Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Yet another discussion on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 10 Feb 2014, 19:00
OP-Bagration wrote:
How did the stalinists knew the anarchists would end up supporting the nazis?


You probably shouldn't bring that up, social-fascism and KPD support of the Nazi-sponsored Prussian referendum in 1931 is a huge stain on Stalinist history. That and providing economic support for the German war machine so workers can kill each other more efficiently.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Feb 2014, 21:49
I have no problem with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and I don't believe in anarcho-trotskyist slanders about the KPD's actions. Tell that to someone else, that won't work with me. Who crushed Hitler and nazism if it isn't Stalin? So yes, I can bring that up.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 10 Feb 2014, 23:08
That's more than just the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, that's providing material support for one side in an imperialist war so it can be more devastating (mind you, Germany really needed resources at the time, too).

And that's not slander...that's indisputable historical fact. The 1931 referendum happened, and under comintern guidance the KPD supported it.
What the hell is an anarcho-trotskyist?

Quote:
Who crushed Hitler and nazism if it isn't Stalin? So yes, I can bring that up.


Stalin crushed Hitler after it was clear the latter held the former in a higher priority than the western imperialists and invaded (prior Stalin zig-zagged back and forth over how bad the nazis were first vs the SPD, then the western imperialists) at which point Stalin quickly allied with them and dissolved the comintern to demonstrate solidarity.

You want to know Stalin's biggest contribution to the crushing of Hitler? Believing he wouldn't invade until 1942, giving Hitler the chance to end his 'strategizing' that put the USSR off to the side and actually drag him into the war.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 01:01
OP-Bagration wrote:
I have no problem with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and I don't believe in anarcho-trotskyist slanders about the KPD's actions. Tell that to someone else, that won't work with me. Who crushed Hitler and nazism if it isn't Stalin? So yes, I can bring that up.


"And I don't believe"

Not to be that guy but "belief" has nothing to do with "reality."

You kind of bury your own argument in the sand when you also go anarcho-trotskyite, Stalin beat Hitler, etc. etc. because a) name-calling never wins and b) any socialist, even a moderate M-L will probably say "yeah, Stalin did make a big mistake."

This is what always prevented me from going Stalinist: I just can't stomach the historical acrobatics of "Czechoslovakia First" to "Nah, Molotov-Ribbentrop" to "DON'T SHOOT IT'S A TRICK" to "Ah yes... we crushed them. All because of Stalin. Yup.."

Conscript said it well too. I don't want the endless Revleft tier fight over this but when people bait each other fights are bound to ensue.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 02:26
Quote:
"And I don't believe"

Not to be that guy but "belief" has nothing to do with "reality."

That was my point. All of your slanders are made of beliefs. You believe that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was bad, and you think you are better at analyzing things than Stalin who was leading a country with a whole administration, quantity of documentation, intelligence reports that you don't have and that nobody have except old Soviet cartons.

Quote:
You kind of bury your own argument in the sand when you also go anarcho-trotskyite, Stalin beat Hitler, etc. etc. because a) name-calling never wins and b) any socialist, even a moderate M-L will probably say "yeah, Stalin did make a big mistake."

I don't know what moderation is about. I would be a fool or a pretentious if I said: "Stalin did make a big mistake". On the basis of what? Did Napoléon made a big mistake when he trusted Grouchy?

Quote:
And that's not slander...that's indisputable historical fact. The 1931 referendum happened, and under comintern guidance the KPD supported it. What the hell is an anarcho-trotskyist?

You are accusing the KPD of taking the same position as the Nazi party in a referendum. That makes as much sense as accusing the French communist party of siding with the National Front when both parties promoted the "No" to the 2005 referendum. That's called slanders, not facts.

Quote:
That's more than just the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, that's providing material support for one side in an imperialist war so it can be more devastating (mind you, Germany really needed resources at the time, too).

You are rolling yourself in the mud comrade! Saying that Stalin tried to make the war "more devastating" even though he proposed a military alliance to France and Germany (facts) is indeed pure slander. Surprisingly the only way for anarcho-trotskyists to criticize the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is to have people forget half of the truth: the pact wasn't one-sided. Stalin received as much from Hitler, and what he received would later help him in his war against Hitler. That's called dialectics, but you don't care about dialectics.

Quote:
What the hell is an anarcho-trotskyist?

That! Analysing things out of faith, without pragmatism. Trade with Germany: yuck. Bad. Something looks disgusting? Bad! Not red enough? Bad! This childish point of view is what I call anarcho-trotskyism.

Quote:
This is what always prevented me from going Stalinist: I just can't stomach the historical acrobatics of "Czechoslovakia First" to "Nah, Molotov-Ribbentrop" to "DON'T SHOOT IT'S A TRICK" to "Ah yes... we crushed them. All because of Stalin. Yup.."

Meaningless.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 03:18
OP-Bagration wrote:
That was my point. All of your slanders are made of beliefs. You believe that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was bad, and you think you are better at analyzing things than Stalin who was leading a country with a whole administration, quantity of documentation, intelligence reports that you don't have and that nobody have except old Soviet cartons.

I don't know what moderation is about. I would be a fool or a pretentious if I said: "Stalin did make a big mistake". On the basis of what? Did Napoléon made a big mistake when he trusted Grouchy?

You are accusing the KPD of taking the same position as the Nazi party in a referendum. That makes as much sense as accusing the French communist party of siding with the National Front when both parties promoted the "No" to the 2005 referendum. That's called slanders, not facts.

