Question for Maoists/Marxist-Leninists

[The Man]

What are your opinions on the 'Purges' during the Stalin Era?

NOTE: I'm looking for Marxist-Leninist opinions. Not Trotskyist, Left Communist, or Anarchist ones. Because I already know what you guys think.

[pranabjyoti]

The Great Conspiracy Against Russia by Albert Kahn and Michael Sears are a good read. The works of Grover Furr can also be appreciated. I myself have given repeatedly list of books by eye-witnesses of Moscow trial and of other persons engaged in USSR as expert during the time of great purges and I don't want to repeat.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

They were necessary. There were excesses and innocents killed but hey, ultimately it was (and will be in all future socialist states) the fault of those the purges were aimed at for making purges necessary in the first place.

Here's a question for all of you who are apparently pro-Lenin and cry about the purges under Stalin when only 10% of the party was purged. What do you make of the 1921 purge, when that good old liberal democrat Lenin was running things :rolleyes:, where about 45% of the party in the countryside were purged?

[SacRedMan]

Well I've discussed with many people and every time they say that Stalin killed like 20 million people I always ask them to come give up a with a demographic source, evidence or anything that proves that statement and i never recieved a source or evidence, let alone a GOOD one. The GULAG's were not concentration camps nor build to really kill people, so that falls away. But don't forget that Stalin executed many people.

He did some good things, but he did more bad things.

[bailey_187]

The Great Conspiracy Against Russia by Albert Kahn and Michael Sears are a good read. The works of Grover Furr can also be appreciated. I myself have given repeatedly list of books by eye-witnesses of Moscow trial and of other persons engaged in USSR as expert during the time of great purges and I don't want to repeat.

U keep telling people to read these shit books.

As someone else explained The Great Conspiracy isnt meant to be a serious history book, and the rest of your list are shit and unaccurate accounts of fellow-travelers in the 1930s. There are equaly damning accounts too, which of course u would dimiss as propaganda.

[L.A.P.]

Greatly exaggerated to the point where it would mean that almost everyone in Russia would be dead. There was unecessary purging of civilian people but it was to the same extent as done in places like France and the United States after their revolutions. Beisde the civilians, purging corrupt party members and high ranking secret police officials won't make me lose any sleep over my support of Stalin.

[☭The Revolution☭]

Beyond the obvious fact that the Purge was a huge act of genocide against the rest of the Communist Party, you can't just dispose of other Party members that don't agree with you. That is the point, that everybody gets a valid say in how the society is run. The Party cannot divide, because if we don't stand together, we die. We have to work out our disagreements in a democratic manner. At LEAST while Capitalism is still alive and well in our world today.

[Red Future]

Its always worth thinking about the people who were actually purged too ...they didn't tend to usually be Proletarian or Peasantry. but ,more so the old intelligensia class and the ex middle classes

[Raubleaux]

Terrible but necessary, as someone said. There were real plots against the government and if they did not act swiftly to deal with them the results could have been horrendous not just for the Soviet Union but for the world. Did many innocent people get caught up in this? I'm sure they did, which is unfortunate. But at some point you have to understand that a revolution is not going to be painless or fun. Thankfully, most of the worst offenders such as Ezhov were punished for their crimes.

[pranabjyoti]

U keep telling people to read these shit books.

As someone else explained The Great Conspiracy isnt meant to be a serious history book, and the rest of your list are shit and unaccurate accounts of fellow-travelers in the 1930s. There are equaly damning accounts too, which of course u would dimiss as propaganda.
Why shit? Because that goes against your beliefs? What are serious history books? Books manufactured by bustard Herst, Conquest and Co.

[bailey_187]

Why shit? Because that goes against your beliefs? What are serious history books? Books manufactured by bustard Herst, Conquest and Co.

lol no

William Hearst has been dead for over 60 years and Conquest's writings have been seriosuly challenged by revisionist historians.

Serious history liks, i dont know, ones that are written by scholars who have studied the Soviet archives since they opened? Not a dramaticized book written by a journalist over 50 years ago, thats for sure.

