Tukhachevsky's Trial Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 11:29:03 No. 7094 [Last 50 Posts]
http://istmat.info/files/uploads/59108/rgaspi_17.171.392_process_tuhachevskogo.pdf http://proriv.ru/articles.shtml/fedotov?doc_repres-9 I'll do excerpts from this.
Tukhachevsky himself:
Trotsky was hopeful that Hitler will come to power, and that he will support Trotsky in the struggle against the Soviets .Trotsky was hoping for nazis seizing power in Germany, huh?
Uborevich:
There's plenty more to it. Like, trotskyists wanting to prove to germans that they are trustworthy and are powerful in USSR, with trotskyists supplying germans with info and offering them Ukraine if germans help Trotsky to win the war. It proves pretty conclusively that a) Tukhachevsky was a traitor working with every enemy of the USSR b) that Trotsky was a cunt allying with fascists against USSR. It's fucking hilarious when their defenders try to shift the blame onto Stalin, and having no second thoughts whatsoever when seeing how western propaganda and fascists agreeing with them.
Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 18:37:22 No. 7095
Is this a new document?
Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 20:44:50 No. 7096
>>7095 no,
it's just a transcript of the Tukahchevsky trial.
Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 20:49:52 No. 7097
Feels like so much of this shit is untranslated and untouched in the west. We would have a much better understanding of things if publishers gave a shit about it.
Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 21:25:27 No. 7098
>>7096 >>7096 I thought it was still classified.
Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 21:36:03 No. 7099
imagine giving a shit about this
Anonymous 2021-09-04 (Sat) 21:59:05 No. 7100
>>7098 it was definitely secret at the time but since it is published on istmat.info, it probably isn't a document that was recently discovered
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 02:50:42 No. 7101
>>7098 Transcript of Tukhachevsky's trial was open long ago. There's no transcripts of pre-trial talks with the gang, and there's no transcripts of Moscow trials. As far as I know.
>>7094 One more thing: Trotsky literally received funding from Nazis. 300k reichmarks in 3 years.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 03:06:04 No. 7102
>>7101 >Trotsky literally received funding from Nazis. 300k reichmarks in 3 years Proofs?
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 03:27:22 No. 7103
>>7102 His cronies saying so on trials, with cross-questioning, cross-referencing proving it even further.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 03:36:04 No. 7104
>>7103 Testimony isn't hard proof in and of itself. I agree that the notion of all these defendants giving such detailed confessions, seemingly without any sign of coercion, seems very unlikely. However it also seems unlikely that such a massive conspiracy would have virtually no documentary evidence, that all those not sentenced to death were coincidentally murdered in prison, and that the defendants would make no efforts to justify their actions or denounce Stalin.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 04:30:49 No. 7105
>>7104 >Testimony isn't hard proof in and of itself. No, it is. Defenders of Trotsky don't provide any actual proof of testimonies being fake, they just accuse entire Soviet justice system of being fake and gay.
Because khruschevites, knowing that this shit will expose defendants as guilty, just didn't do any research into trials of people named during Tukhachevsky's trial, like engineers-bukharinites, or various small-scale saboteurs. There's hard evidence conspiracies in those small scale trials of wreckers.
Any actual proof of that? You fuckers are getting so desperate that you straight up invent new reality at this point.
Why would they? They had no moral high ground at all! Try denouncing Stalin after you've admitted that you've been sabotaging Soviet army and industry. Nothing weird about this whatsoever.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 04:37:22 No. 7106
>>7105 by definition testimony is not hard evidence
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 07:35:42 No. 7107
>>7106 Yes it is. In US or UK a guilty plea would lead pretty much straight to sentencing
What the Soviets did was well and above what US or UK courts would do. Like allowing worlds press and ambassadors to attend the trials
Presumably because they wanted to provide (particularly France and Britain) good faith with Western Europe in their attempts to build collective security against Nazi Germany given Nazis and Italians had just invaded Spain
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 08:47:18 No. 7109
From The Great Conspiracy Against Russia by Sayer Khan
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 09:09:43 No. 7110
>>7099 this lmao
the "trotskyism" of his followers is retarded regardless; and Trotsky was right on a bunch of things regardless
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 09:10:14 No. 7111
>>7101 and lenin did from imperial germany lmao
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 11:39:52 No. 7113
>>7112 It's fucking hilarious how japanese have learned that germans' (and other europeans') belief that Stalin crippled the Red Army was wrong in 1940, and they didn't care to tell it to their allies. Finns got obliterated, their entire army encircled - and they too continued with the Nazi propaganda current
>>7111 How much did Lenin get from the Germany? Numbers, please
>>7107 And it worked. No one was calling those trials fake, except for trots, for decades, until Khruschev declared Moscow Trials fake.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 13:50:47 No. 7114
>>7105 >Defenders of Trotsky don't provide any actual proof of testimonies being fake I didn't say they were fake, I said they weren't hard evidence. "Hard evidence" refers to documentary or physical evidence, it excludes testimony by definition.
>There's hard evidence conspiracies Such as? Care to post some?
>Any actual proof of that? The fact that they all died in prison in 1941. What do you want? Their death certificates? Literally just look up the list of defendants from the trial of 21 and how they all died.
>Why would they? They had no moral high ground at all! Clearly they felt differently, otherwise they wouldn't have done what they allegedly did. Are you seriously suggesting that they were motivated enough in their cause to risk their lives and form an underground terror cell but suddenly saw the error of their ways the second they were captured? I find it extremely suspicious.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 14:32:38 No. 7115
>>7108 Your screenshot is proving the point, various claims of mystery drugs and other unfounded statements.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 14:36:12 No. 7116
>>7111 Lenin was paid to use his revolution and take Russia out of the war by fucking up it's politics, it worked, even if Germany later regretted it as Lenin quickly continued to form a real socialist government. Trotsky was still obsessed with his "Permanent Revolution" and his actions did nothing.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 15:36:01 No. 7117
>>7101 >there's no transcripts of Moscow trials there are transcripts of moscow trials
idk if they are full or if they are censored but they were also published on istmat.info
https://istmat.info/node/59103 https://istmat.info/files/uploads/52434/process_antisovetskogo_trockistskogo_centra_1937.pdf https://istmat.info/node/40262>>7101 Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 15:41:46 No. 7118
Just going to point out that this belongs on
>>>/edu/ Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 15:47:35 No. 7119
>>7111 Never been the slighest bit of proof of that.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 15:58:08 No. 7120
>>7117 Your last document points to 2013 as the year of getting published (about Bukharin). Oh well. Couldn't find the dates of publishing for the first ones. I was wrong, then.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 16:12:28 No. 7121
>>7114 >"Hard evidence" refers to documentary or physical evidence, it excludes testimony by definition. Testimony IS a hard evidence. It's an evidence of actions taken. They were conspirators, they were talking on other conspirators because the prosecution was relentless and smart in their assault. Cross-referencing of those testimonies make it "hard" evidence.
I guarantee you that you'll find engineers and officers mentioned as wreckers in Tukhachevsky's trial being in the list of victims of repression on Memorial site. As for their actual trials - I have no clue.
Wiki says they were sentenced to being shot, and they were shot. Your claim implied they were sentenced to merely an imprisonment, and then somebody (mustached, I presume) executed them without an actual trial.
Error of their ways? Hell no. You can't LOGICALLY both admit to sabotaging the country and at the same time say that Stalin is evil. It's one or the other. Imagine that: "oh yeah, I wanted USSR to cede Ukraine to Germany, but it's Stalin who is evil one! His disastrous policies is what forced me to do so!" I mean, Tukhachevsky initially tried to play his betrayal of USSR to Germany like that - doing what he did because in early 1930s Red Army was smaller than even the Polish army alone.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 16:23:16 No. 7122
>>7121 >Testimony IS a hard evidence. Well regardless of the semantics involved, I find the lack of physical and documentary evidence to be suspicious.
>Wiki says they were sentenced to being shot, and they were shot. <Romain Rolland and others wrote to Stalin seeking clemency for Bukharin, but all the leading defendants were executed except Rakovsky and two others (they were killed in prison in 1941). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials#Trial_of_the_Twenty-One <Sergei Alexeyevich Bessonov (6 August 1892 – 11 September 1941) was a Soviet state, public and party activist and diplomat. He was one of the defendants in the Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites" of 2–13 March 1938. He was one of only three defendants who did not receive the death penalty. Sentenced to 15 years in prison, he was extrajudicially executed by the NKVD during Operation Barbarossa of the Eastern Front of World War II alongside Olga Kameneva, Christian Rakovsky, and Maria Spiridonova in Oryol Oblast.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Bessonov >Imagine that: "oh yeah, I wanted USSR to cede Ukraine to Germany, but it's Stalin who is evil one! His disastrous policies is what forced me to do so!" Clearly they actually believed this though, otherwise they wouldn't have conspired against Stalin. The defendants, if they were guilty, must have felt that Stalin was steering the country in the wrong direction, that drastic action was needed to remove him and correct course, and that it was worth it to collaborate with hostile foreign powers to do so. So why would they not attempt to explain their actions or denounce Stalin during the trial? Either they all had sudden and total reversals of their beliefs, or something was compelling them to say what they said.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 18:19:22 No. 7123
>>7122 >wikipedia Come on now
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 18:20:16 No. 7124
>>7123 Anon cited Wikipedia himself, I'm just using his own standard.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 19:09:30 No. 7125
>>7121 for the love of gaawd, the anon means that there were no documents, telegrams, letters etc. obtained to support the testimonies
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 19:27:54 No. 7126
>>7124 They used istmat, not wikipedia, as their primary source of information, those are not the same things.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 19:28:16 No. 7127
>>7126 Which is also false.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 20:18:52 No. 7129
>>7122 Allegations of NKVD secretly murdering political prisoners? Wow, doesn't raise even one suspicion from you? Wiki links to this:
>Michael Parrish, "Chapter 3 The Orel Massacres, the Killings of Senior Military Officers" in The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953, pp. 69-109 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres Fucking funny how westerners found extrajudicial killings of political prisoners done by NKVD when in every other case there was a trial, huh. Moreso, the stories of those people being murdered by NKVD came up in 1988 onwards.
Yep, that's 100% fake shit. I assume nazis did it, because all of those regions where NKVD massacres occured where occupied by nazis during the war at some point. Kind of like with Katyn. BTW, did you know that in 200 meters away from the site of supposed NKVD shooting ste at Katyn there was a proven site of Nazi shooting people?
Why are you straight up ignoring my text?
THEY DID TRY THAT IN THE BEGINNING. Correct your brain, FFS.
Even the way you present it makes them out to be resistance heroes instead of sneaky backstabbers angry that their promotions never came, that USSR didn't create capitalists out of them, that USSR was moving towards communism. Disgusting white-washing of traitors coming from your mouth.