You are rolling yourself in the mud comrade! Saying that Stalin tried to make the war "more devastating" even though he proposed a military alliance to France and Germany (facts) is indeed pure slander. Surprisingly the only way for anarcho-trotskyists to criticize the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is to have people forget half of the truth: the pact wasn't one-sided. Stalin received as much from Hitler, and what he received would later help him in his war against Hitler. That's called dialectics, but you don't care about dialectics.

That! Analysing things out of faith, without pragmatism. Trade with Germany: yuck. Bad. Something looks disgusting? Bad! Not red enough? Bad! This childish point of view is what I call anarcho-trotskyism.

Meaningless.


1) Nobody said allies were a bad idea, nor that there isn't a place for wheeling and dealing, old-world power politics. What is bad is constant flip-flopping based upon "intelligence reports" from heads of intelligence with increasingly short life spans. Yezhov, Yagoda, Beria, surely they couldn't all be super duper or super evil? And sure some of the intel was good. A lot was crap. And the decision to do 180 from supporting Czechoslovakia, then to fighting the Nazis, then attacking Finland because ?? SOCIALISM! isn't good politics. Even on the basis of realpolitik a la Bismarck it makes no goddamn sense. And of course people other than Stalin were involved in making these decisions- which is the point. The leadership of the USSR made full-retard choices as opposed to the pragmatic but internationalist choices of Lenin. Stalin signed off. Both were guilty of screwing the dog on that one.

2) You believe Stalin didn't make a mistake. Only difference is the Napoleon didn't order Grouchy to suck strawberries on the way to Waterloo thus costing him the battle. Stalin did order troops not to shoot back, did put idiots like Voroshilov in command until November 1941, and did order Budyonny to hold Kiev while surrounded. This is not rational military thought. And of course war has an emotional boundary. But these choices were sheer suicide with 0 strategic advantage - and even Stalin's generals realized this (inb4 "damn revisionist lies of their memoirs" etc etc). Hell, the guy even had intelligence he rejected saying yup, Fritz and Hans are coming and they're bringing 3000 panzers but he decided that rather than fly a bit of aerial recce he'd just tell them to f&*k off.

3) No, there's a huge difference between campaigning for a "No" vote and actively trying to smash the Soc-Dems at the expense of fighting against fascism. Also: he disbanded Comintern. Did Lenin do that to gain Finnish or British recognition? To gain the support of China? No!

4) Again, see above. Also what did Stalin benefit? The ex-Prinz Eugen just sat in Leningrad Harbour doing nothing. The people who benefited the most from this trade were the fascists. Germany needed 17 resources of which it had 2 and Stalin provided them at least 7-8 extra after Hitler cut off ties with Chiang-Kai Shek. Your name calling as "anarcho-trotskyites" (of which I am neither) further insinuates you prefer to name-call than debate. It's not "anarcho-trotskyite" or even ultra-left to say "even in the realms of realpolitik, Stalin FAILED". And he did. Hell, secret treaties and power politics probably were fine to do in 1939. But not the way the USSR did them! Sure, he won the war.... 20 million casualties later. The bravery of the Red Army, Soviet people, and Communist Party are not in question. Even Stalin performed well at times. But the situation he had to deal with in 1941 is the direct result of poor decisions later in the 1930's. Also, why exactly did he hand control of the Communist partisans over to the Brits instead of the NKVD? Some of these positions were baffling, through and through. You're taking a reductionist point of view wherein we say "his choices are bad" and you elaborate and claim "no, you think doing ANY of these positions in ANY way were evil!" Which can't be further from the truth.

5) "Meaningless." I have many responses to this, some sarcastic, others passive aggressive. This leans slightly into the latter category when I say: c'mon, that's the best you've got?

This is why it's hard to understand Stalinists. It would be better if one said "he screwed up big but it outweighs the bad" or "yeah, those bastards at Katyn deserved it, man, hard decisions for hard times etc." Those are positions one could maybe come to grudgingly fall in line with. Yet every single time it's brought up Stalin is this immortal, unbeatable superhero who never made a bad choice and everything that would question otherwise is evil Western propaganda straight from the misinformation vaults of the CIA. Trotsky is somewhere in there too making up awful and untrue slanders, and possibly a bunch of anarchists as well as the 90% of the Bolshevik Party fascist traitor collaboraters who miraculously managed to not only become members of the Central Committee, but also to lead a socialist revolution.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 11 Feb 2014, 05:08
OP-Bagration wrote:
You are accusing the KPD of taking the same position as the Nazi party in a referendum. That makes as much sense as accusing the French communist party of siding with the National Front when both parties promoted the "No" to the 2005 referendum. That's called slanders, not facts.


If it was that simple, yea it'd be slander. But it was not just a case of coinciding positions, it was a nazi-sponsored referendum to eject the SPD from the government. The KPD, under the BS of the social-fascism line and the Third Period, supported it as a possible means to strike at what was perceived to be a greater enemy.

You're comparing this to...two minor parties endorsing an option in a referendum neither initiated?

Quote:
You are rolling yourself in the mud comrade! Saying that Stalin tried to make the war "more devastating" even though he proposed a military alliance to France and Germany (facts) is indeed pure slander.


