[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1661201420683.jpg (65.36 KB, 500x500, balaev.jpg)

 No.1132650[Last 50 Posts]

We have this one anon who always posts about his stuff ( like here >>131457 ), but usually nobody here understands what is he talking about because the majority of leftypol either doesn't know russian, isn't well-versed in soviet history or just doesn't know the russian communist milieu. That's why I made this thread, to explain who he is and why he is important.

I will give you a general information, because I hope the balayevite anon will chime in and explain things more in detail

In the western countries, you don't have many "stalinist" historians, except Grover Furr and maybe Losurdo. But in Russia it is mainstream, so to speak.

The problem is, however, that these "stalinists" are either some freaks (conspiratards or some "red-brown" idiots from the 90s) or they are openly agreeing with the official narratives on Stalin's USSR, but in such a way to make it look they actually support Stalin. I mean shit like "yes, the repressions were bad, but it was necessary!!1" or "Yezhov did that!!! Stalin didn't know about it!", basically making Stalin and people around him look like bloodthirsty maniac (just not THAT bloodthirsty), or making them look like incompetent idiots.

Balayev is probably the only communist-stalinist writer and publicist who disagrees with such methods. Basically, what he claims is that most of modern narratives on Stalin are either based on FAKE ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS or equally as fake "statistics", "testimonies" and other "facts"

Now, how is this different from your mainstream "stalinist" historian - mainstream "stalinists" will agree that documents on Katyn are forgeries but nothing else. Whereas Balayev claims there are many more fake documents, like Order no. 00447, which supposedly started the so called "Great Terror". (there are many weird things about this document - it isn't written on a blank that was usually used for such documents and the language used is really strange - but I don't want to go much into details now to not make a mucho texto OP)

As for The Great Terror, Balayev claims that it is a pure fabrication - no mass repressions were happening in 1937/38. He admits that there were party purges in the party but not some massive repression that would affect the whole population of the USSR. (Unlike the other "stalinists" who claim the mass repressions happened but not in the extent anticommunists say, and were justified).

The official number of 600 thousand victims of The Great Terror that is used even by "revisionist" historians like Arch-Getty, is also fake according to him. Simply, because it wasn't possible for the NKVD to kill so many people in cca 2 years, we don't have mass graves with such large numbers of bodies and the whole narrative stands on just one document published by so called Yakovlev's commission in 1988.

Balayev published a whole book about Great Terror. It's called The Myth of The Great Terror ( Миф о Большом терроре ). This probably made him famous among the russian communists.

I don't want to go further, because I hope the Balayev-poster will show up in this thread, but Balayev has many other unorthodox theories, for example, he says, that the number of human casaulties in WWII was much much lower than the official 27 million estimate (probably 7 million, which is an estimate made right after the war)

Here is a link to his livejournal
https://p-balaev.livejournal.com/

 No.1132653

Giga Chad

 No.1132658

Sounds based, does big Grover work with him? Can we get English translations?

How many were actually shot in 1937-1938?I've seen 20k which sounds about right.

 No.1132660

>>1132650
>human casaulties in WWII was much much lower than the official 27 million estimate (probably 7 million, which is an estimate made right after the war)
That's the number Stalin gave which sounds about right for military casualties.

 No.1132665

File: 1661202489913.jpg (21.44 KB, 448x275, 36965_original.jpg)

He's also a leader of an organization called "Communist Movement named after the "Anti-Party Group of 1957" " (sorry, idk how to translate it better)

According to them, Stalin's death was violent and occurred as a result of a coup d'état organized by party functionaries, and after the coup of 1956-57, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the country was replaced by the dictatorship of the party, which marked the transition from socialism to capitalism. The restoration of capitalism in the USSR is considered to be a natural historical process by the movement and they are always drawing analogies with the temporary restoration of the monarchy after the bourgeois revolutions in Europe.

From what I know, they don't claim to be a party, just a movement trying to propagate the communist ideas.

They are supporters of contemporary PRC and "dengism".

They also had some strict opinions about COVID and vaccinations but I don't remember what that was about.

Their website: https://1957anti.ru/
Livejournal: https://1957-anti.livejournal.com/
VK: https://vk.com/anti1957

 No.1132666

Does he say the "terror" never happened? Or that it was much lower than 600,000 killed?

 No.1132669

>>1132665
>They are supporters of contemporary PRC and "dengism".
What the fuck? How can you claim Khrushchev "restored capitalism" but Deng didn't? Because the latter didn't denounce Stalin lmao?

 No.1132672

File: 1661202899028.jpeg (181.94 KB, 1242x1248, cb0.jpeg)

>>1132665
>and after the coup of 1956-57, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the country was replaced by the dictatorship of the party, which marked the transition from socialism to capitalism
<They are supporters of contemporary PRC and "dengism".
Jesus imagine thinking that Khruschev/Brezhnev's extremely modest economic reforms were capitalist restoration but what Deng did was totally fine.

 No.1132683

>>1132672
Many such cases!

 No.1132735

I kneel

 No.1133337

>>1132669
>>1132672
From what I recall, he argues that restauration of capitalism is a necessary step in socialist development (like it happened after 1848. with the feudal restorations for a while), so better that those capital relations are lead by a communist party than a bourgeoisie party.

 No.1133392

>>1133337
So reformism?

 No.1133394

>>1133392
No son, reformism implies succdems
Better to think of it as a strategic retreat

 No.1133402

>>1132665
>According to them, Stalin's death was violent and occurred as a result of a coup d'état organized by party functionaries
Wouldn't surprise me.

 No.1133403

>>1132660
27 million might include civilian deaths. any number that supports muh asiatic hordes narrative is likely bunk
>>1132666
probably that the meme that the purges affected the average soviet citizen is nonsense
>>1132672
the CCP existing and while the CPSU does not is proof that Deng was right

 No.1133405

>>1133403
*the CCP existing while the CPSU does not

 No.1133406

>>1132650
>livejournal

We 2004 now.

 No.1133407

File: 1661243047599.png (179.5 KB, 630x742, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1133392
No, because they do not try to reform capitalism, but rather guide its development. He quotes Lenin on the NEP in his blog, this paragraph I think.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/pdf/lenin-cw-vol-33.pdf
pg 79/572

 No.1133410

>>1132650
Sorry, what is his position on Stalin then. You write that on the one hand his position is similar to Furr that there are fake testiomnies etc. about Stalin's terror. But then you say, he goes a different route that Furr, but you don't explain how. So there still was terror or what?

 No.1133412

>>1133410
My reading of OP is that unlike Furr's line that the terror was mostly based and the bad bits were Yagoda, that Balayev says that there were no mass killings.

 No.1133428

>>1133412
But there were mass opression actions, mass forced migrations etc. And some of it did go wrong. We shouldn't say nothing happened in the 2nd half of the 30s. In the 90 and 00s there were still people alive, who knew about people in their apartment building, in their street vanishing, neveer to be seen or heard from again.

 No.1133432

>>1133428
*mass deportations if Nazi collaborators
Ftfy

 No.1133434


 No.1133439

>>1133432
this. a favorite tactic of liberals is to treat every death or disappearance as equal. we all know about the black book's gorillion dead nazis, we should expect the same narrative to exist covertly in other places

 No.1133465

>>1133432
was every tatar a nazi collaborator? was every peasant, who had 1 extra cow a kulak who had to be deported to Kamchatka. Was every official whose job was to work abroad a nazi collaborator?

 No.1133471

>>1133432
>whole nationalities gets deported
<they were all nazi collaborators, it in their genes!
leftypol 2022

this Balayev fella looks like a fucking crank
basically "everything that goes against my narrative is fake"
every documentary evidence in hundreds of archives were falsified by khruschevites or something

 No.1133473

>>1133465
>Tartars
One in ten were armed collaborators

 No.1133499

>>1133337
>>1133337
Why does he argue a restoration of capitalism is inevitable or necessary?

 No.1133500

>>1133337
Then why does he have a problem with the post-Stalin reforms in the USSR? If he considers this capitalist restoration, then at the very least it's a restoration which ceded far less power and influence to the bourgeoisie.
>>1133432
>Be Soviet Korean
>be member of a nationality oppressed and colonized by one of the USSR's main reactionary enemies
>said nationality is engaged in an armed, communist-led struggle against Japanese colonialism
>said Korean communists are so active in the revolutionary movement that they not only lead resistance to Japan in their home country, but also form as much as 25% of communist fighters in Manchuria
<get deported anyway
Lol

 No.1133508

>>1133500
Without deportations no Kino band
Totally worth it

 No.1133559

File: 1661252780457.jpg (115.02 KB, 1412x1600, comcaps.jpg)

>>1133337
>so better that those capital relations are lead by a communist party than a bourgeoisie party.
COMCAP GANG GANG GANG

 No.1133584

>>1133499
I dunno, I think it has something do to with how other modes of production were developed. I am again repeating that after the French bourgeoisie revolution in 1789. monarchy was reestablished, then in the spring of nations in 1848. the feudal order took another hit, then another one in 1918. and one could argue that feudalism and remnants of aristocratic society were fully destroyed in 1945. and 1949.

I think he follows the same kind of idea here. Capitalism took one blow in 1871. in the Paris Commune, then another one in 1917., and arguably another one in 1966. with the Cultural Revolution, but at every step they also made concessions back: the NEP, Deng's reforms and so on.

I am not a Balayevite so I'm just postulating here.

>>1133500
Well, for the most part I think it has something to do with abolishing the DotP via the Soviets (which could also be argued was Stalin's fault) and declaring the soviet state a Dictatorship of the Whole People (claiming to have abolished class when that wasn't so). I don't think he actually has a problem with it in general, because he doesn't see Dengist reforms as bad, being that they left the DotP or the New Democracy. Something like that.

 No.1133632

>>1132660
7 millions civilian and military deaths. 20 million figure came out during Khruschev and was ALWAYS accompanied by "demographic losses", i.e. USSR would have had 20 more million people than it had if not for the war in 10 years (a fucking stupid number because 30 years later it would be an even higher number of demographic losses).

27 million losses is a number straight out of 1990s, when 40 million losses figure was rejected by the majority of everyone because of how utterly insane that figure is. Even more insane than 20 millions, I mean.

