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

Is an army really necessary?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 12 Apr 2009, 22:47
Ah, I love Stalin.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Apr 2009, 23:41
Quote:
Ah, I love Stalin.


pretty much all i can say too
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 13 Apr 2009, 00:14
Moris wrote:
pretty much all i can say too


To the Couple: We are gathered together here to unite this man Moris and this woman Joseph in the bonds of matrimony.

To the Groom: Do you take Joseph to be your lawfully wedded wife? If so answer
"I DO."

To the Bride: Do you take Moris to be your lawfully wedded husband? If so answer "I DO."
The minister states: By the authority vested in me by the Comintern I now pronounce you husband and wife.

I am sure that you will make a really nice couple, as your opinions on government and military are very similar...
They are smart ideas if you want to conquer (imperialism), but not so smart if you want to achieve peace and prosperity (communism).
"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." Hélder Câmara
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 13 Apr 2009, 01:15
Because Stalin was such an evil imperialist, huh?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 13 Apr 2009, 02:02
Mabool wrote:
Because Stalin was such an evil imperialist, huh?

Well, compared to Hitler, Stalin was a saint, but compared to Tito or Lenin, Stalin was an evil imperialist... Sure he turned Russia into a world power, but does that make him good? Hitler brought the world out of the Great Depression, does that make him a great leader to capitalists? Even they hate him, when they know he saved their system.
"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." Hélder Câmara
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4032
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Oct 2006, 23:10
Politburo
Post 13 Apr 2009, 02:44
Capitalists dont hate Hitler. And Stalin was no evil imperialist, not relatively, not at all.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 13 Apr 2009, 02:52
Fitzy wrote:
Capitalists dont hate Hitler. And Stalin was no evil imperialist, not relatively, not at all.

Trust me they do... The last thing a capitalist wants is for the government to cut in on their action, they want the money and power for themselves and I don't think fascism will let them have it. In fascism the government takes everything and they decide who is rich and who is poor.
"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." Hélder Câmara
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4032
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Oct 2006, 23:10
Politburo
Post 13 Apr 2009, 02:58
False. The purpose of fascism is to "let them have" "money and power." Without fascism, capitalists would have nothing.

I will admit, that during normal times, capitalists might not want fascism, as they have no need for it. But if they hate fascism, they are fooling themselves. And when there is a serious crisis in the capitalist system, they will change their minds, they always do.

Fascism implies a revolutionary situation that must be crushed, and it also implies giving the state a special amount of power and independence in order to do so. But just because fascism is less desirable then liberalism, does not meen they hate it. If they hate fascism, then they are fooling themselves, and not just the rest of us. When they find themselves in a serious crisis, they will change their minds, as they always do.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 13 Apr 2009, 08:46
Quote:
To the Couple: We are gathered together here to unite this man Moris and this woman Joseph in the bonds of matrimony.

To the Groom: Do you take Joseph to be your lawfully wedded wife? If so answer
"I DO."

To the Bride: Do you take Moris to be your lawfully wedded husband? If so answer "I DO."
The minister states: By the authority vested in me by the Comintern I now pronounce you husband and wife.

I am sure that you will make a really nice couple, as your opinions on government and military are very similar...
They are smart ideas if you want to conquer (imperialism), but not so smart if you want to achieve peace and prosperity (communism).


well, if you cant address the arguments, at least try to be funny no? be careful though, illuminati might be watching over your basement


Quote:
Well, compared to Hitler, Stalin was a saint, but compared to Tito or Lenin, Stalin was an evil imperialist...


right, because lenin had no problems eliminating anarchists and tito loved to send them on a vacation to a nice island resort. but that's no a problem since they were not stalinists. i hate when anarchists rape the image of our leader. tito was not an anarchist and during his stay in moscow he reported anarchists to STALINIST NKVD. back to the history books with ya, eh?
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 13 Apr 2009, 10:32
Quote:
Let's talk about killing efficiency now:
What is the most efficient weapon ever built? The atom bomb!
The weakest: the rock!