I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling. That was exactly his intentions after the allies rebuffed his proposal in 1936. He wanted to let the imperialists destroy each other, supply the underdog, oil-starved side with precious material (and oil), and collaborate with the Nazis insofar they served his interests.

Whether it makes sense or not is up to debate, but this is about Stalin as an anti-fascist crusader from day 1 that was committed to the fight.

Quote:
Surprisingly the only way for anarcho-trotskyists to criticize the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is to have people forget half of the truth: the pact wasn't one-sided. Stalin received as much from Hitler, and what he received would later help him in his war against Hitler. That's called dialectics, but you don't care about dialectics.


I don't care about what Stalin received, none of it is worth supplying a fascist war machine keen on starting another imperialist war and responsible for probably the biggest wholesale massacre of reds and workers in history.

From what I've read, Stalin even handed over German communists as part of the pact.

Quote:
That! Analysing things out of faith, without pragmatism. Trade with Germany: yuck. Bad. Something looks disgusting? Bad! Not red enough? Bad! This childish point of view is what I call anarcho-trotskyism.


Funny, I thought it'd have something to do with to do with Trotskyism or Anarchism. Nobody said trade with Germany was bad, what a vague statement. How can that be what you're taking from this?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 05:23
Quote:
1) Nobody said allies were a bad idea, nor that there isn't a place for wheeling and dealing, old-world power politics. What is bad is constant flip-flopping based upon "intelligence reports" from heads of intelligence with increasingly short life spans. Yezhov, Yagoda, Beria, surely they couldn't all be super duper or super evil? And sure some of the intel was good. A lot was crap. And the decision to do 180 from supporting Czechoslovakia, then to fighting the Nazis, then attacking Finland because ?? SOCIALISM! isn't good politics. Even on the basis of realpolitik a la Bismarck it makes no goddamn sense. And of course people other than Stalin were involved in making these decisions- which is the point. The leadership of the USSR made full-retard choices as opposed to the pragmatic but internationalist choices of Lenin. Stalin signed off. Both were guilty of screwing the dog on that one.

It makes sense to attack Finland, without the attack of Finland it wouldn't have been possible to secure the Leningrad district, thus increasing the risk of losing Leningrad during the war, and losing the war eventually.

Quote:
2) You believe Stalin didn't make a mistake.

What did I said?

Quote:
Only difference is the Napoleon didn't order Grouchy to suck strawberries on the way to Waterloo thus costing him the battle.

So what's the problem with Voroshilov then, If Napoleon isn't responsible for Grouchy.

Quote:
Stalin did order troops not to shoot back, did put idiots like Voroshilo

Not so fast. If there is one idiot for the moment it is not Voroshilov. First because you have no military skill, and secondly because you are ignorant of history and repeat anticommunist slanders like a parrot. Soviet commanders had sealed envelopes containing their orders in case of attack. But you were taught by bourgeois propaganda that "Stalin did order troops not to shoot back". That's wrong, they were ordered not to respond to provocations, but a full scale attack isn't a provocation. A provocation is, for example, a plane entering national airspace (like Turkey did with Syria) or a bombardment (like Noth Korea did against South Korea).

Quote:
Hell, the guy even had intelligence he rejected saying yup, Fritz and Hans are coming and they're bringing 3000 panzers but he decided that rather than fly a bit of aerial recce he'd just tell them to f&*k off.

I don't always understand when you are trying to say something.

Quote:
3) No, there's a huge difference between campaigning for a "No" vote and actively trying to smash the Soc-Dems at the expense of fighting against fascism. Also: he disbanded Comintern. Did Lenin do that to gain Finnish or British recognition? To gain the support of China? No!

Why at the expense of fighting against fascism? Today in France it is Hollande who develops fascism in France indirectly. How could we expect to fight against the National Front if we don't fight against Hollande? That would be like trying to extinguish a fire while the incindiary is still in town.

Quote:
Sure, he won the war.... 20 million casualties later

27. You forgot 7 million.

Quote:
You're taking a reductionist point of view wherein we say "his choices are bad" and you elaborate and claim "no, you think doing ANY of these positions in ANY way were evil!" Which can't be further from the truth.

I spoke about slanders, that's different. There is a difference between someone slandering ("oh bad Stalin ordered not to fire back") and someone trying to analyse things and making mistakes in his analysis. Since you believe that Stalin is the bad guy, you say: "The people who benefited the most from this trade were the fascists". But actually you don't have a clue about this, you don't even know what you are talking about. Where are the evidences? You have none, only your dogmas.

Quote:
Your name calling as "anarcho-trotskyites" (of which I am neither) further insinuates you prefer to name-call than debate.

I like doing both. I can debate and name-call at the same time. It's important to name-call you opponent because as a Marxist it's not enough to analyze the content (the arguments), you need to take the context and the containing into consideration, classify your adversary according to his actual position.


Quote:
5) "Meaningless." I have many responses to this, some sarcastic, others passive aggressive. This leans slightly into the latter category when I say: c'mon, that's the best you've got?

This is why it's hard to understand Stalinists. It would be better if one said "he screwed up big but it outweighs the bad" or "yeah, those bastards at Katyn deserved it, man, hard decisions for hard times etc." Those are positions one could maybe come to grudgingly fall in line with. Yet every single time it's brought up Stalin is this immortal, unbeatable superhero who never made a bad choice and everything that would question otherwise is evil Western propaganda straight from the misinformation vaults of the CIA. Trotsky is somewhere in there too making up awful and untrue slanders, and possibly a bunch of anarchists as well as the 90% of the Bolshevik Party fascist traitor collaboraters who miraculously managed to not only become members of the Central Committee, but also to lead a socialist revolution.