 No.1133637

>>1132672
>extremely modest

Dude, Virgin Lands campaign bankrupted USSR. Khruschev was overseeing agrarian policy of USSR, Brezhnev was a functionary who led Virgin Lands campaign execution, and Gorbachyov also started as agrarian functionary (he was a "combiner", apparently, and tried to force Don combine/tractor to be delivered everywhere, lmao) Given that USSR due to 30 years of such agrarians was reduced to importing food, it's pretty fucking clear that they were destroying USSR from the inside by bankrupting it's economy.

 No.1133642

>>1133637
Failed agricultural policy =/= capitalist restoration.
>it's pretty fucking clear that they were destroying USSR from the inside by bankrupting it's economy
If you're a schizo maybe. For somebody trying to destroy the USSR it's pretty weird that he led it through one of its greatest periods of growth, prosperity, and scientific achievement.

 No.1133643

>>1133428
Do you consider mass movement of slavs to the Urals and Far East during the war an act of oppression, too? You know, more than 10 million people were moved out of western USSR. Is that also a repressive policy?

Like what the fuck, are you just assuming that moving people out of the war's way, and then out of famine's way because Germans were burning everything they could when retreating, it was all an act of oppression of random nationalities?

And don't forget the amazing methods repression historians routinely use to make it seem like USSR was murdering gazillions of people. Oh, you say Central Asia received this many Crimeans and this many Chechens, well, GUESS WHAT, I'll say out of my ass that initially USSR has sent East thrice as many people! 3 - 1 = 2, every 2 of 3 Crimeans perished in Kazakhstan either in transit or immediately after they settled in!

 No.1133653

>>1133642
Dude, Khruschev literally handed USA a saving face way out of Cuba, for one thing, and for the other stalled Soviet space program in order to secure trade deals with the West. It was IN SPITE OF KHRUSCHEV, not because of him.

>Failed agricultural policy =/= capitalist restoration.


Dude, he destroyed Stalin's plans for agriculture, repressed Lysenko, and forced in a Virgin Lands campaign, which IMMEDIATELY resulted in Soviet citizens' bonds which they invested into USSR's agriculture and development to default, with Soviet state refusing to pay back on those bonds. Khruschev LITERALLY bankrupted USSR with his Virgin Lands campaign - while Stalin's campaign was consistently improving USSR's quality of life. All the USSR's murderders were RAISED through those failed campaigns, and it inevitably led to impoverishment of peasantry and subsequent privatization with party leaders or their kids seizing the property.

What, are you so fucking blind to realize that in order to buy up property cheap you first have to bankrupt it? Look up at how USA justifies handing over state property to private owners - INEFFICIENCY! Same fucking deal

 No.1133656

he looks like a ch.ud

 No.1133664

>>1133653
>Dude, Khruschev literally handed USA a saving face way out of Cuba
The US didn't see it that way. They regarded the outcome over Cuba as a defeat and a humiliation, and this sentiment contributed to the glowies assassinating Kennedy. The USSR achieved both its major objectives in Cuba, securing both the removal of American missiles from Turkey as well as preventing a US invasion of the island.
>Khruschev LITERALLY bankrupted USSR with his Virgin Lands campaign
Even if that's true (which you would need to prove), that doesn't prove that it was part of some sort of deliberate attempt to destroy the USSR from within. Such an argument seems ridiculous given the leaps and bounds the Soviets were making in other areas at the time. Have you ever considered that Khruschev just implemented a bad policy? Not everything is a conspiracy you know.
>while Stalin's campaign was consistently improving USSR's quality of life
QoL continued to improve under Khruschev as well. The 50s and 60s were arguably the Soviet golden age.

 No.1133670

>>1132669
>How can you claim Khrushchev "restored capitalism" but Deng didn't?

Khruschev impoverished USSR, Deng didn't impoverish China. Like, Balayev in his Trotskyism book gives an example of the village he was born in - in 1950s, Kolkhoz there had all kinds of service job people, they had a barbershop in 1950s, but in 1970s they had to travel to another town to cut their hair; in 1950s, they had a seamstress, but in 1970s thanks to Khruschev banning all self-employed worksmen it all could be done only in the nearest state, ugh, seamstress-ly? You get my drift. He talks about he it got progressively worse under Khruschev and successors, how Kolkhozes were nationalized (state assumed direct control, started to direct everything there, how Virgin Lands campaign only create state farms instead of collective farms to secure economic dominance on the agrarian market, etc etc), how people got forced out of being able to work for themselves, from being able to organize kolkhozes and factories and workshops at will, to being able to work only for the state.

Deng did the fucking exact opposite. Sure, some capitalists came to be, but workers in China were never reduced to be ONLY hired workers, they were free to start their business, same as during Stalin's years in USSR, but under Khruschev workers were forced into hired workforce position, and nothing else at all.

 No.1133676

>>1133653
>which IMMEDIATELY resulted in Soviet citizens' bonds which they invested into USSR's agriculture and development to default, with Soviet state refusing to pay back on those bonds
You mean soviet currency reform in the 60s? I didn't know they defaulted on bonds.

 No.1133681

File: 1661261693686.png (133.74 KB, 274x272, 1639735904506-2.png)

>>1133670
>Khruschev impoverished USSR, Deng didn't impoverish China
Capitalism is when you're poor.
>Sure, some capitalists came to be, but workers in China were never reduced to be ONLY hired workers, they were free to start their business
<Sure, Deng created a huge and wealthy capitalist class and allowed them into the party, but he also allowed workers to become petty booj as well. This proves that Deng did not restore capitalism.

 No.1133682

>>1133664
>Have you ever considered that Khruschev just implemented a bad policy?

We are talking about a fight inside the Party where Khruschevites were using every bit they could to make Stalinists evaporate from the picture. It implies a blatant propaganda campaign of everything Stalinists did as bad and inefficient, and making their own plans instead to push - plus obvious corruption schemes hidden in those plans and accepted because the opposite was a stalinist plan.

Like, do you remember how RABID trotskyist plots were in 1930s? How main ways of destroying USSR that they employed were economic in nature, instead of direct destruction of property it was mainly about implementing subpar technologies and such resulting in waste of labor? Khruschev let those people out of the prisons en masse and reinstituted them back on their pre-repression jobs, you know?

 No.1133684

>>1133670
>they were free to start their business, same as during Stalin's years in USSR
you can't start no business without labor to hire mate
being self-employed in not starting a business

 No.1133685

>>1133682
>We are talking about a fight inside the Party where Khruschevites were using every bit they could to make Stalinists evaporate from the picture. It implies a blatant propaganda campaign of everything Stalinists did as bad and inefficient
Okay and? Political infighting within the party doesn't constitute the abolition of socialism. The planned economy remained intact, commodity production remained marginalized, profit remained a measure of efficiency rather than an immutable driving force of the economy. You have to be smoking crack to consider any of this "capitalist restoration" while not applying the same label to Deng's policies.

 No.1133687

>>1133681
>Capitalism is when you're poor.

Literally yes.

>petty booj


Kolkhozes were also petty booj, lmao? Peasants are petty booj by definition, so what? They are still workers-aligned, not capitalists, they work more hours per week than normal workers, for fuck's sake.

What does people's property mean to you? Stalin outright have said that Kolkhozes' property was socialist property, collectivized property. Not all-people's property like state property was during his "reign", but still SOCIALIST. Like, if workers own the MOP directly, why's that inherently bad under socialism, lol?

 No.1133690

>>1133653
Virgin Lands = целина ?

Also, I remember Balayev (or someone else) making an interesting point about "shturmovschina" (you know, the overfullfilling the plan etc.). Under Stalin there was the Stakhanov movement which supported indvidual "heroism" at work. If you worked hard and overfullfilled the norm, you've just got paid more. Whereas under Khruschev the government was pushing the whole economy in these insane tempos ("We will exceed the USA in production of milk/meat/ whatever") which often resulted in catastrophe in agriculture.

 No.1133691

>>1132650
omegachad

 No.1133696

>>1133687
>Stalin outright have said that Kolkhozes' property was socialist property, collectivized property. Not all-people's property like state property was during his "reign", but still SOCIALIST.
mate, he also said that coop property was at the lover level than state property and with development would be absorbed into all-people, ie state property
he was obviously no dengist lol

 No.1133698

File: 1661262245851.jpg (64.83 KB, 1200x847, DUsmHSoX4AANkxN.jpg)

>>1133687
>Literally yes.
Lol. Lmao even. Also by that (completely retarded) definition, Khruschev didn't restore capitalism because the USSR continued to grow and prosper under his administration. Picrel.
>Kolkhozes were also petty booj, lmao?
If they own means of production and generate income by selling products as commodities then yes, that's literally the definition of bourgeois, even if they also work at the firm.
>What does people's property mean to you?
<What will this new social order [communism] have to be like? Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society… In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.
t. Engels

 No.1133700

>>1133684
>being self-employed in not starting a business

What, why?

>>1133685
>The planned economy remained intact

They literally cut Gosplan out of ways to force subjects to follow the Plan, lmao. Leningrad Affair (or what's it called) was the last big incident of republican subjects directly managing factories and such being punished for failing the plan, after that - Gosplan only RECOMMENDED doing something, he had no power to force the adherence to the Plan. Planned economy was also gutted, in short, with subjects being free to become little czars of their own domains, with Plan only serving as a reconcillation committee between them of sorts + allocated funding.

>commodity production remained marginalized


Khruschev straight out banned workshops and self-employment and forced workers to ONLY work at state enterprise. Which resulted in a collapse of service industry, amongst other things.

>>1133696
>mate, he also said that coop property was at the lover level than state property and with development would be absorbed into all-people

I agree, but also I have to point out that republican czars' controlled companies with no oversight by the people whatsoever is not all-people property

 No.1133702

>>1133700
>What, why?
because you can't grow it
you're just one person lol

 No.1133703

>>1133690
He did a comparison of USSR's food situation in 1950s to USA's in broad terms, it was basically the same situation minus the lack of waste in a socialist country. It's like the whole thing about USA being better and us having to catch up was a result of degradation of socialist economy.

>>1133698
GDP is not a measure of real growth and prosperity, lmao. You can have high growth rates and poor population, just look at USA or India.

 No.1133706

>>1133702
What. Having a self-employed job is not inherently capitalist. Like, what, you can't learn new things on such a job? You can't buy better tools? You can't invest into better profitability without having helpers/employed people? Also, what's wrong about having helpers in the first place, given that they get paid what they deserve? Like, say, a worker quits his factory jobs and becomes an electrician, he buys tools, goes from house to house fixing things, and then he hires somebody to work alongside himself. Are you opposed to this somehow?