[Ms. Max]

It was a life or death struggle, attack from without and within. ""Stalin killed millions" is a lie, but I think the valid research shows hundreds of thousands were killed. Much but not all of this was justified, people were trying to kill socialism and it needed to be defended. However, I feel that Stalin just did not have the grasp that Lenin did, and got confused about who was a deadly enemy and who was just raising questions due to the extreme stress brought about on people in a society in revolution. Going forward, we need to understand and allow for this somehow, while still being able defeat the strong and deadly forces who will continue to fight for capitalist restoration.

[bailey_187]

What was the "grave danger" or "life and death struggle" about?

Who was the threat? How were the mid level bureacrats that were killed en masse involved in this?

[psgchisolm]

Greatly exaggerated to the point where it would mean that almost everyone in Russia would be dead. There was unecessary purging of civilian people but it was to the same extent as done in places like France and the United States after their revolutions. Beisde the civilians, purging corrupt party members and high ranking secret police officials won't make me lose any sleep over my support of Stalin.Except in France and the US they weren't sent to work camps in negative temperatures for almost a decade. Stalin may not have killed 20 million, but a fair number of millions died under him.

[pranabjyoti]

lol no

William Hearst has been dead for over 60 years and Conquest's writings have been seriosuly challenged by revisionist historians.

Serious history liks, i dont know, ones that are written by scholars who have studied the Soviet archives since they opened? Not a dramaticized book written by a journalist over 50 years ago, thats for sure.
The Great Conspiracy is actually based on books by eye-witnesses, who were present in the court during the trial and probably observed Stalin era as closely as possible by any foreigner and by no means, they were "Stalinist" and even member or sympathizer of any communist party. Then how can a book based on their testimonials can be just "trash".
Moreover, after the opening of the "soviet archives", Russian historian like O V N Zemskov, Dogzine have written papers regarding the purging of Stalin era. But, you will rarely found any reference of those papers on any pro-imperialist source. Maria Sousa has written a book based on those papers to cut the lies regarding Stalin era.

[bailey_187]

So u will compleltly disregard the last 60s years of study into the the USSR in the 1930s because u are convinced by what Joseph E Davis said in 1941?

Now who were u saying was afriad of reading stuff that went against their beleifs?

How much Zemskov have u read though tbh? I havnt read any of his articles, but seen him cited for numbers of detainees in the GULAG in the book Stalinist Terror: New Persepctives

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Except in France and the US they weren't sent to work camps in negative temperatures for almost a decade.
So...would you prefer if they'd just all been shot instead?

Stalin may not have killed 20 million, but a fair number of millions died under him.
And Stalin ordered every individual one of those deaths, yeah? Even the ones that were due to natural disasters? :rolleyes: As far as purge deaths go, I'm afraid that's what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like my friend.

[psgchisolm]

So...would you prefer if they'd just all been shot instead?most of the military that was purged was for no reason. They suffered in the cold for years for absolutely NO reason. As for actual traitors yeah they should have been shot as well. They would die either way.


And Stalin ordered every individual one of those deaths, yeah? Even the ones that were due to natural disasters? :rolleyes: As far as purge deaths go, I'm afraid that's what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like my friend.Did I say that? Answer that question then realize how dumb your sarcasm was. As for purge deaths under the DOTP this is the main reason WHY I'm not a communist. If you give one person too much power you can have exactly this. I have nothing against communists and I do have some support for Stalins policys. But the random deportations to siberia just because you think that worker is a traitor or that low level NCO doesn't deserve any support. Of course you can't blame stalin for natural disasters. You sure CAN blame him for putting innocent workers in -20 and lower temperatures just because he thought that they thought that they planned coup's and other such nonsense.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

most of the military that was purged was for no reason. They suffered in the cold for years for absolutely NO reason.
Um, no. The military purge was to get rid of any possible fifth column for the Nazis to take advantage of.

