Stalin's ineptness viz. Operation Barbarossa

[ComradeMan]

It always amazes me how some people idealise Stalin and throw out the old line of his saving the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War etc when in actual fact it seems that this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Leaving aside disastrous agricultural policies, five year plans that didn't achieve their aims, purges, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which allowed vast amounts of vital raw materials into Nazi Germany and therefore allowed Hitler to circumvent the problem of the British blockade and further fuel his war machine... a look at the military and intelligence side of things is surprising!

Stalin's ineptness:-

Churchill warned Stalin of the approaching Operation Barbarossa (Invasion of the USSR/Russia)- Stalin thought this was a British conspiracy, despite the fact that British Intelligence were unconvinced of the possibility of a Nazi attack. Somehow the German Abwehr latched onto this and used it to its advantage. Stalin did not even call up a reserve army or make any preparations.

As reports of German troop movements to the east came in in June 1941 and the Germany ambassador Friedrich-Werner Graf von Von der Schulenberg made comments to the Soviet ambassador Vladimir Dekanozov to the effect that an invasion was inevitable, Stalin apparently told the Politburo that disinformation was now at "ambassadorial level"- only to receive an intelligence file that the German Embassy was evacuating in early June. The NKVD would also call for Dekanazov to be recalled and punished.

It seems Stalin's obsession with a non-existent British conspiracy blinded him to the realities of the ensuing conflict with Nazi Germany and played right into the hands of the German Abwehr's disinformation. The head of NKVD, Lavrentiy Beria, in order to protect himself probably, denounced the reports of the mounting invasion programme and ordered the gulag for NKVD officers who persisted.

So whilst pumping oil reserves into the Axis and refusing to see that an attack was imminent the Nazi invasion of June 22nd 1941 took Stalin and the USSR by surprise- Stalin had stated that Germany would not invade Russia in 1941.

Of course the earlier Winter War had humiliated the Red Army, the League of Nations and encouraged the Nazi military machine too.

The initial ineptness of the Soviet Army was also due to the fact that Stalin had successfully purged the officer class of the Red Army leaving it in the control of inadequate commanders.

Strangely, the stalinophiles often seem to neglect one Russian officer who escaped the purges, after being involved in Mongolia, i.e. Georgy Zhukov and it was Zhukov's generalship, hard and brutal as it was, but militarily a success that saved the USSR in the end- in spite of Stalin.

[Nuvem]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png/783px-Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png

Ansatz Barbarossa, June 1941-December 1941. The initial German shock campaign which took the USSR initially by surprise. Devastating to agricultural and industrial centers in the USSR. Several million Soviet citizens killed in just these few months. Operation Typhoon is halted and the Wehrmacht fails to seize Moscow in the Autumn as it had planned; the invasion is already doomed to failure.





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png

December 1941 to May 1942, the Soviet counter-offensive. Some small gains made in central and southern Russia, but Leningrad is placed under siege by the Wehrmacht. Overall the counter-offensive is not satisfactorily successful due to losses in the previous year and large portions of the Red Army still tied up in east Asia. Industry has been re-located eastward, the battle of machines begins as the USSR begins large-scale construction of a mechanized army.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png

May-November 1942. With Russia thawed and spring returned, the Wehrmacht is able to resume its offensive. Gains are made in central and southern Russia, with the stalemate in Leningrad still fruitless and Moscow still out of reach. The catastrophic
battle for Stalingrad begins.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png

December 1942-March 1943. The winter once again allows the infantry-heavy Red
Army to outmaneuver and defeat the German Wehrmacht. The battle for Stalingrad results in catastrophic failure for the Wehrmacht as it is encircled in December and completely liberated by February, at which time the Red Army pushes west. Moscow is further away than ever, the southern Wehrmacht divisions are shattered in retreat and Leningrad will not budge. Even to the most die-hard German nationalist, it is becoming inescapably clear that the invasion has failed.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Eastern_Front_1943-02_to_1943-08.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1943-02_to_1943-08.png

February-August 1943, Wehrmacht-centric view. The spring and summer offensives in 1943 have been a complete disappointment with only small gains made in southern and central Russia, a far cry from the dizzying success of '41 and '42. Many German advisers cry for the troops to be pulled back and an armistice called before the winter, with all but the most rabid having lost faith in the offensive.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png

August 1943-December 1944. The next year is one continuous Wehrmacht retreat. The siege of Leningrad falls, the Red Army gathers up its forces from east Asia and with millions of fresh recruits and with rejuvenated mechanized and armored divisions devastates the German offensive one last time, sending it into a final retreat. Over the course of one year the Axis is smashed in Eastern Europe. Preparations are made for the final push to Berlin.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png

January-May 1945. The final push into Austria, Czechoslovakia, western Poland and Germany is made. Fighting is fierce, but the Soviet advance is continual and generally unbroken. The Reich is destroyed and most of the Nazi low level and high level command captured and eventually executed. Pockets of pro-Nazi resistance are quickly eliminated. The war is concluded in Europe. The Red Army charges headlong into China and northern Korea that same year and deals the deathblow to Japan's continental Asian campaign. Late that year, the war ends.


I felt it was necessary to give the full chronological view of how the war played out. Now, I'd like to address your questions and topic directly, point by point. I will not discuss the agricultural reforms because I don't know enough about them to formulate a respectable argument in their regard. I can say with certainty that no intentional starvation was perpetrated, but beyond that I will not touch before I've done the proper research from source material.

In regards to the Five Year Plans, I don't see how they failed to reach their aims. In very few sectors was the target level of production reached, but this was planned for from the very start. When setting goals in centralized planning, it's typical to place the goal just out of reach, just higher than would be likely possible. This is done to place a sense of urgency on the producers, but not so much as to make the final goal entirely impossible. Additionally and also very important is that the First Five Year Plan was concluded in 4 years, meaning that most production goals would have been met if the course was held, but planners felt it was prudent to move on to new sections of development in the Second Five Year Plan.

The report on the First Five Year Plan: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm

Big ass chart:
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/284312_169982613074733_100001889866631_382741_1171 523_n.jpg

Keeping in mind that 1913 is the pre-WWI level (Czarist, feudal relations in place), 1922 is essentially the end of the Russian Civil War, 1928 is the initiation of the First Five Year Plan, 1932 its end, 1937 the end of the Second Plan, and 1940 the premature end of the Third.

The First Five Year Plan can only be considered to be a massive triumph in industrialization. Industrial output doubled in many sectors and in several increased by considerably more. While living was difficult for many people and there were severe consumer goods shortages, this was mostly resolved by the Second Five Year Plan, as were any food troubles. Within these ten years industrial output grew by over 600%, more than any other nation in history, with the highest of any bourgeois economy being 180% in the USA between 1880-1890.

The Third Five Year Plan was proving successful until 1941 when the Soviet economy was devastated by the war. However, the Fourth and Fifth plans initiated while Stalin still lived were also wildly successful. By 1947 food rationing left over from the war was ended and by 1952 the 1941 production levels had very nearly doubled. What needs to be understood when analyzing the Five Year Plans is that while they typically didn't meet the on-paper goals, they were concluded satisfactorily and, additionally, the growth seen during them was astronomical from an economic perspective- most uncontrolled economies grow at a rate of 2-5% yearly; on a bad year during the Plans, the Soviet economy grew by 13-15%. To overlook the statistical increases in production because they didn't meet the on-paper numbers is idealistic and frankly quite silly. In the span of 24 years a nation which was behind the curve of the big capitalist powers by a solid half a century leaped forward and became one of the two predominant superpowers in the world, with most of this development done independently- and this was in spite of a population loss bordering on 30,000,000 citizens. It seems that many critics of the Soviet plans under Stalin, especially Fourth International "economists" like Raya Dunayevskaya, judge the worthiness of the Plans on their on-paper gains rather than the concrete statistical increases in production and gradual improvement of living conditions. Dunayevskaya provides a particularly nasty and outrageous analysis of the Soviet plans, with the aforementioned affection for on-paper goals being the cornerstone of her analysis of the pre-WWII plans. Her critique of the post World War plans are particularly disgusting, as she criticizes the "Stalinist clique" because the Fourth Plan, which was just initiated as she wrote her critique, only aimed to restore industry and agriculture to its pre-War levels, which she considered to be unacceptable despite the fact that the Soviet Union had just endured the most destructive front of the most destructive war in history and lost something to the tune of 30,000,000 citizens, not to even speak of damage to agriculture and industry. Yet, the Fourth Five Year Plan's goals to rejuvenate the destroyed economy were considered to be a "retreat" and a "refutation of Stalinist planning". This is so clearly absurd that the claim needn't even be explored; suffice to say that being invaded by the most militarized and industrialized nation in the world is not a failure of economic planning.

I am in agreement that the purges, especially the officers' purge, were particularly untimely and in many respects unacceptable. It was an improper application of revolutionary terror and was too dominated by personal grudges of NKVD officials and many people were put to death needlessly. This is probably my greatest criticism of Stalin and his time as General Secretary; there is no excuse to be made for this, so I won't try to make one. It was simply unacceptable.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was appropriate and necessary. The move was made strategically and was actually a strong move against the Third Reich. The USSR did not, at that time, have the industrial and military capacity to challenge the Reich. Had the Reich invaded earlier, it may have succeeded; however, the Pact partitioned Poland in half, a regrettable byproduct of the agreement insofar as it clearly infringed on the Polish people's right to self-determination- but it kept east Poland out of the hands of the Germans, who would undoubtedly have invaded had the Pact not been signed, which would have placed all of Poland under Nazi jurisdiction and would have left even less of a "buffer" between German-controlled territory and Moscow. If the Wehrmacht could have launched its invasion from east Poland, it may have taken Moscow. To have taken Trotsky's advice and to have invaded Germany when the NSDAP seized power would have resulted in the calamitous defeat of the USSR and could quite possibly have secured the Axis' victory in the long term, resulting in a far more appalling loss of human life than what occurred in real history. Molotov-Ribbentrop was all the USSR could do at the moment to slow the German advance and minimize hostilities for the time being.

It's easy to condemn Stalin for disregarding Churchill's warning of impending German invasion now, because we know that he was being truthful. However, at the time, it's perfectly understandable why Soviet officials would be very wary of such a claim. It's understandable why they would suspect that the claim was a ploy being used by the UK in hopes of eliminating two opponents in one swoop by goading the USSR into a pre-emptive strike against the Reich and leaving both weakened in the process, taking out the fascists and Communists at the same time; it sounds like a liberal bourgeois' wet dream to me! The steps taken to minimize war hysteria among the NKVD and other government officials were quite harsh, perhaps too much so, but I can understand why they were taken. Stalin knew that invasion was imminent, but he expected the invasion in '42 or '43, not in '41. Why? Perhaps he had a better grip on the strategic situation than Nazi officials, who may have found themselves more successful had they attacked several years earlier or waited until the UK was defeated and the Italian position was solidified before making their move, but who instead elected to move forward with an ill-fated shock campaign in '41 that was functionally doomed by December of that year.

I would argue that while the officers' purge certainly did leave the Red Army bereft of good officers, this didn't entirely account for the "initial ineptness" of the Red Army, and more realistically it was predominantly an issue of being under-supplied, relatively unprepared and without the level of mechanization required to combat the German Wehrmacht, which was heavily mechanized, well-supplied (For the spring and summer) and experienced, with many of its eastern front troops having already experienced Blitzkrieg tactics in Poland.

Zhukov was indeed an excellent general and the Soviet victory would not have been what it was without him; I don't think even the most die-hard "Stalinist" would disagree. In fact, I haven't seen a single "Stalinist" who claims that the Soviet victory came as a result only of Stalin's stunning tactical genius, which he didn't truly possess. War is a collaborative process, and no reasonable person would attribute the success to just one person, but rather a large collection of a great many persons whose contributions added to the overall achievement of victory. In fact, I attribute the victory of the Soviet people more to the Soviet people than any one person. Such demagoguery is quite unnecessary, seeing as how the war could not have been conducted successfully without the bold sacrifice of some 10-11,000,000 Red Army personnel, as well as their surviving counterparts who lived to hold high the banner of victory over the fascist enemy; and of course the civilians who fought valiantly in the rear against the siege of Leningrad and provided the Red Army men and women with the supplies needed to conduct the defense and counter-offensive, some 20,000,000 of whom were murdered by the Nazi invasion forces. Stalin was brave for remaining at the Kremlin when the Germans had advanced some 60 miles from Moscow and Zhukov's strategic brilliance was undeniable, but the real heroes were the 17 year old young man who took up a submachine gun and charged forward with his comrades against the German line in defense of the freedom and independence of his people, or the 18 year old woman who enlisted as a sniper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko)and watched hundreds of men die through the scope of her rifle and still found a way to carry on. The people of Stalingrad who watched their families die and their city crumble around them under artillery fire and bombing who somehow found the courage to continue the struggle and ultimately defeat the enemy, and those who were left with the task of rebuilding the cities when the war was over and the dust had settled- those were the real heroes, not Stalin or Zhukov.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

^agreed. stalin didn't win the war by himself
Great Article

[Nox]

five year plans that didn't achieve their aims

Many of the targets for things such as coal, oil, steel etc were achieved and in some cases exceeded. The Soviet Union had huge economic and industrial growth during that period.


purges

Stalin can't be held fully responsible for all of those deaths, but yes he did make a mistake there, nobody's perfect, he did go a little over the top. One HUGE mistake he made there was 'purging' many of the experienced military officers, which would greatly help the Nazis in their attack on the Soviet Union.


the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which allowed vast amounts of vital raw materials into Nazi Germany

On the other hand, it have Stalin a little more time to push the industry such as tank production and munitions into overdrive, and seeing as the Soviet Union had, by far, the largest contribution to WW2 (around 80% of Nazis killed were killed by the Soviet Union) it had very little impact on the outcome of the war, if anything it made the USSR's victory easier.



Churchill warned Stalin of the approaching Operation Barbarossa (Invasion of the USSR/Russia)- Stalin thought this was a British conspiracy, despite the fact that British Intelligence were unconvinced of the possibility of a Nazi attack. Somehow the German Abwehr latched onto this and used it to its advantage. Stalin did not even call up a reserve army or make any preparations.

Fair point I guess, he should have made preparations 'just incase', but you can't act totally on rumours without solid proof




It seems Stalin's obsession with a non-existent British conspiracy

Never trust a capitalist. ;)

[Nox]

I think I quoted the one about the Molotiv-Ribbentrop pact wrong; I was supposed to quote the part about it giving the Nazis strength against the British

[Nuvem]

My original post now corrected, big ass statistical chart is now readable.

[Nox]

Thanks Nuvem for that

Some of the stuff there is insane, 400% increase in electricity kw/h in 5 years, he exploded the industry (not literally :lol:)

[Nox]

Also, for those of you who want to criticise collectivisation, look at the grain harvest nearly double in FIVE YEARS

[ComradeMan]

I would be careful with those stats- there was also an element of giving Stalin the stats he wanted or facing the gulag.... ;)

Now, I am not completely dismissing Stalin's role in the USSR as that would be silly- but in terms of military strategy he seems to have been inept and left the USSR wide open to Nazi attack and de facto allowed the Nazis to have such crushing victories at the onset.

Don't forget too that the Nazis also had their own militarily inept leader, i.e. Hitler, who refused to allow the Germany army to retreat and dig in for the winter, ordered the incomprehensible change of direction and march towards Kiev and who refused to listen to Von Paulus- as well as having "purged" his own officer class after the failed plots against him.

It amazes me--- one would have thought that the lessons Napoleon had learnt would have been remembered.

[Nuvem]

I would be careful with those stats- there was also an element of giving Stalin the stats he wanted or facing the gulag....

I got these stats from the Fourth Internationalists. Definitely not manufactured to please Stalin.

In any case, there isn't much in all reality that Stalin could have done to prevent the invasion and its disastrous results at the onset. As I said above, they didn't have the industrial output capacity or level of military mechanization at that time to repel the invasion right off. When two major countries clash in the manner that those two did, the results are bound to be explosive. Measures could have been taken to make the invasion less explosive at the beginning, but it's easy to make that judgment from hindsight. I have no doubt that those involved took every measure that they could augur was necessary at that time to prepare for and then mitigate the damage. As far as the idea of "Stalinists" glorifying Stalin and attributing the victory to him alone, however, I take this as nothing more than a myth or generalization of a few unfounded opinions. I've yet to meet one to make that claim.

[ComradeMan]

IAs far as the idea of "Stalinists" glorifying Stalin and attributing the victory to him alone, however, I take this as nothing more than a myth or generalization of a few unfounded opinions. I've yet to meet one to make that claim.

Hmm... I am not sure about that.

Nevertheless it amazes me that people forget Zhukov- the general who marched his infantry over minefields so as to save his artillery (as I was told). Whatever, it was Zhukov who was behind the Soviet victory in my opinion and not Stalin.

[Nuvem]

Zhukov isn't deserving of that sort of recognition either, as I said in my first post.

[ComradeMan]

Zhukov isn't deserving of that sort of recognition either, as I said in my first post.

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov

The most decorated general in Russian history- the general who never lost a battle, known to his own soldiers as "spasitél" (the saviour), conqueror of Berlin.... only to be demoted by a jealous Stalin after the war.

:confused:

Stalin was a politician, he wasn't a general.

[Teacher]

It has been a really long time since I researched this but I remember David Glantz having the best information on the USSR in World War II and he demolishes a lot of the anti-Soviet myths.

[ComradeMan]

It has been a really long time since I researched this but I remember David Glantz having the best information on the USSR in World War II and he demolishes a lot of the anti-Soviet myths.

Such as?

Does it also mention his vulgar anti-semitism?

[Nuvem]

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov

The most decorated general in Russian history- the general who never lost a battle, known to his own soldiers as "spasitél" (the saviour), conqueror of Berlin.... only to be demoted by a jealous Stalin after the war.

:confused:

Stalin was a politician, he wasn't a general.

He was commander-in-chief, but you're the only one talking about Stalin here. Did you read my original post? Zhukov was a brilliant tactician who should be recognized, but the foremost recognition belongs to the masses of Soviet people and not to an individual.

[ComradeMan]

He was commander-in-chief, but you're the only one talking about Stalin here. Did you read my original post? Zhukov was a brilliant tactician who should be recognized, but the foremost recognition belongs to the masses of Soviet people and not to an individual.

Stirring words but that's not how military history plays out. A good army but with bad command will always fail whereas a bad army with excellent command may succeed.

[Nuvem]

And the opposite is equally true- a good commander with an unwilling army or an un-supportive working class in the rear will never succeed. Zhukov could be the greatest military mind in history and it wouldn't mean a good god damn if the Soviet government didn't have popular support and the Red Army didn't willingly take his commands. I'm not trying to underplay the significance of Zhukov's tactical genius, but rather view it in a correct historical understanding. No individual can achieve any tactical or economic victory without the support of the broad mass of the people, and they deserve the foremost recognition. Zhukov was brilliant in directing the masses in war, but it was the millions of soldiers who fought bravely and actually won the victory. He could send communiques out from his office all day every day and no war would be won without the confidence and cooperation of the people. That's why I say it's equally wrong to attribute the victory entirely to Zhukov rather than Stalin.

[Imposter Marxist]

Stirring words but that's not how military history plays out. A good army but with bad command will always fail whereas a bad army with excellent command may succeed.

Really? You're invoking the "great man" theory?

[Joseph S.]

It seems Stalin's obsession with a non-existent British conspiracy blinded him to the realities of the ensuing conflict with Nazi Germany and played right into the hands of the German Abwehr's disinformation. The head of NKVD, Lavrentiy Beria, in order to protect himself probably, denounced the reports of the mounting invasion programme and ordered the gulag for NKVD officers who persisted.

in spite of Stalin.
This conspiracy actually existed ( plz dont get this the wrong way please i got nothing against semite's and people who practice the jewisch religion)
But Churchill was an out spoken anty Bolshevist who try'd to do any thing to oppress the people 's republic of Russia, even side with the zionist's just because of the strong anty Bolshevist sentiment within that movement.
I hope i dont have to lecture you guy's about the early years of the Bolshevist revolution and you know what i'm talking about.
IF NOT PLZ STUDY THE SUBJECT BEFORE CRITICIZING ME.
The SUNDAY HERALD article of February 8, 1920 and Winston Churchill him self are good point's to start.

So one might argue that Stalin had every reason to mistrust the Brits.
mzzltv

[ComradeMan]

...

Good commanders forge their armies, no army can succeed without a good commander. The Soviet Army was at best shambolic in the early phases and that's not to mention the humiliation of the conflict in Finland.