 No.1133707

>>1133700
>They literally cut Gosplan out of ways to force subjects to follow the Plan
Did individual factories produce whatever they want and sell them as commodities, competing with other producers? Is this how it operated in practice?
>Khruschev straight out banned workshops and self-employment and forced workers to ONLY work at state enterprise.
So in other words he even further marginalized commodity production and further consolidated production in the hands of society as a whole. That's the opposite of restoring capitalism.
>>1133703
>You can have high growth rates and poor population, just look at USA or India.
Yeah because those countries have extremely high inequality, the USSR did not. The average person did not become poorer under Khruschev.

 No.1133709

>>1133700
>but also I have to point out that republican czars' controlled companies with no oversight by the people whatsoever is not all-people property
I have my doubts about "no oversight

also, coop is no different from state company if its big enough, you would have to deal with coop bureaucracy instead of state bureaucracy

 No.1133712

>>1133698
>If they own means of production and generate income by selling products as commodities then yes, that's literally the definition of bourgeois, even if they also work at the firm.

Like, I just don't know what to say. Kolkhozes were socialist because they were communally owned by all the people of said community. They were locally run, they weren't opposed to state all-people property because the core of those Kolkhozes - all the industrial goods improving labor like tractors and such - were leased to Kolkhozes rather than owned by Kolkhozes. Say, you look at a self-employed guy, using all the infrastructure, state-provided services and such to facilitate his work, and….

Like, just like today capitalist state is symbiotic with capitalists, socialist state would be symbiotic with socialist enterprises.

 No.1133714

>>1133712
>Like, I just don't know what to say. Kolkhozes were socialist because they were communally owned by all the people of said community.
Do you think co-ops are socialism?

 No.1133716

>>1133709
State company is beholden to the state, coop is beholden to it's workers (or at least shareholder workers, lol). In a socialist state, it's basically the same thing, sure.

>>1133707
>The average person did not become poorer under Khruschev.

Why was Khruschev removed from power, lmao? Why did USSR default on citizens' bonds? How come there was Novocherkassk where people were castigating Khruschev for depriving them of meat pies, demanding to turn Khruschev himself into meat?

God, even Kosygin reforms were touted as a return to Stalin's economy, Brezhnev was supposed to return USSR to pre-Khruschev economy.

>>1133707
>Did individual factories produce whatever they want and sell them as commodities, competing with other producers? Is this how it operated in practice?

Not even capitalist companies operate without looking at what everyone else is producing, lol. USSR's system allowed factories to look at each others' balance and intents and such, but capitalists also have similar shit in corporations where there's offices for rival corporations for coordination. Capitalists don't have it centralized, though, and I forgot what's the proper term for this.

>That's the opposite of restoring capitalism.


And yet USSR fell apart and restored capitalism while China is stronger than ever and is going towards communism. Explain this, lol.

 No.1133718

>>1133714
Not by themselves.

 No.1133720

>>1133706
>Having a self-employed job is not inherently capitalist.
yes? it's not a business lol

>Like, what, you can't learn new things on such a job? You can't buy better tools? You can't invest into better profitability without having helpers/employed people?

duuuude, there's a limit to growth lol, and it's very low
availability of better tools is determined by the state of society at large
you can't get much better tools as self employed than at the state enterprise at any given time

>Also, what's wrong about having helpers in the first place, given that they get paid what they deserve?

you wouldn't make any profits if they get what they deserve, ie full value of their labor

>Like, say, a worker quits his factory jobs and becomes an electrician, he buys tools, goes from house to house fixing things

ok

>and then he hires somebody to work alongside himself

that would be exploitation of human by human and against the law
he goes to gulag

 No.1133723

>>1132660
actually the number of 7 million includes both military and civilian casaulties

>The Germans made their invasion of the U.S.S.R. through Finland, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The Germans were able to make their invasion through these countries because, at the time, governments hostile to the Soviet Union existed in these countries. As a result of the German invasion the Soviet Union has lost irretrievably in the fighting against the Germans, and also through the German occupation and the deportation of Soviet citizens to German servitude, a total of about seven million people. In other words, the Soviet Union’s loss of life has been several times greater than that of Britain and the United States of America put together.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1946/03/x01.htm

 No.1133724

>>1133716
>Explain this, lol.
china restored capitalism too

 No.1133728

>>1132658
>Sounds based, does big Grover work with him?
I don't think they know each other. Balayev might know Furr's book on Katyn but that's probably all.

Grover Furr isn't that famous in Russia, only his Katyn book.

 No.1133731

>>1133716
>Why was Khruschev removed from power, lmao?
Because Brezhnev and co felt he was too soft in foreign policy, essentially the same reason Kennedy was shot. As far as I'm aware the new government didn't reverse any of his majoe economic reforms.
>How come there was Novocherkassk where people were castigating Khruschev for depriving them of meat pies, demanding to turn Khruschev himself into meat?
Protests or isolated incidents of shortages doesn't mean people overall were worse off. China saw numerous similar outbreaks of unrest during the reform period even as most people's lives were improving.
>Not even capitalist companies operate without looking at what everyone else is producing, lol.
You're talking around the point. Did producers factories work on an individual basis to sell as many products as possible? Did they sell these directly to distributors or consumers as commodities? Did they compete with and absorb other factories who couldn't keep up? Furthermore, why are you okay with kolkhozes operating essentially as co-ops, but so opposed to factories doing the same?
>And yet USSR fell apart and restored capitalism
Yeah decades later and after a whole new series of policy changes in the 80s.
>is going towards communism
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Certainly they haven't made any appreciable progress towards restoring a planned economy, and the growth of the private sector as a proportion of the economy continues to this day. Frankly it's absolutely insane that you don't consider this capitalist restoration but apply that label to Khruschev's reforms, even though these kept the planned economy more or less intact and even expanded it by absorbing kolhozes. It really seems like your definition of communism is literally just having a high GDP and QoL.

 No.1133732

>>1133720
>that would be exploitation of human by human and against the law

Under Khruschev, a worker ditching a state job to work as free hire electrician was also against the law and gulag-worthy, though

And we talk here about the guy hiring a friend for a similar wage (minus tools maintanence and business expansion shit). Like, in most cases in reality those two friends would actually pool resources instead of having one of them being the sole owner of tools. This small scale enterprise is capitalist?

>you can't get much better tools as self employed than at the state enterprise at any given time


Because jobs like this are not supposed to compete with state enterprise. We are talking about repairshops mostly.

>you wouldn't make any profits if they get what they deserve, ie full value of their labor


And? Some jobs require more than one person for them to work out, or cooperation increases efficiency by more than twofold.

 No.1133733

>>1133724
Oh, so restoraiton of capitalist in USSR and in China resulted in different outcomes, gotcha

 No.1133735

>>1133716
>State company is beholden to the state
what is a "state"?
how is coop not a "state" with the same problems but at a limited scale?
what coop workers could possibly do that state workers couldn't?

 No.1133736

>>1133733
>Oh, so restoraiton of capitalist in USSR and in China resulted in different outcomes
yes? did you expect the same outcome or something?

 No.1133746

>>1133736
I think I've pinned down this guy's ass backwards logic. It goes something like this:
>socialism is good, makes people rich
>capitalism is bad, it makes people poor
>the USSR doesn't exist anymore, Russian people are now poor
>PRC still exists and it's people are rich
>therefore the USSR wasn't socialist and China is
It's essentially just reasoning backwards from the assumption that socialism always makes people rich (regardless of other complicating factors), therefore when people are rich they are socialist, and when they are poor they are capitalist. Except even then it doesn't make any sense since quality of life continued to improve for most Soviet citizens well past Khruschev's tenure.

 No.1133750

>>1133731
>Protests or isolated incidents of shortages doesn't mean people overall were worse off.

Except we are talking about shit like 1/4 of Virgin Lands being abandoned in the next decade after. Except we are talking about tractor usage in USSR dropping per capita and stagnant agriculture production while population increased in size.

>Did producers factories work on an individual basis to sell as many products as possible? Did they sell these directly to distributors or consumers as commodities? Did they compete with and absorb other factories who couldn't keep up?


Dude, it was a sole monopolist (oligopoly? Whatever), and yes, this monopolist did destroy all competition - remember Kolkhozes getting nationalized, workshops banned?

>Furthermore, why are you okay with kolkhozes operating essentially as co-ops, but so opposed to factories doing the same?


Kolkhozes were a) socialized enterprise run by workers b) they were controlled via the State owning and providing them essentials like tractors under a lease. Khruschev's state enterprises were uncontrolled, they were protected from the Gosplan which was defanged out of the means to control those enterprises.

And yeah, Soviet enterprises did trade with each other directly. Plan helped enterprises connect, again, Plan was reduced to recommendations and shit.

>Yeah decades later and after a whole new series of policy changes in the 80s.


It took 30 years to dismantle Stalin's economy, that's all there is to it. They threw everything and it, and yet it kept chugging along. Then it finally collapsed.

>Certainly they haven't made any appreciable progress towards restoring a planned economy


They don't need to restore one because they never abandoned it in the first place. SOEs still constitute the largest chunk of the economy, they still control the commanding heights of the economy, hell, they even lease tractors to Xinjiang farmers under similar conditions RIGHT NOW as what Stalin did to Kolkhozes. Basically, you have this massive planned economy that branches out into private-cooperative economy which is totally dependent on the SOEs for the essentials. It's straight up Stalin's economy modified for having some porkies, dude.

 No.1133751

>>1133732
>Under Khruschev, a worker ditching a state job to work as free hire electrician was also against the law and gulag-worthy, though
because Khruschev was an unique kind of retard
he decentralized soviet economy, essentially unbalancing the whole centralized planning mechanism, and at the same time banned coops, self-employment, private plots of land that filled the gaps in centralized planning

>And we talk here about the guy hiring a friend for a similar wage (minus tools maintanence and business expansion shit). Like, in most cases in reality those two friends would actually pool resources instead of having one of them being the sole owner of tools. This small scale enterprise is capitalist?

then his friend should just register as self employed too, or they should form a coop according to artel charter

I don't see why there should be hiring in this situation

>And? Some jobs require more than one person for them to work out, or cooperation increases efficiency by more than twofold.

then form a coop, but according to state charter so that you wouldn't just exploit people under a "coop" name

 No.1133755

>>1133746
>Except even then it doesn't make any sense since quality of life continued to improve for most Soviet citizens well past Khruschev's tenure.