As for purge deaths under the DOTP this is the main reason WHY I'm not a communist.Well at least you're consistent, unlike some "communists"

But the random deportations to siberia just because you think that worker is a traitor or that low level NCO doesn't deserve any support. Of course you can't blame stalin for natural disasters. You sure CAN blame him for putting innocent workers in -20 and lower temperatures just because he thought that they thought that they planned coup's and other such nonsense.Stalin was into randomly ordering innocent workers to Siberia, was he? This reminds me...

8. Everyone ever arrested under a Communist regime was most likely innocent of any crime. Communists only arrested harmless poets and political prophets who had a beautiful message to share with the world.

9. Everything Stalin did or didn’t do had some sinister ulterior motive. Everything.

10. Keeping with the spirit of #9, remember that Stalin was an omnipotent being, perhaps an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu, who had full awareness of everything going on in the Soviet Union and total control over every occurrence which took place between 1924 and 1953. Everything that occurred during that time was the will of Stalin. Stalin knew the exact details of every criminal case that took place during that era and out of his boundless cruelty, had tons of innocent people shot for no reason regardless of where they were or their position in life. Being omnipotent, he was not dependent on information passed up from tens of thousands of subordinates.

[pranabjyoti]

most of the military that was purged was for no reason. They suffered in the cold for years for absolutely NO reason. As for actual traitors yeah they should have been shot as well. They would die either way.
REALLY? Then why the French, the Polish and the Belgian army fall like house of cards before the Nazi invasion. As far as I can remember, no purging occurred in those armies.

[pranabjyoti]

So u will compleltly disregard the last 60s years of study into the the USSR in the 1930s because u are convinced by what Joseph E Davis said in 1941?

Now who were u saying was afriad of reading stuff that went against their beleifs?

How much Zemskov have u read though tbh? I havnt read any of his articles, but seen him cited for numbers of detainees in the GULAG in the book Stalinist Terror: New Persepctives
Not only Davis, there are other witnesses too. And none of them had said that there was any kind of abnormality in the judicial process and the proofs produced. I already have given a list before.
I have never said that Russian historians like Dogzine, Zemskov were "Stalinist", even "leftist" by any means. But, they have examined the so-called "secret soviet archive" with professional honesty and found that the number of prisoners in Gulags at their height was lower than that of average % of prisoners in US for the last two decades.

[Kléber]

But, they have examined the so-called "secret soviet archive" with professional honesty and found that the number of prisoners in Gulags at their height was lower than that of average % of prisoners in US for the last two decades.
That's true, but the gulag population had a much higher turnover rate from prisoners being worked, beaten and shot to death after the "reforms" of Stalin and his bourgeois crony, Naftaly Frenkel. And the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it enslaves millions of workers in the biggest racist prison system in history, so it's not saying much.

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

They were necessary. There were excesses and innocents killed but hey, ultimately it was (and will be in all future socialist states) the fault of those the purges were aimed at for making purges necessary in the first place.

Isn't that the same argument used by Facists to justify their own actions?

[psgchisolm]

Um, no. The military purge was to get rid of any possible fifth column for the Nazis to take advantage of.Lol no. It helped get rid of all the experienced soldiers and leaders.


Well at least you're consistent, unlike some "communists":laugh: you ML's always going on with your sectarianism.


Stalin was into randomly ordering innocent workers to Siberia, was he? This reminds me...So you are saying that most of the people who were sent to the Gulags were ALL or nearly ALL traitors?


