Churchill was not the prime minister at that point - you presumably mean Chamberlin
Results 121 to 139 of 139
Not sure what you mean due to how you've worded that, but seizing power from Trotsky wasn't something he did out of the kindness of his heart.Originally Posted by ReggaeCatwhat gains did stalin had???trotsky started first since the death of lenin for not taking power...yeap that kind of revolutionary
If he was concerned with making preparations for the inevitable Nazi invasion he could have actually made some preparations instead of fucking around.
Churchill was not the prime minister at that point - you presumably mean Chamberlin
He didn't seize power from Trotsky becaus Trotsky never had it to begin with. Stalin was voted into the position of General Secretary of the party.
Actually he did make said preparations, read a book some time. Damn.
So far the history books I've read in the past tell me that the Red Army was completely disorganized when the German forces invaded. I'm sorry for reading the wrong books.
But I'm willing to learn, would you recommend any particular ones?
They were disorganized because they were in the middle of reorganizing, plus redeploying and trying to create a new defensive line in the newly acquired territories in the Baltic, Western Belarus, Galicia, and Bessarabia.So far the history books I've read in the past tell me that the Red Army was completely disorganized when the German forces invaded. I'm sorry for reading the wrong books.
But I'm willing to learn, would you recommend any particular ones?
I recommend reading Stalin's Wars by Geoffery Roberts or anything by David M. Glantz on that issue. Glantz if I remember correctly suggested that acquiring new territory actually did more to hinder Soviet defense, but to be fair that is more of a hindsight argument I think. Back in those days, especially given Russia's terrain and military history, it's not hard to understand why some people would think that putting distance between the front and Moscow would be helpful.
We are nothing like fascists or right wingers or liberals,
Yeah but you kinda are. You see, both groups spend a LOT of time attacking the Soviet Union, and I have even seen some Trots or anarchists in the past attempt to outdo some mainstream anti-Communist authors on this subject. In the end, the message is the same- USSR TERRIBLE!! EVIL!! WORST COUNTRY EVER!!! What is worse is that the message appears to be coming from both right AND left, with the same intensity and often word for word(in fact these two factions tend to rely on one another for evidence). The message is clear to the average person- there must be something to the claim because two opposed sides are agreeing on this one issue.We are nothing like fascists or right wingers or liberals,
You would do a lot better to try to understand the real reasons why the USSR was that way, rather than just accepting everything word for word from decades of anti-Communist propaganda. While the word of ever dissident is held up as gospel truth, there are tens of millions of people who grew up in this system and had more or less normal lives, in many cases better than they do today.
You know, sometimes I wish the liberals and Trots could come here to Russia some day, and find some of the old ladies with severe spinal problems begging in front of churches in the -30 degree cold. I will offer to translate for you, and you can explain to them how terrible life under Stalinism was.
No; just no. While some rabid anti-communists might say that most leftists will say to the effect of "Yes USSR did some good things but it betrayed many leftist ideals and instituted cruelty and oppression."
2+2=4
No, most who call themselves leftists, the vast majority being liberals, do not make that argument at all. Most of them praise Gorbachev, and condemn Reagan by claiming that he helped the USSR exist longer.
Cool story bro.Originally Posted by Intelligitimate
I would just consider myself a Marxist, personally. I don't praise Gorbachev and I hate Reagan simply for being a reactionary pig.
What I don't like about the USSR is the fact that it was a dictatorship (correct me if I am wrong). While there were some good dictators (Lenin, and to an extent Stalin) it was still a dictatorship of the ruling class (in contrast to a dictatorship of the proletariat*) over the proletariat. As much as you can argue that the new ruling class acts in the interest of the proletariat, the proletariat had not emancipated itself and was not self-governing. There was still a ruling class in control who were free to act in their own interests. So I think the USSR was not Marxist and this is why I oppose the actual ideology of Stalinism.
*Yes, I realize that this does not mean a dictatorship in the traditional sense of the word.
But it was a dictatorship of the proletariat until the political changes of 1956. Indeed some citizens retained certain privileges, but the means of production were not in private hands.
This is a hell of an argument! The USSR was unprepared for a war against nazi germany because they were struggling to digest the conquests made while allies with nazi germany in a war against Poland. And since some proleteriat are more equal than others, it is a debatable whether Polish proleteriat needed to be subjugated for the benefit of the Russian ones...
Burn strawman, burn!
Didn't we already establish that the USSR and Nazi Germany werent allies and that the Soviets invaded Poland to deny land and time to the fascists?
And did you just pull that thing about the Polish proletariat out of your ass? It smells like bullshit. Or dragonshit.
[QUOTE]
Wasn't Germany provoked by the Polish invasion of the fatherland, and the subsequent conquest of a radio station?
Hey... There were factories and the like in Poland. And workers to man 'em. Don't blame me if Stalin thought those workers were of less importance than Russian ones.
Oh yes, Stalin clearly believed that non-Russians were less important than Russians - especially when it came to Poles and those nasty people from the Caucasus, right?
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop
"Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time." - mikelepore
Which is why?
My Jewish teacher explained it the usual "human nature" and how Marx has good ideas but he overlooked greed and bla bla.
I tried to make her feel more sympathetic to the leftists by telling her Marx was Jewish instead of arguing
"America is ready for another revolution" - Sarah Palin
[QUOTE=Green Dragon;1645714]Not so fast R-tard! Now you are attempting to compare the Soviet invasion of Galicia and Western Belarus to the Gleizwitz incident? Too bad that the Soviet mission in those territories was well documented(though this is rarely written about in the west for obvious reasons), and there are documented instances of German units trying to push far beyond the agreed upon demarcation. This was the reason why Germany declared Poland non-existent on the 15th of September.
That's a different thing. The army fared poorly in the first months, but that doesn't mean that no preparations were made whatsoever. Consider the evacuation of industry to the east; would anyone seriously suggest that this undertaking was just a matter of "fucking about" with no preparation whatsoever?So far the history books I've read in the past tell me that the Red Army was completely disorganized when the German forces invaded. I'm sorry for reading the wrong books.
What you're saying here relates to the organisation of forces on the ground, not the preparation of the war itself. You can prepare a war for years, and still be defeated because the way your forces are organised do not meet the requirements for victory. The Soviets were prepared for war, but not sufficiently so, which is why they did everything they could to delay a war, rather than be belligerent towards Germany, with the realisation that such a war would come eventually.
It's not a matter of reading the right history books, but a matter of not conflating different things entirely. A war can be well-prepared, but poorly executed. Anyway, instead of reading a book, you could watch this: http://english.pobediteli.ru/
Last edited by Wanted Man; 9th January 2010 at 11:37.
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
Wow another Stalin bashing/worshiping thread. Anyway about the anti-Stalin feeling that's so prevalent around here, I don't think it has much to do with nationalism. When was the last time you saw anyone waving the national flag? Fortunately the only nationalists I heard of are the members of PRM (some political party), which didn't even get 5% to enter the parliament and the ND fascists, a bunch of morons in their midlife crisis fustrated with their meaningless lives. I had some conversations about stalin with friends and the only argument against him was simply that Communism is bad and stuff like that, not much different from the attitude many have against Ceausescu.