Lmao, dude, we are talking about service industry shrinking into nothingness over a decade as Khruschev banned everything non-state owned, and then you say quality of life only improved.

 No.1133756

>>1132658
>Can we get English translations?
That would be great since every discussion without knowledge of his texts is kinda fruitless

 No.1133757

>>1133751
>then his friend should just register as self employed too, or they should form a coop according to artel charter

Would Anglo translators, who translate Chinese reality for Western audience, bother with words like "artel" or a "coop", though? Would Chinese themselves doing the same and for whom English is second language bother either?

>because Khruschev was an unique kind of retard


We are not talking about a one-off incident, we are talking about a hereditary system which produced Khruschev-like idiots all the way down, resulting in USSR's collapse. Hell, it started from Trotsky, even, and Khruschev let wreckers out of gulags and back into power. One time it can be explained with idiocy, two times maybe as well, but a consistent stream of idiotic decisions resulting in a catastrophe? You don't suspect wrecking, seriously?

 No.1133762

>>1133755
>Lmao, dude, we are talking about service industry shrinking into nothingness
dramatics
maybe in some rural kolkhozes

life was obviously improving, meat consumption continuously improved, calories intake improved, living conditions improved due to massive housing projects

 No.1133769

>>1133750
>Except we are talking about shit like 1/4 of Virgin Lands being abandoned in the next decade after. Except we are talking about tractor usage in USSR dropping per capita and stagnant agriculture production while population increased in size.
Enough of this shit. Give me statistics to prove quality of life declined or GTFO.
>Dude, it was a sole monopolist (oligopoly? Whatever), and yes, this monopolist did destroy all competition
So in other words all industry was consolidated in the hands of society at large and operated according a common plan. Producers did not complete with one another and they did not produce commodities. This is capitalist restoration in your mind?
>Kolkhozes were a) socialized enterprise run by workers
They were also private property and produced commodities. Stalin says so explicitly, just as he also says that they are meant to be a transitional institution to bridge the gap between small peasant production and fully nationalized agriculture. Khruschev's absorption of the collective farms into state farms was literally the conclusion of the plan laid out by Stalin himself.
>Khruschev's state enterprises were uncontrolled
Now you're contradicting yourself. Were they uncontrolled and operating independently or were they controlled by an exclusive state monopoly? Both of these things can't be true at the same time.
>SOEs still constitute the largest chunk of the economy
No they don't. Chinese state media says that the private sector constitutes 60% of the entire economy, and economists like Micheal Roberts argue that this number is only increasing.
>they still control the commanding heights of the economy
As opposed to under Khruschev's policies where the state controlled almost the entire economy. Once again, if we apply the standards by which you are arguing Khruschev restored capitalism to the USSR to China, then there is no possible way to argue that capitalism has not been restored in China. You can't scream "capitalism!" at loosening GOSPLAN controls of state owned factories but insist that having the majority of your economy operating entirely privately is still socialism. It makes no sense.

 No.1133775

>>1133757
>You don't suspect wrecking, seriously?
No.

Khruschev was a manifestation of high-middle management elite wanting more independence and less oversight, therefore decentralization

there was no need for self-employed and coops under a decentralized economy so they got banned

 No.1133777

>>1133775
>there was no need for self-employed and coops under a decentralized economy so they got banned
<Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy.
t. Khruschev
jk it was Stalin lol

 No.1133779

>>1133777
well, you know, there's slogans
and then there's practice

stalin and gosplan understood that you can't centrally plan everything, not yet at least, so you need to fill in the gaps with something, and its better be coops than capitalists

 No.1133783

>>1132650
>The official number of 600 thousand victims of The Great Terror that is used even by "revisionist" historians like Arch-Getty
Getty claims 300k

 No.1133784

>>1133779
Sure, my point was just that if you read Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR it's obvious that he intended kolkhozes and similar co-operative production to be a temporary solution, eventually to be replaced with complete central planning. Khruschev's nationalization of the kolhozes was therefore a fulfillment of the strategy laid out by Stalin.

 No.1133786

>>1133783
>Getty claims 300k
really?
sauce pls

 No.1133788

>>1133783
>>1133786
Iirc his claim was that 700k executions were ordered but only around half were actually carried out.

 No.1133790

>>1133784
>it's obvious that he intended kolkhozes and similar co-operative production to be a temporary solution, eventually to be replaced with complete central planning
sure, but only when central planning can cope with the demand that coops fulfill

>Khruschev's nationalization of the kolhozes was therefore a fulfillment of the strategy laid out by Stalin.

He gave away machinery that was in Machine Tractor Stations, ie means of production, to the kolkhozes, which is obviously a step backwards

that's why I say that Khruschev was a special kind of retard, he did things that contradict itself

 No.1133791

File: 1661267032456.png (365.44 KB, 500x500, g7j79dm9i8l31.png)

>>1133790
>that's why I say that Khruschev was a special kind of retard
I don't really disagree, but he didn't restore capitalism, and if he did then Deng did it much, much more thoroughly and aggressively.

 No.1133793

File: 1661267145198.pdf (4.16 MB, 166x255, GTY-Penal_System.pdf)

>>1133788
>>1133786
My mistake. He cites just under 800k "documentable" elections for the entire Stalin period, but he says sources conflict over whether or not this includes all criminals executed or exclusively political crimes.

 No.1133795

>>1133769
>Stalin says so explicitly, just as he also says that they are meant to be a transitional institution to bridge the gap between small peasant production and fully nationalized agriculture.

This is just ultra talking point. Back in 1920-30s trots demanded immediate abolition of peasant property and forced collectivization, yet Stalin went the not-retard road of explaining people their benefit, making them volunteer into communism, of not being oppressive and antagonistic, shit like that.

Why that's important? Because of labor productivity, lol. Capitalism loses out because workers are supposed to be just mindless tools, while socialism makes people work for themselves, to use all their potential. Slave labor was inefficient compared to capitalism despite the idea that you can possibly force slaves to work harder, similarly, captialism is as inferior to socialism as slavery is to capitalism.

So, you say Khruschev finished what Stalin has started. Why would Stalin then create a system where Kolkhozes were leasing essentials from the state instead of, you know, just stealing workers from kulaks back in the day straight into state farms? Why this helluva long road around?

>Give me statistics to prove quality of life declined or GTFO.


What, there were no deficits?

>Were they uncontrolled and operating independently or were they controlled by an exclusive state monopoly?


There were multiple monopolies over a range of industries.

>No they don't. Chinese state media says that the private sector constitutes 60% of the entire economy


All the biggest companies are SOEs, and their private counter includes coops and self-employed. SOEs take the largest part of the economy, and the most important bits.

>As opposed to under Khruschev's policies where the state controlled almost the entire economy.


What you are arguing for is basically "socialism is when state does things". It's not, it's about class politics. Working class in USSR was subdued for the return of capitalism, they were deprived of freedom and opportunities, while in China opposite happened. As a result, USSR collapsed and returned to capitalism, while China remains communist

 No.1133797

>>1133791
>I don't really disagree, but he didn't restore capitalism
I never argued that he restored capitalism or even was a capitalist sympathizer

he just destabilized soviet planning mechanism because of his self-contradictory policies

 No.1133803

>>1133777
Reread your quote, lmao, and tell me why you focus on collective-farm sector abolition when state sector was also supposed to disappear into all-embracing production sector. Stalin talks about a stateless society here

 No.1133807

>>1133790
>He gave away machinery that was in Machine Tractor Stations, ie means of production, to the kolkhozes, which is obviously a step backwards

Aim was taking profits away from Kolkhozes and impoverishing them by forcing them to buy tractors. Don't forget that one MTS not necessarily equalled one Kolkhoz, and it meant that Kolkhozes a) needed to build their own MTS from the ground up b) there needed to be more tractors to do the same amount of work as before c) there needed to be more tractorists and mechanics and such for the same amount of work. It's an increase in labor usage for the same amount of work done.

It's not just retarded, it's an outright wrecker behaviour. How could all Soviet economists just go along with this shit and not raise objections to obvious idiocy?

 No.1133813

>>1133795
>This is just ultra talking point.
No it's Stalin's own vision for how they were going to transform small scale peasant agriculture into fully socialized agriculture, with cooperative private ownership heing a temporary stepping stone.
>What, there were no deficits?
If you are going to argue that most people's lives worsened under Khruschev, then you need actual statistical evidence. You can't just list off failed policies because these could just as easily be isolated incidents which don't accurately depict how things were for the majority.
>There were multiple monopolies over a range of industries.
Yeah, and who owned these monopolies? Who determined their production quotas?
>SOEs take the largest part of the economy, and the most important bits.
They make up a firm minority in absolute terms, and they are still shrinking relative to the size of the private sector.
>Working class in USSR was subdued for the return of capitalism, they were deprived of freedom and opportunities, while in China opposite happened.
They were deprived of the freedom to be petty booj maybe, but it's ridiculous to think this means the end of socialism.
>>1133803
>Stalin talks about a stateless society here
No he doesn't. That entire section is about private property and commodity production. In fact he specifically talks about how the swallowing of the collective farming sector by the state sector would be one means by which the transition could be accomplished.

 No.1133816

>>1133807
>How could all Soviet economists just go along with this shit and not raise objections to obvious idiocy?
dude, Gosplan got fucking decimated lol, it changed 4 heads in the 50s
it was obviously a political decision, and economists were in the backseat

I get the impression that Khrushchev thought that the soviet state oppressed peasants in kolkhozes via unequal exchange, ergo he raised state procurement prices and gifted them machinery
first got him novocherkassk and doomed the soviet state to never raise prices on food ever again, and second retarded agricultural development by giving kolkhozes the burden of maintaining machinery

 No.1133818

>>1133769
>Give me statistics to prove quality of life declined or GTFO.

So, regarding Soviet/Russian cows 1-2 milk production, 3-4 total number of dairy cows (last pic's red is cow total number and other is total production, dunno if it's dairy cows though)

So, as we can see, for some reason Khruschevite agriculture could only increase milk production through increasing the number of the cows. Why's that, eh?

 No.1133829

>>1133813
>with cooperative private ownership heing a temporary stepping stone.

Why need temporary stepping stone at all

>If you are going to argue that most people's lives worsened under Khruschev


There was a number of riots all over USSR, ffs, and Virgin Lands campaign was halted and rolled back - to the point of Lysenko coming out of the exile to fix the mess.