A murderer is sitting at the trial, admits his crimes, there's plenty of evidence of his crimes, everyone looking at that agreeing that crime did happen and the criminal is that guy, but you take issue with criminal himself admitting the crime (even if it leads to his death) because criminal wasn't using the chance to denounce the justice system. Did my imaginary trial over a murderer never happened? That's not the unbelievable part of it, the real unbelievable part is people like you refusing to accept facts for no logical reason whatsoever.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 20:44:22 No. 7130
>>7129 >THEY DID TRY THAT IN THE BEGINNING You said that Tuchachevsky did, but there were far more defendants spread across multiple trials who almost universally did not attempt to defend their actions.
>Even the way you present it makes them out to be resistance heroes instead of sneaky backstabbers Yeah because their actions were clearly political in nature, and if your narrative depends on them faking their communist convictions for decades then your argument is inherently weak. These guys were for the most part not late coming careerists to the party. They had been revolutionaries for the better part of their adult lives, long before there appeared to be any chance of the Bolsheviks taking power. They risked everything working as socialist agitators in Tsarist Russia, many were forced to live in exile during the Tsar's reign, many had played pivotal roles in the October Revolution and Civil War, and were repeatedly elected to top party posts. So clearly they had strong political convictions, and must have considered themselves to be committed communists. For them to have done what they are accused of would require them to feel extremely strongly that Stalin was leading the USSR down the wrong path, and that this justified terroristic measures and collaboration with foreign powers. Yet none of them attempted to defend these actions, which one would expect even if their motives were entirely selfish. But you aren't even willing to admit that this is suspicious, and would rather make absurd assertions that they were just pretending to be communists since well before the revolution.
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 22:43:21 No. 7131
>>7130 Not anon you responded to but
>You said that Tuchachevsky did, but there were far more defendants spread across multiple trials who almost universally did not attempt to defend their actions. They did though. Zinoviev and Kamenev were already in prison by 1935 sentenced for essentially "encouraging the terrorists that killed Kirov". Only when new evidence came to light were they tried again the next year and shot. They didn't give away a single thing they thought the prosecution didn't know already in an attempt to protect their conspirators.
Bukharin didn't admit to virtually anything until evidence was produced and he kept lying to the last.
Recall Radeks famous
<I tormented my examiners for 10 weeks. They didn't torture me. (Radek at the 1937 trial who wasn't shot btw) By the time 1936 (which was when their underground movement wasn't getting torn down) rolls around all their predictions of doom and gloom had not yet come true and even Trotsky was forced to admit socialism had been built in the USSR. This is why they looked so ridiculous by 1936.
A key element of Trotskyism is hysteria, disbelief in the revolution, the ability to build socialism, underestimating what the working class can achieve and over estimating the enemies of socialism
Trotskyism is a gloomy, defeatist outlook with zero revolutionary zeal.
In 1924-1927 the Left Opposition (headed by Trotsky, zinoviev and Kamenev) argue openly in the party that "socialism can't be built in one country and that it was only possible to 'move toward socialism'".
This is despite what Lenin had said in the United States of Europe slogan. (attached)
When they're thrown out the party in 1927 for setting up opposition stands (having just lost a vote on their entire platform by 724,000 votes to the CC and 4000 votes to the Trotskyites).
They stew in their bitterness and from then on they predict every year that the Soviet Union is going to collapse
Go read Trotsky from 1927 onward.
He predicts the collapse of USSR every year. First it's the 5 year plan. Then the 2nd 5 year plan must be abandoned for Trotskys "fear of the dictatorship of the proletariat".
By 1936 and with the completion of the 2nd 5 year plan the Soviet people have moved mountains and shaken the entire capitalist west to their core who witnessed the Soviets rise during the Great Depression. The Soviets shook the world so hard that even Trotsky in Revolution Betrayed(1936) is forced to admit through gritted teeth
<Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory,not on the pages of Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earth'ssurface—not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity (REvolution Betrayed) …As the Trotskyites in the Soviet Union are going on trial in the 1936 trial! Trotsky had predicted the Entire Soviet society would collapse for one reason or another but by the end of the 2nd year plan he was forced to admit
But Trotsky with his ever optimism in 1936 is now convinced that
<Can we, however, expect that the Soviet Union will come out of the coming great war withoutdefeat? To this frankly posed question, we will answer as frankly: If the war should remain only awar, the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable. In a technical, economic, and militarysense, imperialism in incomparably more strong. If it is not paralyzed by revolution in the West,imperialism will sweep away the regime which issued from the October revolution (Revolution Betrayed) So no need to get too excited as Soviet Union can't possibly beat back the forces of imperialism in a war, we should get our coats, turn off the lights and go home saying "we will try to build socialism another day in better conditions"
>So clearly they had strong political convictions, and must have considered themselves to be committed communists. They were communists alright. They were just fucking retards.
Being a communist doesn't stop you being a retard or holding onto retarded ideas
>Yet none of them attempted to defend these actions, which one would expect even if their motives were entirely selfish. Sokolnikov summed his up quite well
<"we considered that Fascism was the most organized form of capitalism, that it would triumph and seize Europe and stifle us. It was better therefore to come to terms with it'. And Sokolnikov wasn't even shot either: alongside Radek, Berngardovich Arnold, Vasilyev, Stroilov Stepanovich of the 1937 trial were sentenced to 5 or 10 years to the gulag
And their last pleas weren't particularly different to the 13 that were shot - ie. they went over how they had come to this political decision in depth
Anonymous 2021-09-05 (Sun) 22:57:54 No. 7132
>>7131 >They did though. Do you have more info? From all the accounts I read of the trials, they essentially admitted their guilt, placed great emphasis on the heinousness of their actions, and threw themselves at the mercy of the court.
>They were communists alright. They were just fucking retards. I don't disagree, I mean clearly history vindicated Stalin's approach in this matter, or at least exposed their concerns about it to be massively overblown. That being said I still find the great enthusiasm with which the defendants tended to denounce themselves and their cause to be suspicious. Again, it's not as if these people were weak willed or lacked ideological convictions, the majority of them were hardened revolutionaries willing to risk their lives to stop what they perceived as Stalin's misrule of the USSR.
>"we considered that Fascism was the most organized form of capitalism, that it would triumph and seize Europe and stifle us. It was better therefore to come to terms with it'. Is this a quote from a confession?
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 11:02:31 No. 7133
>>7132 >That being said I still find the great enthusiasm with which the defendants tended to denounce themselves and their cause to be suspicious. Why wouldn't they though?
You need to understand the timing of history at when their counter-revolutionary organisations began getting knocks at the door at 3am by the OGPU and how ridiculous they considered themselves to be by the time they were in the dock in 1936
Socialism was built, the bourgeois press was forced to sing praises of the Soviet economy and all of Trotskys predictions of Soviet collapse had come to naught. His hysterical demanding that the 5 year plan be stopped, stop liquidating the kulaks
Let's recap and take note of the year Trotsky said these
I'll just link Stalins On The Opposition which details the destroying of the Left Oppositions moronic notion that socialism can't be built in a single country so consider that 1924-1927
-Trotsky, Internationalism and the Theory of “Exceptionalism”, 1930
<This letter is prompted by a feeling of the greatest anxiety about the future of the Soviet Union and the fate of the proletarian dictatorship. The policy of the present leadership, that is, of the narrow Stalinist faction, is pushing the country full speed toward the most dangerous crisis and the worst catastrophe. Ibid
Collectivisation in 1931 must be stopped (note in 1924 he demanded full collectivisation - which would've gotten the Soviet government overthrown given millions of Russian peasants were yet to move into the cities and become proletariat in industry)
<If we should further assume that collectivization, together with the elements of new technique, will considerably increase the productivity of agricultural labor, without which collectivization would not be economically justified and consequently would not maintain itself, this would immediately create in the village, which is even now overpopulated, ten, twenty, or more millions of surplus workers whom industry would not be able to absorb even with the most optimistic plans. - Leon Trotsky: Problems of the Development of the USSR, 1931
Socialism can't be built
<he impossibility of constructing a self-sufficient socialist economy in a single country revives the basic contradictions of socialist construction at every new stage on an extended scale and in greater depth. Ibid
Note the language on the trials against the Mensheviks which were yet to be turned into Stalinist frameups
<Two trials — against the specialist-saboteurs and against the Mensheviks — have given an extremely striking picture of the relationship of forces of the classes and the parties in the USSR. It was irrefutably established by the court that during the years 1923-28 the bourgeois specialists, in close alliance with the foreign centers of the bourgeoisie, successfully carried through an artificial slowdown of industrialization, counting upon the reestablishment of capitalist relationships. -Ibid
Soviet Union will be halfway to collapse if fascists come to power in Germany
<The crushing of the German proletariat by the fascists would already comprise at least half of the collapse of the Soviet republic. -Trotsky, Key To the International Situation, 1931
<The trouble is that the accrued disproportions threaten more and greater surprises. The trouble is that the uncontrolled bureaucracy has tied up its prestige with the subsequent accumulation of errors. The trouble is that a crisis is impending with a chain of consequences such as the enforced shutting down of factories and unemployment. -Trotsky, The Soviet Economy in Danger, 1932
Stop the 2nd 5 year plan
<The Left Opposition was the first to demand the inauguration of the five-year plan. Now it is duty-bound to say: It is necessary to put off the second five-year plan. Away with shrill enthusiasm! Away with speculation! They cannot be reconciled with planned activity. Then you are for retreat? Yes, for a temporary retreat. And what about the prestige of the infallible leadership? The fate of the dictatorship of the proletariat is more important than inflated prestige. Ibid
<A temporary retreat is urgent both in industry and in agriculture. The extent of the retreat cannot be determined beforehand. It will be revealed only by the experience of the capital reconstruction. Ibid
We should now not eliminate the Kulaks as a class but appease them
<The policy of mechanically “liquidating the kulak” is now in effect discarded. A cross should be placed over it officially. And simultaneously it is necessary to establish the policy of severely restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulak. With this goal in mind, the lowest strata of the villages must be welded together into a union of the peasant poor. Ibid
So this is Trotsky by 1932/1933.
Yet even the bourgeois press was forced to admit, whilst crying and coping, the sheer force of the Soviet economy by then
<Listen to the great newspapers. They have a bitter pill to swallow. <Le Temps in its number of January 27th, 1932, says: “The Soviet Union has won the first round by industrializing itself without the aid of foreign capital.” The same paper, some months later, in April, observes: “Communism seems to have leaped in one bound over the constructive stage which in a capitalist regime has to be crossed very slowly. To all intents and purposes, the Bolsheviks have beaten us in this respect.” <The Round Table: “The achievements of the Five-Year Plan constitute a surprising phenomenon.” <The Financial Times: “There can be no doubt about their success. The Communists’ exultation in the Press and in their speeches is by no means without foundation.” <The Neue Freie Presse ( Austria): “The Five-Year Plan is a modern giant.” <The Nation ( United States): “The four years of the Five-Year Plan show a really remarkable series of achievements. The Soviet Union has devoted itself with an intense activity, more appropriate to war-time, to the construction of the foundations of a new life.” <Forward ( Scotland): “What England did during the war was a mere bagatelle beside it. The Americans recognize that even the feverish period of the most intense construction in the Western states could offer nothing comparable to it…a degree of energy unprecedented in the history of the world. A brilliant challenge to a hostile capitalist world.” Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 215-216
Now imagine you're a doting Trotskyite in 1927. Expelled from the party and your programme rejected by the party… Yet you still believe in what Trotsky has been saying. Stalin is leading Soviet society to collapse and must be overthrown.
