you know &#39;cos you sound absurd.

[crazy comie]

Well it is the truth i used to be very inturested in soviet millitary and i still am.

[ComradeJunichi]

I believe the first nuclear submarine was the K-19. I also believe bureacracy has little to nothing to do with the T-34 model and that model did not "suck". Crazy Commie, you&#39;re no commie, but you&#39;re damned right you&#39;re a crazy shmuck; shmuck is the skin taken off of the penis during circumsition, I think.

[Sovietski Soyuz]

Read up. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/articles.html)

:D

[crazy comie]

I never said the t-33 suked or was afected by buerucracy. The k-19 was the seconed type of soviet Nuclear sub to come into service the first russian nuclear sub was the k-3.

[FistFullOfSteel]

aye lenin was a great man

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 09:43 AM
aye lenin was a great man
can&#39;t say i dissagree

[Sabocat]

A little history on the Nautilus since it was mentioned.


USS Nautilus was the first nuclear-powered submarine. Electric Boat Company in Groton, Connecticut—the same company that had sold the U.S. Navy its first submarine in 1900—laid her keel 14 June 1952. She was launched 18 months later and commissioned in September 1954.

Although Nautilus was a large boat for her time—323 feet (98 m) long and displacing 4,092 tons submerged, with a crew of 104—she was also fast. The newly developed S2W (Submarine, Model 2, Westinghouse) pressurized-water nuclear reactor provided her power both on the surface, where her top speed was 22 knots (41 km/hr), and underwater, where she could do 23 knots (42 km/hr).

The Nautilus was also the first submarine to travel submerged under the Arctic Circle.

[crazy comie]

That is actually a avredge speed for a sub.The k-3 had better preformence but was more noisy.