REALLY? Then why the French, the Polish and the Belgian army fall like house of cards before the Nazi invasion. As far as I can remember, no purging occurred in those armies.
1.France isn't as big as the USSR. Nor poland or belgium.
2. They don't have as large an army as the USSR nor anywhere near the same number of reserves.
3. If you don't remember Stalin also invaded Poland so Poland was under attack from two large army's.
4. If you remember the German Army nearly made it to moscow even with the Oh so helpful purges of the Red army.:rolleyes: The only thing that stopped them was the winter and the thaw when all the snow melted and created mud.
5. Hitler diverted forces from attacking Moscow to the Ukrainian Oil fields.
6. His lines were spread far too thin.
7. His supply line was overstretched.
8. None of this was problem in Western europe because all those countrys were on the border of Germany.
9. Germany's forces were spread on 3 continents basically. Europe, Asia, and Africa. So his forces weren't even consolidated.
10. Had he invaded on the original date he could have had a good month or two before the snow. Also he didn't supply his troops with the proper clothing for fighting in the winter.
I could go on but I don't feel like explaining military logistics and other problems. Just go watch a documentary, or better yet. Look at a map! You can see all the kinds of problems a army might face in supply itself when it's on 3 different continents thousands of miles apart.

[Comrade1]

My opinion is the "purges" are that they were exagerated and the ones that did happen were nessesary

[bailey_187]

My opinion is the "purges" are that they were exagerated and the ones that did happen were nessesary

Its pretty much accepted that ~700,000 were executed by most historians now AFAIK, as thats what was Soviet archives say.

How do you know they were all necesary? I was reading JA Getty's The Road to Terror from the start earlier, and it recounts the story of the execution of a midlevel bureacrat called Tival. There exists no evidence of any sort of espionage on Tival's part except IIRC a brief and vague association with either Kamenev, Zinoviev or Trotsky supporters in the 1920s - hardly grounds for execution.

[pranabjyoti]

Lol no. It helped get rid of all the experienced soldiers and leaders.

:laugh: you ML's always going on with your sectarianism.

So you are saying that most of the people who were sent to the Gulags were ALL or nearly ALL traitors?


1.France isn't as big as the USSR. Nor poland or belgium.
2. They don't have as large an army as the USSR nor anywhere near the same number of reserves.
3. If you don't remember Stalin also invaded Poland so Poland was under attack from two large army's.
4. If you remember the German Army nearly made it to moscow even with the Oh so helpful purges of the Red army.:rolleyes: The only thing that stopped them was the winter and the thaw when all the snow melted and created mud.
5. Hitler diverted forces from attacking Moscow to the Ukrainian Oil fields.
6. His lines were spread far too thin.
7. His supply line was overstretched.
8. None of this was problem in Western europe because all those countrys were on the border of Germany.
9. Germany's forces were spread on 3 continents basically. Europe, Asia, and Africa. So his forces weren't even consolidated.
10. Had he invaded on the original date he could have had a good month or two before the snow. Also he didn't supply his troops with the proper clothing for fighting in the winter.
I could go on but I don't feel like explaining military logistics and other problems. Just go watch a documentary, or better yet. Look at a map! You can see all the kinds of problems a army might face in supply itself when it's on 3 different continents thousands of miles apart.
1.France isn't as big as the USSR. Nor poland or belgium.
What is the size of French economy and Soviet economy at that time? I can guess the French were bigger. Including the population of the colonies, the French population was bigger than USSR. I hope you have the capability to understand that not size, but power matters.
2. They don't have as large an army as the USSR nor anywhere near the same number of reserves.
Better way the citizens of USSR was much more committed to defend their homeland then French.
3. If you don't remember Stalin also invaded Poland so Poland was under attack from two large army's.
What Stalin grabbed back is the snatched part of USSR by Poland by the Brest-Litovosk treaty. Before that, Stalin repeatedly tried to make an united front against Nazi Germany, but no rulers including the Pol rulers responded to that appeal.
4. If you remember the German Army nearly made it to moscow even with the Oh so helpful purges of the Red army.:rolleyes: The only thing that stopped them was the winter and the thaw when all the snow melted and created mud.
That callous argument again! No answer to what kind purges destroyed the French and other European army. And what an irony, as if snow only falls in Russia and mud there is enough to stop the German army. But, at the same time, no answer to why German army retreated continuously after that.
5. Hitler diverted forces from attacking Moscow to the Ukrainian Oil fields.
6. His lines were spread far too thin.
7. His supply line was overstretched.
8. None of this was problem in Western europe because all those countrys were on the border of Germany.
REALLY? But for a long time, that problem doesn't stop it from reaching NEARLY MOSCOW. The German army also have been able to push British army back in North Africa upto Egypt.
9. Germany's forces were spread on 3 continents basically. Europe, Asia, and Africa. So his forces weren't even consolidated.
So what, British and US troops too were also spread. Moreover, Hitler have Italian troops as allay in North Africa.
10. Had he invaded on the original date he could have had a good month or two before the snow. Also he didn't supply his troops with the proper clothing for fighting in the winter.
Can you give some good source, proper military analysis of your snow argument?