The 2nd 5 year plan ends in 1936 and makes as big as strides as the first 5 year plan.
In 1934 the 17th Party Congress is nicknamed the "Conquest Of Victors" for how far Soviet society has gone in such a short period.
How fucking ridiculous do you look, having clung to Trotskys to shitty marxist theories like permanent revolution at the end of the 2nd five year plan in 1936?
No wonder so many of them were bitter and came to hate Trotskyism
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 11:07:46 No. 7134
Hitler commented on the Tukhachevsky case
<You see how these gentlemen know how to brilliantly conduct foreign policy. If I followed their advice where would I be now? <Where is Tukhachevskys group, this imaginary "Russian trump card", this "second leg" on which German foreign policy should stand? <It is under ground! Hitler, 1937
https://www.prlib.ru/item/1297712 Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 11:28:54 No. 7135
Well, but at the end the Stalinist handling of personel, cadres, functions, positions etc., was the thing that caused the downfall of world communism. Stalin's HR policies meant that a lot of incompetent people got to powerful positions (fuckin Hruschev) and they little by little dismantled all that was acheived by the October revolution. In a serious state and party amebas such as Hruschev, Breznhev, Gorbachov etc. etc. etc. would have no place in leading anything, not even an office, much less the republic of the soviets.
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 11:30:37 No. 7136
>>7133 Lmao, it's funny how Trotsky and Stalin almost perfectly changed their positions into the opposite between 1922 and 1930
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 13:20:34 No. 7137
Since nobody touched this subject yet, I would like to dispell the myth that it was president Beneš who informed Stalin about the supposed Tukhachevsky coup.
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 17:00:30 No. 7138
Here is what Walter Schellenberg, one of the highest ranking men in the SD wrote about the Tukhachevsky case:>Heydrich at once grasped the tremendous importance of this piece of intelligence. If used correctly, a blow could be struck at the leadership of the Red Army from which it would not recover for many years. >Jahnke was of a different opinion. He warned Heydrich that Skoblin might be playing a double game, and that the information might have been concocted by the Russians and passed on by Skoblin on Stalin's orders. Jahnke thought Stalin had a double purpose in this: he wanted to weaken the German General Staff by arousing Heydrich's suspicions against them, and, at the same time, would be able to act against the Soviet military clique, of which Tukhachevsky was the head. Jahnke thought that because of internal problems in the Soviet government, Stalin did not wish to initiate proceedings against the generals him-self and would prefer that the incriminating material should come from abroad. >Meanwhile Heydrich submitted Skoblin's information on Tukhachevsky to Hitler. The material itself was not complete. It contained no documentary proof of active participation by the German Army leaders in Tukhachev-sky's conspiracy. Heydrich recognized this, and himself added fictitious material aimed at incriminating the Ger-man generals. He felt himself justified in this if he could thereby weaken the growing strength of the Red Army which was threatening the superiority of the Reichswehr. It must be remembered that Heydrich was convinced of the authenticity of Skoblin's information, and in view of what subsequently happened I think he was proved right. His forgeries were therefore merely to strengthen and lend further conviction to information that was in itself valid. >Hitler at this moment was faced with the momentous decision whether to align himself with the Western Powers or against them. And it was within this larger decision that he had also to make up his mind how to use the material that Heydrich had brought him. On the one hand, support for Tukhachevsky might have meant the end of Russia as a worid power—but failure would have involved Germany in war; on the other hand, to unmask Tukhachevsky might be helping Stalin to strengthen his forces, or might equally well push him into destroying a large part of his General Staff. Hitler finally decided against Tukhachevsky and intervened in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union on Stalin's side >This decision to back Stalin instead of Tukhachevsky and the generals determined the whole course of German policy until 1941 and can be rightly regarded as one of the most fateful decisions of our time. It eventually brought Germany into a temporary alliance with the Soviet Union and encouraged Hitler to attack the West before turning against Russia. Once Hitler had made his decision, Heydrich, of course, supported him. >Stalin asked what price we had set on the material. Neither Hitler nor Heydrich had considered that there would be any financial prospects in the affair. However, to preserve appearances, Heydrich asked for three million gold roubles—which Stalin's emissary, after no more than a cursory examination of the documents, paid at once. >I personally had to destroy most of the three million roubles paid to us by the Russians, for it was all in bills of high denominations, the numbers of which had obviously been listed by the GPU. Whenever one of our agents tried to use them inside the Soviet Union, he was arrested within a remarkably short time. >Thus the affair of Marshal Tukhachevsky was a prepa-ratory step toward the rapprochement between Hitler and Stalin. It was the turning point that marked Hitler's deci-sion to secure his eastern front by an alliance with Russia, while preparing to attack the West.
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 17:04:47 No. 7139
>>7133 >You need to understand the timing of history at when their counter-revolutionary organisations began getting knocks at the door at 3am by the OGPU and how ridiculous they considered themselves to be by the time they were in the dock in 1936 If that's true then how could there have been an active conspiracy against the Soviet government at the time of their arrest? Moreover Trotsky himself was still very vocal in his criticisms of Stalin, clearly he still felt it was worth it to agitate against him. But even if the rest of the alleged conspirators had accepted defeat and realized they had been wrong, one would still expect that they would want to explain their actions. From a simple standpoint of self-preservation, it would be in their interest to portray themselves as misguided communists rather than malicious reactionaries.
>>7134 <You see how these gentlemen know how to brilliantly conduct foreign policy. If I followed their advice where would I be now? What I find interesting about this quote is that it actually seems to show that Tukhachevsky
wasn't collaborating with Hitler. Here Hitler specifically says that he is thankful he did not follow the advice of those who wanted to instigate a military coup in the USSR.
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 17:53:12 No. 7140
>>7139 >What I find interesting about this quote is that it actually seems to show that Tukhachevsky wasn't collaborating with Hitler. Here Hitler specifically says that he is thankful he did not follow the advice of those who wanted to instigate a military coup in the USSr Absolutely braindead
It shows he was being cultivated by German intelligence and pushed by a faction in the Nazi party to elevate Tukhachevsky to a main "leg of Nazi foreign policy"
Hitler (for whatever reason) did not see huge value in Tukhachevsky and therefore wasn't going to base Nazi foreign policy on only Tukhachevsky
Doesn't mean he wasn't cultivated by the German general staff and intelligence services (what he was accused of)
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 18:12:40 No. 7141
>>7140 >It shows he was being cultivated by German intelligence and pushed by a faction in the Nazi party to elevate Tukhachevsky to a main "leg of Nazi foreign policy" No it doesn't, it shows that some in the German government were in favour of this course of action, and that Hitler didn't listen to them.
>Doesn't mean he wasn't cultivated by the German general staff and intelligence services (what he was accused of) Fair enough, but it doesn't prove he was either. In fact if Schellenberg is to be believed then we know for a fact that the Germans themselves were fabricating "evidence" of his Tukhachevsky's collaboration with them, as it says here
>>7138 Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 18:27:42 No. 7142
>>7139 >If that's true then how could there have been an active conspiracy against the Soviet government at the time of their arrest? They'd already killed Kirov, Pushkin, Menzhinsky, Gorky, Kubiyshev and a few others by then
What's more the turmoil of collectivisation had only completed by 1932/3 and immediately the Soviets were faced with a new disaster - the Nazis coming to power
> But even if the rest of the alleged conspirators had accepted defeat and realized they had been wrong, one would still expect that they would want to explain their actions They did though. Here's a random selection of pages from Tukhachevskys trial
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 18:46:51 No. 7143
>>7141 <Fair enough, but it doesn't prove he was either. In fact if Schellenberg is to be believed then we know for a fact that the Germans themselves were fabricating "evidence" of his Tukhachevsky's collaboration with them, as it says here >>479783 The Tukhachevsky 'mystery' was a "mystery" as far back as the 1980s when Getty was studying it and Getty posited many different possibilities - including the possibility that the Hitlerites framed Tukhachevsky as well as Tukhachevsky being a genuine traitor and nazi collaborator
<For the theory that the Nazis framed Tukhachevskii, see Lev Nikulin, Marshal Tukhachevskii, Moscow, 1964, 189-94; John Erickson, The Soviet High Command, London, 1962, 433; Walter Schellenberg, The Schellenberg Memoirs, London, 1956; and Khrushchev's speech to the Twenty-second Congress, Pravda, Oct. 29, 1961. The documents were supposedly passed to Stalin via Eduard Benes in Czechoslovakia (Eduard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes, London, 1954, 14-20, and n. 8, p. 47). According to other accounts, Stalin ordered the preparation of incriminating documents and had them passed to the Germans, then the Czechs, then the NKVD, then to him. See Le nouvel observateur, no. 109, Dec. 14-20, 1966, 17. One wonders why such a roundabout procedure would have been necessary if Stalin planned to destroy the military men. Krivitsky (/ Was Stalin's Agent) believes that there really was a military plot to carry out a coup, and Deutscher {Stalin, 73) believes that this was not unlikely. An anonymous but apparently well-informed contemporary writer in Foreign Affairs sus- pects the same thing: "Balticus," "The Russian Mystery-Behind the Tukhachevsky Plot," Foreign Affairs, vol. 16, no. 1, Oct. 1937, 44-63. A. V. Likhachev, editor of the emigre journal Posev, was an officer in the Far Eastern Red Army in 1937-8. Writing under the pseudonym A. Svetlanin, he argued that there was in fact a far-flung military conspiracy to overthrow the Stalinist circle. See his DaVnevostochnyi zagovor (Far- Eastern conspiracy), Frankfurt, 1953. -Getty, Origins Of the Great Purges, p.255
Since 2018 this is basically dead and buried with the release of the Tukhachevsky transcript
During De-Stalinisation Kruschev rehabilitated a load of class traitors and enemies. During that period the Kruschevite press printed that Tukhachevsky never confessed til his last breath
<The newspapers wrote that they denied everything, did not agree with anything. And in the transcript – full confession. The very fact of a confession, I understand, can be achieved by torture. But there is something completely different: an abundance of details, a long dialogue, mutual accusations, a lot of clarifications. It’s impossible to direct this. https://diplomaticpost.co.uk/index.php/2021/05/09/last-colonel-of-the-empire/ Well…. turns out he did.