What are you trying to say? If you want me to admit that Stalin made some mistakes, no, I'm not interested. I don't care about his mistakes actually, he is dead.


Quote:
If it was that simple, yea it'd be slander. But it was not just a case of coinciding positions, it was a nazi-sponsored referendum to eject the SPD from the government. The KPD, under the BS of the social-fascism line and the Third Period, supported it as a possible means to strike at what was perceived to be a greater enemy.

You're comparing this to...two minor parties endorsing an option in a referendum neither initiated?

Neither initiated, that doesn't mean anything. If it wasn't the National Front, it was Chirac. Siding with Chirac is better now? What was the question in this referendum? Of course they could have chosen to make the holy alliance with the bourgeoisie in power to protect those who shot Luxemburg and Liebknecht against the fascist threat. Would you have liked that? Maybe.

Quote:
I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling. That was exactly his intentions after the allies rebuffed his proposal in 1936. He wanted to let the imperialists destroy each other, supply the underdog, oil-starved side with precious material (and oil), and collaborate with the Nazis insofar they served his interests.

No no no, the Allies rebuffed his proposal in 1939, not in 1936. In 1936 there was the franco-Soviet pact. The pact with Ribbentrop was made without preparation after that, so it's easy to say that's I'm trolling if you don't even know anything about chronology and facts. How can you criticize the pact if you don't know what was at sake?

Quote:
Funny, I thought it'd have something to do with to do with Trotskyism or Anarchism. Nobody said trade with Germany was bad, what a vague statement. How can that be what you're taking from this?

What? You say the USSR was allowed to trade with Nazi Germany? Is that what you say?
Last edited by OP-Bagration on 11 Feb 2014, 11:59, edited 3 times in total.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2013, 09:08
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 11 Feb 2014, 09:00
Stalin won the diplomatic war in 1939. But in September diplomats gave way to generals and the brilliance of Stalin's achievement was eclipsed ... Of the big five, only the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin avoided the trap of a two-front war, which in 1941-42 would probably have been disastrous for the Soviet Union. As a wartime leader, this stands as one of his greatest accomplishments. Smile from Stalin and a beam of light from Molotov. Small wonder--they had pulled off a Diplomatic Triumph. A Neutrality Pact with Japan signed on April 13, 1941, It held.
The world is riven by class — not race, gender, age or disability. There is only one human race, and any ideas that promote divisions between us do the work of capitalism.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 11 Feb 2014, 10:26
I can think of a lot of critical things to say about the Pact and its consequences, but I wonder what the alternative could have been after Munich.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 10:38
There would be no need for pacting with nazis if Stalin was a real socialist leader.
As such, he would not have had his entire top brass executed a couple of years before that.
This book is very good on this very subject:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=sovietempire&path=subst/home/home.html/Stalins-Curse-Bat ... 0307269159
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 12:07
I don't have that book, but when I read that the author intends to prove that it was the USSR that wanted and provoked the Cold War, I wonder how you can call that a good book. We have obtained plenty of new evidences during the few last years from the archives proving that Stalin didn't want the Cold War, so this is just one more anticommunist book. You shouldn't read stuff like that, at least I wouldn't have bought that shit. Your guy also wrote a book called Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. So actually, you don't need to be a good historian to understand that people like Gellately are the ones who wanted and started the Cold War.
Why don't you read Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 instead? I don't have it, but I read very good reviews and excerpts.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 12:29
OP-Bagration wrote:
You shouldn't read stuff like that, at least I wouldn't have bought that shit.

EXCUSE ME?

OP-Bagration wrote:
Your guy also wrote a book called Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. So actually, you don't need to be a good historian to understand that people like Gellately are the ones who wanted and started the Cold War.

He is not *my* guy. He is someone with academic credentials who published a book based on newly discovered evidence from the vaults of the Russian Federation. If you call that crap it is your perception of reality. I'm just sorry if it doesn't match with the real thing out there.
Since I did read the book and you try to infer that the author is portraying Lenin as an equally bad leader as Stalin, I have some news for you - the author clearly states that Stalin abused Lenin's name and attributed Stalin's actions as direct consequence of what Lenin was saying/writing/wanting, when in reality it was just the opposite from what Lenin would ever want.

It never seizes to amaze me how you trash someone/something without actually reading about him/it first.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 13:09
There is plenty of persons with "academic credentials" who act more like propagandists than historians. In France we have two main historians like that, Stéphane Courtois and Nicolas Werth. Their books are full of lies. For example for many years Nicolas Werth continued to write in his books that Stalin had a nervous breakdown when Hitler attacked and locked himself in his dacha. That was a big slander supported by no serious evidence, but he continued to write that in his book. So your guy can have has much "academic credentials" as it's possible to have, that won't make him a serious or good historian. The title of his book speaks for itself.

Quote:
Since I did read the book and you try to infer that the author is portraying Lenin as an equally bad leader as Stalin,

I didn't read the book but I did read the title in which Lenin is clearly identified to "social catastrophe". That's enough, no need to go further.

