The Stalin Thread 2: all discussion about Stalin (as a person) in this thread please

This is assuming that the Soviets launched a "war of aggression." The intent, which I'm sure you yourself do not deny, was to secure Leningrad from a German offensive through Finnish ports. The Soviets approached the Finns on this issue, they didn't say "do this or else we'll destroy Finland." The Finnish leadership, which was demonstrably anti-communist, would rather throw its lot in with the Germans than agree to keep Leningrad secure in the case of a Nazi invasion of the USSR. The Soviet act was one of desperation, not imperial conquest.

This is assuming that said Soviet Politburo thought things through as Russians rather than as communists, or even as those who were greatly concerned with the threat Finland posed to the USSR through any working relationship with Nazi Germany.

Again, the USSR had no intention to annex Finland or to subjugate its people. The anti-communism of the Finnish government was all that factored into the Finnish side of the equation. Well, that and the fact that the negotiators, who you'd think would be better posed to consider what constitutes inequality or not (unless you're going to propose they were actually secret Soviet agents or "useful idiots"), didn't mind Stalin's request.

The Finnish Government also sought to conquer not just the parts of Karelia taken by the USSR but also that which belonged to the USSR even before the October Revolution. Such shows that they obviously weren't fighting merely for the defense of the Finnish nation against the evil Russian chauvinists, but were themselves adopting chauvinist positions.

Well then they're idiots.

Stalin actually denied it while it was happening. But that's irrelevant, the Holodomor was a man-made famine and what is being denied is that it was man-made. So yes, the Holodomor is being denied here. A good analogy would be saying that the Holocaust was the deportation of Jews and others to camps where they were treated very well but the ones that died, died by accident.

Though, of course, as a Nazi would say, the Germans did the concentrating and the Jews did the camping.

There is no question that the Soviet Union was the aggressor nation in the Winter War and that it was waged for the purpose of territorial gain. It was not a defensive war. Had the Soviet government not decided that they wanted to redraw the Finnish borders then there would have been no conflict

They were, largely, Russian. And merely calling themselves Communist does not allow for a pass on this. There's a term for that social-imperialism

Again, this is very basic stuff. The decision to forcibly impose a Soviet settlement on Finland is a clear violation of the latter's right to self-determination. There's no other way to view that and the motivations of Moscow are not particularly important: a Great Power imposed its will on a former colony. It's not acceptable in Ireland (no matter what you may think) and it's not acceptable in Finland. Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and any other victims of Soviet territorial aggrandisement

With regards the composition of the Finnish government, it's hard to believe that their stance and that of the Finnish people (particularly those living in the border region) differed significantly on this point. In seeking to preserve Finland's territorial integrity the government was almost certainly in tune with popular opinion

You have perhaps heard that two wrongs don't make a right?

But the Finnish position can probably be justified because they needed additional land to guarantee the security of their borders :lol:

Remind me, when did the USSR officially admit that millions had died through famine? When did it admit that state policy had played a role in this disaster?

Ignoring the fact that that's exactly what Stalin's aims were attempting to achieve during the Winter War. Complete annexation. Fortunately, Stalin's armies(which, after the Great Purges, were completely useless)were not able to do destroy the Finns. The Aim of the Winter War was the complete conquest of Finland. This was prevented by the incompetence of the Soviet troops, the high morale of the Finnish troops and Franco-British plans to intervene. If not for the Franco-British plans to send troops to Finland, the would have went on until Finland could be annexed.

And don't give us this shit about Germans. A great blow to the Finnish war effort was the German blockade that prevented arms deliveries. Germany was directly helping the Soviet Union in this war of conquest. Finland was persuing a policy of independence and neutrality.

And shall we discuss the casualties of this war? Over 100,000 good, Soviet men, killed.

Perhaps Hitler's invasion of Poland was justified?(this same invasion that Stalin supported, as you know, Hitler invaded from the West, Stalin from the East) After all, the mighty Germanics need living space! Let them take it from the inferior slavs. Kind of like the Great Communist Soviets needing more territory to protect Leningrad, so let's take it from the inferior Fascist Finns!

Just stop sucking Stalin's cock.

Leasing ports is not redrawing borders.

Feel free to note the imperialist objectives of the USSR in this case. Tell me how imperialism was utilized.

The USSR was not the Russian Empire. It did not treat Finland as a colony.

I guess it was considering that tons of Finnish Reds got massacred during the civil war and the Soviet friendship society set up after the Winter War had about 30 thousand supporters before it was banned.

It admitted it in 1989. Obviously it didn't admit it in the 1930's onwards for political reasons, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Anyone today who denies that a famine happened or that Soviet policies contributed to it is an idiot.

The USSR sent troops into eastern Poland, which was actually Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine. Poland had refused to agree to a pact against Nazi Germany as part of greater Soviet plans for collective security against the Germans to begin with, but then again you'd probably just say Stalin would use it to annex Poland anyway.

On the Polish situation see: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...de_poland.html

I was unaware that the Soviets had a war economy based on expanding into other countries, or that denouncing fascism was the same as denouncing "inferior slavs."