[Nuvem]

This conspiracy actually existed ( plz dont get this the wrong way please i got nothing against semite's and people who practice the jewisch religion)
But Churchill was an out spoken anty Bolshevist who try'd to do any thing to oppress the people 's republic of Russia, even side with the zionist's just because of the strong anty Bolshevist sentiment within that movement.
I hope i dont have to lecture you guy's about the early years of the Bolshevist revolution and you know what i'm talking about.
IF NOT PLZ STUDY THE SUBJECT BEFORE CRITICIZING ME.
The SUNDAY HERALD article of February 8, 1920 and Winston Churchill him self are good point's to start.

So one might argue that Stalin had every reason to mistrust the Brits.
mzzltv
^I'm sorry comrade, but...what are you talking about?


Good commanders forge their armies, no army can succeed without a good commander. The Soviet Army was at best shambolic in the early phases and that's not to mention the humiliation of the conflict in Finland.

This does nothing to contradict my post. I've repeatedly agreed that Zhukov was instrumental in the Soviet victory. The Finnish Winter War is an unrelated incident and I could write an entire new article about that if so inclined, but it's not important in terms of the discussion. I'm merely claiming that Zhukov shouldn't be held on a platform above the millions of Soviet people who laid down their lives and gave up the best years of their lives fighting on the front lines or in the rear. Stalin doesn't merit that recognition either. The greatest recognition belongs to the people.

[ComradeMan]

This conspiracy actually existed ( plz dont get this the wrong way please i got nothing against semite's and people who practice the jewisch religion)

It's rather difficult to understand what your point is in this post? :confused:

There was no British conspiracy as the declassified NKVD/KGB sources confirm.

[Joseph S.]

He was commander-in-chief, but you're the only one talking about Stalin here. Did you read my original post? Zhukov was a brilliant tactician who should be recognized, but the foremost recognition belongs to the masses of Soviet people and not to an individual.
Amen., Still we defeated the nazi's under his leadership and I wil alway's be thankfull to him for that.

[ComradeMan]

^I'm sorry comrade, but...what are you talking about?

The Winter War, the massive German victories in the initial stages of Barbarossa... etc etc....

"Summary of the first phase

By the end of the first week, all three German Army Groups had achieved major campaign objectives. However, in the vast pocket around Minsk and Białystok, the Soviets were still fighting; reducing the pocket was causing high German casualties and many Red Army troops were escaping. The usual estimated casualties of the Red Army amount to 600,000 killed, missing, captured or wounded."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Phase_1:_The_Frontier_Battles _.2822_June_1941.E2.80.933_July_1941.29

[Drosophila]

Yes, Hitler killed millions of people, but nobody's perfect.

[Kiev Communard]

Stalin's ineptness:-

Churchill warned Stalin of the approaching Operation Barbarossa (Invasion of the USSR/Russia)- Stalin thought this was a British conspiracy, despite the fact that British Intelligence were unconvinced of the possibility of a Nazi attack. Somehow the German Abwehr latched onto this and used it to its advantage. Stalin did not even call up a reserve army or make any preparations.

In all fairness (as even such people as Stalin should be treated fairly) that was not Stalin's fault, as the British government provided that information to Soviet ambassador on 21 June, i.e. a day before the invasion (because Hitler's exact signal about the precise date of the invasion was wiretapped only on that day). One could not have called up the reserve army in such an amount of time, and Stalin, after all, at least ordered some preparations for border troops to take on this same day.

[Nuvem]

The Winter War, the massive German victories in the initial stages of Barbarossa... etc etc....

"Summary of the first phase

By the end of the first week, all three German Army Groups had achieved major campaign objectives. However, in the vast pocket around Minsk and Białystok, the Soviets were still fighting; reducing the pocket was causing high German casualties and many Red Army troops were escaping. The usual estimated casualties of the Red Army amount to 600,000 killed, missing, captured or wounded."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Phase_1:_The_Frontier_Battles _.2822_June_1941.E2.80.933_July_1941.29



Read it again, Fryman.

http://fc02.deviantart.net/images2/i/2004/03/d/1/wwwyzzerdd.png

[Imposter Marxist]

Read it again, Fryman.

http://fc02.deviantart.net/images2/i/2004/03/d/1/wwwyzzerdd.png

This is the greatest post i've ever seen.

[ComradeMan]

Really? You're invoking the "great man" theory?

It's not really invoking any great man theory to say that an army without good command will fail. The Wehrmacht was probably the best army at the time, at the forefront of military technology but it succumbed to bad leadership and command- largely due to Hitler's refusing to listen to his commanders and subsequently taking over command himself.

[Joseph S.]

It's rather difficult to understand what your point is in this post? :confused:

There was no British conspiracy as the declassified NKVD/KGB sources confirm.
Even if this is comfirmd bij these sources.
Im just pointing out stalin had evry reason not to trust the brits.
Because the intention of them was to let the nazi's reape havoc death and destruction in Russia in order to eliminate the people's republic.
Stalin was fully awaere of this,that's why he had every reason not to trust the Brit's and the French.

Problem form the capitalists was Hitler didn't doe every thing they wanted him to do.
The invasion of Czechoslovak and France wasn't really the plan.
That's the reason why they needet that east front so desperately.
Think about it doe's this all sound so strange?

[ComradeMan]

Even if this is comfirmd bij these sources.
Im just pointing out stalin had evry reason not to trust the brits.
Because the intention of them was to let the nazi's reape havoc death and destruction in Russia in order to eliminate the people's republic.
Stalin was fully awaere of this,that's why he had every reason not to trust the Brit's and the French.

Source? Sounds like you are buying into what Stalin and perhaps Beria thought.


Problem form the capitalists was Hitler didn't doe every thing they wanted him to do.

Hitler was anti-capitalist along with his party.

Hitler (1940): “It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist, but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism…there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism
Hermann Rauschning. The Voice of Destruction: Conversations with Hitler 1940. G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1940. Pp. 131.

[Imposter Marxist]

It's not really invoking any great man theory to say that an army without good command will fail. The Wehrmacht was probably the best army at the time, at the forefront of military technology but it succumbed to bad leadership and command- largely due to Hitler's refusing to listen to his commanders and subsequently taking over command himself.

Really? Thats not what my home invasion cam caught you saying only a few posts back. I'm pretty sure you claimed Zhukov 'won the war' for the USSR, and then turned around and said that "Stalinists" are dumb for giving all the glory to Stalin. You're doing the same thing Stalinists supposedly do, but [/URL]with Zhukov.

[URL="http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/7157643811/1/tumblr_lnposzo76Q1qh5s54"]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnposzo76Q1qh5s54o1_500.jpg (http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/7157643811/1/tumblr_lnposzo76Q1qh5s54)

[ComradeMan]

Really? Thats not what my home invasion cam caught you saying only a few posts back. I'm pretty sure you claimed Zhukov 'won the war' for the USSR, and then turned around and said that "Stalinists" are dumb for giving all the glory to Stalin. You're doing the same thing Stalinists supposivly do, but with Zhukov.

Stop spamming the bandwidth with 4chan-esque stuff. ;)

You see the fundamental difference is that whereas Stalin left the USSR wide open for invasion and basically collaborated with the Nazi war machine at the beginning of the war- happily dividing up Poland with them etc etc, Zhukov actually commanded the army that won. Think about the difference. ;)

It's well seen by Stalin's later treatment of Zhukov and also Zhukov's return to favour under Kruschev that Stalin was envious of him and in his paranoia probably considered him to be a threat to the persona of the glorious leader Stalin perceived himself to be.

[Nuvem]

You didn't even read my original post, did you? I addressed all of this and you've yet to make a coherent response.

[ComradeMan]

You didn't even read my original post, did you? I addressed all of this and you've yet to make a coherent response.

I can't respond to three people at the same time, however your original post was rather banal to be honest and did not challenge the assertion that an army cannot succeed without good commanders and leadership- which Zhukov provided.

[Nuvem]

That wasn't the original topic. I covered pretty much every point you brought up in your OP in an entire article/essay and you've done nothing but give 1-3 sentence responses that don't address the content, and have no content of their own.

Be back later, going to the bank. By the time I get back this thread will probably have progressed/degenerated to the point that I can no longer insert my argument into the discussion, but we'll see how it develops.

[ComradeMan]

That wasn't the original topic. I covered pretty much every point you brought up in your OP in an entire article/essay and you've done nothing but give 1-3 sentence responses that don't address the content, and have no content of their own.

Be back later, going to the bank. By the time I get back this thread will probably have progressed/degenerated to the point that I can no longer insert my argument into the discussion, but we'll see how it develops.

Because apart from regurgitating what you found on a marxist website citing sources from Moscow, 1933- yeah for objectivity!- and also what most people know you actually conveniently circumvent such issues as Stalin's treatment of his own intelligence reports and officers and the warning from his own ambassador. The OP actually focused on the military aspects of Operation Barbarossa and its preliminaries- leaving aside other matters such as the purges.:rolleyes:



Luftwaffe flies reconnaissance missions over the Soviet territory and Stalin accepts the excuse that they had got lost.
Rejects intelligence from Richard Sorge in Tokyo, Soviet spy.
Military deserters/defectors from Nazi Germany who fled to Soviet territory were executed.
As Operation Barbarossa was under way Stalin still insisted that obviously some German high command had tricked Hitler.
Stalin's Western Front commander Dmitry Pavlov was blamed by Stalin himself and shot- accused of incompetence!
Soviet airman and veteran of the Spanish Civil War who had been favoured by Stalin, Ivan Proskurov, and had provided frank intelligence on the mounting German invasion was tortured and shot- five days after Operation Barbarossa had commenced!

Seeing as Stalin had basically put himself in charge of intelligence then he must bear the responsibility for the fiasco.

Kruschev later made a comment that even the birds on the street corners knew about the impending German invasion!

But keep on repeating "Comrade Stalin is not a traitor" if you will....

[Joseph S.]

Source? Sounds like you are buying into what Stalin and perhaps Beria thought.



Hitler was anti-capitalist along with his party.

Hitler (1940): “It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist, but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism…there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will."
Hermann Rauschning. The Voice of Destruction: Conversations with Hitler 1940. G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1940. Pp. 131.
This doesn't mean that the kapitalists know how much Hitler and his bonehead brauwn shirts hated us even more than the capitalists.
Need i remind you guy's what his brown buddies did to ower people on the street in germany.
Ever seen a communist in the sa, ss ore the nsdap??
I can name you some prince's end Big industrialls who were member's.
The post to what i respondent say'd Stalin was obsesed with a non existing conspiracy of the brit's.
Im just pointing out there was a kapitalist conspiracy in my opinion.
And Hitler was a pion who dident do the thing the Brits and French anticipated him to do.

[ComradeMan]

Im just pointing out there was a kapitalist conspiracy in my opinion.

Your opinion is not a source.

[Joseph S.]

Your opinion is not a source.
Just look at the historical fact's.
If you don't see the intentions of the capitalists, you might need to go to a optician because you wouldn't even see a elephant if it was standing on your toe's.

[ComradeMan]

Just look at the historical fact's.
If you don't see the intentions of the capitalists, you might need to go to a optician because you wouldn't even see a elephant if it was standing on your toe's.

Have you actually looked at any of the historical facts? The major one being that despite Stalin's delusions and despite all the evidence to the contrary and his own intelligence he was in the end attacked by the people he had been warned about, even by those intrinsically hostile towards him such as Churchill, and not the ones he suspected. To which his reaction was also to scapegoat people and have them shot and in the meantime up to 600,000 troops paid the price.

[Rafiq]

Hitler was anti-capitalist along with his party.



Only to gain support from the working masses. Hitler was far from Anti-Capitalist. Perhaps you should glance at the very reason Strausserism exists.

Hitler may have said things in favor of socialism, but that was only to draw communists in to the party, which were the most popular fellows in germany during the time.

[Rafiq]

Have you actually looked at any of the historical facts? The major one being that despite Stalin's delusions and despite all the evidence to the contrary and his own intelligence he was in the end attacked by the people he had been warned about, even by those intrinsically hostile towards him such as Churchill, and not the ones he suspected. To which his reaction was also to scapegoat people and have them shot and in the meantime up to 600,000 troops paid the price.

Blaming Stalin for everything is Idealist.

You can't say he was an asshole for no reason.

[Joseph S.]

Only to gain support from the working masses. Hitler was far from Anti-Capitalist. Perhaps you should glance at the very reason Strausserism exists.

Hitler may have said things in favor of socialism, but that was only to draw communists in to the party, which were the most popular fellows in germany during the time.
And we all know how Stausser ended in the night of the long knife's

[Joseph S.]

Have you actually looked at any of the historical facts? The major one being that despite Stalin's delusions and despite all the evidence to the contrary and his own intelligence he was in the end attacked by the people he had been warned about, even by those intrinsically hostile towards him such as Churchill, and not the ones he suspected. To which his reaction was also to scapegoat people and have them shot and in the meantime up to 600,000 troops paid the price.
You now are just evading the iseuw to prove you are rigth and i m wrong.
I was just saying that Stalin had good reasons not to trust the Englisch.
Despite what happened and if the Intel the brittisch provided was correct ore not.
:sneaky:

[ComradeMan]

Hitler was far from Anti-Capitalist. Perhaps you should glance at the very reason Strausserism exists.

Hitler may have said things in favor of socialism, but that was only to draw communists in to the party, which were the most popular fellows in germany during the time.


"The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_finance), the economic dominance of big business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_business), and Jewish influences within it.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-autogenerated20-53) Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism) rentier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier) class.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-54) He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-R.J._Overy_2004._p._403-55) He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism) nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-J._Overy_2004._p._399-56) On the issue of capitalist materialism, Hitler said "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will bow down before a higher god. Many things owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer."[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-57) Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day", referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews."[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-R.J._Overy_2004._p._399-58) In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course".[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-J._Overy_2004._p._399-56) Hitler was disgusted by the bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois) and in one conversation stated that business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-59) Hitler admired Napoleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon) as a rolemodel for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois attitudes.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-60)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Capitalism

[ComradeMan]

You now are just evading the iseuw to prove you are rigth and i m wrong.
I was just saying that Stalin had good reasons not to trust the Englisch.
Despite what happened and if the Intel the brittisch provided was correct ore not.
:sneaky:

Of course you are forgetting that Stalin, connected to his ruthless pursuit of "Trotskyite pseudo-fascist conspirators" had also purged a great deal of his own intelligence corps- both legals and illegals. It got to the point where it seems you denounced someone quickly for fear of being denounced yourself and there is one case in which one person was doing exactly this whilst being denounced by his secretary himself.

For fear of being denounced and branded an enemy of the people, aka someone Stalin didn't like, I suspect the intelligence sections basically gave up and gave Stalin the intelligence he wanted and would fit in with his paranoia.

[Comintern1919]

Blaming Stalin for everything is Idealist.

You can't say he was an asshole for no reason.

And saying Stalin was flawless, didn't killed anyone and made no mistakes isn't Idealistic?

And we don't say he's an asshole for no reason. We say it because we have reasons to say it. He did kill innocents, if not as much as said, he did killed many generals and such just because they might be not his opinion, he made pacts with Hitler (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and yes, he made the USSSR powerful, but it made the USSR less socialist. I think that are good reasons.

[Comintern1919]

Only to gain support from the working masses. Hitler was far from Anti-Capitalist. Perhaps you should glance at the very reason Strausserism exists.

Hitler may have said things in favor of socialism, but that was only to draw communists in to the party, which were the most popular fellows in germany during the time.

That's nonsense. One of the main points of National Socialism is Anti-Capitalism. It was all corrupt and in favor of the Aryan Race, of course, but nevertheless not capitalistic.

Hitler's Anti-Capitalism is much explained in his infamous book "Mein Kampf".

And he surely didn't wanted communist in his Party. He was from the very beginning clearly against communism, and didn't hide it. Again, all explained in his book, which was written and released before he became famous.

You should get to know the thing before criticising it or using it to prove a point.

[ComradeMan]

That's nonsense. One of the main points of National Socialism is Anti-Capitalism. It was all corrupt and in favor of the Aryan Race, of course, but nevertheless not capitalistic.

Hitler saw capitalism as part of his Jewish finance plots against the Aryan race or something and leaving aside his anti-semitic paranoia the idea of the state not being in total control was not viewed positively by the Nazis whatsoever.

[Joseph S.]

Of course you are forgetting that Stalin, connected to his ruthless pursuit of "Trotskyite pseudo-fascist conspirators" had also purged a great deal of his own intelligence corps- both legals and illegals. It got to the point where it seems you denounced someone quickly for fear of being denounced yourself and there is one case in which one person was doing exactly this whilst being denounced by his secretary himself.

For fear of being denounced and branded an enemy of the people, aka someone Stalin didn't like, I suspect the intelligence sections basically gave up and gave Stalin the intelligence he wanted and would fit in with his paranoia.
Dident Mao doe about the same?
Funny how you keep dragging things that got nothing to doe with the point i made what so ever into this discussion.
:o

[ComradeMan]

Dident Mao doe about the same?
Funny how you keep dragging things that got nothing to doe with the point i made what so ever into this discussion.
:o

You haven't really made a point though, have you?

So at the onset of a war the intelligence units of a country have been decimated in the name of a personal vendetta and political paranoia and you cannot see how that might affect the initial stages of the ensuing conflict?

:rolleyes:

[Joseph S.]

You haven't really made a point though, have you?

So at the onset of a war the intelligence units of a country have been decimated in the name of a personal vendetta and political paranoia and you cannot see how that might affect the initial stages of the ensuing conflict?

:rolleyes:
Yes i have Stalin had good reasons imho to not trust the Brits.
What part don't you understand????
Plz tel me.

Stop dragging point's into this discusion between us that arent relevant to the subject.
You behave like a capitalist agitator.

[ComradeMan]

Yes i have Stalin had good reasons imho to not trust the Brits.

"imho" is not a source and not a valid point with which to counter-argue.

You haven't really been able to present one historical fact, have you? The fact that Stalin's own fucking intelligence was telling him that there was no real conspiracy against him as such and that the real danger was from Hitler and yet he went completely in the opposite direction should really be clear enough.

What part don't you understand????
Plz tel me.


Stop dragging point's into this discusion between us that arent relevant to the subject.You behave like a capitalist agitator.

Points? The whole point of a discussion is that there are points- the fact that you resort to ad hominem and poisoning-the-well tactics just shows that you haven't got an argument, or at least you are unwilling to present it. Allow me the ad hominem of finding your accusation of being a capitalist agitator worthy of show trial by your namesake.:laugh:

[Comintern1919]

Hitler saw capitalism as part of his Jewish finance plots against the Aryan race or something and leaving aside his anti-semitic paranoia the idea of the state not being in total control was not viewed positively by the Nazis whatsoever.

Capitalism means that the government has no control over business. So I wonder how Hitler could have expropriat the jews if he was a capitalist and as such, couldn't control it?




Yes i have Stalin had good reasons imho to not trust the Brits.
What part don't you understand????
Plz tel me.

Stop dragging point's into this discusion between us that arent relevant to the subject.
You behave like a capitalist agitator.


Dident Mao doe about the same?
Funny how you keep dragging things that got nothing to doe with the point i made what so ever into this discussion.
:o

ComradeMan, those Stalinist with their stupid reasoning if they can't argue anymore begins to really annoy me... Why do they beginn to discuss with us in the first place if they are so stubborn about being right, they can't even see the most obvious points, and insult us?

[ComradeMan]

ComradeMan, those Stalinist with their stupid reasoning if they can't argue anymore begins to really annoy me... Why do they beginn to discuss with us in the first place if they are so stubborn about being right, they can't even see the most obvious points, and insult us?

People don't like having the myths about their heroes debunked. What I find irritating is that in the face of overwhelming evidence from a variety of sources including former NKVD/KGB material, Kruschev, people who were involved at the time and declassified intelligence reports etc-- people who would describe themselves as materialists and demand empirical evidence etc etc in other discussions suddenly just bury their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich. The funny thing is that I am not an "Anti-Soviet, the USSR was the most evil empire in humanity" person etc, the USSR had many successes and achievements too- but I would say in spite of Stalin rather than because of him.

The other thing that amazes me is how selective people can be. When it comes to the positive stuff then it is okay to give the glory to the likes of Mao and Stalin yet when it comes to the bad stuff all of a sudden they were not responsible or it's all evil capitalist lies. :rolleyes:

[Comintern1919]

People don't like having the myths about their heroes debunked. What I find irritating is that in the face of overwhelming evidence from a variety of sources including former NKVD/KGB material, Kruschev, people who were involved at the time and declassified intelligence reports etc-- people who would describe themselves as materialists and demand empirical evidence etc etc in other discussions suddenly just bury their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.


That's the point! Everything that says anything against Stalin is western propaganda. Of course all that say's good of him is always 100% correct...