[Kléber]

What Stalin grabbed back is the snatched part of USSR by Poland by the Brest-Litovosk treaty. Before that, Stalin repeatedly tried to make an united front against Nazi Germany, but no rulers including the Pol rulers responded to that appeal.
No, the Soviet army invaded Poland two weeks after Britain and France had declared war on Nazi Germany. As for Poland, it was already at war, and Stalin helped the Nazis to crush the resistance. I guess keeping promises to Hitler was more important than anti-fascism.

[gestalt]

They were necessary. There were excesses and innocents killed but hey, ultimately it was (and will be in all future socialist states) the fault of those the purges were aimed at for making purges necessary in the first place.

The circular logic astounds.

Ultimately, the party purge is a logical progression of the bureaucratic vanguard coup d'etat.

[Gorilla]

Using the cops to settle differences within the party is not a good method of communist leadership.

A proper purge means expelling people from the party and making the differences of line over which they were expelled public, not imprisoning or shooting them on accusations of espionage and treason.

I think Stalin took the correct position most of the time during controversies in the early USSR against Zinoviev, Trotsky, Bukharin etc. but his tendency to turn line struggles into a police matter ended up de-politicizing Soviet life which left the door wide open for Khruschev and similar clowns to seize power uncontested.

[pranabjyoti]

Using the cops to settle differences within the party is not a good method of communist leadership.

A proper purge means expelling people from the party and making the differences of line over which they were expelled public, not imprisoning or shooting them on accusations of espionage and treason.

I think Stalin took the correct position most of the time during controversies in the early USSR against Zinoviev, Trotsky, Bukharin etc. but his tendency to turn line struggles into a police matter ended up de-politicizing Soviet life which left the door wide open for Khruschev and similar clowns to seize power uncontested.
Cops entered the scene when the "opponents' started sabotazing and helping imperialist and other anti-soviet powers against USSR. Before that, everything was limited within party debates.

[pranabjyoti]

No, the Soviet army invaded Poland two weeks after Britain and France had declared war on Nazi Germany. As for Poland, it was already at war, and Stalin helped the Nazis to crush the resistance. I guess keeping promises to Hitler was more important than anti-fascism.
Any source please? Proper source of course. Not something like wikipedia.

[Rooster]

1.France isn't as big as the USSR. Nor poland or belgium.
What is the size of French economy and Soviet economy at that time? I can guess the French were bigger. Including the population of the colonies, the French population was bigger than USSR. I hope you have the capability to understand that not size, but power matters.
2. They don't have as large an army as the USSR nor anywhere near the same number of reserves.
Better way the citizens of USSR was much more committed to defend their homeland then French.
3. If you don't remember Stalin also invaded Poland so Poland was under attack from two large army's.
What Stalin grabbed back is the snatched part of USSR by Poland by the Brest-Litovosk treaty. Before that, Stalin repeatedly tried to make an united front against Nazi Germany, but no rulers including the Pol rulers responded to that appeal.
4. If you remember the German Army nearly made it to moscow even with the Oh so helpful purges of the Red army.:rolleyes: The only thing that stopped them was the winter and the thaw when all the snow melted and created mud.
That callous argument again! No answer to what kind purges destroyed the French and other European army. And what an irony, as if snow only falls in Russia and mud there is enough to stop the German army. But, at the same time, no answer to why German army retreated continuously after that.
5. Hitler diverted forces from attacking Moscow to the Ukrainian Oil fields.
6. His lines were spread far too thin.
7. His supply line was overstretched.
8. None of this was problem in Western europe because all those countrys were on the border of Germany.
REALLY? But for a long time, that problem doesn't stop it from reaching NEARLY MOSCOW. The German army also have been able to push British army back in North Africa upto Egypt.
9. Germany's forces were spread on 3 continents basically. Europe, Asia, and Africa. So his forces weren't even consolidated.
So what, British and US troops too were also spread. Moreover, Hitler have Italian troops as allay in North Africa.
10. Had he invaded on the original date he could have had a good month or two before the snow. Also he didn't supply his troops with the proper clothing for fighting in the winter.
Can you give some good source, proper military analysis of your snow argument?