Just a shame the communist movement had to wait nearly 70 years to see the transcript from the Soviet/Russian archives.
Anonymous 2021-09-06 (Mon) 21:18:45 No. 7144
>>7142 is this book available online?
Anonymous 2021-09-08 (Wed) 16:49:31 No. 7145
>>7100 >>7101 My mistake. I seem to recall Grover Furr saying a document regarding the Tukhachevksy case was still top secret in Russian archives. Any idea what he was referring to?
Anonymous 2021-09-08 (Wed) 18:52:08 No. 7146
>>7145 Yeah, I remember it too. Google up Furr's site and search mentions of Budyonnyi - it wasn't transcript of the trial itself (it was closed at the time), but rather what Budyonnyi was reporting IIRC to Stalin. It was published by Furr and his russian colleague years ago, though, maybe new documents were opened up since then.
Anonymous 2021-09-08 (Wed) 19:44:51 No. 7147
>>7145 >>7146 Furr was talking about it being classified at the time but as of 2018 Russian government released the trial transcript in Ukrainian and Russian here
http://lander.odessa.ua/doc/rgaspi_17.171.392_process_tuhachevskogo.pdf https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://istmat.info/node/59108 >>7101 >Transcript of Tukhachevsky's trial was open long ago. No it wasn't. It was opened in 2018
Because of this thread I began scanning Furrs book (Trotsky and the military Conspiracy) which as an appendix contains the entire script translated into English by Furr
However the dumb app I used only lets you OCR 100 pages a day so you will have to wait til Friday til I post here
The fascinating thing about this transcript though is that it proves that every single Soviet/Russian leader post Stalin kept the transcript buried as a pox on the house of Stalinists.
It only seeing the light of day 85 years after the events and 30 years after Soviet collapse
By 1956 the Trotskyite movement was a discredited group of cranks.
Kruschev rehashed a number of Trotskyite lies in the secret speech and rehabilitated faggot traitors like Tukhachevsky whilst insisting he never confessed and was innocent.
In his 1956 speech for instance he blamed the repressions on Stalin when Kruschev was the most person responsible for repressions besides Yezhov.
He said Stalin was "demoralised after the begining of the war and went to his Dacha for a few weeks" which Zhukov refuted at the time and we now have the logs of Stalin going to work the very next day
Kruschev blamed Kharkov 1942 on Stalin yet the actual fault for Kharkov was the fault of… Timoshenko, Bogdanov and KRUSCHEV!
With Kruschevs secret speech and rehashed Trot lies Trotskyism got a 2nd wind and he now seemed to appear as if he were a "true" and "good" communist.
It's good this era of history is ending bros
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 03:21:12 No. 7148
>>7147 >No it wasn't. It was opened in 2018 Was talking about Budyonnyi's report, it was published by Furr and his colleague for a while now.
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/budennyi_klio12.pdf Dated 2012
I don't get the fetishization of losers rightoids and trots go for. Like come the fuck on, Tukhachevsky's only "achievement" is losing to the poles, and then doing a conspiracy against USSR and Stalin because Tukhachevsky was, and rightfully so, demoted from his rank.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 07:34:08 No. 7149
>>7148 but didn't he also do some important stuff in updating the military doctrine?
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 07:42:41 No. 7150
>>7149 As far as I know, he was opposing changes, actually, and proposed his own ideas of 50k tanks and 40k planes in 1930s after getting demoted.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 08:33:47 No. 7151
I am scared guise. I am scared that Grover Furr is 100 % correct. Is there anyone trying to go against Furr's findings or pointing out errors etc? How is he the only one (together with his colleagues) going through the newly opened archives?
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 09:40:07 No. 7152
>>7151 He's %100 correct and my appreciation for Furr grows every year despite having a general hostility to Furr due to his "reputation" when I first read him
Historians aren't easy to disprove. All you need to do is dig through their writings and prove them liars
Take Mark Taugar going through Anne Applebaums Red Famine and straight up calling her a liar again and again. She says stuff in her book that her own footnotes contradict her conclusion or are straight up lies
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169438 Or Grover Furrs Bloodlies where he goes through Timothy Snyders Bloodlands book and calls him liar again and again by showing his footnotes don't say what he said they said or he's twisted them in a deliberately misleading way
http://www.readmarxeveryday.org/bloodlies/contents.html It's not actually that hard to take down a historian and discredit them. Yet the only take down of Furr I've seen so far is this rambling nonsense on a trotskyite blog and the insult that he's a "Stalinist".
One of my favourite vindications of Furr in recent years is the Trotfags going "Getty and Broue said the evidence of the 1932 bloc which was a central point of the moscow trials broke up in 1932" while Furr had said there was no evidence the bloc had broken up.
But Getty and Broue (himself a trot) are right for some reason.
Then in 2018 there's a bunch of prison notebooks proving the bloc continued to at least 1933 because "stalinism is fascism"
<They believed that Stalin would not be able to fulfill the five-year plan. That there will be no industrialization, that everything will fail and collapse into some kind of deep hole. They scrupulously calculate how the construction site is lagging behind the plan, and look for the blame for everything. Whom? Well, of course, Stalin. Only he is to blame for everything! <And the authors of the documents directly write - if Stalin is to blame, then there will be a consolidation of the opposition, which will raise the working class and take power into its own hands. On the other hand, they put forward such a very vague idea that political reforms are possible, which will be carried out by the Stalinist centrist group. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3652428 <Chronologically, the Notebooks were written in 1932–33; they may be part of a larger collection, but earlier texts were either not preserved or have yet to be discovered. Since the discovery in Verkhneuralsk was made by accident during the repair of the cell, it is likely that other Notebooks will be found. https://www.leftvoice.org/dossier-the-soviet-left-opposition-and-the-discovery-of-the-verkhneuralsk-prison-booklets/ Scoreboard
[Bourgeois and trotfag historians] 0 - 10 [Furr]
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 10:05:25 No. 7153
>>7152 >Even in the Stalinist Gulag, in the most difficult conditions, they tried to resist, staged strikes and hunger strikes. Imagine this happening in nazi concentration camps, lol. Political prisoners were sending complaints to everyone and their mother who were associated with gulags, demanding better living conditions and such. Imagine jews writing a letter to Goebbels from a camp, where they complain about getting genocided. And yet anti-communist historian are dumb enough to write about "gulags = concentration/genocide camps" and prove it by quoting some of such letters of complaints.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 13:13:30 No. 7154
>>7094 We have this and the Lysenko thread every 15 days zzzz
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 13:46:06 No. 7155
>>7154 But it is important. The communist left is dead because of these issues and they are fabrications by anti-communist to acheive precisely this: an irrelevance of world communism cuz muh stalin bad
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 13:55:50 No. 7156
>>7151 >Grover Furr is 100 % correct. correct about what?
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 14:00:36 No. 7157
>>7151 >Is there anyone trying to go against Furr's findings or pointing out errors etc? There are plenty of reviews of his books and articles from historical, poli sci, Marxist, etc journals.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 14:16:59 No. 7158
>>7157 You wanna link any?
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 14:38:33 No. 7159
my 2 cents>Innovative general that worked with the Germans in mechanized warfare doctrine >Nazis leak fake shit about him >Beriatards wanted to get more power >Use the nazi fake docs to ace him
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 15:39:31 No. 7160
>>7157 pls link them comrade
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 15:41:16 No. 7161
>>7156 that all the accusations that have been successfully used to discredit communism (Stalin murdered people, Stalin orchestrated a famine to destroy Ukrainians, Stalin this and that) are fabrications.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 16:04:14 No. 7163
>>7162 Does not really go into much detail. Good point about "Yezhov decieved Stalin" so much that Stalin simply let him arrest the whole central committee etc.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 16:17:02 No. 7164
>>7163 >Good point about "Yezhov decieved Stalin" so much that Stalin simply let him arrest the whole central committee etc. Bullshit. NKVD/KGB were a mess throughout 1930-50s. Them letting notable communists getting killed, and sabotages in the industries carried out so often, it was clear as day that NKVD wasn't very efficient. Heads of NKVD had at some point counclis overseeing what NKVD is doing, at other points there were commissar-like people watching over, at other Stalin assumed direct control, at other yet again NKVD lost entire fields of operation due to them being moved to new agencies - like prior to WW2 foreign intelligence services were put under MID (ministry of foreign relationships) under Molotov.
Next. "Ezhov deceived Stalin" is coming from retarded "stalinists" who believe all the lies about Great Purge - killing 666k people with secret orders to NKVD numbered 13666/2 with secret troikas sentencing people to secret deaths, and NKVD officers killing single-handedly each tens on thousands of people from damsel pistols, oftentimes employing their drivers to help with the slaughter, - but with a twist that Stalin just didn't know! Because it was so secret that even Stalin didn't know, huh.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 16:23:22 No. 7165
>>7164 Well he doesn't say Stalin didn't know. It's that Stalin gave the go-ahead to start repressions under false reports he recieved from NKVD.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 16:41:28 No. 7166
>>7164 >retarded "stalinists" who believe all the lies about Great Purge Sounds a bit oxymoronic.
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 17:01:57 No. 7167
>>7162 I'm telling you. Furr is bullet proof if the best criticism by bourgeois historians who think "Kruschev did a service to socialism with his secret speech"
I have long suspected that the reason for a full take down of Furr has just never happened or materialised is because bourgeois narrative and opinion management happens by just plain ignoring proletarian historians like Furr and subjects that might carve gaping holes in booj ideology for fear of an honest historian getting an education
They would rather just ignore it and instead focus on funding historians through NGOs and think tanks to make shit up about actually existing socialist countries
Anonymous 2021-09-09 (Thu) 17:03:49 No. 7168
>>7164 Can you expand com?
From reading Furr and U N Zhukov it looked more like Yezhov was deceiving Stalin and from Stalin's position in 1937 it looked like counter-revolutionary break outs were happening all over the country
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 04:25:41 No. 7169
>>7167 Same reason why noone sues Furr or stalinists in Russia - if there's an official investigation into them, the state will have to dig up those old NKVD documents and try to piece them together to prove that stalinists are lying/wrong and need to be punished for it. So, you get polemics and opinions, but never an official investigation. Hell, letting relatives of the repressed to get documents from the archives, and the ability to sue Russia over not getting paid for the repressions, already have resulted in having an OFFICIAL statement by Russia herself that repressed people were repressed for actual crimes, not just for jokes about Stalin. An official investigation into the archives will murder those bourgeois historians.
>>7165 So, you are saying that Stalin didn't know. Don't be ridiculous, NKVD wasn't Stalin eyes and ears and hands, he had way more ways to know situation on the ground than reports by NKVD.