You say that you read this book? You also read Stalin's Curse? Do you have a special interest in Gelatelly's works? I don't think you actually read both books, but if that's true that's quite disturbing.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 13:27
OP-Bagration wrote:
It makes sense to attack Finland, without the attack of Finland it wouldn't have been possible to secure the Leningrad district, thus increasing the risk of losing Leningrad during the war, and losing the war eventually.

What did I said?

So what's the problem with Voroshilov then, If Napoleon isn't responsible for Grouchy.

Not so fast. If there is one idiot for the moment it is not Voroshilov. First because you have no military skill, and secondly because you are ignorant of history and repeat anticommunist slanders like a parrot. Soviet commanders had sealed envelopes containing their orders in case of attack. But you were taught by bourgeois propaganda that "Stalin did order troops not to shoot back". That's wrong, they were ordered not to respond to provocations, but a full scale attack isn't a provocation. A provocation is, for example, a plane entering national airspace (like Turkey did with Syria) or a bombardment (like Noth Korea did against South Korea).

I don't always understand when you are trying to say something.

Why at the expense of fighting against fascism? Today in France it is Hollande who develops fascism in France indirectly. How could we expect to fight against the National Front if we don't fight against Hollande? That would be like trying to extinguish a fire while the incindiary is still in town.

27. You forgot 7 million.

I spoke about slanders, that's different. There is a difference between someone slandering ("oh bad Stalin ordered not to fire back") and someone trying to analyse things and making mistakes in his analysis. Since you believe that Stalin is the bad guy, you say: "The people who benefited the most from this trade were the fascists". But actually you don't have a clue about this, you don't even know what you are talking about. Where are the evidences? You have none, only your dogmas.

I like doing both. I can debate and name-call at the same time. It's important to name-call you opponent because as a Marxist it's not enough to analyze the content (the arguments), you need to take the context and the containing into consideration, classify your adversary according to his actual position.


What are you trying to say? If you want me to admit that Stalin made some mistakes, no, I'm not interested. I don't care about his mistakes actually, he is dead.


Neither initiated, that doesn't mean anything. If it wasn't the National Front, it was Chirac. Siding with Chirac is better now? What was the question in this referendum? Of course they could have chosen to make the holy alliance with the bourgeoisie in power to protect those who shot Luxemburg and Liebknecht against the fascist threat. Would you have liked that? Maybe.

No no no, the Allies rebuffed his proposal in 1939, not in 1936. In 1936 there was the franco-Soviet pact. The pact with Ribbentrop was made without preparation after that, so it's easy to say that's I'm trolling if you don't even know anything about chronology and facts. How can you criticize the pact if you don't know what was at sake?

What? You say the USSR was allowed to trade with Nazi Germany? Is that what you say?



Yay, again nobody will ever win. Selective selection of evidence abounds, Stalin made infallible orders etc. I'm not going to "win" this one because the Stalinist is like putty and capable of adjusting to whatever crevices no matter how narrow present themselves but, well, what the hell?

1) He attacked Finland to secure Leningrad. But wait! Surely he cared about the poor Finns, otherwise he wouldn't have founded and abolished the Finnish Democratic Republic in the course of two months? And it made such a big impact on the war: it's not like STAVKA knew that Mannerheim told Hitler to his face they would not advance beyond pre-war borders. Even if it was the smart thing to do "in general terms" the execution was an absolute shitshow that could have been fixed/changed/avoided at multiple stages of planning and wasn't.

2) "Because you have no military skill." Well, funny thing about that is how much service have you completed? Because I have a bit to speak of
And even if I'm an evil talentless bourgeois imperialist hack who suckles on the blood of the oppressed masses and whose Bachelors of History is an awful document personally wiped by the lie-spewing arse of Robert Conquest himself, neither did Stalin have such skill. As he proved in Poland in 1921-22 (as Tukhachevsky and the entire staff of the Army who attacked Warsaw said after, but wait of course they were all talentless hacks who were plotting with Japan, no Nazi Germany, no Trotsky and Nazi Germany, no Trotsky and the Nazis and the West AT THE SAME TIME!). Voroshilov sucked and it was a well-known fact. Even in the 1930's his junior officers, many of whom became decorated heroes wondered how the hell the bombacious fellow got into power when he clearly was more attuned to riding, shooting, and looking handsome than at playing general. Then Stalin micromanaged the units at the front and told them to do things that made no tactical sense, like telling Budyonny and 40 divisions to hold their ground. Then of course he shot capable generals who advocated retreat. But obviously they were also wicked conspirators who wanted a truce with the Nazis and to go against the brilliant plans of the Great Leader. Oh, and for the record Stalin was ordering a total lack of armed response 48 hours+ into the full-on invasion. Yes, he was telling people not to attack even after an obvious full-scale invasion with infantry, armour, artillery, and aircraft was underway. It's why so much of the Red Air Force was annihilated on the ground.

3) "Hollande who develops fascism in France indirectly" OK man. I never realized a single party was responsible for the conditions created by the contradictions of fascism, however should the situation present itself I know for one I'd rather make a shitty "holy alliance" than take a nice shower a la Zyklon B.