That's so stupid. Why should "so-called-communist" propaganda be more thrustworthy than western propaganda? Because they call themselfes communists? You may not know it, but supriese, communists can also lie, they are also just humans!




The funny thing is that I am not an "Anti-Soviet, the USSR was the most evil empire in humanity" person etc, the USSR had many successes and achievements too- but I would say in spite of Stalin rather than because of him.

Well, if they really give good reasons and points, why Stalin was good, I'd listen to them. But they don't. And if you say they don't, they insult you. If that's the way adults behave...

And yes, I am no Anti-Soviet, either! One of the (few) reasons I'd like the USSR back, was, that it was the only country that could stood against American imperialism (despite the fact it was also imperialistic, though...). But that doesn't mean it's perfect.




The other thing that amazes me is how selective people can be. When it comes to the positive stuff then it is okay to give the glory to the likes of Mao and Stalin yet when it comes to the bad stuff all of a sudden they were not responsible or it's all evil capitalist lies. :rolleyes:

Hah, yeah, if it's good, it was all because of Stalin, if it's bad, Stalin couldn't have done it, it's all western propaganda...

[Joseph S.]

"imho" is not a source and not a valid point with which to counter-argue.

You haven't really been able to present one historical fact, have you? The fact that Stalin's own fucking intelligence was telling him that there was no real conspiracy against him as such and that the real danger was from Hitler and yet he went completely in the opposite direction should really be clear enough.

What part don't you understand????
Plz tel me.



Points? The whole point of a discussion is that there are points- the fact that you resort to ad hominem and poisoning-the-well tactics just shows that you haven't got an argument, or at least you are unwilling to present it. Allow me the ad hominem of finding your accusation of being a capitalist agitator worthy of show trial by your namesake.:laugh:
i kan post as much eviddence as i like buyt since i dont yet have 25 posts im not alouwed to post link's on this forum so posts witch back up my claims cant yet be made.

[ComradeMan]

...

I suggest reading Kruschev's "Secret Speech" (first published 1989) and also speaking to people who lived through the time as well as reading intelligence reports etc. The problem is that a lot of people read party politcal propaganda and forget that that's just what it is- propaganda. There is also the issue of the uneasy relationship with Comintern and the fact that a lot of non-Soviet communists ended up with egg on their faces in a sense because of Stalin and his policies. I also read that the Spanish communists in the Civil War got fed up with Stalin and the accusation was made of far from trying to help them he had intentions to "colonise" Spain!

[ComradeMan]

i kan post as much eviddence as i like buyt since i dont yet have 25 posts im not alouwed to post link's on this forum so posts witch back up my claims cant yet be made.

Well cite your evidence and then when you've made your 25 posts you can come back and edit in the links. ;)

[Thirsty Crow]

Hitler was anti-capitalist along with his party.

I cannot even begin to describe how idiotic this statement is, especially when the supportive arguments include ideological ramblings, and not even a hint at a materialist analysis of class relations in nazi Germany and the politics developing therefrom.

[Comintern1919]

i kan post as much eviddence as i like buyt since i dont yet have 25 posts im not alouwed to post link's on this forum so posts witch back up my claims cant yet be made.

First I want to say that your way of writing is quite annoying to read. You don't have to write 100% correct, but at least so it's not painful for others to read

Second then don't write it as a Link! Just write the name without the ending or the point before the ending, for example "revleft com" . We are clever enough to know what you mean.




I suggest reading Kruschev's "Secret Speech" (first published 1989) and also speaking to people who lived through the time as well as reading intelligence reports etc. !

Okay, I will look for that book. I like Kruschevs "de-stalinization" which is another evidence that Stalin wasn't good, as it was much welcomed, by most, also communists.




The problem is that a lot of people read party politcal propaganda and forget that that's just what it is- propaganda. !

Exactly. Propaganda is propaganda, if it comes from communists, capitalists or fascists, it doesn't matter.




There is also the issue of the uneasy relationship with Comintern and the fact that a lot of non-Soviet communists ended up with egg on their faces in a sense because of Stalin and his policies. I also read that the Spanish communists in the Civil War got fed up with Stalin and the accusation was made of far from trying to help them he had intentions to "colonise" Spain!

Yeah, for me Stalin and the USSR isn't less imperialistic than the USA, it's just hidden under "bringing socialism to the poor people", which makes it even worse. You don't know how often I have to make clear that Stalin = communism is wrong. The only thing most germans have in mind when talking about communism is the imperialistic USSR and the poor living standart and freedom in the (USSR-backed) GDR.

[ComradeMan]

I cannot even begin to describe how idiotic this statement is, especially when the supportive arguments include ideological ramblings, and not even a hint at a materialist analysis of class relations in nazi Germany and the politics developing therefrom.

Time Magazine wrote in 1939 that the Nazis had actually duped the small business owners and capitalists that had been their supporters citing the fact that businesses had been confiscated outright and capital taxes levied on others. Profits were controlled and that 80% of building and 50% of industrial orders in Germany in 1938 were from the Nazi government. The article went on further to add that the Nazis had taken over large estates and in many places collectivised agriculture. Time Magazine made the comparison to "Russian Communism".
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/sources/30s/391time/391-02hitlertime14p700pxw.jpg
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-6,00.html

Check out Hitler's 25 Point plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

"13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. "


Bear in mind too that Time had made Hitler man of the year for 1938.

"The British Marxist historian Timothy Mason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Mason), who was a leading expert on the economic history of Nazi Germany argued that after the 1936 economic crisis, a “primacy of politics” prevailed with business interests being subordinated to the Nazi regime. In a 1966 essay, Mason wrote "that both the domestic and foreign policy of the National Socialist government became, from 1936 onward, increasing independent of the influence of the economic ruling classes, and even in some essential aspects ran contrary to their collective interests" and that "it became possible for the National Socialist state to assume a fully independent role, for the "primacy of politics" to assert itself"[37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_economy#cite_note-36)]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_economy
Kershaw, Ian The Nazi Dictatorship London : Arnold 2000 pages 49-50.

[Comintern1919]

I cannot even begin to describe how idiotic this statement is, especially when the supportive arguments include ideological ramblings, and not even a hint at a materialist analysis of class relations in nazi Germany and the politics developing therefrom.

Dude, didn't you read my post? Do I have to repeat myself? Okay:


Capitalism means that the government has no control over business. So I wonder how Hitler could have expropriat the jews if he was a capitalist and as such, couldn't control it?



That's nonsense. One of the main points of National Socialism is Anti-Capitalism. It was all corrupt and in favor of the Aryan Race, of course, but nevertheless not capitalistic.

Hitler's Anti-Capitalism is much explained in his infamous book "Mein Kampf".

[...] You should get to know the thing before criticising it or using it to prove a point.

[Thirsty Crow]

Dude, you're spewing rubbish.
Glad to hear you think post-war Great Britain was not capitalist.

[Comintern1919]

Dude, you're spewing rubbish.
Glad to hear you think post-war Great Britain was not capitalist.

Ö_ö Do I now? What makes you think such nonsense?

[Thirsty Crow]

Ö_ö Do I know? What makes you think such nonsense?

"Capitalism means that the government has no control over business.".

You obviously do not know what capitalism exactly is, as evident in arguing that NSDAP was an anti-capitalist party. It wasn't, as it wasn't a revolutionary workers' party upholding the program of abolition of capital as a social relation.
This is pretty much obvious, but it seems you're too confused, as well as ComradeMan, to acknowledge what constitutes anti-capitalist politics.

[Comintern1919]

"Capitalism means that the government has no control over business.".

You obviously do not know what capitalism exactly is, as evident in arguing that NSDAP was an anti-capitalist party. It wasn't, as it wasn't a revolutionary workers' party upholding the program of abolition of capital as a social relation.
This is pretty much obvious, but it seems you're too confused, as well as ComradeMan, to acknowledge what constitutes anti-capitalist politics.

What the - ?

Ever heard of private business? The main point of capitalism? Privatize business as the first act after installing a capitalist government? The wish of most conservatives capitalists for less government involvmend?

Anti-capitalism means the worker control the business for common good, capitalism means the rich controll business for their own good.

Hitler wanted to get rid of the rich jews, and the common Aryan worker to be in control of everything.

Anti-capitalism means getting rid of the riches controll of business and give it to the common worker.

I don't know how the Nazis in your country are, but here in germany they still uphold every aspects of the NSDAP, and they are clearly against capitalism.

If you disagree with those ponts, tell me, and tell me what you think is Capitalism and Anti-capitalism, and how the NSDAP was capitalistic.

[Joseph S.]

Capitalism means that the government has no control over business. So I wonder how Hitler could have expropriat the jews if he was a capitalist and as such, couldn't control it?







ComradeMan, those Stalinist with their stupid reasoning if they can't argue anymore begins to really annoy me... Why do they beginn to discuss with us in the first place if they are so stubborn about being right, they can't even see the most obvious points, and insult us?
Im not stubborn about being right, im just anoied he keeps jumping from the point we wher debating to other points that havent got any thing to doe weather or not Stalin had good reasons not to trust the capitalist's.

[ComradeMan]

Dude, you're spewing rubbish.


A bit like the rubbish you are spewing in mocking people for saying Hitler was fundamentally anti-capitalist not only in ideology and rhetoric but also in many of his actions. No one is trying to say he was a communist and no one would argue that he somehow attacked property rights etc or that Nazi Germany was a non-capitalist state, the mere point is that Hitler and the Nazi ideology were anti-capitalist. The degree of their "success" is a matter of considering the successive events of the 1930s and WWII.

[ComradeMan]

Im not stubborn about being right, im just anoied he keeps jumping from the point we wher debating to other points that havent got any thing to doe weather or not Stalin had good reasons not to trust the capitalist's.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Were Stalin's own intelligence officers capitalists not to be trusted?
:rolleyes:

But then of course, Stalin in his paranoia obviously had better reasons to trust the Nazis then?
:laugh:

[Joseph S.]

Hitler wanted to get rid of the rich jews, and the common Aryan worker to be in control of everything.


Funny that the zionists were the one's funding the thulle society and the nsdap in its early year's
Hell 150 000 zionists served in the wehrmacht and fougth against the soviet army.

[Joseph S.]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Were Stalin's own intelligence officers capitalists not to be trusted?
:rolleyes:

But then of course, Stalin in his paranoia obviously had better reasons to trust the Nazis then?
:laugh:
Dont twist my word's
i dident say'd that.

[ComradeMan]

Funny that the zionists were the one's funding the thulle society and the nsdap in its early year's
Hell 150 000 zionists served in the wehrmacht and fougth against the soviet army.

What's that got to do with Stalin's ineptness and Hitler being an anti-capitalist?

Of course you are making a slightly anti-semitic claim here too, equating being Jewish with being de facto a zionist and also the fact was that an estimated 150,000 Germans of possible Jewish origin/descent may have served in Hitler's forces. Not quite the same thing is it? When this story was first revealed I recall that the researcher had interviewed about 400 former servicemen and had based his figures on estimates.

[Comintern1919]

A bit like the rubbish you are spewing in mocking people for saying Hitler was fundamentally anti-capitalist not only in ideology and rhetoric but also in many of his actions. No one is trying to say he was a communist and no one would argue that he somehow attacked property rights etc or that Nazi Germany was a non-capitalist state, the mere point is that Hitler and the Nazi ideology were anti-capitalist. The degree of their "success" is a matter of considering the successive events of the 1930s and WWII.

Exactly. The fact is, Hitler wanted much of the things we want, equality (for the Aryan Race), justice (though in a extremly weird form) and the end of the explotation by the rich (which he thought were mostly jews). All of course only for the Aryan race, and all in some weird, bad fashion, and with him as the ultimate "Führer" and savior.




Im not stubborn about being right, im just anoied he keeps jumping from the point we wher debating to other points that havent got any thing to doe weather or not Stalin had good reasons not to trust the capitalist's.

Then say it. In a clear, readable kind, and don't insult us with some wrong shit like a little child.

[Comintern1919]

Funny that the zionists were the one's funding the thulle society and the nsdap in its early year's
Hell 150 000 zionists served in the wehrmacht and fougth against the soviet army.


O_O Hello?! You know how big of an insult that is to a jew?! Nazism is build on Anti-Semitism, or for you to understand, Anti-Jewish. That's what makes it different from common fascism. Fascists want power over all, even if it means helping other races, Nazis want power for their race. Every other race is less worth, or, nothing worth at all, like the jews and slaws.

[Joseph S.]

What's that got to do with Stalin's ineptness and Hitler being an anti-capitalist?

Of course you are making a slightly anti-semitic claim here too, equating being Jewish with being de facto a zionist and also the fact was that an estimated 150,000 Germans of possible Jewish origin/descent may have served in Hitler's forces. Not quite the same thing is it? When this story was first revealed I recall that the researcher had interviewed about 400 former servicemen and had based his figures on estimates.
Nothing it wasn't a response to your autistic Stalin bashing.

Anty semetic me???
you want to know wat i think is anty semetic?
The zionist attitude towards the Palestinians
You want me to play the antie semetic card on you (yes im jewisch) for herasing me with bullshit???

[ComradeMan]

Nothing it wasn't a response to your autistic Stalin bashing.

Anty semetic me???
you want to know wat i think is anty semetic?
The zionist attitude towards the Palestinians
You want me to play the antie semetic card on you (yes im jewisch) for herasing me with bullshit???

Mocking people with autism now are we? That's cool in a serious debate---- not.

Your just leaping around trying to grasp desperately at straws to save your pathetic ass of an argument- arbitrarily throwing in factoids left-right-and-centre. If you continue to post distorted historical bullshit worded semi-coherently and no way connected to the points and arguments then what do you expect?

If you want to discuss Palestine, start a thread. But we are discussing Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's mismanagement of military strategy and intelligence leading up to it.

[Joseph S.]

O_O Hello?! You know how big of an insult that is to a jew?! Nazism is build on Anti-Semitism, or for you to understand, Ani-Jewish. That's what makes it different from common fascism. Fascists want power over all, even if it means helping other races, Nazis want power for their race. Every other race is less worth, or, nothing worth at all, like the jews and slaws.
I dont see this as an insult just a historical foot note.
Im a Jew and i oppose racism and i view Zionism as a racist Jewish ideology like it ore not (no not a religious one)

[Comintern1919]

Mocking people with autism now are we? That's cool in a serious debate---- not.

Your just leaping around trying to grasp desperately at straws to save your pathetic ass of an argument- arbitrarily throwing in factoids left-right-and-centre. If you continue to post distorted historical bullshit worded semi-coherently and no way connected to the points and arguments then what do you expect?

If you want to discuss Palestine, start a thread. But we are discussing Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's mismanagement of military strategy and intelligence leading up to it.

See? It's not like he's the only Stalinst who's like this. Insulting people and trying to shift the focus away from a argument they can't deny seems to be a valid strategy for them.

(I don't want to insult serious Stalinists who can discuss like an adult and accept different points! It's just that near all are like him. )

[Comintern1919]

I dont see this as an insult just a historical foot note.
Im a Jew and i oppose racism and i view Zionism as a racist Jewish ideology like it ore not (no not a religious one)

Maybe, but your Post was a respond of me saying that Hitler was anti-semitic, so it's sounds like you deny that fact, and even say, that jews were part of Hitler's regime, which is utterly nonsense.

[Joseph S.]

Mocking people with autism now are we? That's cool in a serious debate---- not.

Your just leaping around trying to grasp desperately at straws to save your pathetic ass of an argument- arbitrarily throwing in factoids left-right-and-centre. If you continue to post distorted historical bullshit worded semi-coherently and no way connected to the points and arguments then what do you expect?

If you want to discuss Palestine, start a thread. But we are discussing Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's mismanagement of military strategy and intelligence leading up to it.
Yuo just accused me of something i oppose that's why i gave that awnser.

Im Not leaping any where mr capitalist agitator you are.

I stand by my point that i understand why Stalin didn't trust the brits.
You are the one leaping from the front to the back here.
twisting my word's and bring stuf to this discussion that got nothing to do with the fact that Stalin didn't trust the capitalists.

No i dont feel like discussing the palestinian question with you, since i get the impresion that you are nothi9ng more than a stalin bacher who just want's to claim victory on a stalinist in order to impress his Trotskyist friend's hoping you will be de restricted soon.

[Joseph S.]

Maybe, but your Post was a respond of me saying that Hitler was anti-semitic, so it's sounds like you deny that fact, and even say, that jews were part of Hitler's regime, which is utterly nonsense.
Wel issent zionisen a anti semetic movement in its core?
They misuse a religion to serve there fashist agenda while terrorising other semetic people with a other religion, giving jew's a bad name in general.

[Comintern1919]

Yuo just accused me of something i oppose that's why i gave that awnser.

Im Not leaping any where mr capitalist agitator you are.

I stand by my point that i understand why Stalin didn't trust the brits.
You are the one leaping from the front to the back here.
twisting my word's and bring stuf to this discussion that got nothing to do with the fact that Stalin didn't trust the capitalists.

No i dont feel like discussing the palestinian question with you, since i get the impresion that you are nothi9ng more than a stalin bacher who just want's to claim victory on a stalinist in order to impress his Trotskyist friend's hoping you will be de restricted soon.

Oh man, your niveau get's lower and lower every post...

It isn't of any use insulting other who don't share your opinion, for not sharing your opinion.

And where is he just an "Stalin Bacher (?)"? He gives good reason why he dislikes Stalin, as do I, while you do not give good reasons why you like him.

And what does that have to do with him being restricted? He was restricted for an entirely different reason.




Wel issent zionisen a anti semetic movement in its core?
They misuse a religion to serve there fashist agenda while terrorising other semetic people with a other religion, giving jew's a bad name in general.

Ahm, no? Zionism is about giving jews a land to live in an imperialistic manner, at the cost of all Arabs who lived there before. So it's the absolut opposit of Anti-Semitism, which is about Jews Race being evil.

[Joseph S.]

Well her's a interesting read about von Ribbentrop agreement and why Stalin had every reason to not trust the capitalists.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39190313/Nazi-Soviet-Pact-Why-Did-Stalin-Make-a-Pact-With-Hitler-Rather-Than-an-Alliance-With-Britain-by-Felix-Dyrek
Felix Dyrek Investigation The Nazi– Soviet Pact: Why did Stalin make a Pact with Hitler rather than an Alliance with Britain? A. Plan of the Investigation The aim of this investigation is to find out why Joseph Stalin made a pact with Adolf Hitler of Germany rather than an alliance with Great Britain in the 1930s. The investigation will cover the aspects of the Nazi– Soviet Pact, such as the causes that led to the creation of it.I also want to research the advantages and disadvantages for both Stalin and Hitler when they signed the agreement and also to explore the reasons why Stalin didn’t make an alliance with Britain.I would further like to investigate Stalin's political motives for accepting the Nazi- Soviet Pact and thoughts of both leaders. B. Summary of Evidence The Nazi-Soviet Pact: The Nazi– Soviet Pact was signed on August 23, 1939 and its aim was to take care of relations between Germany and the Soviet Union. The aim of the pact was to guarantee peace between both of these countries.It consisted of an official version and an unacknowledged secret protocol. The secret protocol became known by other nations by 1945. The official commencement clause was mainly a peace treaty where both countries agreed not to affiliate with any country which was at war with the contractual partner.Conflicts between the contractual partners were agreed to be solved peacefully.The secret protocol divided territories between both countries. This arrangement became valid in case of a territorial rearrangement of Poland and other Baltic countries as Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.The pact was intended to be intact for 10 years. The backgrounds of the Nazi-Soviet Pact: It had been evident by March 1939 that the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had become better than it was in the past. This was because of negotiations with the Western powers had been terminated. The German ambassador to the USSR, Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg, had planned a truthful peace treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union , which was supposed to solve the German– Polish conflict in a friendly way; however, Hitler was not interested. The contract with the USSR was supposed to make sure that Polish territory would be taken over. His motives for the settlement were power political motives. The USSR was to be neutral until the preparations for invasion were made.The fear of war on Soviet territory made the USSR come into the Nazi– Soviet Pact, and it was also a chance for Stalin to extend Soviet territory. - Economical reasons: Atrade convention was signed between Germany and the USSR in August 1938.It was the basis of a commercial agreement. The USSR was dependent on import of technology for the large-scale offensive against Japan on August 28, 1939.Germany allowed a credit of 200 million Reichsmark to the USSR, which was used to buy investment goods from the Germans.As a quid pro quo the USSR was obligated to deliver commodities worth 180 million Reichsmark

[Nox]

Mocking people with autism now are we? That's cool in a serious debate---- not.

I've never seen a more ironic statement than what you just said in the context that you said it.

Are you fucking serious?