>>7168 >in 1937 it looked like counter-revolutionary break outs were happening all over the country People at the time didn't notice neither those break outs or the purges. Moscow Trials? Sure, they were in every media outlet at the time. Then there's this consideration - 666k dead people due to purges is the amount of people dying in wars! Yet it's easier to find relatives of soldiers serving in Afghan than relatives of repressed people, just asking around on the street you'll find more descendants of people who served through the Finnish (Winter) war than those relatives. And EVERYONE has an ancestor participating in WW2 on Soviet side. Purges aren't even exaggerated, they are outright fabricated in their scope and erroneousness.
Present day "non-insane" bourgeois historians (and "stalinists") present it like this: Yezhov felt that Stalin will murder him for treason soon, so Yezhov panicked and started murdering as many people as he could to try and make a rebellion against USSR happen. Stalin was fooled initially, but then Stalin got better and replaced Yezhov. With Yagoda! And then the same happened with Yagoda, and he was replaced with Beria. And the same happened with Beria…
This position of both Stalin/USSR being good and this shit happening is UNDEFENDABLE by communists. Like, come on now. Who in their right mind will think this is a good governance? Hell, "stalinists" bring up the shit like NKVD asking Stalin to raise the "limits" on the people getting shot, and Stalin graciously accepting - just look at how insidious this kind of fake is, they off-handedly admit initial insane numbers of kills, and then shift the blame for even more insane numbers of kills onto someone else from Stalin! We have plenty of proof that archives, at this point, at least the published stuff, is mostly anti-communist fakes.
In reality, NKVD was targeted by trots and rightists just like they targeted the military. And they targeted not rank and file, but generals and upper management - as they should, as everybody does. Purges happened against upper management of military, Party, state and NKVD. So, Yezhov, naturally, tries to protect his cronies, and himself through that, but gets caught anyway. So, he was carrying out first arrests - so what? Would you refuse to carry out arrests against your cronies in his situation? You will blow your cover just like that?
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 04:27:15 No. 7170
>>7166 Haven't you met communists who believe in millions of repressed and killed, but also that it all was justified, because they were enemies of the people? Those are the "stalinists" who believe all the lies about Great Purge.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 04:29:23 No. 7171
>>7167 I mean one of the authors behind the sources furr used criticized him for manipulating the source
and that a common criticisim of furr is that he unironically takes stalinist era historical documents 100 percent seriously without a grain of salt
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 07:11:43 No. 7172
>>7171 >if you don't assume that those stalinist era documents are hiding some nefarious things behind them, it means you are manipulationg the source and are wrong Oh yes, the famous "document says otherwise, but we know for a fact that it's not the case, so this document is a proof that Soviets were actually hiding the truth!" argument, just from a different angle
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 07:21:38 No. 7173
>>7172 no its more like if stalin had control of the nkvd and was the top of the government
and was known for editing previous historical things like literal photographs
why the hell should i trust the stalin era records when stalin was in the perfect place time and era to modify those documents to make him look 100 percent good while at the same time making his enemies look 100 percent bad
why the hell should i trust these stalinist era documents
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 07:35:29 No. 7174
>>7173 >and was known for editing previous historical things like literal photographs That was Pravda (or who was it) who wanted to print the article with first photograph, but suddenly Yezhov was caught, and so they decided to cut him out. It was a stupid story like that. Come the fuck on - do you think that there was only ONE photo of Stalin with Yezhov together? Or that the newspaper wouldn't be able to find Stalin's photo without Yezhov in it?
It's like claiming that Stalin was trying to be a god because there were pictures of Marx in Soviet newspapers where Marx in his working room had photos of Stalin framed on the wall behind Marx. It's utterly ridiculous to consider that to be a proof of a sustained state campaign.
Because there's no proof he did it, obviously. Sorry, but the only ones caught faking documents and hiding evidence are Stalin's enemies. Trots were destroying documents in Trotsky archives, and researchers were able to find letters written in invisible ink, all collaborating accusations stalinists level at Trotsky - at Moscow Trials as well. Nazis are the same, with huge propaganda campaigns and forgeries used. Capitalists are the same as nazis.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 07:55:22 No. 7177
>>7169 Man you don't even have it right, first was Yagoda, then Yezhev.
Most of your post is difficult to understand and it borders on scizho
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 07:58:09 No. 7178
>>7173 So Stalin edited every report, lettert, memo, order, analysis, tens of thousands of pages of documents? and then if everything is false, how do we know what really happened? because of what trotsky or hruschev said?
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 08:07:37 No. 7179
>>7178 no but when you have an nkvd and a entire burecracy to do stuff for you then yeah you could edit some stuff
and how we really know what happens is to combine each view point and etc
and tbh i dont think the situation was oh hahahaha stalin was evil and killed the true revolutionaries like the kruschev or brezhnov fags promote
but
I dont think it was the whole stalin was a heroic man who tried to beat the secret class enemies inside the gov
in my belief the truth is somewhere middle
that the soviet union was a complex web of burecratic ties, plotting, factional division and etc and full out paranoia of class enemies
and that all of these factors pretty much created a tragic situation where instead of working together groups that should have been allies turned upon each other and tried to kill each other, manipulated each other and etc
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 08:17:56 No. 7180
>>7169 >Same reason why noone sues Furr or stalinists in Russia - if there's an official investigation into them, the state will have to dig up those old NKVD documents and try to piece them together to prove that stalinists are lying/wrong and need to be punished for it. So, you get polemics and opinions, but never an official investigation This is the reason.
The second a historian takes an honest look at Soviet history they'll gouging gaping holes in bourgeois ideology and falsified history
If you read Matthew Lennoes study on Kirov he comes to the conclusion that Stalin never killed Kirov and Getty around the same time commented that "no serious historian prior to the cold war claimed that Stalin killed Kirov")
But what's interesting abot Lennie is has around 15 or so pages of flogging himself reminiscent of landlords during Maos cultural Revolution… Where he goes on and on about how he hates communism, hates Stalinism, hates Stalin then presents his conclusion
If a serious take down of Furr was ever attempted they'd be a lot more bourgeois historians having to flog themselves in front of the altar of the free market insisting they are "ideologically correct" as they realise how right he is.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 10:51:04 No. 7181
>>7179 >in my belief the truth is somewhere middle I can agree with this. And also that the various opposition forces tried to take power via assasination or military coup.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 11:40:37 No. 7182
>>7169 >People at the time didn't notice neither those break outs or the purges. Moscow Trials? Sure, they were in every media outlet at the time. Then there's this consideration - 666k dead people due to purges is the amount of people dying in wars! Yet it's easier to find relatives of soldiers serving in Afghan than relatives of repressed people, just asking around on the street you'll find more descendants of people who served through the Finnish (Winter) war than those relatives. And EVERYONE has an ancestor participating in WW2 on Soviet side. Purges aren't even exaggerated, they are outright fabricated in their scope and erroneousness. Care to drop some pdfs or the like on this?
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 12:45:49 No. 7183
>>7182 I think there was some historian who did an analysis of popular opinion at the time of purges, and didn't notice ordinary people fearing them, while higher ups were panicking. I've seen him mentioned alongside "Triumph of Evil". Ordinary people didn't fear anything precisely because there weren't any 666k (actual claimed number is 686k, but come on) dead people from them - this one is my idea as to why. Maybe someone knows which research I'm talking about, but I couldn't find it via google right now.
As for relatives, it's personal experience. One supported by randoms on the internet, but still. Latest claim I know of the total number of people imprisoned (including shot) in USSR throught its history is 7 million. In 70 years of USSR's existance, yeah. Although it's coming from a tangential source here
http://old.memo.ru/d/124360.html where the guy talks about he wasn't talking about this number decades earlier than he did because the public demanded 12 million people imprisoned in 1937-38 alone, and he didn't want to look like a defender of Stalin before his friends from this public. BTW, Zemskov, who is often used by "stalinists" as a historian for "defense" of USSR, talks about 10 million people repressed in 1937-38.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 14:36:25 No. 7184
bamp
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 15:53:27 No. 7185
>>7136 Stalin didn't, it was a plan from the start. Lenin's plan even. Trying to liquidate kulaks in 20s would be suicide, trying to collectivize land from peasants who just recieved that land would also be suicide. The plan was to industrialize, build shitload of tractors and other agricultural machinery and seduce pesants with it into kolkhozes. And that what basically happened.
Trotsky on the other hand pushed for rapid suppression of peasantry by working class and making industry dependant on import from western countries. In the 20s and when the kollectivization started to happen he was like "let kulaks live".
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 16:03:38 No. 7187
>>7179 >no but when you have an nkvd and a entire bureaucracy to do stuff for you then yeah you could edit some stuff You can literally say this about ANY government ffs.
Also, fun fact, the infamous bureaucracy was quite small in numbers especially in the 30s. Even late 80s overbureacretized USSR had less bureacrat staff than modern Russia which is both MUCH smaller in terms of population and has computers and internet.
You are retarded.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 16:04:37 No. 7188
>>7179 >in my belief the truth is somewhere middle I say you fucked 10 kids, you say you fucked 0 kids. Truth is somewhere in the middle, so you fucked 5 kids.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 16:13:05 No. 7189
>>7186 What a bunch of bullshit. If you actually look at the history of anticommunist propaganda you would notice a trend. In 60s and 70s people like Solzhenitsin were talking about purges as some secret project that no one else knew was happening, in his Archipelago he even often shames people for not noticing this and just enjoying their lives. Later in 90s and further on the propaganda started to sound much different, it was about how almost everybody lived in constant fear and terror. It is simply because in 60s and 70s most pople actually lived through 30s and they would remember living in constant fear, so blatant lies like that weren't used, but in 90s and further on most people didn't livbe through that time, so they could be easily lied to.
Even today you can notice almost schizophrenic tendency of combining those two narratives, like prisoners of death camp Serpantinka (which never existed btw) being dragged away in the night from barracks and shot to death while disguising it by the sound of working tractors. Saying it is insane is like saying that ocean is wet.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 17:43:31 No. 7190
>>7173 >reddit spacing <reddit liberal talking points try harder
>pic I have yet to see a single person prove that the proposed "edit" of that photo was actually done in the USSR, in the 1930s and so seamlessly that there is basically a Photoshop level of removal. I want to see some real proofs about this, because the image is a shit meme at this point.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 17:45:28 No. 7191
>>7176 >>7175 And also these fucking photos, show me the evidence that these were edited by the USSR and not some 1990s hackjobs. I recall several photos of German soldiers being photoshopped onto the backgrounds of various atrocities and then /pol/ gong around "debunking" them, despite these edits originating on Stormfront as a false flag plant.
GIVE ME PROOFS FAGGOT.
Anonymous 2021-09-10 (Fri) 17:47:55 No. 7192
>>7183 >Zemskov, who is often used by "stalinists" as a historian for "defense" of USSR, talks about 10 million people repressed in 1937-38 Zemskov didn't claim that at all LOL. His work precisely debunks that claim completely, are you joking?