Oh my. What a rambling mess.

I have no idea what kind of world you've constructed in your head but it obviously has nothing to do with real life. I tried to answer you but really, it's just so incoherent. First you say geographical spread doesn't matter (lol) then you mention how it did matter. But in the middle you mention something like economic power being the sole deciding factor. What ever that means. So I guess... what? That all of those capitalist countries were weaker economically than the USSR? Then you laugh off the Russian winter. Look, you go to Russia during the winter.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Napoleon?

[Omsk]

It amazes me how some of you here are defending the Wehrmacht,and trying to portray the German defeat as a mistake rather than a result of the bravery and resolution of the Red Army.Some of you i will never understand...
Ps:the Red Army overweighted and could compensate a thousand of your little 'allied' armies.French,English or Polish alike.

[psgchisolm]

1.France isn't as big as the USSR. Nor poland or belgium.
What is the size of French economy and Soviet economy at that time? I can guess the French were bigger. Including the population of the colonies, the French population was bigger than USSR. I hope you have the capability to understand that not size, but power matters.You're answer is the economy was bigger?:laugh::laugh::laugh: France doesn't include the colony's even if it did, I highly doubt it unless you are using bourgeois numbers to make it seem like the toll was greater. No power doesn't matter, if the French economy was "bigger" than the USSR's how come it couldn't hold off the Germans? The Soviets couldn't hold them off either, but they had more room.


2. They don't have as large an army as the USSR nor anywhere near the same number of reserves.
Better way the citizens of USSR was much more committed to defend their homeland then French.French resistance lol. Soviet propaganda Lol. Most Soviet citizens were ordered to work. Others couldn't EVEN LEAVE their city. During D-Day the french resistance sabotaged the germans and even fought along side the Americans and Brits.

3. If you don't remember Stalin also invaded Poland so Poland was under attack from two large army's.
What Stalin grabbed back is the snatched part of USSR by Poland by the Brest-Litovosk treaty. Before that, Stalin repeatedly tried to make an united front against Nazi Germany, but no rulers including the Pol rulers responded to that appeal.You completely missed my point. Poland was under attack from TWO SIDES. Both Larger than Poland ALONE.

4. If you remember the German Army nearly made it to moscow even with the Oh so helpful purges of the Red army.:rolleyes: The only thing that stopped them was the winter and the thaw when all the snow melted and created mud.
That callous argument again! No answer to what kind purges destroyed the French and other European army. And what an irony, as if snow only falls in Russia and mud there is enough to stop the German army. But, at the same time, no answer to why German army retreated continuously after that.There was a large snow that year. So there was a large thaw. And large amounts of mud. Most of the german vehicles were commandeered horses or trucks or thin tracked armour.(Mus cases tracks to fall off btw)

5. Hitler diverted forces from attacking Moscow to the Ukrainian Oil fields.
6. His lines were spread far too thin.
7. His supply line was overstretched.
8. None of this was problem in Western europe because all those countrys were on the border of Germany.
REALLY? But for a long time, that problem doesn't stop it from reaching NEARLY MOSCOW. The German army also have been able to push British army back in North Africa upto Egypt.War economys can only be sustained but only so much. Most german industries were from other countries. They rationed almost everything. Then fuel shortages hit the army and Hitler needed fuel. SO he went for the Ukrainian oil fields. By that time Germany got to the oil fields most were sabotaged by the russians so the germans couldn't get them and the oil supplys were desperately slow.