[Comintern1919]

Well her's a interesting read about von Ribbentrop agreement and why Stalin had every reason to not trust the capitalists.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39190313/Nazi-Soviet-Pact-Why-Did-Stalin-Make-a-Pact-With-Hitler-Rather-Than-an-Alliance-With-Britain-by-Felix-Dyrek


Sure, making a pact with fascist who want to destroy everything different and differently thinking is so much better then making a pact with capitalists who "just" want to exploit the poor. Both are not good, but the last is much better than the first.

But I will read it, if you insist. Though I doubt it will tell me anything new, as I'm a german and you hear about it everywhere.

[Joseph S.]

Maybe, but your Post was a respond of me saying that Hitler was anti-semitic, so it's sounds like you deny that fact, and even say, that jews were part of Hitler's regime, which is utterly nonsense.
Its claimed that Goebbels was part jewisch the nazi's use to revere to him as the little rabbi
Also Hitlers body guard was Jewish you can ignore these fact's but they don't go away
I didn't make the history m8 it just hapend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw9Qm_TejCo

[Nox]

Its claimed that Goebbels was part jewisch the nazi's use to revere to him as the little rabbi
Also Hitlers body guard was Jewish you can ignore these fact's but they don't go away
I didn't make the history m8 it just hapend

What's your point

[Joseph S.]

That zionists are partly were responsible for the death my race had sufferd 6000000 ring a bell?
Yet people these thay's worship them like thay are the saviors of my people

[Rafiq]

"The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_finance), the economic dominance of big business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_business), and Jewish influences within it.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-autogenerated20-53) Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism) rentier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier) class.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-54) He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-R.J._Overy_2004._p._403-55) He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism) nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-J._Overy_2004._p._399-56) On the issue of capitalist materialism, Hitler said "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will bow down before a higher god. Many things owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer."[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-57) Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day", referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews."[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-R.J._Overy_2004._p._399-58) In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course".[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-J._Overy_2004._p._399-56) Hitler was disgusted by the bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois) and in one conversation stated that business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-59) Hitler admired Napoleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon) as a rolemodel for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois attitudes.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-60)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Capitalism


Posting shit from Wikipedia doesn't excel your point. As if that's any reliable, when I actually have studied Nazi Germany's economic mode of production which was 100% capitalist.

Hitler wasn't Anti Capitalist or Anti Bourgeois, Hitler was against Capitalism without Morals.

And Mussolini? Are you fucking kidding now?

[Rafiq]

That's nonsense. One of the main points of National Socialism is Anti-Capitalism. It was all corrupt and in favor of the Aryan Race, of course, but nevertheless not capitalistic.

Hitler's Anti-Capitalism is much explained in his infamous book "Mein Kampf".

And he surely didn't wanted communist in his Party. He was from the very beginning clearly against communism, and didn't hide it. Again, all explained in his book, which was written and released before he became famous.

You should get to know the thing before criticising it or using it to prove a point.

OOOh up Cominterm just schooled me straight, yeah, no.

"BLah Blah National Socialism is Anti Capitalist Blah Blah" No, actually STFU.

Was the Democratic Republic of Korea a 'democratic republic'? So shut the fuck about names.

Hitler posed as an Anti Capitalist to gain support from the working masses. Hence National Socialism.

Strausser left the party, because he claimed Hitler lied about his Anti Capitalist position.

[Rafiq]

Hitler saw capitalism as part of his Jewish finance plots against the Aryan race or something and leaving aside his anti-semitic paranoia the idea of the state not being in total control was not viewed positively by the Nazis whatsoever.

No, Hitler said that to the masses, He didn't actually believe that BS.

Explain why Nazi Germany adopted a Capitalist mode of production.

[Joseph S.]

Strausser left the party, because he claimed Hitler lied about his Anti Capitalist position.
Thats right comrad

[Comintern1919]

Its claimed that Goebbels was part jewisch the nazi's use to revere to him as the little rabbi
Also Hitlers body guard was Jewish you can ignore these fact's but they don't go away
I didn't make the history m8 it just hapend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw9Qm_TejCo

Okay, no it's getting way to stupid. Come to germany, go to a real Nazi, and tell him that. You'd be dead in under a minute. So all the historians, all we learn in school, is wrong?

Yeeees, and the Holocaust didn't happened, right... if you think that, you'd be better at stormfront. Though they also would kill you for thinking Hitler liked jews.

Really, the hate of jews is the MAIN point of Nazis! I... I can't even think of such stupidness...




That zionists are partly were responsible for the death my race had sufferd 6000000 ring a bell?
Yet people these thay's worship them like thay are the saviors of my people

I told you, I'm as much Anti-Zionist as all here, but doing that doesn't mean they're Anti-Semitic, which means HATE FOR THE JEWISH RACE! They can't hate themselves and at the same time whorship them, right.




Posting shit from Wikipedia doesn't excel your point. As if that's any reliable, when I actually have studied Nazi Germany's economic mode of production which was 100% capitalist.

Hitler wasn't Anti Capitalist or Anti Bourgeois, Hitler was against Capitalism without Morals.

And Mussolini? Are you fucking kidding now?

Hm, again, so all we learn here in germany, where everything happened, is wrong? Hitler controled the businesses, else he couldn't take them away from the jewish, and make sure they don't get new ones. Capitalism on the other hand, is completly against control from the Government on the businesses. So tell me, how he could be capitalistic?




OOOh up Cominterm just schooled me straight, yeah, no.

"BLah Blah National Socialism is Anti Capitalist Blah Blah" No, actually STFU.

Was the Democratic Republic of Korea a 'democratic republic'? So shut the fuck about names.

Hitler posed as an Anti Capitalist to gain support from the working masses. Hence National Socialism.

Strausser left the party, because he claimed Hitler lied about his Anti Capitalist position.

Ah, and here begins the insult again... I can do that, too!

Fuck on Straussers. There are also people who left communism because they say it doesn't support the worker enough. Do you think, communism is bad because of that? No.

Hitler was against private businesses, he wanted control of everything, so he was no capitalist, who want no interference by the government on private owned businesses.

He may not be the most true Anti-Capitalist, but a capitalist he wasn't, either.




No, Hitler said that to the masses, He didn't actually believe that BS.

Explain why Nazi Germany adopted a Capitalist mode of production.

Again, he may have adopted a mode that looks like capitalist, but he still was the one who decided what was build when and where. While capitalism mean the consumer decide through competiton, and the state has nothing to say about it. And there was no competion in Nazi-Germany, and the state (aka Hitler) controled it.

Maybe you give me some sources of your theory, then I may admit I'm wrong. As long I trust what the german schools taught me, what the real german Nazis say, and what the historians say. You are free of proving me wrong, so I can change my mind.

[Rafiq]

Fuck on Straussers. There are also people who left communism because they say it doesn't support the worker enough. Do you think, communism is bad because of that? No.

Hitler was against private businesses, he wanted control of everything, so he was no capitalist, who want no interference by the government on private owned businesses.

He may not be the most true Anti-Capitalist, but a capitalist he wasn't, either.









Christ you're an idiot. I never said I liked Staussers, you fuckwit.

Now you're not just making sense.

*Troll Alert* *Troll Alert*

[Joseph S.]

I told you, I'm as much Anti-Zionist as all here, but doing that doesn't mean they're Anti-Semitic, which means HATE FOR THE JEWISH RACE! They can't hate themselves and at the same time whorship them, right.


No it means hate for semetic people not all jew's are semetic.

[Comintern1919]

... Ah, why am I not suprised? Typical Stalinists...



Christ you're an idiot. I never said I liked Staussers, you fuckwit.

Now you're not just making sense.

*Troll Alert* *Troll Alert*

God, I already wrote that if you could convince me, I'm wrong, I'd change my opinion, and you still insult me? And WHERE did I say you like Staussers? I just said, fuck him, because I don't like him either. Who's the troll here, huh?




No it means hate for semetic people not all jew's are semetic.

No, it doesn't. Look it up in every dictionary. EVERY!

Quote: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage."

And you still haven't answered me how Hitler isn't an Anti-Semitic and doesn't hate jews, even though he's the most infamous dictator, who commitet the Holocaust, who's the first every normal, non-nazi person thinks of when hearing "Anti-Semit", likes jews... suuure.



Typical Stalinists... Insulting one and evading arguments they can't counter... (I don't say all do that, just most I have met and discusset with here.)

[Joseph S.]

... Ah, why am I not suprised? Typical Stalinists...




God, I already wrote that if you could convince me, I'm wrong, I'd change my opinion, and you still insult me? And WHERE did I say you like Staussers? I just said, fuck him, because I don't like him either. Who's the troll here, huh?





No, it doesn't. Look it up in every dictionary. EVERY!

Quote: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage."

And you still haven't answered me how Hitler isn't an Anti-Semitic and doesn't hate jews, even though he's the most infamous dictator, who commitet the Holocaust, who's the first every normal, non-nazi person thinks of when hearing "Anti-Semit", likes jews... suuure.



Typical Stalinists... Insulting one and evading arguments they can't counter... (I don't say all do that, just most I have met and discusset with here.)
So you now basically denies the Palestinians there identity.
You are sush a enlightened being.
Im not saying hitler dident want to expel the jew's from his lebensraum(as he liked to say) but im just saying that the zionist's coloberated with him they btw also coloberated with the brits
because they wanted to have Israel.
google it and read up on the mather

[Comintern1919]

So you now basically denies the Palestinians there identity.
You are sush a enlightened being.
:cursing:


Ahhhhhh, I'm getting crazy, for Che's sake, WHAT?! Where did I ever said anything about the Palestinians? WHERE?! I told you I'm also Anti-Zionist! The only think I said was that Hitler was an Anti-Semit! A fact everyone knows!

Ah, your making me really crazy!

EDIT: At first I accidentaly wrote I'm Anti-Semitic instead of Anti-Zionistic, so Joeph S. misunderstood it and quoted me wrong in the next post. I'm deeply sorry, but I'm just a human, and as such make mistakes. But that shouldn't lead to much confusing as I stated in other posts that I am a Anti-Zionist.

[Joseph S.]

Ahhhhhh, I'm getting crazy, for Che's sake, WHAT?! Where did I ever said anything about the Palestinians? WHERE?! I told you I'm also Anti-Jew! The only think I said was that Hitler was also a Anti-Semtic! A fact everyone knows!

Ah, your making me really crazy!
Bij claiming antisemitism means hating jews you denies palestinians there identity because Palestine's are semits to.
So you hate jew's?
Well that's prop. the reason why you keep arguing with this one.

my my your vast replacing the word jew with zionist.

[Comintern1919]

Bij claiming antisemitism means hating jews you denies palestinians there identity because Palestine's are semits to.
So you hate jew's?
Well that's prop. the reason why you keep arguing with this one.

my my your vast replacing the word jew with zionist.

You mean, like every dictionary on this world claims? Or are you seriously saying they all lie?

And yes, Arabs are also Semits, but according to every sane person, and all dictionaries and scientiests, Anti-Semitism means ONLY hatred towards Jews, NOT toward Arabs! It wasn't me who invented that, so don't blame me!
And WHERE did I said I'm Anti-Semit!? For the last time, I'm not, I'm Anti-Zionist like most here!

[ComradeMan]

So you now basically denies the Palestinians there identity.
You are sush a enlightened being.
Im not saying hitler dident want to expel the jew's from his lebensraum(as he liked to say) but im just saying that the zionist's coloberated with him they btw also coloberated with the brits
because they wanted to have Israel.
google it and read up on the mather

What the fuck has any of this got to do with Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's ineptness? Seriously- do you have a Master in Thread-Derailment?

The fact that some Jewish Zionists may also be the most vile racists on the face of the earth and that some people of Jewish "extraction" (of which there are probably countless millions in Europe) served in Hitler's forces and even the fact that some Jews may have even knowingly "coloberated" with Hitler doesn't change the fact that 6 million Jewish people were victims of the Nazi Holocaust and Hitler was undeniably anti-semitic, or anti-Jewish if that satisfies your pathetic little semantic get-out clause.

Now, for crying out loud- can we stick to the debate?

[Joseph S.]

What the fuck has any of this got to do with Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's ineptness? Seriously- do you have a Master in Thread-Derailment?

The fact that some Jewish Zionists may also be the most vile racists on the face of the earth and that some people of Jewish "extraction" (of which there are probably countless millions in Europe) served in Hitler's forces and even the fact that some Jews may have even knowingly "coloberated" with Hitler doesn't change the fact that 6 million Jewish people were victims of the Nazi Holocaust and Hitler was undeniably anti-semitic, or anti-Jewish if that satisfies your pathetic little semantic get-out clause.

Now, for crying out loud- can we stick to the debate?

The pot calling the kettle black, dude serios you are hilarios.

:laugh:

[ComradeMan]

The pot calling the kettle black, dude serios you are hilarios.

:laugh:

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, not even one cited historical fact, then please stop trolling and derailing this thread.

[Nox]

Hitler using his enemies to help him? It's Maoism all over again! :D

[ComradeMan]

I can just imagine Joseph S. during the great purges.... "Comrade Joseph S. charged with being an enemy of the people and an embarrassment to the Party for basically not being able to discuss anything in an adequate manner and resorting to childish namecalling and red herrings at any given moment". :D

[Joseph S.]

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, not even one cited historical fact, then please stop trolling and derailing this thread.
I made my point and i providet some info to back it up yet somehow you just cant live with that fact.
But i agree with you that we kind of derailed the whole treath so yeah lets go back to the op.

[ComradeMan]

I made my point and i providet some info to back it up yet somehow you just cant live with that fact.
But i agree with you that we kind of derailed the whole treath so yeah lets go back to the op.

Like what? Your opinion..... :laugh: Your "info" was a load of rubbish basically.

FFS at least try and use a spell-checker too.

[Joseph S.]

You mean, like every dictionary on this world claims? Or are you seriously saying they all lie?

And yes, Arabs are also Semits, but according to every sane person, and all dictionaries and scientiests, Anti-Semitism means ONLY hatred towards Jews, NOT toward Arabs! It wasn't me who invented that, so don't blame me!
And WHERE did I said I'm Anti-Semit!? For the last time, I'm not, I'm Anti-Zionist like most here!
look up the word semite in the dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
but any how lets focus on the Op plz

[Kiev Communard]

"The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_finance), the economic dominance of big business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_business), and Jewish influences within it.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-autogenerated20-53) Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism) rentier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier) class.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-54) He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-R.J._Overy_2004._p._403-55) He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism) nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-J._Overy_2004._p._399-56) On the issue of capitalist materialism, Hitler said "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will bow down before a higher god. Many things owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer."[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-57) Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day", referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews."[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-R.J._Overy_2004._p._399-58) In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course".[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-J._Overy_2004._p._399-56) Hitler was disgusted by the bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois) and in one conversation stated that business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-59) Hitler admired Napoleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon) as a rolemodel for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois attitudes.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#cite_note-60)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Capitalism

Napoleon was NOT anti-capitalist, as he clearly contributed to the development of the French industrial capital. As to the Nazis' aleged "anti-capitalism", one has to take into account the simple fact that different poltiical discourses use the same terms in the different way, and therefore the anarchist and Marxist concept of capitalism is much more complex than the Nazis' childish "blame greedy non-Aryan bankers!" idea of "anti-capitalism". Besides, for instance, South Korea up to the late 1980s also had the same system of the state control over private (in reality, corporate) businesses as the one that existed in the Nazi Germany. Does it mean South Korea was anti-capitalist?

Also, see this (http://books.google.com/books?id=e2XEt84peRsC&pg=PA170&dq=state+capitalism+in+Nazi+Germany&hl=ru&ei=mvkyTvGpJMKq8AP_p9ihDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=state%20capitalism%20in%20Nazi%20Germany&f=false) for an exposition of one of the Marxist theories of state capitalism (the one which is more accessible to a layperson :D).

[ComradeMan]

Napoleon was NOT anti-capitalist, as he clearly contributed to the development of the French industrial capital..

Sure... but we weren't talking about Napoleon. :confused:


As to the Nazis' aleged "anti-capitalism", one has to take into account the simple fact that different poltiical discourses use sothe same terms in the different way, and therefore the anarchist and Marxist concept of capitalism is much more complex than the Nazis' childish "blame greedy non-Aryan bankers!"

No one was arguing positively for Hitler- by saying he was an anti-capitalist it's by no means in support of him either. Primitivists are anti-capitalists, doesn't mean we support them though.

However if you look at Nazi ideology and actions, they were by no means pro-capitalism.

[Joseph S.]

Sure... but we weren't talking about Napoleon. :confused:



No one was arguing positively for Hitler- by saying he was an anti-capitalist it's by no means in support of him either. Primitivists are anti-capitalists, doesn't mean we support them though.

However if you look at Nazi ideology and actions, they were by no means pro-capitalism.
And there you go with the twisting and turning again.
:laugh:

[ComradeMan]

look up the word semite in the dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
but any how lets focus on the Op plz

Look up the word "Anti-Semitic" too....

What would you prefer? Judenhass?

"Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage....While the term's etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology) might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Ancient_Semitic_peoples), the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism#cite_note-Judenhass-2) and that has been its normal use since then.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism#cite_note-JustJews-3)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism#Evolution_of_usage_as_a_term

Of course Goebels himself used the term unashamedly
"The German people is anti-Semitic. It has no desire to have its rights restricted or to be provoked in the future by parasites of the Jewish race"
Daily Telegraph, November 12, 1938. Cited in Gilbert, Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gilbert). Kristallnacht: Prelude to Destruction. Harper Collins, 2006, p. 142.

[Kiev Communard]

Sure... but we weren't talking about Napoleon. :confused:

Never mind, I was referring to Wikipedia's article you hyperlinked to mentioning Hitler's admiration of Napoleon as "anti-capitalist".



No one was arguing positively for Hitler- by saying he was an anti-capitalist it's by no means in support of him either. Primitivists are anti-capitalists, doesn't mean we support them though.

However if you look at Nazi ideology and actions, they were by no means pro-capitalism.

Once again, it depends on how you define 'capitalism' then. If it is defined as "free market economy with individual ownership of capital" (as in simplistic liberalism), then he was 'anti-capitalist'. If you define capital as social relationship of exploitation based on generalized commodity production and separation of the labourer from the means of production, which exists irrespective of the juridical rights of property of individual members of the ruling class, Hitler was clearly pro-capitalist.

[Comintern1919]

Napoleon was NOT anti-capitalist, as he clearly contributed to the development of the French industrial capital. As to the Nazis' aleged "anti-capitalism", one has to take into account the simple fact that different poltiical discourses use the same terms in the different way, and therefore the anarchist and Marxist concept of capitalism is much more complex than the Nazis' childish "blame greedy non-Aryan bankers!" idea of "anti-capitalism". Besides, for instance, South Korea up to the late 1980s also had the same system of the state control over private (in reality, corporate) businesses as the one that existed in the Nazi Germany. Does it mean South Korea was anti-capitalist?

Also, see this (http://books.google.com/books?id=e2XEt84peRsC&pg=PA170&dq=state+capitalism+in+Nazi+Germany&hl=ru&ei=mvkyTvGpJMKq8AP_p9ihDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=state%20capitalism%20in%20Nazi%20Germany&f=false) for an exposition of one of the Marxist theories of state capitalism (the one which is more accessible to a layperson :D).

I don't think I have to add anything more to the Thema "Hitler and Capitalism". I think I explained enough why Hitler wasn't capitalistic in this thread...




look up the word semite in the dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
but any how lets focus on the Op plz

Yeah, and than look for Anti-Semitism in the same "dictionary":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism
See? You can read, right?

[ComradeMan]

Never mind, I was referring to Wikipedia's article you hyperlinked to mentioning Hitler's admiration of Napoleon as "anti-capitalist".

Ah, okay- my bad, I was a little confused by the Siberian blizzard of non-sequiturs!


Once again, it depends on how you define 'capitalism' then. If it is defined as "free market economy with individual ownership of capital" (as in simplistic liberalism), then he was 'anti-capitalist'. If you define capital as social relationship of exploitation based on generalized commodity production and separation of the labourer from the means of production, which exists irrespective of the juridical rights of property of individual members of the ruling class, Hitler was clearly pro-capitalist.

Hmmmm..... I see what you mean, but then Hitler's policies were at the best batshit insane and drenched in all of his ideological paranoia. You'd have to admit though that Stalin did not manage to abolish private property completely either. You must also remember that many of the Nazi's ideas were basically on a simplistic level. At the same time, I still remain of the opinion that he was no friend of the German capitalist class- albeit for the worst of reasons, but, he just hated the communists more.

[Joseph S.]