>Yeah, and who owned these monopolies? Who determined their production quotas?


Monopolies themselves decided that. Production quotas were decided by Gosplan, but numbers were given by monopolies and quotas were decided in communication with those monopolies (say, Gosplan had to arbitrate which SOE gets this or that resource), and Gosplan had no way to enforce the Plan, even checking if data was real wasn't really possible since Gosplan got gutted out of controlling functions.

>They make up a firm minority in absolute terms


They make more than 30%, and they own indirectly the whole of the economy. Either they invest into this or that to create companies which produce this or that product which SOEs require to buy or sell, or SOEs produce essentials. So, economy is entirely SOE dependent.

>They were deprived of the freedom to be petty booj maybe


You seem to be having issues with peasants and self-employed people

>In fact he specifically talks about how the swallowing of the collective farming sector by the state sector would be one means by which the transition could be accomplished.


He talks about coops being so interconnected and interdependent on the state that it becomes a farce to separate the two. Not about nationalizations. He talks about productive forces growing, not about monopolies swallowing the competitors.

 No.1133858

>>1133829
>He talks about coops being so interconnected and interdependent on the state that it becomes a farce to separate the two. Not about nationalizations. He talks about productive forces growing, not about monopolies swallowing the competitors.
by all-people property he obviously meant state property
he talks about how state property is a higher level property relative to coop property

 No.1133952

>>1133410
>Sorry, what is his position on Stalin then.
exactly what >>1133412 says. Furr says there were mas repressions but they were justified, but Balayev says that the repressions weren't massive at all, there were not hundreds of thousands executed

>>1133428
>mass forced migrations
oh, you will like his position on that. He basically argues that the deportation of Chechens or Tatars wasn't some sort of punishment for treason and nazi collaborationism but just an attempt to populate the uninhabited places in Central Asia

Here is my translation:

>To begin with, with collective responsibility, individual citizens are exempted from punishment. People like Yu. I. Mukhin say that if individual citizens, Chechens and Tatars, were held accountable, then these peoples would be left without a male population, all men would have to be shot. This monstrous lie is already popular in our historiography. But the documents about the operation to resettle Chechens, for example, refute this lie. During the operation, bandits were identified and arrested, they were not resettled together with the law-abiding population.They were subjected to trials, and were subjected to repression in accordance with the law. Stalin was not going to forgive bandits and criminals and did not forgive them. He was not like moronic Russian historians.


>(…)


>Further, none of the resettled "collective criminals" was deprived of any rights. Even electoral ones. People who have committed criminal offenses are deprived of such rights while serving their sentence. (…)


>Moreover, the "deporteds" were not expelled from the party (from the party!), from the Komsomol! Didn't know about it? Surprisingly, the peoples were recognized as traitors, but party cards were left for the traitors! Not only were the traitors allowed to have a vote in the elections of the bodies of Soviet power, but they were also not deprived of the title of communists and Komsomol members!


>Maybe fines and confiscation of property were applied as punishment? Also no. Nobody even mentioned fines. The property was partially allowed to be taken with them, the rest was compensated at the place of new residence.


>Maybe the relocation worsened their living conditions? Were they relocated to areas where the natural and climatic conditions were much worse? Maybe that's how they were punished? Also no. They were not sent to Kolyma. Chechens, accustomed to cattle breeding were sent to Kazakhstan, in the steppe with a rich herbage, with approximately the same climate as in the mountainous regions of Chechnya. Crimean Tatars - to Central Asia. With heats and where melons grow.


>Perhaps the punishment was eviction to the uninhabited regions of the country, to the desert, where they had to live in dugouts and huts? Also no. They moved to inhabited areas, settled in public buildings, they settled with local residents, they didn’t leave anyone on the street. They got help to settle in a new place.


>Of course, moving from familiar places to new ones, even if they are more favorable for life, is always difficult. You have to abandon your home, then you need to build a new one and to get used to a new place. Is this a punishment? Even if so, then all these inconveniences were more than compensated by the Soviet government. Compensated in such a way that any Russian family could only dream of this compensation. Didn't know about it? Then I remind you. Chechen and Tatar men who fought at the front were demobilized and sent to their families. Can you imagine what happiness it was for Chechen families - before the end of the war, father-husband-brother-son returned alive from the front?! Russian women could only dream about such a "punishment"! They would have even moved to Kamchatka to get that.


>Maybe the migrants were left without a livelihood, without work, were they limited in their right to receive education? Nothing like that! Young people studied in schools and universities without any restrictions.


>So where is the punishment? In administration of the resettlement? That is, the presence of a policeman who made sure that bandits who had not yet been caught did not penetrate the ranks of the settlers? Is this a punishment? Or increased concern for the safety of people??

https://1957anti.ru/publications/item/2054-o-deportatsiyakh-chechentsev-i-tatar

 No.1133971

>>1132669
cause deng had an actual plan (which worked too), and his communist party didnt suicide itself and give the keys to porkies
krushev was just doing stupid bullshit and literally killed agricultural output because of corn obsession.
secret speech was the biggest backstab to communism worldwide ever done, it was one of the most important step toward ussr destruction
and he also split with china the dumbfuck

he didnt even realize how fucking stupid he was, he prolly believed in socialism without understanding shit about it, and sadly was an incompetent slimy worm

 No.1134005

>>1133681
There's no capitalist class in China. There are capitalists but they have no political organization

 No.1134109

>>1133971
khruschev still didn't restore capitalism
deng did
retarded communist is still better than a smart capitalist roader
just facts

 No.1134111

>>1134005
>There's no capitalist class in China
>There are capitalists
does not compute

 No.1134118

>>1133971
Deng's "plan" was literally privatizing all the advances to industry that Mao made through the cultural revolution. It really doesn't change the bottom line that the CCP should retain state control but not the relations of production where the "market is decisive". Venezuela to Dengist is more socialist than China itself at this point.

 No.1134120

>>1134118
>Venezuela to Dengist is more socialist than China itself at this point.
Let's not engage in hyperbole now.

 No.1134201

>>1134111
Class implies class conscience. Capitalists without class understanding of themselves only do what's individually beneficial to them, not class-conscious actions. Kind of like workers survive day-to-day without fighting back against the bourgeoisie, but the other way around: there's still common grooves they take, but they don't really intent on changing anything.

 No.1134208

>>1134118
Which companies did Deng privatize? All the biggest SOEs of China of today were created during Mao. All the biggest Chinese private companies arose relatively recently and never were state enterprises

 No.1134378

>Ultra-Stalinist
>Anti-party group supporter
And this is why stalinism (but also Trotskyism) is a mental brainrot for everyone involved. It devolves everything into a "my guy your guy bad" discussion that is absolutely pointless, shits up the pond of historical analysis and leftist interspection via a big dose of half-truths, loes, smears and counter-smears and helps absolutely nobody except make you look like a virtue hoarder for being the one true believer who knows EVERYTHING right or wrong that happened under Stalin. It is a discussion beyond ideology and politics. Its a mix of cult behaviour and one of those funny stories about how two history professors form a blood-feud over their differing interpretations of the moral character of Admiral Nelson. Pointles and retarded all at once.

Because here is the simple plain truth - Stalin was a fucking joke of a successor to Lenin, a little cowardly glory hound with a shitty personality, horrible ideological and social understanding who just so happened to also be a Marxist, and half of whose crimes are probably true. AND IF I STUCK YOU IN A TIME MACHINE, YOU'D HAVE TO SUPPORT HIM OR I'D SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD AS A TRAITOR TO COMMUNISM. The same way I'd shoot Mr. Balayev if he timetraveled to 1957 and started shouting from a barrel about how the anti-party group is right. Same way that that retard Hoxha should have been shot by the KGB the moment he schized out about Stalinist legacy. Same way that trot wreckers in US and UK desreved to get fucked for splintering the global communist movement. Same way that that the more liberal minded communists who got rightfully spooked by Molotov-Ribentrop (which was a fucking callous mistake and another black stain on Stalin's legacy) also had to either die or fall in line BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU THINK RETARD MAN IS LEADING USSR, YOU MUST SUPPORT USSR. Same for Stalin, same for Khruchev.

Of course, USSR is dead now, so now we can piss and shit on its grave all we want because it ain't changing a thing on the world. No Stalin defence will change it, no emberassing interior design with flags and busts of sex offender aparachiks will mend it. All useful that is left is to vivisect the corpse and now, that there is no longer an ideological need for USSR to always be right, ruthlessly criticize and analyse every single of the manifold failings it had. Because this is the simple fact that seems to piss a lot of sovietboos off - USSR, Stalin, Khruchev, any of them will NEVER carry a positive association again the way you'd want, and at absolute best, after half a century or more, everyone will give so little of a shit about them that you'll start getting CEO-targetting self help books about "10 Soviet management tricks, Today!".

 No.1134534

>>1134201
"Class consciousness" is not about a state of mind, but about institutions and organizations of the class that work in a concerted fashion. From the outset, capitalists are conscious of their class. The liberal state is premised on a belief that law should favor the interests of merchants and trade, and certain institutions of the capitalist class are necessary or very helpful for coordinating activity. The very organization of the factory as shared labor tells the capitalist that the wider society has an arrangement.

Most people are aware to a sufficient degree about their place in society, and what they intend to do about it. For a capitalist, it would be quite impossible for them to bumble through life as if they didn't know what business was, and it certainly isn't the rule of the class. The workers are quite aware they are oppressed, but feel they have no way out of it and have no reason to see each other as the same thing.
Marx talks about this in distinguishing a class-in-of-itself from a class-for-itself. The capitalist class certainly has institutions advancing the interests of the class collectively, and ostensibly the whole society. The workers didn't have that, and that's what Marx was hinting they should do, or that Marx should co-opt the workers' organizations when they form so they are essentially subverted.

 No.1134819

>>1134378
It must be hard being a baltoid, always malding and seething. Sad.

 No.1135022

>>1133700
Where can I read more about the Leningrad affair?

 No.1135030

>>1133732
What was the nature of the non-state economy under Stalin? I'm familiar that artels (co-ops) made a lot of niche consumer goods, like toys. Any more info? Were artels the only allowed form of business, or were there others? To what extent was it similar or different to modern China?