9. Germany's forces were spread on 3 continents basically. Europe, Asia, and Africa. So his forces weren't even consolidated.
So what, British and US troops too were also spread. Moreover, Hitler have Italian troops as allay in North Africa.Not to the same amount. Hitler had entire army's in different continents. Most of the british forces in other places were already there or weren't even that large. Even the Aussie's and South Africans sent troops to North Africa. That should tell you the british army wasn't that large. Most USARMY divisions were in Europe and most Marine Divisions were in the pacific because they used naval vessels to get places. Also the United States wasn't in a war economy for years
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/ger/home/eco/ghf-eco.html

10. Had he invaded on the original date he could have had a good month or two before the snow. Also he didn't supply his troops with the proper clothing for fighting in the winter.
Can you give some good source, proper military analysis of your snow argument?LMAO. It's known that the snow hit early even for the USSR. Again watch a documentary.

[Omsk]

During D-Day the french resistance sabotaged the germans and even fought along side the Americans and Brits.
The French resistance was hardly comparable to the Soviet or Yugoslav partisans.

The Yugoslav partisans actually defeated the fascists themselves and liberated Yugoslavia without much help. (the Soviets wanted to help,naturally,but Tito had other plans)
Read this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Front

French resistance was hardly comparable to the communists partisans of the time.

Please inform yourself before further posting.

[psgchisolm]

The French resistance was hardly comparable to the Soviet or Yugoslav partisans.

The Yugoslav partisans actually defeated the fascists themselves and liberated Yugoslavia without much help. (the Soviets wanted to help,naturally,but Tito had other plans)
Read this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Front

French resistance was hardly comparable to the communists partisans of the time.

Please inform yourself before further posting.You make one post about one statement and call me uninformed. BTW all you actually did was post link to Yugoslav partisans. Not that I doubt the soviets had any, I fully know that and I will admit that I forgot. But calling me on one statement and not trying to answer anymore and I'm uninformed.:laugh::laugh:

[Crux]

Perhaps if Koba had been purged rather than just removed from leadership when Lenin returned from exile thing's would have been better. but then again, some one else might have just as well filled his role.

[Kléber]

Any source please? Proper source of course. Not something like wikipedia.
By "proper source" do you mean CCOMPOSA-affiliated and/or Grover Furr?

Any history book will tell you that the USSR invaded Poland on September 17 1939, two weeks after Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3 1939.

[psgchisolm]

By "proper source" do you mean CCOMPOSA-affiliated and/or Grover Furr?

Any history book will tell you that the USSR invaded Poland on September 17 1939, two weeks after Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3 1939.Those are bourgeois history books made by exploitered working class ploiterait they can't be trust3d!!1111!!!!1!!11ONE:rolleyes::laugh:

[Gorilla]

Cops entered the scene when the "opponents' started sabotazing and helping imperialist and other anti-soviet powers against USSR. Before that, everything was limited within party debates.

To believe that, I'd have to be convinced that a large number of party cadre were not merely bad communists or corrupt, but fanatical anti-Communist Nazis who undertook sabotage and terrorism at great personal risk to themselves with no hope of immediate reward. As a materialist I find that hard to believe especially when a good number of the purged were Jews and/or veterans of the collectivization campaign.

I'd also have to be convinced that the Trotsky sect and Third Reich intelligence succeeded at deep infiltration on a level utterly without precedent in the history of foreign intelligence operations. Given the known capabilities both organizations, especially of the Fourth International (lolz), I find that very hard to believe as well.

And I'd have to be convinced that Comrade Stalin was a pathetic loser and doofus who spent two decades absent-mindedly placing spies into high office all over the USSR without in the least suspecting anything amiss. I think far too highly of him to believe that.