I don't think I have to add anything more to the Thema "Hitler and Capitalism". I think I explained enough why Hitler wasn't capitalistic in this thread...





Yeah, and than look for Anti-Semitism in the same "dictionary":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism
See? You can read, right?
Your own link say's its can be used as term to devine hate against the semite race. palestine's are members of the semite race l2read stuff before posting somthing wich discredits your own argument
From your link:
Etymology and usage

[edit]Usage
despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language.
The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.[6][7]
Both terms anti-Semitism and antisemitism are in common use. Some scholars favor the unhyphenated form antisemitism to avoid possible confusion involving whether the term refers specifically to Jews, or to Semitic-language speakers as a whole.[8][9][10][11] For example, Emil Fackenheim supported the unhyphenated spelling, in order to "dispel[] the notion that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."[12]
[edit]Etymology


Cover page of Marr's The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism, 1880 edition
Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices".[13] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its use by Renan and others.
In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective." ("Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.")[14] in which he used the word "Semitismus" interchangeably with the word "Judentum" to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit). Although he did not use the word "Antisemitismus" in the pamphlet, the coining of the latter word followed naturally from the word "Semitismus", and indicated either opposition to the Jews as a people, or else opposition to Jewishness or the Jewish spirit, which he saw as infiltrating German culture. In his next pamphlet, "The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus – antisemitism, derived from the word "Semitismus" that he had earlier used.
The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the January issue of "Neue Freie Presse". The related word semitism was coined around 1885.

[Comintern1919]

Once again, it depends on how you define 'capitalism' then. If it is defined as "free market economy with individual ownership of capital" (as in simplistic liberalism), then he was 'anti-capitalist'. If you define capital as social relationship of exploitation based on generalized commodity production and separation of the labourer from the means of production, which exists irrespective of the juridical rights of property of individual members of the ruling class, Hitler was clearly pro-capitalist.

Why make it so complicated? Most understand under capitalism "Private People control Private business without interfiring of the State". Hitler did interfere, he did control the businesses, seen that he could strip the jews from their businesses without any problems. In a capitalist society, he couldn't do that, and even if, it would require a massic amount of time and paper work, all the while getting problems with the law which governments have to obey in a capitalist society, at least the economical part.

So if you see it like a common worker, and not an ideologicaly trained, would do, he wasn't capitalistic.

[Comintern1919]

Are you joking? Or Trolling? Please say you are, please...


Your own link say's its against the semite race. palestine's are members of the semite race l2read stuff before posting somthing wich discredits your own argument
From your link:
Etymology and usage

[edit]Usage
Despite the use of the prefix anti-, the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other. Antisemitism refers specifically to prejudice against Jews alone and in general,[4][5] despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language.
The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.[6][7]
Both terms anti-Semitism and antisemitism are in common use. Some scholars favor the unhyphenated form antisemitism to avoid possible confusion involving whether the term refers specifically to Jews, or to Semitic-language speakers as a whole.[8][9][10][11] For example, Emil Fackenheim supported the unhyphenated spelling, in order to "dispel[] the notion that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."[12]
[edit]Etymology


Cover page of Marr's The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism, 1880 edition
Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices".[13] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its use by Renan and others.
In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective." ("Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.")[14] in which he used the word "Semitismus" interchangeably with the word "Judentum" to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit). Although he did not use the word "Antisemitismus" in the pamphlet, the coining of the latter word followed naturally from the word "Semitismus", and indicated either opposition to the Jews as a people, or else opposition to Jewishness or the Jewish spirit, which he saw as infiltrating German culture. In his next pamphlet, "The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus – antisemitism, derived from the word "Semitismus" that he had earlier used.
The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the January issue of "Neue Freie Presse". The related word semitism was coined around 1885.

You are SO STUPID, really... telling me to read stuff, while not doing it yourself...

You just denounced yourself with that quotation...

[ComradeMan]

....

Your quotes basically....


.....back up what Comintern and I were saying.:unsure:

[Kiev Communard]

So if you see it like a common worker, and not an ideologicaly trained, would do, he wasn't capitalistic.

Well, the majority of common workers still erroneously believe that the bourgeois democracy is real democracy because it is called as such, yet this is presumably not the reason for revolutionary socialists to drop the criticism of bourgeois 'democracy' as being un-democratic and to stop explaining to the working class that real democracy is rather a power of the toilers' Common Assemblies/Soviets. The same goes with Hitler's fake 'anti-capitalism'.

[ComradeMan]

Well, the majority of common workers still erroneously believe that the bourgeois democracy is real democracy because it is called as such, yet this is presumably not the reason for revolutionary socialists to drop the criticism of bourgeois 'democracy' as being un-democratic and to stop explaining to the working class that real democracy is rather a power of the toilers' Common Assemblies/Soviets. The same goes with Hitler's fake 'anti-capitalism'.

I think you are making the error, in a sincere way, of associating the term anti-capitalist with a leftist definition of anti-capitalist, which no one doubts Hitler probably didn't have. Don't forget the "third positionism" of the extreme right.

[Comintern1919]

Well, the majority of common workers still erroneously believe that the bourgeois democracy is real democracy because it is called as such, yet this is presumably not the reason for revolutionary socialists to drop the criticism of bourgeois 'democracy' as being un-democratic and to stop explaining to the working class that real democracy is rather a power of the toilers' Common Assemblies/Soviets. The same goes with Hitler's fake 'anti-capitalism'.

That's different. Hitler not only openly denounced Capitalism, he also made actions against it. He may have adopted some elements of capitalism, but not enough to call him a Capitalist. And as ComradeMan said, you probably have a different definition than he had. And seemlingly I have.

But, I think that isn't anything worth discussing. We all agree Hitler was a brutal, massmordering ass. If capitalist or not. You seem like a clever one, maybe you rather discuss with us what the thread is really about.

[ComradeMan]

Okay---- seeing as this thread is getting way derailed here anyway.

I'd like to ask Joseph S. to present his "defence of Stalin" in terms of Operation Barbarossa.

This should be interesting....

[Joseph S.]

Are you joking? Or Trolling? Please say you are, please...



You are SO STUPID, really... telling me to read stuff, while not doing it yourself...

You just denounced yourself with that quotation...
Yes i have
The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.

[Comintern1919]

Yes i have
The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.

.................................................. .. For... no, no, no, I won't say anything anymore...........

You didn't read more than this one line, did you? ... I'd be truly suprised... You probably didn't even read the whole line...

[ComradeMan]

Joseph S., apart from posting quotes that basically confirm the arguments you are arguing against, I challenge you to to present your "defence of Stalin" in terms of Operation Barbarossa.

Given your monicker is Joseph S. it shouldn't be too tricky for you. :thumbup:

[Joseph S.]

Okay---- seeing as this thread is getting way derailed here anyway.

I'd like to ask Joseph S. to present his "defence of Stalin" in terms of Operation Barbarossa.

This should be interesting....
Why stalin dident trust the Brits?
her's some qoute's from churchill
“A communist is like a crocodile: when it opens its mouth you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up”
Winston Churchill
Lenin was sent into Russia by the Germans in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture of typhoid or cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy.
On Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in the House of Commons, November 5, 1919 as cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), Ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 355 ISBN 1586486381
I yield to no one in my detestation of Bolshevism, and of the revolutionary violence which precedes it. ... But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice in every land into which they have broken, and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained. ... Governments who have seized upon power by violence and by usurpation have often resorted to terrorism in their desperate efforts to keep what they have stolen, but the august and venerable structure of the British Empire ... does not need such aid. Such ideas are absolutely foreign to the British way of doing things.
Speech in the House of Commons, July 8, 1920 "Amritsar"
If I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.
To Benito Mussolini in a press conference in Rome (January 1927), as quoted in Churchill : A Life (1992) by Martin Gilbert
Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
To his personal secretary John Colville the evening before Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union. As quoted by Andrew Nagorski in The Greatest Battle (2007), Simon & Schuster, pp. 150-151 ISBN 0743281101

And these are only qoutes from Churchill .
Doe you now understand why i understand why Stalin didn't trust the Brit's

[ComradeMan]

...

Churchill was well-known for his vehement anti-communist stance, but on the eve of Operation Barbarossa with intelligence reports pouring in from all sources and also given that Churchill was the PM (from 1940) of a coalition war government I fail to see how this somehow exonerates Stalin, as it was one factor amongst many.

[Joseph S.]

.................................................. .. For... no, no, no, I won't say anything anymore...........

You didn't read more than this one line, did you? ... I'd be truly suprised... You probably didn't even read the whole line...
so because people mis use a word doe's that mean Palestine's aren't members of the Semite race???

And i realy don't giva a damm about if thing's are widely excepted ore not
If i wanted to be populair i obviously wold pick a other systems of believe now wouldn't i.

[Joseph S.]

Churchill was well-known for his vehement anti-communist stance, but on the eve of Operation Barbarossa with intelligence reports pouring in from all sources and also given that Churchill was the PM (from 1940) of a coalition war government I fail to see how this somehow exonerates Stalin, as it was one factor amongst many.
You ask me for a reason Stalin cold have not to trust the brits i gave you one.
you ask for back ground info i provide you with it
you ask for more proof i give you a list of Churchill quotes flaming Communism.
stil you don't see why Stalin had reasons not to trust the Brist even if this was wrong and stupid for doeing so he had reasons.
Something i just cant seem to get true to you.

[Comintern1919]

so because people mis use a word doe's that mean Palestine's aren't members of the Semite race???

And i realy don't giva a damm about if thing's are widely excepted ore not
If i wanted to be populair i obviously wold pick a other systems of believe now wouldn't i.

Nobody said the Palestines aren't semitic, stupid! I said, ANTI-SEMITISM refers ONLY to jews, and if some idiots like you think more of it, I can't help. That doesn't change the fact that ANTI-SEMITISM REFERS TO JEWS, NOT MORE!

Why doesn't that go into your little brain?

[ComradeMan]

You ask me for a reason Stalin cold have not to trust the brits i gave you one.
you ask for back ground info i provide you with it
you ask for more proof i give you a list of Churchill quotes flaming Communism.
stil you don't see why Stalin had reasons not to trust the Brist even if this was wrong and stupid for doeing so he had reasons.
Something i just cant seem to get true to you.

Is that why Stalin had approached both Britain and France on August 15th, 1939 through Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and CGS Boris Shaposhnikov offering to commit troops and form an anti-Nazi pact?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

[Joseph S.]

Is that why Stalin had approached both Britain and France on August 15th, 1939 through Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and CGS Boris Shaposhnikov offering to commit troops and form an anti-Nazi pact?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
I already gave you an awnser to this subject but oke here it is again http://www.scribd.com/doc/39190313/Nazi-Soviet-Pact-Why-Did-Stalin-Make-a-Pact-With-Hitler-Rather-Than-an-Alliance-With-Britain-by-Felix-Dyrek
her's some more from wikypedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_%E2%80%93_United_Kingdom_relations
United Kingdom—Soviet Union relations

After the Russian Revolution, Britain sent troops to Russia in the failed Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.
Following the withdrawal of British troops from Russia, negotiations for trade began, and on March 16, 1921, trade agreement was concluded between the two countries.[3] The United Kingdom recognised the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR or Soviet Union, 1917—1991) on February 1, 1924. Relations between then and the Second World War were tense, typified by the Zinoviev letter incident. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were broken in 1927, and restored in 1929.
[edit]Second World War


1941 Soviet-UK agreement against Germany
In 1938 a few Western countries, including Britain, signed the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany. The USSR opposed to the pact and refused to recognize Germany's annexation of part of Czechoslovakia.[4]

The Soviets felt excluded from Western consideration and vulnerable to possible hostilities by the West or Germany, and in response the USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet pact. This complicated relations with Britain as the British leadership was sympathetic to Finland in her war against the USSR (the Winter War), yet could not afford to alienate the Soviets while an attack from Germany was imminent. The USSR however supplied fuel oil to the Nazis which was used for Hitler's Luftwaffe in the Blitz against the United Kingdom. Because of the Soviet connivance with the Nazis, Hitler's troops were able to overrun most of Western Europe in the summer of 1940.
In 1941, Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, attacking the USSR. The USSR thereafter became one of the Allies of World War II along with Britain, fighting against the Axis Powers. The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran secured the oil fields in Iran from falling into Axis hands. The Arctic convoys transported supplies between Britain and the USSR during the war.

[ComradeMan]

I already gave you an awnser to this subject but oke here it is again http://www.scribd.com/doc/39190313/Nazi-Soviet-Pact-Why-Did-Stalin-Make-a-Pact-With-Hitler-Rather-Than-an-Alliance-With-Britain-by-Felix-Dyrek.

Except this seems to be contradicted by the events of August 1939 of which your rather short source (for such a complex subject) doesn't seem to mention.
:rolleyes:

[Joseph S.]

Except this seems to be contradicted by the events of August 1939 of which your rather short source (for such a complex subject) doesn't seem to mention.
:rolleyes:
Wat's complex about the mather?
Stalin didn't trust the brits
Again you are trying to change the subject.
Mr capitalist agitator.

[ComradeMan]

Wat's complex about the mather?
Stalin didn't trust the brits
Again you are trying to change the subject.
Mr capitalist agitator.

So much so he sent Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov in August 1939?
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Fuck, I'm beginning to feel sorry for the Stalinists with you giving them a bad name..... :lol:

Fundamentally Stalin did not trust anyone except for his own bad judgement as history showed.

[Rafiq]

... Ah, why am I not suprised? Typical Stalinists...





:laugh: I'm a Stalinist? Since when? Since when was I even a M-L?

Typical revleft noob. You will learn that there is more to Marxism than shitty trotsky.

[Rafiq]

What the fuck has any of this got to do with Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's ineptness? Seriously- do you have a Master in Thread-Derailment?

The fact that some Jewish Zionists may also be the most vile racists on the face of the earth and that some people of Jewish "extraction" (of which there are probably countless millions in Europe) served in Hitler's forces and even the fact that some Jews may have even knowingly "coloberated" with Hitler doesn't change the fact that 6 million Jewish people were victims of the Nazi Holocaust and Hitler was undeniably anti-semitic, or anti-Jewish if that satisfies your pathetic little semantic get-out clause.

Now, for crying out loud- can we stick to the debate?

Zionism started out as a progressive and even revolutionary movement, for most workers.

Actually, for some Zionism meant opposition to the creation of a state.

[ComradeMan]

Zionism started out as a progressive and even revolutionary movement.

I don't want to get into a long discourse on Zionism, and your views aren't going to be popular with some here. ;) I can just hear fp coming in at this moment. :crying:

Still, let's keep this on Operation Barbarossa. If you want to start a thread on Zionism in OI, go for it.

;)

[Rafiq]

Stalin was the head of the red bourgeoisie and represented their interests.


Stalin was indeed foolish to purge his officers, though I don't think it's fair to blame everything, including the Nazi invasion, on him.

To boast about his victory over the Germans deserves the same appreciation as to boast about the American victory over the Japanese.

[ComradeMan]

Stalin was the head of the red bourgeoisie and represented their interests.

To boast about his victory over the Germans deserves the same appreciation as to boast about the American victory over the Japanese.

Getting back to the point, at last, in my opinion it's more Zhukov who deserves the credit.

[Comintern1919]

:laugh: I'm a Stalinist? Since when? Since when was I even a M-L?

Typical revleft noob. You will learn that there is more to Marxism than shitty trotsky.

Excuse me for wrongly assuming your Stalinist since you were using the same tactic they do, insulting. I was blended by the stupidness of Joseph S.

But why am I a "revleft noob" for making a mistake? Do you not make mistakes? Y'know what, I'M HUMAN, and as such make mistakes, like assuming your a Stalinist. Sorry for being human.

And here it goes again. Just because Trotskies don't share your opinion. doesn't give you the right to insult them! I also don't troll around saying all Stalinists OR WHATEVER are "shitty", bad, assholes or whatever. I don't do that because I'm an Adult.
And I will learn, but right now you seem to me a bit INTOLERANT.

And you seem to think I'm a trotskist. I am not, I am a Marxist. A plain Marxist.

But again, I'm really sorry to wrongly called you a Stalinist.

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^

Fucking hell you two guys, Rafiq and Comintern... loll... it just struck me that Stalin is "haunted" by Trotsky even in this thread which is pretty damn anti-Stalin. :lol:

[Joseph S.]

See? You can read, right?
Do you honestly believe i cold respond if i wasn't able to read?
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/3/36411/1387861-cool_story_bro_super.jpg

[Joseph S.]

^^^^^^^^

Fucking hell you two guys, Rafiq and Comintern... loll... it just struck me that Stalin is "haunted" by Trotsky even in this thread which is pretty damn anti-Stalin. :lol:
So apparently you realize you are bias.
Stalin bacher

[Comintern1919]

Do you honestly believe i cold respond if i wasn't able to read?

Have you ever heard of "sarcasm"? Maybe you search your "dictionary" for it. But do yourself a favour and read more than the first line. Or at least the whole first line. More would probably overstress your little brain.




So apparently you realize you are bias.
Stalin bacher

Did we ever say we weren't? It's a threadh about a mistake of Stalin, so you'd expect that the opener of the thread is critical of Stalin. Or you think he opened the threadh becaus he likes Stalin so much?

And again, he's no Stalin Bacher because he's making good points why not to like Stalin. You on the other hand don't make good Points why to like Stalin.

[Rafiq]

Excuse me for wrongly assuming your Stalinist since you were using the same tactic they do, insulting. I was blended by the stupidness of Joseph S.

But why am I a "revleft noob" for making a mistake? Do you not make mistakes? Y'know what, I'M HUMAN, and as such make mistakes, like assuming your a Stalinist. Sorry for being human.

And here it goes again. Just because Trotskies don't share your opinion. doesn't give you the right to insult them! I also don't troll around saying all Stalinists OR WHATEVER are "shitty", bad, assholes or whatever. I don't do that because I'm an Adult.
And I will learn, but right now you seem to me a bit INTOLERANT.

And you seem to think I'm a trotskist. I am not, I am a Marxist. A plain Marxist.

But again, I'm really sorry to wrongly called you a Stalinist.

Okay, Okay, I apoligize for the harshnessness and assholeness that I presented you.

But there's nothing wrong with being a revleft noob. I am still a Revleft noob, I think.

[ComradeMan]

But there's nothing wrong with being a revleft noob. I am still a Revleft noob, I think.

Is that a tendency now? :D

[Joseph S.]

Have you ever heard of "sarcasm"? Maybe you search your "dictionary" for it. But do yourself a favour and read more than the first line. Or at least the whole first line. More would probably overstress your little brain.





Did we ever say we weren't? It's a threadh about a mistake of Stalin, so you'd expect that the opener of the thread is critical of Stalin. Or you think he opened the threadh becaus he likes Stalin so much?

And again, he's no Stalin Bacher because he's making good points why not to like Stalin. You on the other hand don't make good Points why to like Stalin.
And your blind hatred against the savior of Europe got nothing to doe with you guy's baching me for saying i understand why Stalin dident trust the brits.
I geus im just as paranoia as him according to you guy's.
:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

And your blind hatred against the savior of Europe got nothing to doe with you guy's baching me for saying i understand why Stalin dident trust the brits.
I geus im just as paranoia as him according to you guy's.
:rolleyes:

Blind hatred? Criticising and seeking to analyse his disastrous policies in terms of a military and intelligence fiasco that are historical fact? You haven't actually offered anything much substantial other than that Stalin didn't like Churchill and Churchill didn't like Stalin- as we all now anyway, and you have not been able to counter any historical facts such as the secret anti-Nazi pact that was approached in August 1939 other than posting far earlier quotes from Churchill.

Now- can you back up your claim as to why Stalin should be the "saviour of Europe" as opposed to someone like Zhukov?;)

oAw8ugOCmkU

[Joseph S.]

Blind hatred? Criticising and seeking to analyse his disastrous policies in terms of a military and intelligence fiasco that are historical fact? You haven't actually offered anything much substantial other than that Stalin didn't like Churchill and Churchill didn't like Stalin- as we all now anyway, and you have not been able to counter any historical facts such as the secret anti-Nazi pact that was approached in August 1939 other than posting far earlier quotes from Churchill.

Now- can you back up your claim as to why Stalin should be the "saviour of Europe" as opposed to someone like Zhukov?;)
You mean the one from half april.
the ribentrop-molotov agrement was in august

Im not saying Zhukov wasn't responsible for a part of the victory.
Im saying is was us the people under the leader ship of Stalin who defeated Hitler and not the capitalists doe you get this trugh your thik skull?

[ComradeMan]

You mean the one from half april.
the ribentrop-molotov agrement was in august

No, I mean this one that I have already mentioned before

Klementi Voroshilov and Boris Shaposhnikov

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

:laugh:
You haven't got a clue have you?