4) | don't have a clue or evidence? Dude, you just totally failed to actually provide them yourself. I just stated that the problem with the trade was that the Nazis needed resources and they got them from the USSR, which figured it needed consumer goods or tech like ships such as the Prinz Eugen. And the problem was that, out of the two, the Soviets had decent technology while the Nazis' tech could never make up for their shortage of resourced. When the USSR was attacked, the ships they had acquired sat in port or were sunk by Nazi bombers. The technology for ground forces was similarly wiped out without making an important contribution. But all that oil, wheat, and steel provided fed the Nazi machine... and had been feeding it up until the attack itself. If you want proof of this you can read just about any history, Western, Russian, anything. It's not all just "lies and propaganda" out to get Stalin. Holy crap man, it's almost as if you believe everything else MUST be lies because if the Westerners can do it, clearly not only Stalin did not but he COULD not.

5) What do you mean don't know what's at stake? You can call us propagandists or whatever the hell you want but it doesn't stop the fact there is a metric tonne of evidence weighing against you. My sources are primarily secondary because I don't speak flawless Russian, and even if I did the archives are in Moscow and closed off to boot. Obviously there are indeed pieces of propaganda. If you bothered speaking civilly you would have even found I don't subscribe to the ad hominem on Stalin- to a certain extent, I believe he was well-intentioned. BUt as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with the same and that's the road he lead the USSR down in 1941. One of the main reasons for this was he made a basic error in planning: he delivered all of the goods at once. When he gave a shipment it wasn't just petrol or just grain or just rare materials. It was a combination thereof that the Nazis needed, which allowed them to unleash hell more effectively.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 13:31
OP-Bagration wrote:
There is plenty of persons with "academic credentials" who act more like propagandists than historians.

Who is Gelatelly working for then, according to you? CIA, FBI, MI5, MI6, Mossad? The capitalists, the investment bankers of the Wall Street? Please, name a few.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Nicolas Werth continued to write in his books that Stalin had a nervous breakdown when Hitler attacked and locked himself in his dacha. That was a big slander supported by no serious evidence, but he continued to write that in his book.

I am not a fan of "black books" but if he also stated that Stalin was totally shocked by the attack, he is only stating the truth as I have read that in a number of other books on the subject of WW2. Surely, you're not labelling all authors throughout the world as blatant liars just because they portray your dear leader in an unfavourable light?

OP-Bagration wrote:
So your guy can have has much "academic credentials" as it's possible to have, that won't make him a serious or good historian.

I am glad you are the ultimate authority on good historians - "if he writes about my dear leader favourably, he must be a good historian. Facts? Naaah, who needs 'em!"

OP-Bagration wrote:
The title of his book speaks for itself.

So, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is a novel about ornithology, correct?

OP-Bagration wrote:
You say that you read this book? You also read Stalin's Curse? Do you have a special interest in Gelatelly's works?

I read Stalin's Curse by Gelatelly. I am in no way inclined to one author on ANY subject. What he writes goes in line with what I've read about your dear leader Stalin. What I particularly liked was the fact that he explains the abuse of Lenin's name by Stalin who tried to make everyone believe that this would be the path Lenin would've taken, too. I have always claimed that Stalin bastardized Lenin and this book clearly shows it.

OP-Bagration wrote:
I don't think you actually read both books, but if that's true that's quite disturbing.

Read above. Besides, reading books is disturbing? Of course, for a hard-liner stalinist.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 13:34
OP-Bagration wrote:
There is plenty of persons with "academic credentials" who act more like propagandists than historians. In France we have two main historians like that, Stéphane Courtois and Nicolas Werth. Their books are full of lies. For example for many years Nicolas Werth continued to write in his books that Stalin had a nervous breakdown when Hitler attacked and locked himself in his dacha. That was a big slander supported by no serious evidence, but he continued to write that in his book. So your guy can have has much "academic credentials" as it's possible to have, that won't make him a serious or good historian. The title of his book speaks for itself.

I didn't read the book but I did read the title in which Lenin is clearly identified to "social catastrophe". That's enough, no need to go further.

You say that you read this book? You also read Stalin's Curse? Do you have a special interest in Gelatelly's works? I don't think you actually read both books, but if that's true that's quite disturbing.


Just like Adam Smith was a bad economist for developing the bourgeois mode of production. I wonder why Marx ever bothered reading him so much and so often.

Great, so now we have "if you disagree with my viewpoint, you are a bad historian." You fall upon the classical Stalinist idiom of chanting "it's lies it's lies it's lies." Well, there will be lies. The whole point of studying history is referenceing and cross-referencing until you have a more accurate view of what happened (or didn't). It's more than possible to do a Marxist, even Stalinist, reading of historical literature with a critical eye that doesn't accept it all. But instead the old methodology comes out where if it disagrees with you, it goes into the trash. There's no discussion, no debate, hell, not even a serious attempt to "debunk lies." At least the guy who said the Ukrainian famine never happened wrote a goddamn book about it, even if it was just one and at least better researched (if not quite true, but I'm not a "holodomor" guy either, oh dear but I'm an evil trot I must believe it all
) than the holocaust denial books. You don't even reference Stalinesque histories to defend your viewpoint because you haven't read them.

And then of course you judge a book by its cover, which is never a smart thing to do when reading history or for that matter anything, even fiction.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 14:10
Quote:
2) "Because you have no military skill." Well, funny thing about that is how much service have you completed? Because I have a bit to speak of And even if I'm an evil talentless bourgeois imperialist hack who suckles on the blood of the oppressed masses and whose Bachelors of History is an awful document personally wiped by the lie-spewing arse of Robert Conquest himself, neither did Stalin have such skill. As he proved in Poland in 1921-22 (as Tukhachevsky and the entire staff of the Army who attacked Warsaw said after.