Anonymous 2021-09-11 (Sat) 04:32:16 No. 7193
>>7192 Wiki says Zemskov provided those figures. Maybe wiki is lying on this one, but Zemskov is a liar and a "stalinist" who admits to all the accusations.
History will benefit hugely from the "it's true if it can be replicated principle" other sciences use to a certain degree. I mean, we totally should disregard all secret documents which are not in the open, because "observations" of them cannot be replicated.
Anonymous 2021-09-11 (Sat) 04:35:14 No. 7194
>>7175 Are we sure that people were edited out? Maybe it's the other way around, people being edited in.
Anonymous 2021-09-11 (Sat) 04:36:14 No. 7195
>>7193 >Maybe wiki is lying on this one Perish the thought!
Anonymous 2021-09-11 (Sat) 09:41:29 No. 7196
>>7154 Well what do you expect, there's more shit heaped on the USSR by bourgeois historians in the 1920s-1950s than any other state in history.
Anonymous 2021-09-11 (Sat) 15:07:09 No. 7197
>>7151 >I am scared that Grover Furr is 100 % correct Why be scared lol? If you're scared of communism you're scared of yourself.
Anonymous 2021-09-11 (Sat) 15:50:38 No. 7198
>>7152 >Even in the Stalinist Gulag, in the most difficult conditions I really hate when people pain "gulags" (which is already a stupid name) as some fucking death camps or something when in reality they were more progressive than even moder prisons by many metrics. Instead of shaving the poor sod, putting him in a dehumanizing uniform and putting him in a concrete box 5 by 5 with other poor sods like him, the prison camps in USSR allowed relatively free movement, no prison uniform and salary for the work (same as the ordinary workers with slight deduction). For people with lighter sentences there were even "special regime" settlements where they could even fucking marry.
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 05:43:09 No. 7199
Bump
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 14:17:17 No. 7200
>>7193 >Zemskov is a liar Show proofs pls, I have never seen him say this >a "stalinist"
The guy is an anti-communist, I don't see him being Stalinist
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 16:32:57 No. 7201
>>7200 >The guy is an anti-communist, I don't see him being Stalinist Not that anon, but there are plenty of reasons to doubt Zemskov. He was curated by Yakovlev and the numbers Zemskov produced from archives by a very lucky coincidence were same numbers that Yakovlev produced several years earlier. Zemskov himself said that Yakovlev was the first to tell about real number of victims. Already a pretty big red flag imo. Second reason is that if you look at the history of death penalties most of them (~700k out of 800+k) happened in 37-38, that is a very big jump, yet for some reason people didn't notice that, there are no material evidence for that, but given the amount of people they had to kill we should be able to find mass graves and stuff, yet there none of this and anticommunist still trying to put Katyn and finns killing red army members as work of soviets. 700k is a VERY big number of people, even dirty wars in Argentina took like 40k people, they only reason why people think it's a "reasonable" number is because they often compare it to insane numbers like 20 millions. Such number of people setntenced to death can't just vanish into the think air. Without solid material evidence about those deaths i will not carelesly assume Zemskov's version.
There are other little things that make me doubt his intellectual honesty and good intentions. When you read his works, they are full of small anticommunist "mistakes" hat proper historian that know russian language and works in russian archives shouldn't commit. For example. He thinks that Katyn was soviet's work and his explanation of events is same as Yakovlev's (insane shit about Burdenko "being mislead" by party, despite Burdenko's comission performing autopsy on victim's bodies and concluding that they were killed in the period when nazis had control of the land). Whe i read his works together with Getty "Victims of the Gulag" he describes kulaks as "well-to-do peasants" which is insanely misleading, since they weren't just peasants who managed to earn good living, but agrarian capitalists who employed other peasants on lands that they took from those peasants through means of usury (practice illegal in USSR obviously) and often employed brute force to those peasants who didn't comply. I can talk a lot about such small things, but it would take too much time and effort, my overall conclusion is that Zemskov is part of the same anticommunist propaganda but with a little bit more "sensible" numbers for people who actually have some common sense and wouldn't believe shit like "20-40-60 millions dead by commies". It is also a good way to present an "alternative" to defenders of communism and make them defend quite the indifensible position. 700k is still shitload of people dead after all.
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 17:48:06 No. 7202
>>7201 the problem with kulaks was there was never a clear definition who or what is a kulak; in one village it could be agrarian capitalists, but in another village it was just peasants who had the most cattle
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 18:00:21 No. 7203
>>7202 >the problem with kulaks was there was never a clear definition who or what is a kulak That is absolutely not true. Open a dictionary from Russian Empire (like Dal's explanatory dictionary) and read what it means. It's not like soviets invented it.
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 18:26:24 No. 7204
>>7202 I mean, it's pretty hard to explain anything to people who don't want to listen to your explanation to begin with. That's the real problem with kulaks - kulak defenders refusing to listen. Kulak was a petty exploiter, and that exploitation came in many flavors (because real life). One fucker owned a bridge and took a toll, another one ownerd all the horses, third one bought from noble landowers all the juiciest bits of village's land and made others work for him because others were desperate because they had bad land, etc etc. Trying to squeeze into this category "strong entrepreneurs who dindunothing" is just fucking dishonest. Oh wow, Soviet guides on how to spot kulaks mention them owning more than others! That must mean Soviets were just rounding up everyone who was better off than others! Don't be a retard, please, that's a fantasy logic which doesn't happen in reality. Have some critical thinking, study objective conditions those people lived in.
Anonymous 2021-09-12 (Sun) 22:46:17 No. 7205
The Dewey Commission was conducted by a bunch of fawning Trotskyites. <A Trial That Proved Nothing The net result of the labors of the commission? No adequate cross-examination, no examination of the Trotsky archives. A scant day and a half of questioning of Trotsky; mostly about the history of the Russian revolution, his relations with Lenin—this with an eye to his defense against Stalin charges—a lot of question on dialectics and a few scattered unorganized question on terrorism and the Piatakov incident. < I was unable to find out how these European commissions had been created, who were members of them. I suspected them of being small cliques of Trotsky’s own followers. I was unable to put my seal of approval on the work of our commission in Mexico. I did not wish my name used merely as a sounding board for the doctrines of Trotsky and his followers. Nor did I care to participate in the work of the larger organization, whose methods were not revealed to me, the personnel of which was still a mystery to me. Doubtless, considerable information will be scraped together. But if the commission in Mexico is an example, the selection of the facts will be biased, and their interpretation will mean nothing if trusted to a purely pro-Trotsky clique. <As for me, a sadder and wiser man, I say, a plague on both their houses. <Very soon after the first trial, Zinoviev and his associates were executed. It has been asserted that they had been promised lenient treatment if they would for their part publicly accuse Trotsky of having conspired with them to overthrow Stalin and the Soviet government. In truth, it was largely upon this supposition that rested the contention that the first trial was a “frameup”. But now that the men were put to death Trotsky and his adherents declared that they, the defendants, had been “double-crossed”. To the Trotskyites this was further proof of their contention that the first trial had been “framed”. To the disinterested student, however, it might be just as easily have proved the contrary. After all, it is one of the simplest rules of logic that one cannot use a premise to prove a thesis and then use the denial of that premise to prove the same thesis. Logically, therefore, one should have looked elsewhere for an explanation of the executions, and the only other possible explanation was that the men were actually put to death in the regular course of justice and for the single reason that they were guilty of the crimes charges against them. Still it was possible, despite the rise of this counter-doubt, that they have been “double-crossed”. <Possibly Trotsky can support his allegations. He should certainly not be denied the opportunity to produce the proof he says he has. But his reluctance or inability to produce his proof when it is most needed must count against him. Moreover, and this is a point of extreme important, it has to be borne in mind that Trotsky is not a disinterested party. He does not come into court with clean hands. He is a sworn adversary of the Stalin government. It must be presumed, therefore, that he is at least equally as much interested, and in all probability far more interested, in carrying on his campaign to destroy the Stalin government as he is in obtaining abstract justice for himself. Let him state that it is justice alone that he desires, and then let him publicly promise that, in the event he fails to substantiate his allegations against the Soviet government, he will promptly cease his effects to destroy that government. If he refuses to bind himself in this particular, the reasonable man must conclude that he is using his demand for justice solely as a means of enlisting additional support for his campaign against socialism in the Soviet Union. Chronologically, indeed, the evidence on this point is already against him. The outcry against the Moscow trials first came from the Trotskyites. It was they who first raised the charge that Soviet justice was being hamstrung by Stalin. It was not until later that certain disinterested liberals took up the cry. There can be no question the Trotskyites knew, when they shouted “persecution”, that they would win the sympathy and perhaps the active aid of these liberals. And there can be little question that this, rather than justice, was their true objective. Surely if they really believed, as they asserted, that the Stalin government knew no law and no justice, then they could not have expected the liberals to help obtain justice from the Stalin government for them. And as they still maintain this position, it is only logical to suppose that their real purpose in appealing to the liberals was not to win justice for themselves, but to win liberal support for Trotskyism, that is, for Trotsky’s campaign against socialism in the Soviet Union, and to do so in the name of that Holy but meaningless liberal principle known as abstract justice.
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 01:01:58 No. 7206
>>7201 Demonstrate examples, not just statements, I haven't seen this in Zemskov's works. He explicitly (for example) stated that the percentage of gulag prisoners for political reasons did not go above 40% at peak of repressions and usually is much smaller. He also specifically stated that "repressions" had no impact at all on over 97% of the Soviet population of the time. Yakovlev lied plenty but the best of lies are those hidden among truths.
\>>490148
>Open a dictionary Do you think most people had dictionaries at hand? My Great Grandfather was a ПартОрг for the village after the war, but quit because he was getting orders to confiscate things from "Kulaks"… such as from one of my Great Uncles, who was a "Kulak" for having 2 pigs, never mind that the pigs were basically all they possessed outside of the small 1-room hut they lived in. The orders came from the higher-ups in the nearby city, greedy scum bags behaving like actual Kulaks.
That being said most Kulaks did not get repressed in any form, even confiscation was not a massive policy until later and few were imprisoned (mostly those actively attacking the Soviets).
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 04:53:52 No. 7207
>>7206 Oh yes, Zemskov "beats" the myth of "half the country was in prisons, and the other half was guarding them" with the myth of 666k people shot and more still imprisoned for "political" crimes, such as telling jokes about Stalin. That's whom I call "stalinists" - such defenders of Stalin who sign under all of Khruschev's slanders, but say "it was good, actually".
<that means they labelled anyone and everything as kulak! Doesn't it appear to you that your great grandfather was in cahoots with your great uncles, it was exposed, and both got punished for being kulaks?