Im not saying Zhukov wasn't responsible for a part of the victory. Im saying is was us the people under the leader ship of Stalin who defeated Hitler and not the capitalists doe you get this trugh your thik skull?

Despite the fact that Zhukov's Battle of Moscow was one of the finest examples of military genius in the war, against odds too and the fact that Stalin's leadership had left the USSR wide open for attack and he had shot most of his officers leaving the army incompetently and badly led.

Can't you get this "through your thick skull"?

You basically know full all about the situation, haven't really attempted to research anything and your whole line of argument is

"Dont be dissin Stalin because he is the man".....:laugh:

[Joseph S.]

No, I mean this one that I have already mentioned before

Klementi Voroshilov and Boris Shaposhnikov

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

:laugh:
You haven't got a clue have you?




Despite the fact that Zhukov's Battle of Moscow was one of the finest examples of military genius in the war, against odds too and the fact that Stalin's leadership had left the USSR wide open for attack and he had shot most of his officers leaving the army incompetently and badly led.

Can't you get this "trugh your thik skull"?

You basically know full all about the situation, haven't really attempted to research anything and your whole line of argument is

"Dont be dissin Stalin becoz he iz teh man".....:laugh:
yeah basicly the same idee as the april perposall
You doe all the figthing and we take the spoil's

[Joseph S.]

"Dont be dissin Stalin becoz he iz teh man"
You got that rigth
:thumbup:

[Comintern1919]

And your blind hatred against the savior of Europe got nothing to doe with you guy's baching me for saying i understand why Stalin dident trust the brits.
I geus im just as paranoia as him according to you guy's.
:rolleyes:

Blind? Where am I blind? I'd be blind if I don't give good reasons why I don't like him. But I did give good reasons.

If someone is blind, it's you. You are the one who blindly whorships him without even at least considering our statements.





Im not saying Zhukov wasn't responsible for a part of the victory.
Im saying is was us the people under the leader ship of Stalin who defeated Hitler and not the capitalists doe you get this trugh your thik skull?

Sure, it wasn't due to the USA that Hitler got attacked by two sides, that's not one of the reasons Hitler had supply problems, it wasn't the allies who defeated half of the german Army. Battles like the normandy weren't the least bit succesfull.
Yeah, in your dreams.

Who's now blind? Do you really think Stalin and the USSR won the war all by their own? That's stupid.

As much as I dislike the capitalists country, you have to admit their great part in the war, else your'e nothing more than an revisionistic, blind, arrogant idiot.

But what else do I expect from someone who believes Hitler wasn't an Anti-Semit...

[ComradeMan]

...

He's also ignoring the amount of aid that was pumped into the USSR by the allies too in the form of food, weaponry and the Lend-Lease- this was not inconsequential either.

[The Red]

He's also ignoring the amount of aid that was pumped into the USSR by the allies too in the form of food, weaponry and the Lend-Lease- this was not inconsequential either.

It's effect is overestimated, but cannot be ignored.

[ComradeMan]

It's effect is overestimated, but cannot be ignored.

Like I said, far from inconsequential. I don't know about where you are etc- but a lot of people don't even know about it when they talk about the war etc.

[The Red]

Like I said, far from inconsequential. I don't know about where you are etc- but a lot of people don't even know about it when they talk about the war etc.

What may be even more significant as that it would imply one of two possibilities

1) The US is neutral.

2) Great Britain and France are neutral.

These two scenarios would have much greater effects on the war than no Lend Lease on it's own. Not all of them necessarily negative for the Soviets but certainly very significant to their war effort.

[Nox]

I'm not convinced that the former is not worse than the latter and it was not obvious to me that he may have a problem, other than his weird Stalinism :lol:. I'm also not convinced that someone with a genuine learning difficulty would go around using autistic as an insult either. But, like I said, I have gone back and changed it in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt.

You raised a few fair points there, and although I disagree with your disagreement (:confused:), the fact remains that two wrongs don't make a right, thanks for removing it though :)



I may as well ask here- recently I notice a lot US users here and generally on the internet use these weird spellings and grammar for irony like "i can haz teh book" etc etc.... is this mocking dyslexia?

No, they aren't mocking anyone by saying that. It's a 'meme' and they say stuff like that to try and sound cool.

[ComradeMan]

No, they aren't mocking anyone by saying that. It's a 'meme' and they say stuff like that to try and sound cool.

Ah right, ora capisco! ;) I suddenly had a doubt! With the amount of non-native English speakers, bad spelling in general (sorry Gacky :lol:) and this new "meme" language it's hard to tell at times- hence my obliviousness.

Now getting back to the subject, we're still waiting for Joseph S. demonstration of how Stalin "saved" Europe, how his military and intelligence strategies did not verge on almost suicidal levels of negligence from a Soviet perspective and also how come Zhukov does not seem to get the recognition he deserves.

[Joseph S.]

But what else do I expect from someone who believes Hitler wasn't an Anti-Semit...
twisting my word's around again.http://www.omgwtfimages.com/uploads/thumb/thumb_185.jpg

[ComradeMan]

twisting my word's around again.

We don't need to twist your words- you do a pretty good job at that yourself.

Now, we are still waiting for your grand defense of Stalin.
:rolleyes:

[Joseph S.]

Blind? Where am I blind? I'd be blind if I don't give good reasons why I don't like him. But I did give good reasons.

If someone is blind, it's you. You are the one who blindly whorships him without even at least considering our statements..

im have yet you are the one who fail's in considering my statments.







Sure, it wasn't due to the USA that Hitler got attacked by two sides, that's not one of the reasons Hitler had supply problems, it wasn't the allies who defeated half of the german Army. Battles like the normandy weren't the least bit succesfull.
Yeah, in your dreams..
actually 15 to 20% sounds more like the number thay defeated
Dont forget the capitalist foces tried to invade diepper in 1942 and failed.
The whole 6th army of germany had to be defeated before the kapitalists even had the ball's to invade europe.



Who's now blind? Do you really think Stalin and the USSR won the war all by their own? That's stupid..
the statistic's dont lei comrad look them up.
.



As much as I dislike the capitalists country, you have to admit their great part in the war, else your'e nothing more than an revisionistic, blind, arrogant idiot. .
Reading capitalist propaganda again ?
.



But what else do I expect from someone who believes Hitler wasn't an Anti-Semit...
already respondent to this load of bullshot in previous post.

[ComradeMan]

....

Exactly where? You seem to be oblivious of major details of the run up to Operation Barbarossa and the initial phases, oblivious to details of the dynamics of Soviet-Allied relations and also completely refuse to acknowledge Stalin's mismanagement which is usually acknowledged by even leftist and Soviet sources.

[Joseph S.]

Exactly where? You seem to be oblivious of major details of the run up to Operation Barbarossa and the initial phases, oblivious to details of the dynamics of Soviet-Allied relations and also completely refuse to acknowledge Stalin's mismanagement which is usually acknowledge by even leftist and Soviet sources.
im not saying that he cold of resolved some things much bether in a other way.
remamber where the argument started?
I say's i understand why he didn't trust the capitalist's
Again you try to twist my word's.
and drag variabels to this discussion that dont mater at all for the point being made
capitalist agitator

[Nox]

I think it's important to recognise the fact that the Soviet Union and Great Britain weren't by any means friends during the war; they just had the same enemy.

I agree with Joseph S in that Stalin didn't trust the British, but I must add that Stalin should have at least been 'on guard' just incase Churchill was telling him the truth, because telling Stalin that he is about to be invaded by the largest invasion force in history is a pretty important piece of advice.

[ComradeMan]

im not saying that he cold of resolved some things much bether in a other way.
remamber where the argument started?
I say's i understand why he didn't trust the capitalist's
Again you try to twist my word's.
and drag variabels to this discussion that dont mater at all for the point being made
capitalist agitator

Because fundamentally you haven't got a point. The capitalists didn't trust the communists, the communists didn't trust the capitalists.... your point? This was a war on the onset and the main point is that most of Stalin's intelligence warned him but he refused to listen. Your whole issue of "trusting" the capitalists is not borne out by some historical facts either.

As for dragging variables into the argument... that's rich from someone who suddenly threw in comments about Hitler's 150,000 strong army of "zionists".. ffs.

Capitalist agitator? You are laughable and people like you are actually a capitalist's dream- "useful idiots" who through their weird historical roleplay fetishism of long demised autocrats do nothing other than to discredit the left... way to go! :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

but I must add that Stalin should have at least been 'on guard' just incase Churchill was telling him the truth, because telling Stalin that he is about to be invaded by the largest invasion force in history is a pretty important piece of advice.

Exactly my point, now add to that the intelligence reports and even the defections along with an almost blatant confession by the German ambassador along with the Luftwaffe's "accidental" reconnaisance missions- it almosts beggers belief.

[The Red]

Exactly where? You seem to be oblivious of major details of the run up to Operation Barbarossa and the initial phases, oblivious to details of the dynamics of Soviet-Allied relations and also completely refuse to acknowledge Stalin's mismanagement which is usually acknowledged by even leftist and Soviet sources.

The notion many people seem to have trouble with is the fact that the Soviet Union could won the war on it's own, only seeming to be able to argue that it did or that it couldn't have. This isn't helped by the fact that historians tend to look at the Soviets as a co-belligerent in the war against the Axis rather than an Ally of the US, Great Britain and others. Thus the common war against fascism which admittedly lacked coordination becomes two wars, one in the east and won in the west with only one front really mattering and the other one only really playing a role of a secondary front.

The Soviet Union was the most important ally, but they cannot be looked upon in a vacuum which ignores, Lend Lease, the strategic bombing of Germany, North Africa, Italy and France. Could the Anglo-Americans have won the war alone? Yes, as could the Soviets, that doesn't mean that somehow one of them did.

However, without Stalin's butchering of the Officer corps or his ignorance of Barbarossa, Soviet supporters could argue much more easily that they had won the Great Patriotic War of June 1941-September 1941 with much greater ease. ;)

[Nox]

I disagree that the Anglo-Americans could have won the war on their own.

The Soviets killed 85% of the Nazis, whereas everyone else killed 15%. Let's attribute 10% of that to the Anglo-Americans. Imagine what would have happened if the Anglo-Americans faced 10 times more Nazis than they did. It would have been an utter massacre.

[ComradeMan]

However, without Stalin's butchering of the Officer corps or his ignorance of Barbarossa, Soviet supporters could argue much more easily that they had won the Great Patriotic War of June 1941-September 1941 with much greater ease. ;)

Thank fuck for some common sense!

My points exactly and also why I feel that Zhukov does not get the credit he deserves. Just imagine if Zhukov too had been "purged"?

[Nox]

One of the greatest things about Stalin during WW2 was that he left the power to his Generals, the total opposite to Hitler.

Therefore it is preposterous to recognise Stalin for every Soviet achievement during WW2, however I do believe Stalin is responsible for the victory as a whole.

[The Red]

Thank fuck for some common sense!

My points exactly and also why I feel that Zhukov does not get the credit he deserves. Just imagine if Zhukov too had been "purged"?

Not to mention those who were, Rokossovsky who was purged but survived thankfully, or Shtern (who won the Battle of Khalkin Gol, Zhukov's role as a divisional commander was secondary to Shtern's and exaggerated due to later victories) who was actually executed after Barbarossa had began.

[The Red]

One of the greatest things about Stalin during WW2 was that he left the power to his Generals, the total opposite to Hitler.

Therefore it is preposterous to recognise Stalin for every Soviet achievement during WW2, however I do believe Stalin is responsible for the victory as a whole.

Later on maybe (allegedly after the threat of a coup) he made some catastrophic decisions on the level of Hitler in the beginning e.g the Kiev Pocket.

[ComradeMan]

One of the greatest things about Stalin during WW2 was that he left the power to his Generals, the total opposite to Hitler.

It's not really a great thing so much as not acting so much like a deranged lunatic. ;) Hitler, however, took over largely when there were the plots so assassinate him and obviously felt he could no longer trust anyone. Stalin just basically didn't trust anyone anyway.

However Stalin did frequently interfere and would not listen to Zhukov in the early stages either, initially preferring Shaposhnikov's plans that Zhukov had said would not work (Demyansk offensive 10th January 1942)- and sure enough didn't. It seems Shaposhnikov wasn't really convinced by the ideas either but knew that it was probably wiser not to go against Stalin. Marshal Timoshenko, it was joked by the Germans according to something I read, had an Iron-Cross "reserved for him for helping the German war effort" with his bad generalship.

[Nox]

Later on maybe (allegedly after the threat of a coup) he made some catastrophic decisions on the level of Hitler in the beginning e.g the Kiev Pocket.

Yes it's true there are some exceptions, but I am talking about the overall picture :)

[Comintern1919]

im have yet you are the one who fail's in considering my statments.

Oh, I haven't seen any statments, they probably are hidden under your insults.



actually 15 to 20% sounds more like the number thay defeated
Dont forget the capitalist foces tried to invade diepper in 1942 and failed.
The whole 6th army of germany had to be defeated before the kapitalists even had the ball's to invade europe.

Maybe. But what about the japanese, who controled almost whole east asia? What about the italians who controled most of northern Africa? They weren't defeated by Stalin, but the allies. And together they are even more powerful than the german army.
The allies had to fight all over the world, Stalin only on one Front.

Wait... you don't think that was also Stalin, who did fight against the whole world alone, do you? Like Super Man... Super Stalin! I wouldn't be suprised...




the statistic's dont lei comrad look them up.

And which statistics would that be, which says that Stalin won the war alone? Show them to me, I'd liked to see them.


.

Reading capitalist propaganda again ?

No. You? You seem to love your little soviet propaganda.


.

already respondent to this load of bullshot in previous post.

Hey, same here!




I disagree that the Anglo-Americans could have won the war on their own.

The Soviets killed 85% of the Nazis, whereas everyone else killed 15%. Let's attribute 10% of that to the Anglo-Americans. Imagine what would have happened if the Anglo-Americans faced 10 times more Nazis than they did. It would have been an utter massacre.

Nobody said they could. However, the USSR couldn't either. The war wasn't just in europa, and not just against Nazi-Germany. Again, there also were italians, japanese etc..

If the allies wouldn't have landed in europa, Stalin may have been able to fight back, but not conquer the whole 3th Reich. Thinking they could is nothing more than idolizing Stalin and the Soviets.

I'm not saying Stalin and the USSR haven't had any part in winning the war. But by far not as much as Stalinists like to believe.

[Joseph S.]

As for dragging variables into the argument... that's rich from someone who suddenly threw in comments about Hitler's 150,000 strong army of "zionists".. ffs.


You know dam well that was a responce to some of the jibberich stalin baching of you and your little friend.
I made that comment because you and your buddy brought up a variabol to the discussion that didn't mater in the first place.
So don't acuze me of derailing any thing you and your little helper's are the on's derailing this treat.

[Joseph S.]

Oh, I haven't seen any statments, they probably are hidden under your insults.

Stalin dident trust the brits and he had his reasons.





Maybe. But what about the japanese, who controled almost whole east asia? What about the italians who controled most of northern Africa? They weren't defeated by Stalin, but the allies. And together they are even more powerful than the german army.
The allies had to fight all over the world, Stalin only on one Front..
variabols that dont realy mather to the point i made



Wait... you don't think that was also Stalin, who did fight against the whole world alone, do you? Like Super Man... Super Stalin! I wouldn't be suprised....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXDXuwc8YR6w727LoiVr_XE_vL-tLmm5N7hqYIymYcCguiX53IOA




And which statistics would that be? Show them to me, I'd liked to see them.

Why dont you go googel it your self, ore are you now just taking a piss on the graves of all the man and women who gave ther live's for your freedom
.

[Comintern1919]

Stalin dident trust the brits and he had his reasons..

And I have never doubted that. I didn't even said anything in that direction at all.




variabols that dont realy mather to the point i made.

You said that the allies had only defeated like 15% - 20% of the germany army. All I said was that this wouldn't be a suprise as they had to fight all over the world. Stalin could use his whole army in the fight against Hitler, which were logicaly already on europe, and "only" defeated around 75%, while the allies, who not only had to fight in Africa and Asia, but also had to land in europa, defeating around 25%.

Quite impressiv, I'd say, more impressiv than Stalin.




http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXDXuwc8YR6w727LoiVr_XE_vL-tLmm5N7hqYIymYcCguiX53IOA (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXDXuwc8YR6w727LoiVr_XE_vL-tLmm5N7hqYIymYcCguiX53IOA)

? So... do you disagree with me, or what now? Do you really, REALLY think that? Please say no...




Why dont you go googel it your self, ore are you now just taking a piss on the graves of all the man and women who gave ther live's for your freedom
.

And why should I google for statistics you used for your arguments? No?

As long as you don't show me these statistics, I won't believe you. Shouldn't be too difficult to understand, huh.

And who "takes a piss" on those? You. You deny the american who died their share, you say they didn't do much good.
What about the americans who died at the landing on the normandy? Was all their effort, all their deads for nothing?

[ComradeMan]

So, Joseph- when are you actually going to demonstrate how it wasn't Stalin's paranoia and refusal too listen to his OWN intelligence along with the way he had mismanaged the Soviet military that almost brought the Soviet Union to the brink of defeat when the Germans launched Barbarossa?

That is instead of just repeating your rather unastonishing fact that Stalin didn't trust the British (he didn't trust most of the Soviets by the way) ad nauseam and acting like a complete noob?

:laugh:

[Joseph S.]

So, Joseph- when are you actually going to demonstrate how it wasn't Stalin's paranoia and refusal too listen to his OWN intelligence along with the way he had mismanaged the Soviet military that almost brought the Soviet Union to the brink of defeat when the Germans launched Barbarossa?

:laugh:
stil you dont get my point aperently all i sayd was i understand why he dident trust them now here we are i dont even know how manny pages along the treat because you just wont understand my point.
you claim he was paranoia i say he had reasons, not even judging about the fact the reasons were tru ore fals with 20/20 hind sight .
you really are a comedian arn't you?

[ComradeMan]

stil you dont get my point aperently all i sayd was i understand why he dident trust them now here we are i dont even know how manny pages along the treat because you just wont understand my point.
you claim he was paranoia i say he had reasons, not even judging about the fact the reasons were tru ore fals with 20/20 hind sight .
you really are a comedian arn't you?

You know nothing about Stalin or Soviet military history and intelligence.

[Joseph S.]

You know nothing about Stalin or Soviet military history and intelligence.
Lucky use we have you http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff260/Platypus_Vomit/CaptainHindsight.png

[Comintern1919]

Lucky use we have you http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff260/Platypus_Vomit/CaptainHindsight.png

From post to post, I'm getting more sure he's just trolling with us. Maybe we should ignore him from now on.

[ComradeMan]

From post to post, I'm getting more sure he's just trolling with us. Maybe we should ignore him from now on.

Yep, get that impression too. :glare: Argument by "meme" and saying that Churchill was "flaming" Stalin... lol....

[Comintern1919]

Yep, get that impression too. :glare: Argument by "meme" and saying that Churchill was "flaming" Stalin... lol....

I already got that impression many posts before, I hoped it wasn't true, but now...

I'm honestly deeply sorry for your Thread...

[Joseph S.]

From post to post, I'm getting more sure he's just trolling with us. Maybe we should ignore him from now on.
Im not trolling im just defending Stalin the greatest leader in European history from being depicted bij you guy's as just a schizophrenia deranged lunatic who also happen to be a mas-murderer and did i mention you think he was paranoia.
Your are trolling me and not the other way around.
And dammit i walkt into your bear trap with open eye's.
dammit i came here to find solidatety not strugel.

[ComradeMan]

I already got that impression many posts before, I hoped it wasn't true, but now...

I'm honestly deeply sorry for your Thread...

Well a couple of other people made some worthwhile contributions. I am just going to ignore the Stalinoid buffoon to be honest.

[Comintern1919]

Im not trolling im just defending Stalin the greatest leader in European history from being depicted bij you guy's as just a schizophrenia deranged lunatic who also happen to be a mas-murderer and did i mention you think he was paranoia.
Your are trolling me and not the other way around.

Oh, did you, finally, use a dictionary for your last sentence? It's quite good, it is. For you, at least.

And we aren't the one posting stupid picture, Saying Hitler wasn't an Anti-Semit, and insulting everyone who isn't your opinion. That's what trolls do. Well, besides the thing with Hitler, of course.
That's what you did the last 5, 6 pages.

We never insulted you, at least not without you insulting us first, and for all we said we had good reasons/proofs, you didn't.

[Joseph S.]

Oh, did you, finally, use a dictionary for your last sentence? It's quite good, it is. For you, at least.