Pretend Army= Nuclear bomb and Militia=rock

Now let's look beyond the fascinating mushroom clouds... Sure the Nuclear bomb can vaporize enemy cities, but in the long run, it will vaporize any life-form on the planet, even cockroaches. Now is the efficiency worth all that risk of MAD?


Bullsh*t. The military is not the nuclear bomb. Any military possess a wide variety of means to respond. Secondly, your militia doesn't posses nuclear weapons. Therefore it's not Mutually Assured Destruction. The destruction is only mutually assured if BOTH sides have a credible nuclear deterrent. In the modern day and age this means having the full nuclear tried of delivery capabilities, as modern IADS, and modern BMD, make any single method simply too unreliable. Your logic is not only ridiculously simplistic, it's completely detached from reality.

Anyways, like it's been said your militia will be annihilated by any modern military. And your strange nation will be conquered and absorbed into another country.

Quote:
government... Truly the worst idea ever. You think the army's job is to protect and serve the people? Wrong! Their job is to support and become the government. The army-government relationship is nothing more than one general overthrowing another (the other being a political leader).
It's a constant cycle: one general becomes supreme leader and all the others (secretly from each other) race to overthrow him. There is no complexity to it... It's most logical explanation as to why most world leaders are so imperialistic.


How many generals have been in the Soviet government?


Anyways, this is the Red Army forum. A forum for MILITARY discussion. Please take discussion of government's existence in principle to the Red Square.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 13 Apr 2009, 13:48
Socialist states should be discriminating with their armed forces. Socialist society is one of heightened class struggle and the military must embody the character and aspirations of the socialist government. A militia, drawing in members from all sections of society, besides militarily being shoddy, will itself be divided by the class struggle, as well as being a massive economic drain.

For a state like the UK, were we to 'go red', I'd be in favour of a small, well equipped conventional military making budgetary savings and for more money to be ploughed into fomenting revolution abroad.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 16 Apr 2009, 02:08
Well if you people want to continue your imperialistic ideals then go ahead, I can't change that... Just be aware that as my friend, Bertolt Brecht said, “Society cannot share a common communication system so long as it is split into warring factions.”

You know what the best strategy in war is to me? Not to fight at all! Refuse to shoot, and at the same time refuse to surrender...
The only choice the enemy will have then is to slaughter the people... Yeah, like that is gonna look good in their history. And believe me, no lies can hide such a truth!
So that means no violence! Otherwise, chances of the 'enemy' collapsing in an internal revolution are very, very high!

The war between the rich and the poor is nothing compared to the war between the people and the army!

So the mere existence of a strong and efficient military force destroys the deathless ideals of communism!
"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." Hélder Câmara
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 16 Apr 2009, 02:51
Quote:
You know what the best strategy in war is to me? Not to fight at all! Refuse to shoot, and at the same time refuse to surrender...
The only choice the enemy will have then is to slaughter the people...


Right... because imperialists don't slaughter civilians when it suits their needs? Never mind uniformed troops that are in their way. Your strategy is harmlessly idiotic at best, and thoroughly dangerous if ever actually implemented as it could cost their lives to everyone that follows you.
banistansig1
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 16 Apr 2009, 09:57
Quote:
Just be aware that as my friend, Bertolt Brecht said, “Society cannot share a common communication system so long as it is split into warring factions.”


your friend? you held a seance or something?

Quote:
The only choice the enemy will have then is to slaughter the people... Yeah, like that is gonna look good in their history. And believe me, no lies can hide such a truth!