 No.1135043

>>1135030
>Any more info?
also produced light industry goods like home radio electronics, clothes, footwear, etc

>Were artels the only allowed form of business, or were there others?

only coops

>To what extent was it similar or different to modern China?

no capitalists
also, state didn't just shy away from the light industry, it still produced majority of light industrial goods, and built new light industry factories
state also dominated retail, I don't know if there even ware coop retail chains or if their goods were sold in state retail networks

also USSR had a monopoly on foreign trade and coops could get funding only in the state bank
they also couldn't buy raw materials and means of production anywhere other than the state too

as you can see, this is no "commanding heights"

 No.1135044

>>1133728
Maybe not but communists know him.
>>1133632
Yeah there's no way the USSR lost 20 million people. It could never have recovered so quickly if it had.

 No.1135055

>>1135043
>they also couldn't buy raw materials and means of production anywhere other than the state too
also, I'm not really sure if they could buy the means of production or if they were leased to them by the state
what is sure is that they couldn't sell the means of production, just as kolkhozes couldn't sell land

 No.1135072

>>1134378
there's no such thing as stalinism
>muh Molotov-Ribbentropp
>no mention of Allied appeasement
>no mention of Brest-Litovsk
this is how I know you're full of shit

 No.1135223

>>1134378
based Grillpilled Baltoid does it again!

 No.1135756

>>1134378
>little cowardly glory hound with a shitty personality, horrible ideological and social understanding
>Same way that that retard Hoxha should have been shot by the KGB
Revisionist moment.

 No.1136729

File: 1661414568406.png (376.11 KB, 576x499, balayevgang.png)

>>1133471
>basically "everything that goes against my narrative is fake"

 No.1136733


 No.1137002

>>1133471
Katyn was exposed as a fake, pipe down.

 No.1137167

>>1137002
who cares? much of the polish intelligensia was set on bourgeois nationalism. why should we doubt that the NKVD had tabs on these people? is killing reactionaries wrong suddenly?

 No.1137197

File: 1661438016466-0.jpg (179.72 KB, 900x581, stalin statue 2.jpg)

File: 1661438016466-1.jpg (40.72 KB, 403x600, stalin statue 3.jpg)

File: 1661438016466-2.jpg (117.55 KB, 1280x960, stalin statue 4.jpg)

File: 1661438016466-3.jpg (498.82 KB, 1199x1598, stalin statue 5.jpg)

File: 1661438016466-4.jpg (82.32 KB, 1280x719, stalin statue 5.jpg.jpg)

>>1134378
>Because this is the simple fact that seems to piss a lot of sovietboos off - USSR, Stalin, Khruchev, any of them will NEVER carry a positive association again the way you'd want, and at absolute best, after half a century or more, everyone will give so little of a shit about them that you'll start getting CEO-targetting self help books about "10 Soviet management tricks, Today!".

This is just a handful of statues that have gone up in ex Soviet countries in last decade
Stalins approval rating is hitting record highs in Russia
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/16/stalins-approval-rating-among-russians-hits-record-high-poll-a65245

 No.1137221

>>1137167
They did but Katyn was fabricated by the nazis.

 No.1137378

>>1137197
No no no! We have to capitulate to the false narratives of liberals!

 No.1137429

>>1137221
do you have a source on this? of course one shouldn't trust nazis to tell the truth, but liberals are likely to dismiss fabrication claims

 No.1137523

>>1133407
>do not try to reform capitalism, but rather guide its development
That's what reformist socdems claim doing, it's what shitlibs claim to do and it's even what some fashoids and reactionaries claim doing.
Rest of his positions seem also rather odd,

 No.1137657


 No.1137660


 No.1137794

>>1137657
one could infer that the Nazis didn't do the killing if Göbbels doesn't say so in his diary, I think. unless of course he's lying for posterity, but a lot of Nazi crimes are documented in his diary. or Göbbels' underlings lied to him or there was a game of telephone going on
that it would be dumb for the NKVD to kill these people is true, but that doesn't really corroborate the Nazis having done it. bungling is hardly unheard of when it comes to Soviet history. this however is damning:
>But even before the Burdenko committee started to work the experts from the Polish Red Cross sent by Germans to Katyn established that the bullets which were used to kill the officers were made in Germany
a quick search turned up this amusing Wehrb forum post:
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=41962
>would German troops really carry Walters???
>this kind of message make me upset
>we don't see that they used German guns in other cases
>Effectiveness would be above all. And Nagans were quite effecitve in 1937
>the question is why they would even bother. And why exactly in this instance
>This is the first time I've heard that the NKVD used German pistols at Katyn - even though it is likely
>if they went out of their way to use German guns, why not "violate" the routine further?
>[literal Totenkopf avatar] I smell Antigermatism in this thread
one poster however does bring up at least a plausible reason:
>The reason the NKVD used this particular calibre was most likely just that they wanted to use up nonstandard ammunition
all in all, an interesting whodunnit

 No.1137864

>>1137657
looking a bit more at this, I still think it's unwise to try and claim that a whole bunch of evidence are forgeries, however true that might be. it's certainly possible, but so what?

 No.1137910

>>1137864
>it's certainly possible, but so what?
Katyn is one of the biggest anticommunist lies alongside the holodomor and Jewish Bolshevism.

 No.1138130


 No.1138207

>>1133406
Russians never stopped using LiveJournal.

 No.1138266

>>1137910
sure, but one should always stick with the facts. when the facts are in question, as with Katyn, then one is on thin ice
with the famines of 31-33 what we have is distortion of facts, facts that no one denies. plus the holodomor narrative being a form of holocaust denialism, something that is hard for liberals to accept

 No.1138851

>>1138266
>distortion of facts

Circlejerk of academics, not distortion of facts. They just quote each other without checking if it's true. There's nothing to distort, they just repeat myths

 No.1138857


 No.1139805

Bump to say this explanation is more convincing than Grover Furr's bullshit.

Furr's main idea is that Stalin literally knew nothing about what was going on and trusted his subordinates like Yezhov blindly and allowed them to kill millions before he finally cracked down which makes Stalin look like a major fucking gullible retard with absolutely no power or control over the USSR, and that also literally all the old Bolsheviks were working for Fascists, or that people favored by and given prestige by Stalin such as Khrushchev were counter revolutionary. It's so stupid that every time someone unironically recommends his books I want to switch over to being a capitalist instead because it's worse than Holocaust denial it's like an inverse Great Man theory except instead of Great Man it's Stupid Man.

 No.1139808

>>1138857
>Some of these researchers have concluded that the Soviets did shoot some Polish
prisoners (officers and others), and then the Nazis invaded the USSR, captured the remaining
Polish prisoners, and shot them.
>I myself think that some such scenario is the most likely one and
I will briefly explain why at the end of this essay.
>I myself think that some such scenario is the most likely one
Furr being a retard yet again and making an argument that actually yes the Soviets did kill Poles BUT THE NAZIs KILLED POLES TOO SO UMMMM KATYN WASN'T BAD.

kill yourself fool no one defends Nazi Germany the question is whether the Soviets really did kill Polish prisoners or not and Furr already conceded.

 No.1139857

>>1139808
Furr believes in the inviolability and unfalsifiability of archives. In other words, that Archives Are Sacred

 No.1139896

>>1139857
I don't think he believes the archives are "sacred" when he accepted the theory that Katyn documents are fakes.

He probably thinks that the 600k number of victims of Great Terror is correct. But that's probably because these nubmers were widely accepted back then and were lower than the official tens of millions

 No.1139901

>>1132650
>Simply, because it wasn't possible for the NKVD to kill so many people in cca 2 years,

Really?

 No.1140012

>>1139857
What? He talks repeatedly in his book on Khruschev's lies that the archives are tampered with. And gives examples of documents missing from the central archives that were found in regional archives, or documents that are suspected forgeries.

His only "support" for the validity of the archives is that he extensively quotes accepted liberal historians who based their research on the archives. He is throwing the liberals own demand for "objective evidence" back in their faces.

 No.1140042

>>1139857
>Furr believes in the inviolability and unfalsifiability of archives. In other words, that Archives Are Sacred

Furr believes the exact opposite. In fact the only people that believe the archives are sacred are Trots who believe archives are suspended above man as if given by God. Instead of being manipulated by governments to seek their own ends and justify their politics
<In 1985 American historian Arch Getty discovered that the Harvard Trotsky Archive had been purged of incriminating materials, but purged imperfectly. Getty also found evidence that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with some of his former supporters inside the Soviet Union. Trotsky always strenuously denied this, claiming that he cut off all ties to those who “capitulated” to Stalin and publicly renounced their Trotskyist views. Again, Trotsky was lying. In 2010 Swedish researcher Sven-Eric Holmström published an article on the “Hotel Bristol” question in the First Moscow Trial of August 1936. In it Holmström proves that Trotsky was lying here too.

<The lies of Trotsky’s that Pierre Broué and Arch Getty discovered 30 years ago have been ignored. This fact itself deserves explanation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Broué continued to find, and write about, more lies by Trotsky. But all the while he continued to deny that these lies were of any importance. Broué also ignored Getty’s two discoveries. First, that the Trotsky Archive had been “purged” of incriminating materials. Second, that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with oppositionists like Radek with whom he swore he had broken all ties. Vadim Rogovin, the leading Trotskyist historian of the Stalin-era Soviet Union, went along with Broué’s cover-up and also introduced some lies of his own. Trotskyists and Cold Warriors continue either to ignore Broué’s discoveries altogether or to echo Broué’s claim that these lies were of little significance. We can understand why they do this.
https://espressostalinist.com/2017/01/27/grover-furr-trotskys-lies-what-they-are-and-what-they-mean/

 No.1140345

Good thread. Should be sent as a copy on EDU and archived.

 No.1140362

>>1139808
>no one defends Nazi Germany
You are, every time someone blames the Soviets for Katyn they're doing the work of nazism.

 No.1140839

>>1140042
>>1140012
>Furr believes the exact opposite.
>His only "support" for the validity of the archives is that he extensively quotes accepted liberal historians who based their research on the archives. He is throwing the liberals own demand for "objective evidence" back in their faces.

Well, it wasn't my impression, but I may be wrong here. Balayev does mainly the same, really - pointing out that existing "documents" contradict each other in all the ways possible, thus one or all of those documents are fake.