Also the Germans helped the Finns build the Mannerheim line. As soon as the Winter War ended German influence in Finland rose rapidly.

You may take your seat with Mao, Trotsky, Fidel Castro, Khrushchev, Tito, or any other pseudo-communist and/or bourgeois nationalist who denounce Stalin. I'll side with Stalin because he was a Marxist-Leninist, because he advanced the cause of communism.

So that's how this is going to go. You're not stupid Ismail so stop playing at it. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the proposed territory transfers that were initiated in Moscow and ultimately rejected by Finland

I sense a race to semantics. Fundamental to the Soviet agenda in the Winter War was the conquest and annexation of land in Karelia. This is imperialism in the sense of what Harvey calls the 'territorial logic of power'; that is, the seizure of land for purposes, beyond the mere accumulation of capital, that enhance the position of the ruling elite

Again and again. The USSR was unquestionably a great power in 1939. And Finland had been a colony of the USSR's predecessor state. This is not difficult so please stop making it so

Except that that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I raised. You have yet to prove that a) Finnish communists and sympathisers were automatically in favour of signing away a chunk of their country, and b) such pro-Soviet elements were anywhere near a majority in the country. Given the election results of 1939, this seems incredibly unlikely

Territory around the ports. The amount of land the Soviets were in turn willing to give to the Finns areas from the USSR which were larger. This territory was also leased.

Was it the policy of the Soviets before the war?

It aimed to "enhance the position of the ruling elite" by significantly lessening the chance of a German takeover of Leningrad via Finland.

Most would say the USSR became a great power after WWII. In any case my point was that the Soviets did not treat Finland as a colony and had no intention of annexing it via the peaceful treaty they wished to sign before the Winter War. Their goal was to secure Leningrad. You've provided no evidence that their goal was anything other than this.

Real internationalism isn't based on defending the territory of bourgeois states. I'm well aware there were nationalists among the Finnish communists, including Yrjö Leino and Tuominen. In any case the Finnish CP was certainly not in a very good position in interwar Finland and thousands of Finnish Reds had been forced to flee to Soviet Russia after the civil war.

Obviously the Finnish government used the opportunity to declare that the dastardly Russians were seeking to destroy Finland as part of their dreaded rampage against Western Civilization, but there were evidently supporters of the Soviet policy who recognized that Stalin and Co. had war with Nazi Germany in mind.

Imperialist Britain was by far the biggest critique of Soviet Influence and Occupation of Eastern Europe. I'd like to point out that Britain is a country full of hypocrites, who, at this time, had an empire stretching from South Africa to Burma.

Churchill should be considered an international warlord, and it is my hope that this will happen. Churchill wasn't too different from Fascism himself.

Would you care to explain and expound on how Winston Churchill was like a fascist dictator?

For what it's worth, Churchill did express an admiration for fascism in the 20's based out of a strong dislike for the Bolsheviks. He also said some crude anti-semitic "Judeo-Bolshevik" stuff early on and did not look fondly upon Arabs.

That doesn't make him a fascist, just a reactionary, which he was despite being more prescient on, and less willing to apologize for, Nazi Germany's aggressive intentions than many British politicians of the 1930's.

Dimitri Kitsikis, who is a professor in the University of Ottawa, proposed a scientific model for Fascism with 13 categories.

The idea of class and the importance of agrarianism
Private ownership, the circulation of money, the regulation of the economy by the state, the idea of ethnic bourgeois class, economic self-sufficiency
The nation and the difference between nation and state
The attitude towards democracy and political parties
The importance of political heroes, i.e. the charismatic leader
The attitude towards Tradition
The attitude towards the individual and society
The attitude towards equality and hierarchy
The attitude towards women
The attitude towards religion
The attitude towards rationalism
The attitude towards intellectualism and elitism
The attitude towards the Third World

Churchill and the British Empire have at least an 11/13 on this scale, making them semi-Fascistic.

That would make most countries fascist at that time period. What a shitty and stupid scale. Where the fuck did he get his degree from one of those mills? God there is so much better and well researched views on fascism this shit doesn't even rate.

No, said professor is just a liberal who adopts a non-materialist analysis of fascism. It leads to the same logic which argues that George W. Bush is a fascist, or FDR (who was actually closer to a fascist leader, although still quite distant, than Churchill). Then it extends into everything until you are calling Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il fascists.

I tried to point out the word SEMI. Anyway, just because Churchill wasn't a complete Fascist, doesn't mean he can't have Fascistic traits.

Except "fascistic traits" doesn't tell us anything. Name anything that would compare Churchill to Mussolini or Hitler.

Fixed

Churchill was the leader of an empire that stretched from Southern Africa to Burma, from Canada to Australia. I am sure that this was a dream of Hitler and Mussolini.

Was Queen Victoria a proto-fascist then?

No, it wouldn't.

Yes it would. Virtually every government on earth had reactionary attitudes towards all those various issues. The only big difference is that some states were bourgeois democracies whereas others weren't.

It's a terrible way to gauge fascism.