I know plenty people with "bachelors of history" and that really represent nothing for me, nothing. I have been studying in a French Grande Ecole, but my best school is the Communist Party.

Quote:
but wait of course they were all talentless hacks who were plotting with Japan, no Nazi Germany, no Trotsky and Nazi Germany, no Trotsky and the Nazis and the West AT THE SAME TIME!)

Do you always debate like that? Trying to speak in the stead of your opponents as if they were telling nonsense? The only thing you can prove with this method is that you are unable to understand the position of your opponents, especially since I don't understand what you mean. You should just keep calm and debate normally.

Quote:
Voroshilov sucked and it was a well-known fact

I know nothing. Nothing is known.

Quote:
Then of course he shot capable generals who advocated retreat.

Who and when exactly. Give me names and dates, I need facts. Without facts we can't have a serious discussion.

Quote:
Oh, and for the record Stalin was ordering a total lack of armed response 48 hours+ into the full-on invasion.

Once again, where are you facts? I said that Soviet commanders had sealed letters with their orders inside, which imply that they would have obeyed the orderes contained inside before Stalin's counter-orders could even reach the front, especially since the German managed to cut many of the phone lines.

Quote:
3) "Hollande who develops fascism in France indirectly" OK man. I never realized a single party was responsible for the conditions created by the contradictions of fascism, however should the situation present itself I know for one I'd rather make a shitty "holy alliance" than take a nice shower a la Zyklon B.

Then you would have a superb holy alliance in the shower room. Well done!

Quote:
4) | don't have a clue or evidence? Dude, you just totally failed to actually provide them yourself.

Evidences for what? I don't need evidences, everything is contained in the agreement. You are the one who accuses, it is up to you to give evidences to support your infamous accusations.

Quote:
4) | don't have a clue or evidence? Dude, you just totally failed to actually provide them yourself. I just stated that the problem with the trade was that the Nazis needed resources and they got them from the USSR, which figured it needed consumer goods or tech like ships such as the Prinz Eugen. And the problem was that, out of the two, the Soviets had decent technology while the Nazis' tech could never make up for their shortage of resourced. When the USSR was attacked, the ships they had acquired sat in port or were sunk by Nazi bombers. The technology for ground forces was similarly wiped out without making an important contribution. But all that oil, wheat, and steel provided fed the Nazi machine... and had been feeding it up until the attack itself. If you want proof of this you can read just about any history, Western, Russian, anything. It's not all just "lies and propaganda" out to get Stalin. Holy crap man, it's almost as if you believe everything else MUST be lies because if the Westerners can do it, clearly not only Stalin did not but he COULD not.

I say that because you are lying. Edward E. Ericson has proven in his book Feeding the German Eagle : Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941, Greenwood Publishing Group,1999, that Soviet economic aid to Nazi Germany had no consequence on the war on the West. The only consequence would be when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union itself. But at the time of the attack, not only did Stalin managed to secure Leningrad with the Winter War, but he also acquired important industrial and military technologies from Germany such as manufacturing methods of Toluene, Buna rubber and German aircrafts. So yes that's what I said, you don't have a clue about what you are speaking about, only slanders.

When you say ":he delivered all of the goods at once", me not understand. Delivered what a once and when? What does "at once" mean? There was an agreement and he was fulfilling his part on schedule.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 14:39
Quote:
Who is Gelatelly working for then, according to you? CIA, FBI, MI5, MI6, Mossad? The capitalists, the investment bankers of the Wall Street? Please, name a few.

For the bourgeoisie my friend! For the bourgeoisie. No seriously, some of them worked for the CIA, such as Conquest, that's well-known. But you don't need to work for the CIA to be a failed anticommunist historian. We have a great French historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote a book about that, L'histoire contemporaine sous influence (Contemporary history under influence).


Quote:
I am not a fan of "black books" but if he also stated that Stalin was totally shocked by the attack, he is only stating the truth as I have read that in a number of other books on the subject of WW2. Surely, you're not labelling all authors throughout the world as blatant liars just because they portray your dear leader in an unfavourable light?

No, Stalin wasn't perfect, and you can criticize some of his actions. But first you need to be prudent and never emphatic. There you have an example of a lie about Stalin that was repeated by the whole bourgeoisie, and you repeat it yourself without being prudent. You say that it is "the truth" because you have "read that in a number of other books." But does number make truth now? We know, with clear evidences, that Stalin had no breakdown and that he was actually visiting factories. Exactly the contrary of a breakdown! The guy was keeping calm and visiting factories, meeting with his general staff. I think all good historians tell it now, even Montefiore says that in his book I guess. But you must have read 20yo books from the cold war I guess.

Quote:
I read Stalin's Curse by Gelatelly. I am in no way inclined to one author on ANY subject. What he writes goes in line with what I've read about your dear leader Stalin. What I particularly liked was the fact that he explains the abuse of Lenin's name by Stalin who tried to make everyone believe that this would be the path Lenin would've taken, too. I have always claimed that Stalin bastardized Lenin and this book clearly shows it.

Yes but that's not true anyway, as I have proven many times on SE. You can be a good historian, for example Moshe Lewin isn't bad as an historian, and tell stupid things about Lenin because you don't understand Marxist theory. I preferan historian depicting Stalin as a mass murderer but stating that there was a difference between Lenin and Stalin (Lewin) over an historian who tries to prove that both were mass murderers (Courtois). But I also prefer a more serious historian who isn't playing the "who is the true pupil of Lenin" game.