 No.1141016

>>1140839
>Well, it wasn't my impression, but I may be wrong here.
You are. Furr is doing the equivalent of academic judo. He uses academic standards of evidence to show that certain popular history writers are using shoddy sources that contradict "hard evidence" like the archives. Or that it is academically dishonest to just accept Khrushchev's word about the alleged crimes of Stalin because Khrushchev was a participant and therefore not unbiased and had reason to frame the alleged crimes as all the fault of Stalin.

The only reason (apart from anti-communism) that Furr isn't more successful is that he too often frames absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

 No.1141307

>>1132665

Here's what they said about the US armny leaving Afghanistan last year

>We can only congratulate to Afghans. The country is moving towards peaceful development. The national liberation struggle of the Afghan people, which begun in 1979, ended with their victory. Of course, it would be better if a secular government came to power in the country, but it is what it is. In a country with such a Muslim heritage that Afghanistan has, no one but the Islamists could lead the national liberation movement.It's a given.

https://1957anti.ru/publications/item/2020-afganistan-kabul-pal-tochnee-osvobozhden

 No.1145752

https://partagenocce.livejournal.com/2177552.html
https://partagenocce.livejournal.com/2176318.html

Regarding the "le repression of nationalities and deportations" - Soviets were resettling people from Caucasus and arid regions since fucking 20s, and it all started mostly out of people's own initiative - because living in mountains makes you poor, and those people would rather live on the plains. Similar logic for arid regions.

 No.1146206

File: 1661960575660-0.jpg (65.36 KB, 500x500, 1661201420683.jpg)

File: 1661960575660-1.jpg (38.21 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg)

>>1132650
I saw these two text to each other on the overboard. Think they might be related somehow? Same headshape.

 No.1146368

>>1146206
if so i will kill him

 No.1146372

>>1146206
They say autists have trouble recognizing facial features.

 No.1146386

>>1146372
I mean the two differences I see are the nostrils and hair. It feels like Pyotr discovered immortality and started making gaming videos under a pen name.

 No.1146389

>>1141307
>The national liberation struggle of the Afghan people, which begun in 1979,
Please don't tell me they supported the mujahideen against the PDPA, revolution and Soviets.

 No.1146398

>>1146386
Eyebrows, nose, mouth (lips), chin are all different. You might have le autisms.

 No.1147210

>>1146389
There's two Talibans even today, one is Pakistan-based and glowing, the other one is Afghan and is pro-China. The guy whom Soviets murdered and replaced with a puppet was a stalinist and wasn't falling in line with Soviet state line of condemning Stalin - and was also both pro-USSR and pro-China simultaneously. USSR killed him and installed a different guy, who called USSR into Afghanistan immediately after. Since that moment onwards, Afghanistan was red only on paper

 No.1151332

>>1147210
>Taliban is pro China
what

 No.1151333


 No.1151715

File: 1662223983421.jpg (147.35 KB, 720x1130, Democratic Afghanistan.jpg)

>>1147210
>The guy whom Soviets murdered and replaced with a puppet was a stalinist

I'm aware but the DRA was still a million times better than anything after.

 No.1151726

>>1147210
>the other one is Afghan and is pro-China and is glowing
I fixed that for you, retard.

 No.1151733

>>1147210
>The guy whom Soviets murdered and replaced with a puppet was a
murderer and a nut and maybe a cia agent

 No.1154820

>The official number of 600 thousand victims of The Great Terror that is used even by "revisionist" historians like Arch-Getty, is also fake according to him. Simply, because it wasn't possible for the NKVD to kill so many people in cca 2 years
lemme guess, the nkvd basements had wooden doors too? fuck this crank

 No.1155079

>>1154820
Except corpses produced by Nazis were found, while victims of NKVD cannot be found at all. It's the funniest shit, really, how they try to find corpses. Say, in Karelia they tried really hard to push Finnish-caused deaths of Soviet soldiers as a proof of NKVD shooting gazillions. They tried to dig up some corpses, found red army servicemen, and immediately declared 'akshually, it means Finns knew that NKVD shot people there, so they hid their victims alongside NKVD ones!"

See? It's fucking insane and hilarious how badly they want to find corpses, find material proof of gazillion victims, but just can't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandarmokh

>Starting in 2016, there were attempts to revise this account of the shootings at Sandarmokh, and claim that among the dead were Soviet POWs shot by the invading Finns in 1941–1944. There were newspaper articles and TV broadcasts in Russia; there was also a publication in the Finnish press. In the same year, a sexual abuse investigation against Yuri Dmitriyev was launched by authorities.[30]


>The motivation behind this claim and the supposed new evidence were both challenged. In a lengthy and detailed investigation, Russian journalist Anna Yarovaya examined the evidence and interviewed historians and those who had found the site. She talked to Finnish historians of the Second World War; Irina Flige of the Memorial Society and Sergei Kashtanov, head of the district administration where the killing fields were found. She also interviewed Sergei Verigin, one of the Russian historians putting forward the new hypothesis. Russian newspapers and television had talked of "thousands" of POWs being shot by the Finns and buried at Sandarmokh: speaking on the record to Yarovaya, Verigin was more cautious and spoke of dozens and hundreds.[31]


<nkvd basements had wooden doors too?


Oh, and about that. Common myth is that NKVD shot gazillion people in basements. You know, shooting thousands of prisoners in poorly ventilated underground rooms. With damsel pistols, on top of that!

 No.1155362

>>1155079
I mean, check ventilation requirements of indoor shooting ranges

https://www.nj.gov/health/workplacehealthandsafety/documents/peosh/firingrangestd.pdf

Do you think myth creators had enough gun lore knowledge to think this shit through, lol?

 No.1173850

>Historians: but Soviets lost more soldiers than Germans!
>Germans in the war:

“Steidle L. From the Volga to Weimar. - Moscow: Progress, 1975.
“The Red Army was not destroyed, although in the order for Army Group Center dated July 8, the commander, Field Marshal von Bock, called the double battle for Bialystok and Minsk completed and cited dizzying numbers of prisoners and trophies. We knew perfectly well how the losses of the enemy were determined: the numbers were corrected and embellished.
About these encirclements at Steidle, in which Krivosheev buried and gave away all our fighters and commanders who were there: “… between Bialystok and Minsk, an elongated cauldron with a length of more than two hundred kilometers was formed, holding down large German forces. Despite this, under the cover of night and obviously with the help of guides, the Soviet units managed to get out of the encirclement in groups. Our regiment was well aware of the success of these enemy actions, since we, too, were involved in battles with these groups.
And about the "catastrophe" near Vyazma and Bryansk: "The boilers that formed near Vyazma and Bryansk could not be destroyed: most of the personnel of the encircled groups managed to escape from the encirclement."
About how the Germans calculated the losses of the enemy: “And in our division they began to add to the column“ captured and destroyed tanks ”any simple tracked armored personnel carrier, intended only for transporting gun servants. In this hype, characteristic of Nazi propaganda, of reports of victories, individual regiments and even battalions tried to outdo each other.
From the first days of the war, the German major noted the complete tactical superiority of the Red Army "After the effect of surprise had exhausted itself."
It is even generally accepted that the counterattacks of our troops at the beginning of the war were an erroneous decision by the command, which led to heavy losses that could have been avoided. Even people like A. Isaev, justifying this "erroneous" decision, argue that although our losses were much greater than the German ones, they "removed the chips." Only the commander of the German battalion categorically disagrees with this: “The Soviet command quickly recognized that it was relatively easy to inflict damage on German infantry regiments if sudden concentrated attacks of infantry and tanks were used. Of course, it knew very well which roads or sections of roads could be used for a more or less organized offensive and which places - with the gigantic scale of hostilities - could not be overlooked, let alone defended by us. Therefore, Soviet troops at any time of the day or night attacked our columns, broke our, in fact, weak military outposts, tore apart the echelons of marching columns and slowed down our advance. Before it was possible to organize the necessary counter-measures, even if improvised, the enemy disappeared.
Loss, loss and loss. Incommensurable with the Soviet. The battles for Mogilev, against two Soviet divisions - seven German ones, which even outnumbered our divisions by almost two times. Seven days of fighting without any result. The Steidle battalion was tasked with occupying a piece of forest convenient for defense, but the Germans did not notice that the Soviet unit had already taken up defense there: “The Soviet unit fought to the last drop of blood, destroying almost the entire German unit. Almost all of our soldiers and officers, who, not expecting to meet resistance, entered the forest from two sides, died.
During the offensive on Moscow in the battle for the village of Shelkovka, the regiment in which Steidle served lost 40% of its personnel, the village was taken only after the tank division was brought into battle, but almost immediately, as a result of a counterattack, ours recaptured it.
And the further in the war, the more and more the discipline in the troops fell: “The appearance of the advancing German troops has completely changed. If in the first weeks of the war in Russia they still tried to strictly observe the statutory order and discipline, now it all looked different. In the advancing troops, one could see peasant carts with wicker basket-shaped sides, often harnessed by one nag. Soldiers moved on carts, mostly with sore legs. They did not want to go to the rear, the rainy season had already begun, and it was very difficult to move in the direction opposite to the advance of the troops.
This is unimaginable in the Red Army: my legs hurt, so I will borrow a cart with a horse from the local population and go to war on it. But if you yourself encouraged looting in the army, then what did you expect - respect for soldiers to commanders and discipline?
Looking ahead, after the start of our counter-offensive, Steidle became very ill and went to Munich for treatment. He had bronchitis. coughed. Can you imagine the commander of a Soviet battalion who would come running to the medical battalion with a complaint of a cough and ask him to be sent to the hospital for treatment? And then Steidel's kidneys got sick. He became quite sick.
After the hospital, Steidel was asked, as an experienced front-line soldier, to give lectures on tactics in the spare part: “I had the opportunity to state everything without embellishment.However, it was difficult to ensure that the desired was not taken for reality. I was interrupted with questions about Soviet tactics. They testified that my conclusions drawn from experience were perceived with skepticism.
That is, the commander of the spare parts did not give a damn about what the front-line soldiers were telling them. In other chapters, I have already written what these commanders were doing in spare parts - getting booze. Questions of tactics did not even float at the bottom of the bottle, these questions did not interest them at all. Therefore, the exercises of spare parts were carried out as follows: “The general, who replaced the commander, gave the order to conduct exercises of reserve units on the Frettmann Heath in order to work out the offensive of the infantry and supporting units using the latest winter equipment. The theme of the teaching was clearly far-fetched. Heaps of gravel selected by the excavator were used as shelters, which simplified the conventionally accepted situation, since there were no such shelters at the front. I felt uneasy. In my mind I saw my soldiers there in the East, how they repeatedly and unsuccessfully attack, and then the attack bogged down in a last desperate battle. The Red Army now and then opens fire from all trunks and hits the German infantry. All the experience gained in battles and speaking of the need to make every possible use of the terrain, in these December days turned out to be completely useless for my soldiers.
During the analysis of the exercises in the dining room of the "Turkish" barracks, it was extremely difficult to convey the front-line atmosphere. It was about statutory provisions; they were not interested in our front-line experience, they were afraid to shake the blind faith in the superiority of German tactics and German weapons.
It's probably too much to even comment on. Not only did the start of the war reveal a problem for the Germans - they were inferior in tactical training to the Soviet troops, but also the entire front-line experience - on the side. Cooking blunt meat for Russian cannons and machine guns?!
But it was worth listening to Steidel: Soviet aviation is horror, Soviet tanks are double horror, Soviet artillery is already pitch horror. Also partisans.
And on December 3, 1941, nothing seemed to portend trouble. Only “Suddenly from the south came the rumble of battle. Strong Soviet battle groups managed, with the support of massive artillery fire, to break through the front. Having captured the prisoners, the Russians disappeared as quickly as they appeared.
Of course, it was very difficult to guess that the Soviet troops carried out reconnaissance in force, and reconnaissance in force is carried out before the start of the offensive, it was very difficult. Germans, did you even have any idea about tactics if this happened next:
“It seemed that in our area there were all the prerequisites for a successful offensive. However, within 24 hours everything changed. My battalion, performing a limited combat mission, got into the thick of the preparations for a Soviet offensive, the extent of which we had no idea yet. Having combed the forest, the company commanders withdrew their platoons to attack across the open field one and a half kilometers ahead, to the outskirts of a large settlement, when suddenly a hurricane of fire was suddenly opened on them. This last offensive of my battalion near Moscow ended in disaster. Almost all officers and soldiers died. Infantry and anti-tank guns, as well as sapper platoons, who were on the edge of the forest in combat readiness for a throw, were completely destroyed by barrage fire.
It seems that after all, in fact, Field Marshal Paulus, when asked if the Russians used him as a teacher of tactics, replied that the Russians would not even take him to a sergeant's school as a teacher …