And we aren't the one posting stupid picture, calling Hitler No Anti-Semitic, and insulting everyone who isn't our opinion. That's what trolls do. Well, besides the thing with Hitler, of course.
That's what you did the last 5, 6 pages.

We never insulted you, at least not without you insulting us first, and for all we said we had good reasons/proofs, you didn't.
because after about 4 ore 6 posts of you guy's trying to make me dance in a circle i say he behaves like an autist.
i dident say he was an autistic.
btw i at that point already was being made fun @ by jou guy's for saying something i believe so plz stop dancing the dying swan while pretending your innocent in this whole happening.

[Comintern1919]

because after about 4 ore 6 posts of you guy's trying to make me dance in a circle i say he behaves like an autist.
i dident say he was an autistic.
btw i at that point already was being made fun @ by jou guy's for saying something i believe so plz stop dancing the dying swan while pretending your innocent in this whole happening.

No. Our "insulting", which wasn't near as bad as yours, began after you called ComradeMan autistic and an, what was that, "Capitalist Alligator"?

And calling someone that he behaves like an autist isn't much better than calling him an autist.

[Joseph S.]

No. Our "insulting", which wasn't near as bad as yours, began after you called ComradeMan autistic and an, what was that, "Capitalist Alligator"?

And calling someone that he behaves like an autist isn't much better than calling him an autist.
the actual phrase was autistic Stalin bashing.
And i stand by this statement.
Its not my fault you can't read stuf in context

[ComradeMan]

No. Our "insulting", which wasn't near as bad as yours, began after you called ComradeMan autistic and an, what was that, "Capitalist Alligator"?

And calling someone that he behaves like an autist isn't much better than calling him an autist.

It amazes me how he thinks using the word "autistic" like that is okay.

I wonder if he has a picture of Stalin on his wall. :laugh:

[Comintern1919]

the actual phrase was autistic Stalin bashing.
And i stand by this statement.
Its not my fault you can't read stuf in context

It's not my fault that you have to rely on insults when having no argument anymore, or don't know how to counter one.

And how is that ANY BETTER in the context? It's even worse, as he is clearly no "Stalin Basher".

[Joseph S.]

It's not my fault that you have to rely on insults when having no argument anymore, or don't know how to counter one.

And how is that ANY BETTER in the context? It's even worse, as he is clearly no "Stalin Basher".
Well in my opinion he is and aslong as he doesent give me anny reason to believe other wise that wont change.
(plz dont go write posts to prove me wrong because that wont change it at all propalbly even make's me les likely to believe him in the future)
btw so are you

[ComradeMan]

It's not my fault that you have to rely on insults when having no argument anymore, or don't know how to counter one.

And how is that ANY BETTER in the context? It's even worse, as he is clearly no "Stalin Basher".

Did our little friend ever have an argument other than to state an obvious fact that did not really have any bearing on Operation Barbarossa? :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting to hear about Hitler's zionist army too.... LOL!!! :scared:

[Comintern1919]

Well in my opinion he is and aslong as he doesent give me anny reason to believe other wise that wont change.
(plz dont go write posts to prove me wrong because that wont change it at all propalbly even make's me les likely to believe him in the future)

Why shouldn't I? Because I have better arguments than you?
Well, it will be my last post to you, that's for sure.

A "basher" is usually someone who throws everything he has at something he hates, wether it makes sense or not, wether he can prove it or not. And by now, ComradeMan had always good proves, and all he said made sense, so he can't be a "Stalin-Basher".
In fact, I even call you an "Anti-Stalin-Basher", as most of what you said was nonsense, and much you couldn't even proof.

[Joseph S.]

Did our little friend ever have an argument other than to state an obvious fact that did not really have any bearing on Operation Barbarossa? :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting to hear about Hitler's zionist army too.... LOL!!! :scared:
here you go http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/nazisupport.cfm
read up about it

[Comintern1919]

Did our little friend ever have an argument other than to state an obvious fact that did not really have any bearing on Operation Barbarossa? :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting to hear about Hitler's zionist army too.... LOL!!! :scared:

Or the statistic which shows that Stalin won WWII all by himself! Super Stalin!

And no, he didn't.

[ComradeMan]

here you go http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/nazisupport.cfm
read up about it

But that's got nothing to do with your 150 000 strong army of Zionists who fought against Stalin for Hitler.... according to you that is. :laugh:

[Comintern1919]

But that's got nothing to do with your 150 000 strong army of Zionists who fought against Stalin for Hitler.... according to you that is. :laugh:

I have to say, I heard many stupid things in my life, but never, NEVER such stupidness! Htler and no Anti-Semit, I... I can't even say how completly... goddamn STUPID that is!

He was the goddamn most Anti-Semitic ever!

[Joseph S.]

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jews-not-for-Judaism/Jews-who-helped-nazis-hitler.htm
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/jewishlife/JewishSoldiersMark.htm

[ComradeMan]

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jews-not-for-Judaism/Jews-who-helped-nazis-hitler.htm

So? There were plenty of people who supported Hitler- but none of the 6 million he gassed however.

[Joseph S.]

So? There were plenty of people who supported Hitler- but none of the 6 million he gassed however.


That zionists are partly were responsible for the death my race had sufferd 6000000 ring a bell?
Yet people these thay's worship them like thay are the saviors of my people


Funny that the zionists were the one's funding the thulle society and the nsdap in its early year's
Hell 150 000 zionists served in the wehrmacht and fougth against the soviet army.




Of course you are making a slightly anti-semitic claim here too, equating being Jewish with being de facto a zionist and also the fact was that an estimated 150,000 Germans of possible Jewish origin/descent may have served in Hitler's forces. Not quite the same thing is it? When this story was first revealed I recall that the researcher had interviewed about 400 former servicemen and had based his figures on estimates.
.

[Joseph S.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDpptCdYY0

[ComradeMan]

. Funny that the zionists were the one's funding the thulle society and the nsdap in its early year's
Hell 150 000 zionists served in the wehrmacht and fougth against the soviet army.

Except you have no evidence based on any historical fact that 150 000 zionists served in the Wehrmacht. That's just the slight flaw in your argument.... :blushing:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/jewishlife/JewishSoldiersMark.htm

[Joseph S.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch
Trial and Conviction at Nuremberg

Main article: Milch Trial
In 1947, Milch was tried as a war criminal by a United States Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. He was convicted of two counts:
War crimes by participating in the ill-treatment and use for forced labor of prisoners of war and the deportation of civilians to the same ends;
Crimes against humanity by participating in the murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, and use for slave labor of civilians who came under German control, German nationals, and prisoners of war.
Milch was sentenced to life imprisonment at Landsberg prison. His sentence was commuted to 15 years imprisonment in 1951, but he was released in June 1954. He lived out the remainder of his life at Düsseldorf, where he died in 1972.

Yes sir a jew convicted in the Nurenberg trials Geuss teay dident teach you that on school now did they?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Ludwig_Wittgenstein_siblings.jpg
Hermine and Fanny Wittgenstein (sisters of Ludwig Wittgenstein) were re-classified as "Aryan" after paying an undisclosed fortune to the Nazi party

[Joseph S.]

Except you have no evidence based on any historical fact that 150 000 zionists served in the Wehrmacht. That's just the slight flaw in your argument.... :blushing:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/jewishlife/JewishSoldiersMark.htm
so maybe it was closer to 100000 ore even 50000 does the exact number realy count?

[Nox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch

That's one person, and you don't even know if he was a Zionist or not...

[ComradeMan]

That's one person, and you don't even know if he was a Zionist or not...

He seems to work on the basis that some zionists supported the Nazis, some Jews supported the Nazis, some "mischlinge" were also in the Wehrmacht- and therefore Hitler instantly conjures up an army of 150 000 zionists to fight Stalin! :rolleyes: This is despite the fact of course that the figures are at best estimates and jewish/mischling is not synonymous with zionist. It also ignores the fact that 6 000 000 Jews were obviously victims of the Nazis.

[Nox]

He seems to work on the basis that some zionists supported the Nazis, some Jews supported the Nazis, some "mischlinge" were also in the Wehrmacht- and therefore Hitler instantly conjures up an army of 150 000 zionists to fight Stalin! :rolleyes: This is despite the fact of course that the figures are at best estimates and jewish/mischling is not synonymous with zionist. It also ignores the fact that 6 000 000 Jews were obviously victims of the Nazis.

What I don't understand is what point he's trying to make by saying that

[Comintern1919]

What I don't understand is what point he's trying to make by saying that

I doubt he knows that himself...

[ComradeMan]

What I don't understand is what point he's trying to make by saying that

I don't think he does either...

I think he should join the Bordigists, I'm sure they would get on well... ;)

[Joseph S.]

What I don't understand is what point he's trying to make by saying that
To spare you some time il'qoute the thing's i sayd witch are totaly being taken out of context bij the 2 other poster's in this treat.


It seems Stalin's obsession with a non-existent British conspiracy blinded him to the realities of the ensuing conflict with Nazi Germany and played right into the hands of the German Abwehr's disinformation. The head of NKVD, Lavrentiy Beria, in order to protect himself probably, denounced the reports of the mounting invasion programme and ordered the gulag for NKVD officers who persisted.

my response

This conspiracy actually existed ( plz dont get this the wrong way please i got nothing against semite's and people who practice the jewisch religion)
But Churchill was an out spoken anty Bolshevist who try'd to do any thing to oppress the people 's republic of Russia, even side with the zionist's just because of the strong anty Bolshevist sentiment within that movement.
I hope i dont have to lecture you guy's about the early years of the Bolshevist revolution and you know what i'm talking about.
IF NOT PLZ STUDY THE SUBJECT BEFORE CRITICIZING ME.
The SUNDAY HERALD article of February 8, 1920 and Winston Churchill him self are good point's to start.

So one might argue that Stalin had every reason to mistrust the Brits.
mzzltv

this is where the argument started just scrol to the pages and pm me a question about somthing you dont understand.
im tired of having to respond to 2 people who constantly keep bringing new variabols to the equation that got nothing to doe on the subject in the first place and than demand explanation from me and accuse me of stuff i didn't say by twisting my word's around and accuse me of things i dont support

[Comintern1919]

this is where the argument started just scrol to the pages and pm me a question about somthing you dont understand.
im tired of having to respond to 2 people who constantly keep bringing new variabols to the equation that got nothing to doe on the subject in the first place and than demand explanation from me and accuse me of stuff i didn't say by twisting my word's around and accuse me of things i dont support

No, we don't.

Your first Post was hardly understandable, so ComradeMan asked what's your Point. In your second post you wrote something about Hitler being capitalist. We both disagreed, and still do, with you, so we discussed and tried to convince you he wasn't.

But for anyone to save time reading through all 10 pages, I will toroughly post everything that has to do anything with Joseph S.'s stupidness:

It was probably when you first realized you can't argue anymore that you said, ComradeMan


keep dragging things that got nothing to doe with the point i made what so ever into this discussion.

Even though you were the first who said Hitler was a capitalist.

ComradeMan tried to bring the discussion back to the main point like you wanted:


So at the onset of a war the intelligence units of a country have been decimated in the name of a personal vendetta and political paranoia and you cannot see how that might affect the initial stages of the ensuing conflict?"

Then, for some reason, your Insulting began, before we said anything that could insult you:


Stop dragging point's into this discusion between us that arent relevant to the subject.
You behave like a capitalist agitator.

The discussing went on, mainly with someone else, when I said:


Hitler wanted to get rid of the rich jews, and the common Aryan worker to be in control of everything.

suddenly you claimed:


Funny that the zionists were the one's funding the thulle society and the nsdap in its early year's
Hell 150 000 zionists served in the wehrmacht and fougth against the soviet army.

Even though I said nothing about Zionists.

As it was an answer to what I said, it sounded like you denied that Hitler was Anti-Semitic and wanted to get rid of jews, Even though that's the fucking point about Hitler!

ComradeMan was my opinion:


What's that got to do with Stalin's ineptness and Hitler being an anti-capitalist?

Of course you are making a slightly anti-semitic claim here too, equating being Jewish with being de facto a zionist and also the fact was that an estimated 150,000 Germans of possible Jewish origin/descent may have served in Hitler's forces. Not quite the same thing is it? When this story was first revealed I recall that the researcher had interviewed about 400 former servicemen and had based his figures on estimates.

Then followed your second Insulting, again we still said nothing that could sound like insulting:


Nothing it wasn't a response to your autistic Stalin bashing.

Anty semetic me???
you want to know wat i think is anty semetic?
The zionist attitude towards the Palestinians
You want me to play the antie semetic card on you (yes im jewisch) for herasing me with bullshit???

Now heres your hillarious understanding of "Anti-Semitism"...

ComradeMan's reaction:


Mocking people with autism now are we? That's cool in a serious debate---- not. [...] If you want to discuss Palestine, start a thread. But we are discussing Operation Barbarossa and Stalin's mismanagement of military strategy and intelligence leading up to it.

Then again Insults and false accusations:


[...] No i dont feel like discussing the palestinian question with you, since i get the impresion that you are nothi9ng more than a stalin bacher who just want's to claim victory on a stalinist in order to impress his Trotskyist friend's hoping you will be de restricted soon.



Now coming back to Anti-Semitism:


Wel issent zionisen a anti semetic movement in its core?
They misuse a religion to serve there fashist agenda while terrorising other semetic people with a other religion, giving jew's a bad name in general.


Zionism is about giving jews a land to live in an imperialistic manner, at the cost of all Arabs who lived there before. So it's the absolut opposit of Anti-Semitism, which is about Jews Race being evil.

Shoudn't be too difficult too undertstand, right? No, not for Joseph S., but you'll see it soon.

Now again Hitler being not Anti-Semitic:


Its claimed that Goebbels was part jewisch the nazi's use to revere to him as the little rabbi
Also Hitlers body guard was Jewish you can ignore these fact's but they don't go away
I didn't make the history m8 it just hapend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw9Qm_TejCo (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw9Qm_TejCo)



Okay, no it's getting way to stupid. Come to germany, go to a real Nazi, and tell him that. You'd be dead in under a minute. So all the historians, all we learn in school, is wrong?

Yeeees, and the Holocaust didn't happened, right... if you think that, you'd be better at stormfront. Though they also would kill you for thinking Hitler liked jews.

Really, the hate of jews is the MAIN point of Nazis! I... I can't even think of such stupidness...


No it means hate for semetic people not all jew's are semetic.

:laugh:


No, it doesn't. Look it up in every dictionary. EVERY!

Quote: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage."

And you still haven't answered me how Hitler isn't an Anti-Semitic and doesn't hate jews, even though he's the most infamous dictator, who commitet the Holocaust, who's the first every normal, non-nazi person thinks of when hearing "Anti-Semit", likes jews... suuure.



Bij claiming antisemitism means hating jews you denies palestinians there identity because Palestine's are semits to.
So you hate jew's?
Well that's prop. the reason why you keep arguing with this one.

:laugh::laugh:

BUT, now comes the BEST!


Your own link say's its against the semite race. palestine's are members of the semite race l2read stuff before posting somthing wich discredits your own argument
From your link:
Etymology and usage

[edit]Usage
Despite the use of the prefix anti-, the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other. Antisemitism refers specifically to prejudice against Jews alone and in general,[4][5] despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language.
The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.[6][7]
Both terms anti-Semitism and antisemitism are in common use. Some scholars favor the unhyphenated form antisemitism to avoid possible confusion involving whether the term refers specifically to Jews, or to Semitic-language speakers as a whole.[8][9][10][11] For example, Emil Fackenheim supported the unhyphenated spelling, in order to "dispel[] the notion that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."[12]
[edit]Etymology


Cover page of Marr's The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism, 1880 edition
Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices".[13] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its use by Renan and others.
In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective." ("Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.")[14] in which he used the word "Semitismus" interchangeably with the word "Judentum" to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit). Although he did not use the word "Antisemitismus" in the pamphlet, the coining of the latter word followed naturally from the word "Semitismus", and indicated either opposition to the Jews as a people, or else opposition to Jewishness or the Jewish spirit, which he saw as infiltrating German culture. In his next pamphlet, "The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus – antisemitism, derived from the word "Semitismus" that he had earlier used.
The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the January issue of "Neue Freie Presse". The related word semitism was coined around 1885.

:):rolleyes::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Postet a qoutation that proved him wrong!



so because people mis use a word doe's that mean Palestine's aren't members of the Semite race???

And i realy don't giva a damm about if thing's are widely excepted ore not
If i wanted to be populair i obviously wold pick a other systems of believe now wouldn't i.

So, enough about that topic, I think...


And your blind hatred against the savior of Europe got nothing to doe with you guy's baching me for saying i understand why Stalin dident trust the brits.
I geus im just as paranoia as him according to you guy's.


Blind? Where am I blind? I'd be blind if I don't give good reasons why I don't like him. But I did give good reasons.

If someone is blind, it's you. You are the one who blindly whorships him without even at least considering our statements.




Now comes another point of his whorship of the "glourious" Stalin:

Stalin won the whole WWII on his own :ohmy:!


Im not saying Zhukov wasn't responsible for a part of the victory.
Im saying is was us the people under the leader ship of Stalin who defeated Hitler and not the capitalists doe you get this trugh your thik skull?

Our thick skull, for suuure...


Sure, it wasn't due to the USA that Hitler got attacked by two sides, that's not one of the reasons Hitler had supply problems, it wasn't the allies who defeated half of the german Army. Battles like the normandy weren't the least bit succesfull.
Yeah, in your dreams.

Who's now blind? Do you really think Stalin and the USSR won the war all by their own? That's stupid.

As much as I dislike the capitalists country, you have to admit their great part in the war, else your'e nothing more than an revisionistic, blind, arrogant idiot.


He's also ignoring the amount of aid that was pumped into the USSR by the allies too in the form of food, weaponry and the Lend-Lease- this was not inconsequential either.

[...]

far from inconsequential. I don't know about where you are etc- but a lot of people don't even know about it when they talk about the war etc.


It's effect is overestimated, but cannot be ignored.

[...]

What may be even more significant as that it would imply one of two possibilities

1) The US is neutral.

2) Great Britain and France are neutral.

These two scenarios would have much greater effects on the war than no Lend Lease on it's own. Not all of them necessarily negative for the Soviets but certainly very significant to their war effort.


Now getting back to the subject, we're still waiting for Joseph S. demonstration of how Stalin "saved" Europe, how his military and intelligence strategies did not verge on almost suicidal levels of negligence from a Soviet perspective and also how come Zhukov does not seem to get the recognition he deserves.
[...]
Now, we are still waiting for your grand defense of Stalin.



Sure, it wasn't due to the USA that Hitler got attacked by two sides, that's not one of the reasons Hitler had supply problems, it wasn't the allies who defeated half of the german Army. Battles like the normandy weren't the least bit succesfull.
Yeah, in your dreams..


actually 15 to 20% sounds more like the number thay defeated
Dont forget the capitalist foces tried to invade diepper in 1942 and failed.
The whole 6th army of germany had to be defeated before the kapitalists even had the ball's to invade europe.




Who's now blind? Do you really think Stalin and the USSR won the war all by their own? That's stupid..


the statistic's dont lei comrad look them up.




As much as I dislike the capitalists country, you have to admit their great part in the war, else your'e nothing more than an revisionistic, blind, arrogant idiot. .


Reading capitalist propaganda again ?



Exactly where? You seem to be oblivious of major details of the run up to Operation Barbarossa and the initial phases, oblivious to details of the dynamics of Soviet-Allied relations and also completely refuse to acknowledge Stalin's mismanagement which is usually acknowledged by even leftist and Soviet sources.


m not saying that he cold of resolved some things much bether in a other way.
remamber where the argument started?
I say's i understand why he didn't trust the capitalist's
Again you try to twist my word's.
and drag variabels to this discussion that dont mater at all for the point being made
capitalist agitator


I think it's important to recognise the fact that the Soviet Union and Great Britain weren't by any means friends during the war; they just had the same enemy.

I agree with Joseph S in that Stalin didn't trust the British, but I must add that Stalin should have at least been 'on guard' just incase Churchill was telling him the truth, because telling Stalin that he is about to be invaded by the largest invasion force in history is a pretty important piece of advice.


Because fundamentally you haven't got a point. The capitalists didn't trust the communists, the communists didn't trust the capitalists.... your point? This was a war on the onset and the main point is that most of Stalin's intelligence warned him but he refused to listen. Your whole issue of "trusting" the capitalists is not borne out by some historical facts either.

As for dragging variables into the argument... that's rich from someone who suddenly threw in comments about Hitler's 150,000 strong army of "zionists".. ffs.

