Pro-Stalin timeline

I have noted that many timelines like right wing books out there are against Stalin. I think it high time for us to fight back with our own time line that would help us fight both the right wingers and the fake left. We could work at it as a group to fix error and point out fact that other could miss.

1928 Stalin comes to power
1928 Stalin starts the first five year plan with the goal of industrializing the USSR
1928 As part of that five year plan Stalin start Collectivization of farm land as he know that one of the effects of industrialization is a reduction in the number of peasant working on the farm, and the only way to make up for the reduction in labor is to pool the remaining labor.

1929 The Great Depression starts, meaning that Stalin understood that the NEP would be effected by the Great Depression , and took pro-active measures to stop it from effecting the USSR witht he five year plan.

1931 The Dust Bowl hit the United States and around the world.
1932-1933 The Holodomor happends. Do to the dust bowl the production of food is reduced, and the goverment take a year to solve the problem. Note that the US govement toke from 1931 to 1939 to solve the same problem in the US.

1936 Start of the Spanish Civil war. Stalin during the war supports the Republican forces against the Nationalist, even sending tanks and Soviet equipment, and show that Stalin was fight agianst fascism even before the "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union"in 1939

1937 The Great Depression ends. I think that it end not because of govemernt spending, but because the US was selling goods to the Nationalist faction

1937-1938 The great purge of the Red army. It is found doing the Spanish Civil war, that the Communist force fighting with the Republican troops are losing the fight. And the blame for this is placed on the officers of the Red Army who tactics are more fit for the World war 1 (and Russain Revolution) battlefields that the fought on. The only reason that could be found for using outdated military tactics while having good equipment is that they were intentionally sabotaging the fight against Nazi Germany.

1939 The Dust bowl ends
1939 Spanish civil war ends in defeat for Republican forces
1939 Stalin is forced do to the defeat of Republican forces in Spain to sign the "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union" , or risk losing the USSR.

Cracking good idea! Thanks Comrade

I second that.

So what do you guy think about my use of the Spanish Civil war to explain why Stalin purge of the Red army and why he signed the "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union"?

Ever timeline I have seen about him, does not show the effect of outside forces on the USSR. Like how the Dust bowl effected the USSR a year later or how Stalin 5-year plan save the USSR form the Great Depression.

In my opinion, the "Treaty of Non-Agression" was more a result of the refusal of the western powers to ally themselves with the Soviet Union and carry through the policy of "Collective Security".

England, France and the USA . . . draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors… The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected a policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of “neutrality”. - J Stalin

You can also read this news article titled "Stalin’s plan to stop Hitler foiled when British talks broke down". It points out that Stalin had attempted to forge an alliance with the western powers to launch a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany barely a week before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed. I guess the loss of Spain also played into it but I just think that what I mentioned above had more of an impact on that decision.

Actually that is just what happened. There's a book written about it, The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Collective Security in Europe, 1933-39. You should read it.

Actually that is just what happened. There's a book written about it, The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Collective Security in Europe, 1933-39. You should read it.

To my point or Exoprism?

In my opinion, the "Treaty of Non-Agression" was more a result of the refusal of the western powers to ally themselves with the Soviet Union and carry through the policy of "Collective Security".

England, France and the USA . . . draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors… The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected a policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of “neutrality”. - J Stalin

You can also read this news article titled "Stalin’s plan to stop Hitler foiled when British talks broke down". It points out that Stalin had attempted to forge an alliance with the western powers to launch a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany barely a week before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed. I guess the loss of Spain also played into it but I just think that what I mentioned above had more of an impact on that decision.

I have used this point my self in the past to defend Stalin use of the "Treaty of Non-Agression" do to the lost of "Collective Security". But the fake left, sorry the ultra-left have point out time and time again that Stalin had the biggest and best Army of that era, and was his "purges" the left the Army in its weakened state during operation Barbarossa. They point out that Stalin could've easily counter invaded Poland if he had not purge Army.

I point out in my timeline that Stalin's army was in fact not the best Army in the world at that time. It did have a great deal of weapons and training designed for the second world war not the first like France and later America. But the generalship of the Army was still mired in the warfare tactics of the Russian Revolution and first world war. Noting these handicaps Stalin set out the purges Army a bad military leaders, which unfortunately were many in number. In order for him to have time to rebuild his army though he would need a stopgap. Which would come in the form of collective security which would make Hitler slows his invasion of Poland and France, or a nonaggression pact which would slow Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union.

To my point or Exoprism?

His.

Very interesting comrade, perhaps we should expand this one more?

His.

So you don't think my point is valid? Spanish Civil war not only shows the need for the "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union", but also the need for the great purge of the Red army.

In fact it reinforces his point that Stalin needed the support of the allies after his defeat in the Spanish Civil War. If Stalin had not lost Spanish Civil War, then he would not need the support of the allies against the Nazis. Which means that he could've easily counter-invaded Poland and would've of marched into Berlin in 1943 instead of 1945 (had Stalin won the Spanish Civil War).

i want to read a completed timeline of this! what happened?

i want to read a completed timeline of this! what happened?

There are a number of reasons why I stop working on this timeline.

1. We could not come to a consensus on the relationship between the Spanish Civil War and the great purges that took place during that time.

Spanish civil war 1936 to 1939
Great purge of the red army 1937-1938

Which in fact show that the purges happended during the Spanish civil war. I point out that Stalin sent good supply for a good pice during this time. But his generals used tactics from the first world war which resulted in the loss the Spanish Civil War. I also point out that because of this Stalin purged the Army. It would be understandable if you sent good equipment for good price and the people you entrusted to betrayed you, wouldn't you be entitled to a little revenge against them?

In order for this timeline to work it needs to be more than just the thoughts of one individual it needs to be at least a collaboration of like-minded individuals. Right now we can't seem to come to consensus on the effects of the Spanish Civil War and Stalin's policies.

2. I don't know if this timeline would even be useful. After being on revleft for number of years I have noticed that most people respond with one-liners. As if producing two sentences to counter any argument was beyond their neural capabilities. It's hard to debate these people, as it is hard to debate insults. I don't think this is a minority group, otherwise things like twitter, which thrive on this kind of activity, would never be in business. I also thinks is the reason why people normally only remember soundbites as processing more than a paragraph would be beyond their limited intellect.

3. We need to somehow factor in Stalin's invasion of Finland(1939-1940) and why the USSR was losing during the beginning of operation Barbarossa.

All these factors led to the current state of this work which is currently not going anywhere.