i recommend you to read this and read a book or two or five about it. if you will still believe afterwards that slaughtering people, raping them or organ harvesting them will tarnish your reputation then may god help you, because real life wont tolerate such "simplicity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 18 Apr 2009, 08:18
A professional military force can not be subistutied for anything. A peoples guard or milita isnt an effective means to stoping a hegmony. Assuming any country invading a peacefull socailist country, would have to be a military hegmony like the US. Some would look at what insurgents are doing in Iraq, look what they did to the USS Cole, truth be told these where highly trained low tech forces. Insurgents some came from training camps, and taught there comrades in arms tools of the trade, most where supplied weapons of foreging orgin, most where trained by the prevouis governement to wage war against the invaders and given a wide variety of military equipment from existing stores. THe attack on the USS cole was by trained AL quaida operatives. Much like soviet citizens the people found ways to combat modern military equipment, like moltov cocktails against tanks. However you didnt have a citizen mob storm berlin, you had crack combat troops fighting a few SS divisons, and the volkstrum. Soviet Citizens and the volstrum where highly effective forces, they teid up and destroyed a large amount of equipment. They alone could not defeat a modern army. The warsaw uprising is a good example of citizen soliders losing against a modern army. The Vietnam war, Iraq, and the Soviet Afgahnistan conflict where wars fought by the politicall arena. Had the military been running the show completly totally different outcomes would be the result wheter that be right or wrong.
As for being supported by air assets and artillery these require a large force, of say foward observers, and FO for the aircraft, highly trained maintence personel for the air crews and gun crews, especially when you get into multiple rocket launching systems. It is a complex set of actions to call in fire support. Movies make it seem so easy to call in a fire mission, but there is more to it than that. I think video games make war seem easy, when in fact it isnt. Artillery and air support can not when a war alone, it took a combined effort by the allies to defeat geramny.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 15 Jun 2009, 19:46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Miranda

What about that kind of thing?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 May 2009, 06:47
Komsomol
Post 16 Jun 2009, 14:18
Well, armies is necessary in every country
There should be someone to protect his land frequently....
I'm suprise that my country have the largest amount of troops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... tal_troops
But I think that too many people in the Army would cause lack of skills....
A country win a war with skilled troops and great espionage, not modern weapons...
"Whatever may divide us, Europe is a common home, a common fate that has linked us for years, and it continues to link us today."
Leonid Brezhnev
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 33
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2009, 17:02
Pioneer
Post 16 Jun 2009, 16:39
how about... no more weapon systems and no more soldiers and wars? I mean give people education and give people the power over their state, and you don't need guns anymore. Example: We have such a small community of educated working people, no other state could justify a war against us. If they came with tanks they would never rule over us since we know they are liars and capitalist exploiters. So what i say: Revolution with force...ok... but afterwards we must ship out the guns to other revolutionary cells around the world and make absolute freedom of guns in the state.
Gun=power and power=corruption
Destroy, what destroys you.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 17 Jun 2009, 21:33
You're not the dictatorship of the proletariat kind of guy, huh.

The thing is: The abolition of authority or power (and of course, this includes war) in every form is definitely a goal of communism, but only in the long term: in communist society. Before communist society can be achieved, socialist society must spread over the globe. And a socialist state needs (proletarian) power ("dictatorship") to a) guard the revolution against an extremely hostile environment (imperialism), b) to liquidate the bourgeoisie as a class and c) to develop the productive forces (in a planned way: planned economy) to a point where communism becomes possible.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 33
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2009, 17:02
Pioneer
Post 17 Jun 2009, 23:39
I understand that point very well, and this way has been tried out... with the result that weast and east have split in two major hostile camps. I think we should make the communist republic free and open for everyone to join and see that communism brings only progress and freedom instead of walls and barbed wire and guardsman. I know that imperialist societies around us will try to make us look bad or will even try to provoke us. But with edication of the people we can resist them. And by the way... when we start rising our arms, the west will do the same...and who profits from that? the capitslist weapon industry.

Oh and well, i was stalinist a long time ago until i saw that a real improvement in our world must be done by the free will of the people and not with guns stuck in their face... you know.. resistance is a strong word. And it is used by everyone. Even the most imperialist dogs will call it "resistance" when people in a communist republic rebel against the soldiers that actually had the duty to protect the citizens from the west outside. Look at DDR history. It's a shame something good was destroyed so fast, but one factor was definatly the states pressure on the people.
Destroy, what destroys you.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.