Capitalist agitator? You are laughable and people like you are actually a capitalist's dream- "useful idiots" who through their weird historical roleplay fetishism of long demised autocrats do nothing other than to discredit the left... way to go! :thumbup1:
[...]
Exactly my point, now add to that the intelligence reports and even the defections along with an almost blatant confession by the German ambassador along with the Luftwaffe's "accidental" reconnaisance missions- it almosts beggers belief.


The notion many people seem to have trouble with is the fact that the Soviet Union could won the war on it's own, only seeming to be able to argue that it did or that it couldn't have. This isn't helped by the fact that historians tend to look at the Soviets as a co-belligerent in the war against the Axis rather than an Ally of the US, Great Britain and others. Thus the common war against fascism which admittedly lacked coordination becomes two wars, one in the east and won in the west with only one front really mattering and the other one only really playing a role of a secondary front.

The Soviet Union was the most important ally, but they cannot be looked upon in a vacuum which ignores, Lend Lease, the strategic bombing of Germany, North Africa, Italy and France. Could the Anglo-Americans have won the war alone? Yes, as could the Soviets, that doesn't mean that somehow one of them did.

However, without Stalin's butchering of the Officer corps or his ignorance of Barbarossa, Soviet supporters could argue much more easily that they had won the Great Patriotic War of June 1941-September 1941 with much greater ease. ;)



So, the rest is on page 10. Hope that will satisfy anyone who don't want to read through the whole thread.

[Joseph S.]

No, we don't.

Your first Post was hardly understandable, so ComradeMan asked what's your Point. In your second post you wrote something about Hitler being capitalist. We both disagreed, and still do, with you, so we discussed and tried to convince you he wasn't.

But for anyone to save time reading through all 10 pages, I will toroughly post everything that has to do anything with Joseph S.'s stupidness:

It was probably when you first realized you can't argue anymore that you said, ComradeMan



Even though you were the first who said Hitler was a capitalist.

ComradeMan tried to bring the discussion back to the main point like you wanted:



Then, for some reason, your Insulting began, before we said anything that could insult you:



The discussing went on, mainly with someone else, when I said:



suddenly you claimed:



Even though I said nothing about Zionists.

As it was an answer to what I said, it sounded like you denied that Hitler was Anti-Semitic and wanted to get rid of jews, Even though that's the fucking point about Hitler!

ComradeMan was my opinion:



Then followed your second Insulting, again we still said nothing that could sound like insulting:



Now heres your hillarious understanding of "Anti-Semitism"...

ComradeMan's reaction:



Then again Insults and false accusations:





Now coming back to Anti-Semitism:





Shoudn't be too difficult too undertstand, right? No, not for Joseph S., but you'll see it soon.

Now again Hitler being not Anti-Semitic:








:laugh:






:laugh::laugh:

BUT, now comes the BEST!



:):rolleyes::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Postet a qoutation that proved him wrong!




So, enough about that topic, I think...








Now comes another point of his whorship of the "glourious" Stalin:

Stalin won the whole WWII on his own :ohmy:!



Our thick skull, for suuure...
























So, the rest is on page 10. Hope that will satisfy anyone who don't want to read through the whole thread.

Thank you for distorting the thing i say even more by saying i say's thing other poster's say and than make the qoute's from you look like mine.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVUEpqRg0K9MVspPyTAMg63RgetzPfT lU1LKloqySpdp3MHGWxPw
So if you want to save time and believe wat this capitalist agitator wants you to believe go end save the time.
If you realy want to know wat i say and why read the 12 pages and if you have anny questions plz pm me. im realy getting tired of these 2 troll's

[Comintern1919]

Thank you for distorting the thing i say even more by saying i say's thing other poster's say and than make the qoute's from you look like mine.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVUEpqRg0K9MVspPyTAMg63RgetzPfT lU1LKloqySpdp3MHGWxPw
So if you want to save time and believe wat this capitalist agitator wants you to believe go end save the time.
If you realy want to know wat i say and why read the 12 pages and if you have anny questions plz pm me. im realy getting tired of these 2 troll's

Okay, where the fuck do you get those ugly pictures?

And where did I do that? Show me where I made my post look like yours. Show me, please.

Or are you again trying to troll around, trying to get everyone to read the whole thread just to realize that my summary of your stupidness is absolutly correct?

And again you seem to not know what a Term means. Troll is someone who trows things at one that haven't any meaning just to ge people angry and mad, while he's laughing his ass. Our statements had always meaning, we always proved what we said, you were the one who didn't.

See here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll
Many facts fit into your posts, don't they.

Go ahead, everyone, and realize that you just lost 10 Minutes, or even more, of your precise time you could have saved from just reading my summary.

[Joseph S.]

Okay, where the fuck do you get those ugly pictures?

And where did I do that? Show me where I made my post look like yours. Show me, please.

Or are you again trying to troll around, trying to get everyone to read the whole thread just to realize that my summary of your stupidness is absolutly correct?

And again you seem to not know what a Term means. Troll is someone who trows things at one that haven't any meaning just to ge people angry and mad, while he's laughing his ass. Our statements had always meaning, we always proved what we said, you were the one who didn't.

Go ahead, everyone, and realize that you just lost 10 Minutes, or even more, of your precise time you could have saved from just reading my summary.
Originally Posted by Joseph S.
Sure, it wasn't due to the USA that Hitler got attacked by two sides, that's not one of the reasons Hitler had supply problems, it wasn't the allies who defeated half of the german Army. Battles like the normandy weren't the least bit succesfull.
Yeah, in your dreams..


actually 15 to 20% sounds more like the number thay defeated
Dont forget the capitalist foces tried to invade diepper in 1942 and failed.
The whole 6th army of germany had to be defeated before the kapitalists even had the ball's to invade europe.




Who's now blind? Do you really think Stalin and the USSR won the war all by their own? That's stupid..


the statistic's dont lei comrad look them up.




As much as I dislike the capitalists country, you have to admit their great part in the war, else your'e nothing more than an revisionistic, blind, arrogant idiot. .


Reading capitalist propaganda again ?

second one
Originally Posted by Joseph S.
Because fundamentally you haven't got a point. The capitalists didn't trust the communists, the communists didn't trust the capitalists.... your point? This was a war on the onset and the main point is that most of Stalin's intelligence warned him but he refused to listen. Your whole issue of "trusting" the capitalists is not borne out by some historical facts either.

As for dragging variables into the argument... that's rich from someone who suddenly threw in comments about Hitler's 150,000 strong army of "zionists".. ffs.

Capitalist agitator? You are laughable and people like you are actually a capitalist's dream- "useful idiots" who through their weird historical roleplay fetishism of long demised autocrats do nothing other than to discredit the left... way to go!
[...]
Exactly my point, now add to that the intelligence reports and even the defections along with an almost blatant confession by the German ambassador along with the Luftwaffe's "accidental" reconnaisance missions- it almosts beggers belief.

[ComradeMan]

Sure, it wasn't due to the USA that Hitler got attacked by two sides, that's not one of the reasons Hitler had supply problems, it wasn't the allies who defeated half of the german Army. Battles like the normandy weren't the least bit succesfull. I wasn't aware that Hitler was attacked by two-sides, rather thought that it was Hitler who did the attacking and treaty breaking. :rolleyes:

Hitler had supply problems for several reasoons:-
1) The Russian front was far too long. Is own generals told him and he accused them of not understanding the economics of warfare.
2) Hitler did not control the N.African/Middle Easter oil fields- he needed to get to the Southern Caucasus, hence the Battle of Stalingrad.
3) The early stages of Barbarossa had been very swift and successful but blitzkrieg was not a strategy suitable to invade and conquer the USSR. The Russians pulled back and used a scorched earth policy whilst waiting for the Russian winter to play it's role- as it had with Napoleon?


Dont forget the capitalist foces tried to invade diepper in 1942 and failed.Are you talking about the Dieppe Raid of 1942 by Canadian troops?


The whole 6th army of germany had to be defeated before the kapitalists even had the ball's to invade europe. Yeah because the 6th Army could have just quickly hopped over from the Southern Caucasus to Normandy.... :rolleyes: Stalin was one of the leaders who demanded a Second Front in Europe- see the Teheran Conference. :rolleyes:

Yet again Joseph S. seems to demonstrate he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and does not care for historicity.

[Comintern1919]

Hah... damn :blushing:... SOrry, but when writing so long posts mistakes happen. I'm just a human!

I'm deeply sorry for that!

However, that wasn't anything that would have made you look too bad, was it? In fact, it would had even potrait you in a better light!

Any other mistakes I haven't seen?

[Comintern1919]

ComradeMan, sorry, the first quote came from me! :blushing:

That was sarcasm, because Joseph S. made it look like the US had no part in winning the war.

Sorry :blushing:!

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^ Okay cool- it was all a bit messed up because of the quotes function!

Anyway, facts are facts- I've edited the post accordingly.

[Comintern1919]

^^^^^^^^^^ Okay cool- it was all a bit messed up because of the quotes function!

Anyway, facts are facts- I've edited the post accordingly.

I know... After writing it I realized I did it much more complicated than necessary... Instead of clicking on the "Multi-Quote this message" button, I copied [QUOTE=Joseph S.] and changed it according to who said that. I must have forgotten it there...

[Nox]

the US had no part in winning the war.


Fixed it for you :)

All jokes aside, the US did have a very minimal role in the war - and I'm talking about the main part of the war, not their little scruff with Japan.

Their lend-lease program and their presence on the western front was helpful, but you'd have to be insane to think that it made victory any more likely. Victory for the allies was GUARANTEED as soon as Hitler crossed the border into the Soviet Union.

I would sum this up by saying that The US did have a part in the war, and they helped, but they didn't have a part in winning the war because the help they gave did not affect the outcome whatsoever.

[ComradeMan]

Fixed it for you :)

All jokes aside, the US did have a very minimal role in the war - and I'm talking about the main part of the war, not their little scruff with Japan.

Their lend-lease program and their presence on the western front was helpful, but you'd have to be insane to think that it made victory any more likely. Victory for the allies was GUARANTEED as soon as Hitler crossed the border into the Soviet Union.

I would sum this up by saying that The US did have a part in the war, and they helped, but they didn't have a part in winning the war because the help they gave did not affect the outcome whatsoever.

I have heard it stated that the three main battles of WWII were the Battle of Britain, the Battle(s) of El Alamein and the Battle of Stalingrad. All of these resulted in Axis defeats- not only in pure military terms but also in strategic terms, i.e. geography and resources. In none of these theatres of battle were the US involved as such.... so....

On the other hand I think to downplay the role of the US is foolish- in terms of aid to the USSR in particular, like I said before- perhaps not fundamental but far from inconsequential.

[Comintern1919]

The US did have a very minimal role in the war - and I'm talking about the main part of the war, not their little scruff with Japan.

Their lend-lease program and their presence on the western front was helpful, but you'd have to be insane to think that it made victory any more likely. Victory for the allies was GUARANTEED as soon as Hitler crossed the border into the Soviet Union.

I would sum this up by saying that The US did have a part in the war, and they helped, but they didn't have a part in winning the war because the help they gave did not affect the outcome whatsoever.

Sure it was made much easier for the allies to land in europa thanks to Hitlers attack on the USSR, however, Stalin could have fight them back to germany, but not more. If not due to Hitler's army, then the other Axis-Member. Yeah, Japan couldn't have helped Hitler at all, but what about Italy? Hungary? It wasn't Stalin who defeated Mussolini, it was the americans. It was them who liberated france and the other western countries.

If Stalin could single-handly defeatet the whole Axis, why then did the Americans intervene at all? Why did everyone awaited it?

[Comintern1919]

I have heard it stated that the three main battles of WWII were the Battle of Britain, the Battle(s) of El Alamein and the Battle of Stalingrad. All of these resulted in Axis defeats- not only in pure military terms but also in strategic terms, i.e. geography and resources. In none of these theatres of battle were the US involved as such.... so.....

Yeah, but the allies aren't just the USA There were Britans as well as as well as Australia, Canada, much of South America, and many more.

And everywhere I hear something about WWII, I hear of the landing on the normandy.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, but the allies aren't just the USA There were Britans as well as as well as Australia, Canada, much of South America, and many more.

And everywhere I hear something about WWII, I hear of the landing on the normandy.

I'm not arguing that- although you have to admit that we always hear about the US saving "our" asses all the time. ;) This ignores the fact of the "three battles" that were fundamental.

However, I think we are going way off topic. The topic is not saying that the Soviet Union were not fundamental in terms of Allied Victory etc etc- the topic is merely about how Stalin could have mismanaged so badly the run up and beginning of the Operation Barbarossa.

This is also not to forget Axis ineptness either. The Italian Army, largely Alpini (some of whom I have met and spoken to), were sent to Russia without winter equipment....

[Comintern1919]

I'm not arguing that- although you have to admit that we always hear about the US saving "our" asses all the time. ;) This ignores the fact of the "three battles" that were fundamental.

However, I think we are going way off topic. The topic is not saying that the Soviet Union were not fundamental in terms of Allied Victory etc etc- the topic is merely about how Stalin could have mismanaged so badly the run up and beginning of the Operation Barbarossa.

This is also not to forget Axis ineptness either. The Italian Army, largely Alpini (some of whom I have met and spoken to), were sent to Russia without winter equipment....

Okay, that'll be the last I say about that :).

Yeah, I'm not arguing that, however, the opposite is as much bad - saying Stalin won the war alone, and could have done that entirely without allied help.

Both is just idolizing and propaganda.


So, back to topic:

Yeah, them forgetting such fundamental equipment was extremly stupid and was the main reason the Axis lost so fast so much. However, makes me wonder whether Stalin had so much success fighting them back if the Winter wouldn't have come, or the Axis had good equipment. I think luck played a large part for the fail of the operation, and bad timing and preparation by Hitler and the Axis.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, them forgetting such fundamental equipment was extremly stupid and was the main reason the Axis lost so fast so much. However, makes me wonder whether Stalin had so much success fighting them back if the Winter wouldn't have come, or the Axis had good equipment. I think luck played a large part for the fail of the operation, and bad timing by Hitler.

It's not so much that they forgot but rather they didn't think the war in the east would be so prolonged.

A good commander takes into account factors such as terrain, weather and logistics and so I don't think the weather factor takes it away from the Soviets- hell, they didn't ask the Axis to attack them, did they?

In terms of WWII in general the Italian Army was much like the Soviets at the beginning, bad equipment, bad command and also low morale. There was not a good feeling between them and the Germans either. It was kind of doomed militarily from the outset.

[Comintern1919]

It's not so much that they forgot but rather they didn't think the war in the east would be so prolonged.

A good commander takes into account factors such as terrain, weather and logistics and so I don't think the weather factor takes it away from the Soviets- hell, they didn't ask the Axis to attack them, did they?

In terms of WWII in general the Italian Army was much like the Soviets at the beginning, bad equipment, bad command and also low morale. There was not a good feeling between them and the Germans either. It was kind of doomed militarily from the outset.

Yeah, it was. Most german generals tried to convince Hitler from not attacking the USSR, at least not yet.

And as much as I dislike Stalin and don't think he was very clever, you have to admit that he used that to his advantage and fought succesfuly back.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, it was. Most german generals tried to convince Hitler from not attacking the USSR, at least not yet.

And as much as I dislike Stalin and don't think he was very clever, you have to admit that he used that to his advantage and fought succesfuly back.

Stalin was a strange mix of shrewdness- not only did he survive but he also managed to outmanoeuvre a lot of political "enemies"- paranoia-he was convinced everyone was out to get him (other than Hitler in 1941 of course:crying:) and megalomania.

[Comintern1919]

Stalin was a strange mix of shrewdness- not only did he survive but he also managed to outmanoeuvre a lot of political "enemies"- paranoia-he was convinced everyone was out to get him (other than Hitler in 1941 of course:crying:) and megalomania.

I'd even go so far and say that Stalin and Hitler gave birth to the term "megalomania". I wonder who delievered it...

And I think that both also are the most paranoid persons ever.

Both facts that also greatly affected the war.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, it was. Most german generals tried to convince Hitler from not attacking the USSR, at least not yet.


This is what happens in my opinion when you get these mad-ass politicians who try to play "generalissimo".

Stalin did not have a great military track record and had fucked up badly in the Sino-Polish war 1919-1921 losing the Battles of Lviv and Warsaw.

Hitler was a failed aspiring artist and corporal.

Mussolini was a journalist.

[Comintern1919]

This is what happens in my opinion when you get these mad-ass politicians who try to play "generalissimo".

Yeah, but nowadays it's not better. I just say USA, Georg W. Bush and Iraq.






Hitler was a failed aspiring artist and corporal.

Mussolini was a journalist.

Ha, great. Do you have such a short describtion for Stalin, too? I'd love to use that as my signature :) .

[ComradeMan]

I'd even go so far and say that Stalin and Hitler gave birth to the term "megalomania". I wonder who delievered it...

It's from French, mégalomanie and was used in the late 19th century in psychology.
I don't think Hitler and Stalin were the first. Alexander the Great? All of those Medieval Kings? But yeah, I do think you can apply the term to all dicators- without megalomania you wouldn't be much of a dictator really, kind of a prerequisite on the c.v. :lol:

[Comintern1919]

It's from French, mégalomanie and was used in the late 19th century in psychology.
I don't think Hitler and Stalin were the first. Alexander the Great? All of those Medieval Kings? But yeah, I do think you can apply the term to all dicators- without megalomania you wouldn't be much of a dictator really, kind of a prerequisite on the c.v. :lol:

Damn, don't take me so damn serious :) ! ... Damn...

That was a "exaggeration", it's a commonly used form!


And yeah, no fun as a dictator without it :).

[ComradeMan]

Damn, don't take me so damn serious :) ! ... Damn...
That was a "exaggeration", it's a commonly used form!
And yeah, no fun as a dictator without it :).

Ah... humour.:cool:

Stalin- hmm....... I'll have to think about that one, but he was a big fan of Westerns, you know?

[Comintern1919]

Stalin- hmm....... I'll have to think about that one, but he was a big fan of Westerns, you know?

Hm... Maybe Stalin, the ruthless cowboy (or desperado) of the east iron curtain?

[ComradeMan]

Another example of Stalin's bizarre "ineptness" was his interference in science that probably set the Soviet nuclear programme back at least a decade (if nuclear programmes are to be seen as progressive). Stalin denounced Einstein's theories as idealistic and according to Alexander Vucinich in "Einstein and Soviet Ideology" leading supporters of Einstein's theories ended up dead in political prisons. There is of course the famous quote about "Leave them be. We can shoot them later" in reference to the science/agricultural conference in July 1948 that was called off.

[Joseph S.]

Hah... damn :blushing:... SOrry, but when writing so long posts mistakes happen. I'm just a human!

I'm deeply sorry for that!

However, that wasn't anything that would have made you look too bad, was it? In fact, it would had even potrait you in a better light!

Any other mistakes I haven't seen?
Tipical trotskyist excuse and drowing atention from the point i made in the first place.
Becaus if i doe the same you nail me to the wall with it.
so you basicly confes your a hypocrit with this post.

[ComradeMan]

Tipical trotskyist excuse and drowing atention from the point i made in the first place.
Becaus if i doe the same you nail me to the wall with it.
so you basicly confes your a hypocrit with this post.

No he made an honest mistake and admitted he was wrong. You on the other hand have contributed nothing to this thread and it definitely improved whilst you were absent. Your constant tendency baiting and ad nauseam pseudo-historical gibberish are very irritating.

[Joseph S.]

I have heard it stated that the three main battles of WWII were the Battle of Britain, the Battle(s) of El Alamein and the Battle of Stalingrad. All of these resulted in Axis defeats- not only in pure military terms but also in strategic terms, i.e. geography and resources. In none of these theatres of battle were the US involved as such.... so....

On the other hand I think to downplay the role of the US is foolish- in terms of aid to the USSR in particular, like I said before- perhaps not fundamental but far from inconsequential.
This show's how littel you actaly know about the mather yet you condam me for trying to explain the mather a bit wen the treat derailed in a im richt and the stalinist is wrong discusion

[ComradeMan]

This show's how littel you actaly know about the mather yet you condam me for trying to explain the mather a bit wen the treat derailed in a im richt and the stalinist is wrong discusion

You actually know fuck all- stop spamming the thread and please fuck off with your incoherent and inane drivel. The best you can come up with is that anyone who criticises Stalin must be a capitalist agitator or a Trot... please....

Edit to below:- Thank you for proving my point and compliments for the demonstration of maturity too. ;)

[Joseph S.]

You actually know fuck all- stop spamming the thread and please fuck off with your incoherent and inane drivel. The best you can come up with is that anyone who criticises Stalin must be a capitalist agitator or a Trot... please....
…………. [email protected]@@___
.…. _____//__l__?____\______
—-o-——CARE-POLICE—---—@)
—–`–(@)======+======(@)-