We know what two pigs and small rooms kulaks lived in, alright. Imagine fucking believing those scumbags. "Oh no, Soviets imprisoned us for stealing three grains from the kolkhoz fields!" meanwhile, the news article talks about kulaks raiding fields with multiple carts at night, killing a random eyewitness on their way out, who demanded that they stop the crime. Fuck off, gusano
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 09:47:02 No. 7210
>>7207 The NKVD and local official were perfect in catching kulaks and not 1 person was wrongly accused of being a kulak.
And absolutely no-one took advantage of the mass inspections and wrongly accused his neighbour of being a kualk cuz he fucked his wife last month.
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 13:11:18 No. 7211
>>7208 >>7209 >Official documents totally cover the actual day to day happenings and actions, it' not like people could make things up because they didn't correctly understand the definition of Kulak! Seriously, back the fuck up and think for a moment.
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 13:18:56 No. 7212
>>7207 >Muh Zemskov is a bad meanie [and more ranting shit having no actual proofs like I asked] Yeah fuck off faggot.
>hat means they labelled anyone and everything as kulak! I literally state the opposite later on you actual speedreading faggot. Seriously neck yourself.
>it was exposed, and both got punished for being kulaks No reddit spacer, given that he didn't get punished at all and neither did my Great Uncle, both fought in the Revolution and calling them "Kulaks" is slander given that they quite literally had NOTHING to their name outside of the shitty hut they lived in. If you look t actual Kulaks this is not the case.
>scumbags Yeah I'd say catch me outside but you're in another country. If you're actually this retarded to think the Soviet system never got abused by anyone ever, then you're a fucking moron.
>muh news article That literally has nothing to do with this, "Kulaks in X did this so EVERYONE accused of being a Kulak is a Kulak and did X"
You're the kind of faggot that thinks no-trial executions should be a thing, ain't ya?
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 14:12:29 No. 7213
>>7210 >And absolutely no-one took advantage of the mass inspections and wrongly accused his neighbour of being a kualk cuz he fucked his wife last month. Oh yes, NKVD jailed people with accusations as the only proof. Jeez, anticommunist propaganda rooted itself pretty deep into you people, didn't it? Accusation was ALWAYS only a reason for further investigation, never a proof by itself. That's fucking common sense.
>>7211 >Official documents totally cover the actual day to day happenings and actions Yes, actually, because Soviets were democratic and run for the people by the people. Thus, official documents and news showed only what people wanted and cared about. This kind of shit is well researched by westerners, actually, even CIA, who always note that accents in Soviet press are "all wrong", if in western media it's all about greatest of us - entrepreneurs and capitalists - then in USSR it's about workers doing worker things, if american movies are about whatever's fashionable at the time, then in USSR it's "boy meets tractor" story.
>>7212 >Muh Zemskov is a bad meanie Really now?
You first talk about your great-whatevers getting relieved of their party positions and call that unfair, and then toss a bone claiming that you are actually neutral. Come on now, you can do without cheap tricks.
Stopped being PartOrg - but wasn't punished? Oh boy.
Yes-yes, everyone fighting in a Revolution were communists and honest people.
Well, we don't have anything but your bare words to back that up. My gut feeling is that your great-whatevers were lying to look better in the eyes of their children. It happens all the time.
First, there's plenty of kulaks who got off the hook with merely a stern talking. Old habits die hard, and oftentimes people act like dumbasses simply because everyone was acting like a dumbass for years before them just like that. Treating workers - and neighbours - as shit is as much a cultural issue as an economic one. Second, if party member got relieved of his membership due to mistake, it was customary to give that membership back.
You presented an example of your great-whatevers in exactly this way. Why can you do this, but I can't? Only because you threw me a bone? Stop being so dishonest.
What.
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 14:18:13 No. 7214
>>7213 finally the burger is revealed lmao
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 16:31:30 No. 7216
>>7213 >party member got relieved of his membership Literally not what was said, you're a professional at making strawmen
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 16:34:16 No. 7217
>>7213 >official documents and news showed only what people wanted and cared about And you reveal yourself by going on an irrelevant tangent and not arguing legitimately at all, no-one is talking about the news or movies on worker life, the conversation is about kulaks and the fact that abuses of power could and did happen. If things were so perfectly democratic and flawless then the USSR would never have had Gorbachev and the other fuck ups, now would it?
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 17:56:21 No. 7218
>>7206 >He explicitly (for example) stated that the percentage of gulag prisoners for political reasons did not go above 40% at peak of repressions and usually is much smaller. He also specifically stated that "repressions" had no impact at all on over 97% of the Soviet population of the time. Yakovlev lied plenty but the best of lies are those hidden among truths. I demonstrated plenty of examples. It seems you just lack the ability to comprehend the conclusions that follows.
You are either retarded or completely dishonest. What kulak was peasants knew without any dictionaries. And it wasn't just some "well-to-do peasant" it was someone who employed other peasant's labor.
Your example has nothing to do with it, read Stalin's "Головокружение от успехов".
Anonymous 2021-09-13 (Mon) 17:59:03 No. 7219
>>7210 You are trying to conflate local officials being corrupt or too overzealous with your asinine statement that "there was never a clear definition who or what is a kulak". Like i said, either retarded or dishonest. Which one?
Anonymous 2021-09-14 (Tue) 00:36:57 No. 7220
>>7218 >I demonstrated plenty of examples No you stated that Zemskov said X and Y lacking any sources or screenshots to that, reddit spacer.
>What kulak was peasants knew without any dictionaries. Come back after you read a dictionary yourself, and hopefully a couple good books on grammar.
>lack ability to comprehend Yes I know you do lack this, no need to project it unto others.
>it wasn't just some "well-to-do peasant" it was someone who employed other peasant's labor. Yeah no shit sherlock, problem is, most peasants in the early USSR were not educated at all even with efforts for literacy. That's why political commissars and Politorgs existed. And no existing Kulak could BE a Politorg because, ya know that goes against proletarian interests. The
>Read Stalin's Unlike you I actually read those works, in their original language and knowing the context of the writing. It has little to do with this.
>Your example My example was that on a local basis things like definitions mattered little, what mattered was who made the decisions and on what basis - if a regional overseer was a corrupt piece of shit they could easily claim that "X is a Kulak" and have their property confiscated, this issue is partly why the purges began - a crackdown on corruption in the Soviet system. Regardless of how democratic a system is, the human factor is always there.
>>7219 >ur trying to conflate not even that anon, but there is nothing to conflate - if there clear definition of a Kulak corrupt and excessive NKVD action would still be within that framework and not as jumbled as it was done, as by admission of the Stalin government itself, which began the process of many unjustly repressed people being pardoned, thanks to the work of Beria. Khruschev went full-retard and and freed every other dissident he could find resulting in morons like Solzhenitsyn getting to 'speak out' or go to the USA and shill their bullshit there.
Anonymous 2021-09-14 (Tue) 03:44:19 No. 7221
>>7214 I'm still surprised that people assume that I am a burger. Is my english really this good? Should I feel flattered?
>>7216 Yes-yes, it's him stopping being a party member in protest voluntarily, and not him getting thrown out for refusing to do what's needed to be done against his kulak reliative.
Anonymous 2021-09-14 (Tue) 05:42:51 No. 7222
>>7220 You have no arguments axcept "muh reddit spacing" and "ur grammar bad".
Интересно, а я на каком читал? Если по-английски не понимаешь, давай по-русски объясню, долбоеб. Ты пытаешься выставить случаи коррумпированного поведения или слишком резкой попытки затащить всех в коммунны/колхозы (то что как раз и описано в упомянутой мной статье, хуеплет тупой) как результат того что "никто не знал кто такие кулаки". Четкое определение кулака существовало задолго до большевиков, а крестьяне понимали кто такой кулак на своем опыте. Уж кто-то, а крестьянин разницу между кулаком и средняком знал хорошо.
Изначальный вопрос о том что нормальный историк, который хоть чуть-чуть разбирается в вопросе, никогда не назовет кулаков зажиточными крестьянами. Это может сделать либо неграмотный долбоеб вроде тебя, либо буржуазный пропагандон вроде Земскова. Твой ответ на это "ну никто не знал определение кулака", на что я резонно ответил что знали еще со времен царской России, на что ты начал высирать про то что репрессировали и невинных, поэтому определения не имеют значения, что абсолютный шизофренический бред. По той же логике можно сказать что раз любой аппарат государственного насилия совершает ошибки, то можно сказать что не существует определения преступника и всех надо называть невиновными.
Вывод - ты обосрался и продолжаешь обмазываться говном, отказываясь признавать что это говно.
My conclusion is that you are both retarded and dishonest. Eat shit and die, libtard.
Anonymous 2021-09-14 (Tue) 05:48:21 No. 7223
>>7221 You are both idiots pretty much. He is trying to push schizo notion that pesants needed to be literate to know who kulak is. You are trying to pretend that no one was falsely accused of being a kulak.
Anonymous 2021-09-14 (Tue) 15:27:29 No. 7224
>>7223 I'm not saying they needed to be literate, I'm saying that they needed to be educated. Peasants mostly did not have copies of Lenin and Marx lying around or dictionaries, and so made decisions based on their knowledge and biases. Moreover, upper management had the power to "decide" that someone was a Kulak without real basis. This was a problem, even if not the majority of the time, which is what I said from the start. That dumbass is just a dogmatist.
>>7221 >him getting thrown out for refusing to do what's needed to be done against his kulak reliative Бwaaaaah Soviet Authority did no wrong ever, becuse they were perfect beings and not humans
Stop fooling yourself? you sound like those anti-communist morons ranting about how every member of the party was forced to be in the party and anyone who left HAD to be kicked out and imprisoned, and y'know didn't leave voluntarily for one reason or another. It's hilarious how you resemble them actually.
>>7222 I have no arguments to provide for someone who has no arguments to begin with.
На русском Я читал, ЧМО ты нудное. А твоё обяснение говно, как и понятно от безпрерывново и безполезного мата.
> Ты пытаешься выставить случаи коррумпированного поведения или слишком резкой попытки затащить всех в коммунны/колхозы Ты каким ёбаным местом читал? Жопой? Пиздой?Повторю для идиотов: Я сказал СРАЗУ после того что мне рассказал Прадед что
"most Kulaks did not get repressed in any form, even confiscation was not a massive policy until later and few were imprisoned (mostly those actively attacking the Soviets)." В Переводе на простой язык "Это только одиночный случяй и чясто Кулаков не репрессировали, и были справедливо конфискованы вещи не личных"
Понятно тебе, ирод хера?
>Изначальный вопрос о том что нормальный историк Я это не оспорил, Японский Бох! Вот почему я повторяю 'Strawman' ты аргументируеш с тем что я и не обсуждал. Я просто сказал
А - У Земскова я не видал то что говорили о нём здесь другие, и просил точных примеров, чего так и не дали
Б - Что народ после Революций не всегда будут чесными, и превел личный премер, и тут же после, подчеркнул что это не все-общяя тенденция была.