And lastly, even if I were convinced of all this, I'd also have to believe that the panicked and haphazard methods employed in 1937-38 would have been effective at actually catching all these spies and saboteurs, to say nothing of not also rounding up innocents. I'm not buying it.


Perhaps if Koba had been purged rather than just removed from leadership when Lenin returned from exile thing's would have been better. but then again, some one else might have just as well filled his role.

I shudder to think of the blood spilled if Trotsky had been in charge during the war hysteria.

[Red Future]

REALLY? Then why the French, the Polish and the Belgian army fall like house of cards before the Nazi invasion. As far as I can remember, no purging occurred in those armies.

Didnt the Red Army bring denounced officers back out of the Gulags to use their military expertise to try and aid the Red army in the Second World War?...Many were assigned front line roles

[psgchisolm]

Didnt the Red Army bring denounced officers back out of the Gulags to use their military expertise to try and aid the Red army in the Second World War?...Many were assigned front line rolesMainly Penal Units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat


Pursuant to Order No. 227, the first penal battalions were originally planned at 800 men; penal companies were also authorized, consisting of between 150 and 200 men per company.[2] In addition to the battalions already serving with Armies, other battalions, subordinated to Fronts, were introduced. The first penal battalion deployed under the new policy was sent to the Stalingrad Front on August 22, 1942, shortly before German troops reached the Volga river. It consisted of 929 disgraced officers convicted under Order No. 227 who were demoted to the lowest enlisted rank and assigned to the penal battalion. After three days of assaults against the Germans, only 300 were alive.

[Kléber]

Mainly Penal Units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat
It wasn't just penal units, the two greatest Soviet commanders of WWII - Zhukov and Rokossovsky - had been disgraced after the Tukhachevsky affair for their advocacy of next-generation military theory (Rokossovsky had his nails pulled out by the NKVD).

[Kléber]

I shudder to think of the blood spilled if Trotsky had been in charge during the war hysteria.
There would have been less blood spilled had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact not allowed Hitler to ignore his Eastern borders for 2 years, concentrate his armed forces to annex the Low Countries and France, then consolidate the industry and resources of Continental Europe for a genocidal offensive against the Soviet Union.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's stuff like this that sometimes makes me really fucking ashamed.

How can anybody take serious the 'confessions' of people like Kamenev, Zinoviev? Of Bukharin and Tomsky?

Look at the case of Bukharin - interrogated for months, then the trial came and he denied everything, so he was sent away again, the later found interrogator's notes had 'beatings permitted' marked on them, and later on Bukharin confessed to pretty much everything.

In the end, it boils down to this: if you want to use Grover Furr as 'proof' that every Old Bolshevik bar Stalin was, from the start, a 'Trotskyite imperialist Capitalist German wrecking spy-saboteur', then go ahead. But the rest of us, with our head's out of the sand, cane see how ludicrous a point that is, and 99.9% of people can see, even if you take away the negative Capitalist spin of 'STALIN ATE BABIES AND KILLED 20 MILLION PEOPLE', that the Stalinist position on the purges is ridiculous.

[pranabjyoti]

How can anybody take serious the 'confessions' of people like Kamenev, Zinoviev? Of Bukharin and Tomsky?

Look at the case of Bukharin - interrogated for months, then the trial came and he denied everything, so he was sent away again, the later found interrogator's notes had 'beatings permitted' marked on them, and later on Bukharin confessed to pretty much everything.
What is the source of the above claim? And just tell me how the witnesses be so dumb that such drastic change of statements can not be caught by them and while the world media is just eagerly waiting for such "dramatic moments".
So far, I have found two theories in this regard. First, the confessing has been "extracted" by blackmailing i.e. by giving threat of killing their family. Second. "the El_Granma theory" stated above. Which one is true? Or both?
And I am also trying to imagine that what kind of "communists" those people are, who broke before "beating" and "blackmail"? While there was example of Dimitrov, who snatched his freedom in the court of Nazi's and in much more unfavorable conditions than the Moscow trial.