Quote:
Read above. Besides, reading books is disturbing? Of course, for a hard-liner stalinist.

It would have been disturbing if you had read both, because it would have implied that you liked this author in particular. Of course you can read reactionary historians, and you should. I do it sometimes myself, although I try not to buy their books.
Last edited by OP-Bagration on 11 Feb 2014, 15:32, edited 2 times in total.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 14:47
OP-Bagration wrote:
I know plenty people with "bachelors of history" and that really represent nothing for me, nothing. I have been studying in a French Grande Ecole, but my best school is the Communist Party.


Do you always debate like that? Trying to speak in the stead of your opponents as if they were telling nonsense? The only thing you can prove with this method is that you are unable to understand the position of your opponents, especially since I don't understand what you mean. You should just keep calm and debate normally.

I know nothing. Nothing is known.

Who and when exactly. Give me names and dates, I need facts. Without facts we can't have a serious discussion.

Once again, where are you facts? I said that Soviet commanders had sealed letters with their orders inside, which imply that they would have obeyed the orderes contained inside before Stalin's counter-orders could even reach the front, especially since the German managed to cut many of the phone lines.

Then you would have a superb holy alliance in the shower room. Well done!

Evidences for what? I don't need evidences, everything is contained in the agreement. You are the one who accuses, it is up to you to give evidences to support your infamous accusations.

I say that because you are lying. Edward E. Ericson has proven in his book Feeding the German Eagle : Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941, Greenwood Publishing Group,1999, that Soviet economic aid to Nazi Germany had no consequence on the war on the West. The only consequence would be when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union itself. But at the time of the attack, not only did Stalin managed to secure Leningrad with the Winter War, but he also acquired important industrial and military technologies from Germany such as manufacturing methods of Toluene, Buna rubber and German aircrafts. So yes that's what I said, you don't have a clue about what you are speaking about, only slanders.

When you say ":he delivered all of the goods at once", me not understand. Delivered what a once and when? What does "at once" mean? There was an agreement and he was fulfilling his part on schedule.


Cool story bro. You're insulting and demeaning somebody else's credentials because they don't line up with your view. You can say "I disagree" but "no, your info means NOTHING!" is silly. Dude I have no idea where your demands for "rational discussion" come from when you sling insults and belittle your opposition. There is no need to continue these discussions because Stalinists always behave like this and when people get fed up they claim victory. And yet your beloved CP is a reformist organization.

Do you always stoop to personal insults, name-calling, and saying "oh, but those are LIES!" Well you will get sober discussion when you give it.

Great, so if they followed their sealed envelope why is it that every history of this war states that for the first few weeks not only was the Red Army paralyzed, but it often simply didn't respond? And by "every history" I do mean anything written by any of the Western authors from pop historians like Beevor all the way to Norman Davies to more obscure ones. That's my evidence and it states the response was not just confused but often following dictates from Moscow- people paralyzed to act in fear of retribution. And a bunch wound up getting shot anyways.

"I know nothing. Nothing is known."

Great so either you're being facetious or stooping to the levels of sarcasm you previously attacked. For people who questioned Stalin's abilities, read the memoirs of absolutely any Soviet general. Only Zhukov's ever got to English and even he states it was a balancing act enough of the time.

My infamous accusations? No doubt coupled with lies and falsehoods and other such nonsense to betray the socialist motherland. Great. Well the evidence I present is literally every historian you can think of stating that the early phases of the war were a huge mess which Stalin's contradictory orders didn't help, nor did the culture of terror he insinuated in the Armed Forces since 1936. It's bad when your commanders are afraid of independent action and can't co-ordinate defence. It's also probably bad if your divisional or corps commander was a colonel or even major not very long before- he can be talented, but he probably hasn't accrued the experience for command yet as peace time is quiet.

"Only slanders." I just told you that a large amount of the materiel Stalin got went totally unused, and that the Nazis needed his resources to launch Barbarossa. No oil, no panzer attack and the oil came from the USSR and it was crucial Hitler not lose Romania. If Stalin was the tactical genius you presume he would have done the smart move and taken Romania rather than just Bessarabia in 1940 but no, he decided Finland and Leningrad were more important. It's funny because you wouldn't be afraid of losing Leningrad unless you were confident the enemy could penetrate 800+ kilometres through 3 Baltic states and all their defences plus the armies in Belarus. Which would mean a giant strategic failure. So the plan was for a strategic failure? How the hell can anyone argue this when the smart thing would be take Romania and rob the Nazi tanks of fuel? Where are they going to get it then under blockade? Yes, attack Finland, a country of 4 million people that weren't a threat if he bothered making sure his Western front held. What do you mean "oh provide evidence" when all you give is a single source. You can't be convinced of any evidence because if it contradicts what you believe it's bourgeois lies/slander/filth and if it does agree then you just take it and discard everything else. Then you accuse me of deliberately lying!

Oh, and as for "all the goods." I'm saying there's a failure in the treaty as negotiated as it provided X quantity of timber X of oil, etc to be delivered at certain times at the same time. Which was a bad idea as it kept the machine stocked for when the USSR was itself invaded.

Anyways I have had it with this debate and with your demeanour. The accusations of lying and name-calling are childish in a way I would not expect even from my conservative friends.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.