>ты начал высирать про то что репрессировали и невинных А вот ты и лжожь, пре том открыто, так как я не разу об этом не сказал, а наоборот что то что произошло в 37ом было очишение от коррупций и что Берия спас многих кого и в правду посадили без дела (К.П. Роккосовского). Так что читай больше, а не копи-пасти срачи с 2Ч
>По той же логике можно сказать что раз любой аппарат государственного насилия совершает ошибки Да не ужели БЛЯТЬ? Все таки дошло до жирафа?
>не существует определения преступника и всех надо называть невиновными. Да нет же предурок ты шизонутый, хватить веши понимать в Черно-Белых окрасках, инфантил ты чёрта!
Вот ты спросил другому, "people assume that I am a burger." Это не потому что хорош на Английском, (даже наоборот, в США плохо пишут) А потому что ты пиздуеш Америкоские пропагандонский линий о "плохом совке" только что это мол хорошо. То что ты здесь напечятал (этот пост на который я сейчяс отвечяю) болие внятны чем ВСЁ написаное ранние.
Вывод здесь один, тебе просто охото пиздеть и нападать на других что б почуствовать себя умным. На верно в детсве во дворе били, или точнее сказать бьют.
My conclusion is you are a blind and ignorant liberal parading in a red coat of dogmatic paint, stay mad fucker.
Anonymous 2021-09-15 (Wed) 00:22:01 No. 7225
>>7211 >Official documents totally cover the actual day to day happenings and actions, it' not like people could make things up because they didn't correctly understand the definition of Kulak! Did you even read what was posted? The peasants were the fucking ones to primarily define who a Kulak was in the first place. Bednota is nothing more then a newspaper.
Anonymous 2021-09-15 (Wed) 01:29:12 No. 7226
>>7225 >The peasants were the fucking ones to primarily define who a Kulak was in the first place Kulak is defined in the Russian IMPERIAL Dictionary, written by and for the upper class, they dictated definitions. Kulak means "fist" as in the fist that locally oppressed peasants. This oppression is not actually defined in concrete materialist/dialectical manner by peasantry - as it essentially comes to "those that have more than everyone else" in LAYMAN'S terms that most people understood. The problem is… defining more than everyone else and the honesty of someone claiming that X person has much more than others. Like I said in the beginning, generally the dekulakization efforts ere successful and sincere, but there is always a human factor, and that includes in the government, which was my point.
Anonymous 2021-09-15 (Wed) 03:52:30 No. 7227
>>7226 >Kulak means "fist" as in the fist that locally oppressed peasants. This oppression is not actually defined in concrete materialist/dialectical manner by peasantry - as it essentially comes to "those that have more than everyone else" in LAYMAN'S terms that most people understood. The problem is… defining more than everyone else and the honesty of someone claiming that X person has much more than others. Except that's not how peasants defined it at all, and they explicitly rejected the idea that a Kulak was merely a person that owned more then everyone else. You are correct that most of the peasantry lack a materialist analysis of Kulak relations, but what they did have was their own largely shared "moral economy". Peasants writing in to newspapers (of which letters arrived in the hundreds) were very, very clear that wealth was not what defined a Kulak. No one had any issue with a "thrifty" farmer who had accumulated for himself a second cow or a nicer hut by having improved his harvest through ingenuity or personal labour, or even by a strategic marriage to another peasants daughter for the dowry; after all, to be "thrifty" was something seen as only proper in the peasant moral economy, and no one could very well point fingers when they were all seeking to find ways to improve their own standard of living and the output of their farms. As long as it was gained "honestly", such things were fine. What was not accepted though was those farmers who obtained their wealth "dishonestly", the difference between "honest" and "dishonest" being the use of exploited hired labour as opposed to labour done by their own hands or that of fairly compensated peasantry, with what quantifies this being gone over in screenshot #4. Kulaks were practically entirely defined by their usurious deal making by the general peasantry.
Anonymous 2021-09-15 (Wed) 05:15:19 No. 7228
>>7227 >Kulaks were practically entirely defined by their usurious deal making by the general peasantry. Yes, and that usurious behavior was supplied materially by owning the majority of means of production/'commanding heights" in a village. So, owning a bridge and taking a tall, or owning best strips of land (because first noble landowners did that to keep their power over peasantry, and then kulaks as well), or owning all the horses, or owning a windmill, or shit like that. From this economic power came political one, so first kolkhozes were enforced by kulaks themselves who jumped onto the opportunity to enlarge their property through underhanded means - namely, "collectivize" stuff, and then become chairmen over collectivized property. Of course, they didn't collectivize their private property, only their neighbours'. Next, famine cycles were an important part of kulaks' power.
Usury came in the form of giving out to their neighbours grain for consumption/seeds, and in return kulaks demanded either many times more grain sacks, or those neighbours working kulak's fields, either way it was obscene amount of wealth transferred to them, while peasants were forced into unescapable poverty.
Also, kulaks, due to their economic peculiarities, were firmly against development of productive forces. They didn't buy tractors because tractors were both pricey and too productive - if kulaks implemented thme on their fields, their neighbours will be free to develop their own fields, and thus the loss of control over the village. You'd think this is nonsense from kulak's point of view, but then look at all the repressive measures police rains down on people trying to meme vertical farming their own food, or upside-down farming, or how they are very hostile to people trying to grow food on unused public property, and so on and so forth. Tractors and fertilizers replace vast amounts of labor required without them, and since only labor creates value, this in the long term destroys profit rate. So, NOT upgrading from horse power to tractor power is a totally sensible thing as it secures both profit rate and perpetual poverty, and thus free labor, for kulaks.
Anonymous 2021-09-15 (Wed) 15:14:12 No. 7230
>>7227 >they explicitly rejected the idea that a Kulak was merely a person that owned more then everyone else. No, the Soviets rejectd that notion. The average peasant of the time, not yet versed in Marx and Lenin and relying on assigned officials to teach them this, had simpler concepts of Kulaks and their role. You can argue details all you like, but the reality is, Russian peasants of the late 20s and early 30s were ignorant, out of no fault of their own, if you live in a system repressing education for the people, even efforts like Lenin's push for literacy would not fix this immediately and many areas remained ignorant. Otherwise the USSR wouldn't have had to combat grain hoarding by Kulaks and ordinary peasants during 1932 either.
>Peasants writing in newspapers >hundreds recall that the USSR comprised over 100 MILLION people, even if 1000 people collectively all wrote letters that is still less than 10% of the population. Again you have to rely on the personal honesty of accusers
>No one had any issue with a "thrifty" farmer who had accumulated for himself a second cow or a nicer hut by having improved his harvest through ingenuity or personal labour Because suddenly the existence of the USSR abolished things like envy, jealousy and grudges? The early Soviet government constantly battled opportunism and other disingenuous behavior and not for no reason.
>to be "thrifty" was something seen as only proper in the peasant moral economy That doesn't mean that this excludes someone else disliking it or wanting to possess what others have. This is a common theme of Russian literature - jealousy and hate and envy leading brother to kill brother or take advantage of a situation to get rid of someone and get their things. Soviet media includes this too, and they attempted to address it constantly.
>farmers who obtained their wealth "dishonestly" >they're Kulaks Yes I agree, I'm just pointing out that this is vague enough that people may take advantage of it for personal reasons. Additionally, city officials could often be corrupt and opportunist. It's statistically impossible for this to not occur, even if it is minimized, as I pointed out.
Anonymous 2021-09-17 (Fri) 06:45:15 No. 7231
So are we done here?
Anonymous 2021-09-17 (Fri) 10:46:41 No. 7232
>>7230 >Russian peasants of the late 20s and early 30s were ignorant Those peasants were educated enough to end capitalism in Russia. Do you think they didn't understand what kulak - or a capitalist - meant? Come on now. They lived alongside those shits.
Ridiculous claim. Hoarding the grain is economically viable, it happened in kolkhozes, sovkhozes, farmers did it, kulaks did it as well.
You stretch this "may" into a blanket dismissal of every attempt to combat kulakism as a jealousy, envy and grudges.
It's even more statistically - and logically, and managerially, or logistically - impossible for all of those repressions against kulaks being just cases of jealousy. Again, letters to authorities by themselves NEVER were a proof of a crime, it's not fuckng middle ages and witch hunts, where accusers got money for reporting! It's SOCIALIST COUNTRY, that was painfully aware of history of such things, and they did goddamn make sure that letters are investigated, but not used as a proof. Because that's how a sane person would organize statecraft.
Anonymous 2021-09-17 (Fri) 13:48:29 No. 7233
>>7232 >Those peasants were educated enough to end capitalism in Russia Imagine being this idiotic. As of the revolution 76% of the population could not read at all and had 0 formal education. So none could form written definitions or read said definitions, they could only know something by word of mouth.
>they didn't understand what kulak - or a capitalist - meant? To the generation that fought the Revolution it got defined in Layman's terms; the rich oppressor, any further details got forgotten by most. You seem to think 1917 is a unique revolution, Peasant Revolts in Russia had been going on for centuries, repeatedly every decade, but Kulaks at the time were small fry to who they fought.
>those shits Those shits usually were peasants themselves at one point.
>Ridiculous claim No it is not, the Soviet government and any honest literature on the famine of 1932 pointed out that people did try to hoard or procure grain because they feared starvation. Again peasants fought the revolution for material benefits for themselves, to improve their lives and the lives of their kin, not because of "ideals of communism" that only a few people in Russia were literate enough to be even aware of. See pic 1
>oarding the grain is economically viable No it is not, not in a famine, to repeat thngs I said beforee
The government’s job in a famine is to freeze everybody in place; gather what food there is; ration it; distribute it. And guard the seed grain, that's what it did. hoarding grain sabotages this effort and sabotage economic production by preventing a balanced assessment of productivity.
>stretch this "may" No I do not. You clearly have not spent a lot of time interacting with other people more than casually IRL. You clearly don't understand or truly empathize with
>blanket dismissal of every attempt to combat kulakism I specifically said otherwise, cope more. Also Kulakism doesn't exist, it's not an ideology you twat, it's a name for a specific type of bourg in a specific country.
>impossible for all of those repressions against kulaks being just cases of jealousy Yes, that's exactly hat I said, you contrarian ninny.
>bla bla bla 'The Soviet system investigated everything perfectly and people never made mistakes or acted corruptly' I have to wonder have you ever been to a Russian village, let alone lived in one. People are not perfect beings by far, and in the 1920s-1930s people were rougher and tougher; ready to do anything to improve their lives, because they had to be to survive in the Russian Empire, and it takes time to change this, time that had not yet passed.
Moreover many non-proletarian city folk of the time tended to be opportunists that rose in political ranks and could abuse power. This did occur, the fact that these occurrences exists provoked 1937's purges in the first place, to end this nonsense for a while.
Unique IPs: 39