 No.1174555

>The official number of 600 thousand victims of The Great Terror that is used even by "revisionist" historians like Arch-Getty, is also fake according to him. Simply, because it wasn't possible for the NKVD to kill so many people in cca 2 years, we don't have mass graves with such large numbers of bodies and the whole narrative stands on just one document published by so called Yakovlev's commission in 1988.
This I'm iffy about, for one the Nazi's showed that you kill can that many people in a very short amount of time and secondly it's completely possible that the records have been destroyed after the fact to cover them up

 No.1174601

>>1174555
Where are the corpses, where are the camps, and why all the found shooting grounds were found in Nazi-occupied regions during the war? Even Sandarmokh in Karelia/North was occupied by Finns, lmao

 No.1174606

>>1174555
>>1174601
And don't forget the shitshows of Katyn (Nuremberg attributed it to Nazis 100%, even when Brits tried to object and went against the Nuremberg trials' regulations to fight the Soviets on that and did factchecking/research and still went agreeing with Soviets) or Kuropates (forgotten by now myth from 1990s were yet again Nazi victims were attributed to Soviets, yet Kuropates wasn't a slavic name for a region but rather a codename for Nazi extermination program against jews called Kurpate Juden)

 No.1175155

>>1140042
I wish Communism would move on from the USSR already. Not because there's nothing to learn from the USSR or because the USSR isn't worth defending. But because we get bogged down by this historical intrigue and Spy vs. Spy and archivist nitpicking. It makes us look like a bunch of disunited academic pedants rather than a united front against Capital's worst excesses. We should learn when to stfu and move on, and save the 20th century intrigue for our own personal midnight reading sessions

 No.1175566

>>1175155
You can't build a proper party when all your history is gazillions dead. Hitler's performance in WW2 murdered fascism and made it a laughingstock, for example.

 No.1223402

>>1175566
America's history is also millions of deaths. Yet it still exists.

 No.1223416

>>1133337
How much of vulgar stageist shit is just cope/external locus of control in the age of blackest reaction?

 No.1223420

>>1223402
That creates friction both within american and internationally that the ruling powers must expend resources to remedy.

 No.1223440

>>1223402
Liberals have successfully twisted history that every death under capitalism is a personal failing, and just individual unconnected horrors, while every death under socialism is a systemic failure. By "defending" the USSR you are fighting against this form of thinking.

 No.1274014

I will believe anything so long as it rehabilitates Stalin without question.

 No.1274048

Further doubling down unironically on the "stalim never hurt a fly" meme doesn't make you based, it just make you a retard who is dogmatic and unable to engage in scientific socialism.

 No.1274049

>>1175566
1. Wrong
2. Debunking the 100 billion meme doesn't mean you have to claim Stalin was basically the second comming of Christ himself.

 No.1274051

File: 1668898241755.png (621.77 KB, 735x638, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1274014
>>1274014
>I will believe anything so long as it rehabilitates Stalin without question.
Stalin doesn't need rehabilitation. He needs resuscitation.

 No.1274176

File: 1668911238088.jpg (88.64 KB, 1200x720, 1024.jpg)

>>1274048
Plus it's unironically easier to make an argument for Stalin's policies being a net benefit for both the peoples of the USSR and the world just using the mainstream historical consensus (talking about the most up to date work here like that of Getty, Davies & Wheatcroft, Kotkin, etc) than it is to get people to believe some immaculate narrative of him. Even if that narrative was true, you're going to look like pic related trying to convince people of it instead of just arguing a positive balance of good and bad.

 No.1274206


 No.1274210

>>1274176
Read Combat Liberalism. Trying to stay quiet when the truth is ignored is a form of liberalism. As Marxists, we understand that development only occurs with the presence of contradictions, only by proper explanation can the movement progress.
You are taking the Right Opportunist line of sacrificing integrity for the sake of optics, borrowing liberal values for the sake of appealing to the bourgeoisie who will slander you all the same regardless.

 No.1274247

>>1274210
>You are taking the Right Opportunist line of sacrificing integrity for the sake of optics
And you are insisting on fighting battles that you aren't going to win and don't really matter anyway.

 No.1274257

>>1274176
Unless you're using that to slow walk yourself into a conversation where the commonly understood ground truth is that Stalin did nothing wrong and people who disagree are mentally defective you're a loser

 No.1274268

File: 1668927174076.png (504.96 KB, 1175x1114, 16528071061430.png)

>>1274247
>don't really matter anyway.

<Communism oesn't work and brings gazillions of deaths!

>W-well, you see, on average, communism was better than fascism! Barely, b-but still…
<Haha look at this freak defend a failed ideology :^)

 No.1274287

>>1274176
The thing is, none of this matters. Convincing people doesn't depend on the strength of the argument, or rather it is a very small part of the equation. You can come up with the most reasonable "easier to make" argument about stalin, ussr, communism, whatever and it will still fail to convince people. Why? Because people don't have a material reason to change the position that was ingrained into them by establishment. You can try to feed them "reasonable" position of "net good for USSR and the world" or you can be "not one crime guy. Hell, you can present them with a detailed biography of every single human being persecuted under every socialist regime with iron clad proof that every one was persecuted for a good reason. As long as they still think that current status quo is good or at lerast salvagable, as long as radical change to society looks scarier to them than going to vote booth and complaining on the internet while suffering from current conditions, none of those argument would work for vast majority of people. Switching positions can only happen when those people completely loose trust into establishment and status quo, when they come to condition of "nothing to loose but their chains". And then all it would matter is what kind of the new world we can offer to those people, not how much grain USSR produced and wherever Bukharin was innocent.

As much a i love tearing libs a new one for their stupid uneducated position on stuff like Moscow trials (for example you using hacks like Getty as you source of info), it only serves as a fun pasttime, not something that is all that useful to mass propaganda or conversions to communism. I mean, it is useful to have talking points for people who are ready to change their mind, but by that point most of the job is already done by material conditions.

 No.1274290

>>1274287
Analogies to real world help a lot. Say, pointing towards Ukraine to highlight how cope about war losses shapes official history

 No.1274293

>>1274290
Fuck off with your ukraine shit to one of the hundreds crappy threads we already have on this site, zigger.

 No.1274311

>>1274293
No, you.

Look here >>1274287
>Switching positions can only happen when those people completely loose trust into establishment and status quo, when they come to condition of "nothing to loose but their chains".

I merely added to those words

 No.1274321

>>1274210
"Noooo you can't sacrifice theoretical purity and naive honesty for the sake of tactical goals" is rich comming from someone quoting Mao. Combat liberalism isnt about defending stalin, it's about opposing harmfull positions. Someone thinking Stalin sucks isn't harmfull

 No.1274328

File: 1668933750126.jpg (118.3 KB, 1028x1466, 16518390724280.jpg)

>>1274321
>"Noooo you can't sacrifice theoretical purity and naive honesty for the sake of tactical goals"

Dude, why are you so ready to admitto genocide - especially when communists didn't commit any? Imagine believing that communists killed 700k people in 1937-38 - either because there were millions of disloyal kulaks OR NKVD was staffed with traitors who killed 700k people without communists knowing OR people under communism commit crimes so heavy and so often that there needs to be 700k executions. However you put it it's literally worse than fascism, lmao, so shut the fuck up and stop believing into such nonsense

 No.1274334

>>1274328
>Admit

The guy this thread is about is even more defensive about Stalin than Grover "I never found one crime Stalin comitted" Furr. Fuck off with your strawmanning bullshit. Nobody here says we should say "yes 100 billion happened", but Stalin did do a lot of retarded fucked up shit (not genocides)

 No.1274340

>>1274334
>but Stalin did do a lot of retarded fucked up shit (not genocides)

Like what?

 No.1274341

>>1274340
Deportation of ethnicities, claiming that socialist commodity production is a thing, personality cult (and don't give me that 'og I promise he didn't want it everyone else just thought he was a god among men' shit), breakdown of the democratic part of democratic centralism, among other things.

 No.1274344

>>1274341
>socialist commodity production is a thing
That was tractor stations, tools goods etc farmers needed in exchange for grain retard

Kruschev being a theorylet cancelled tractor sharing and reintroduced the profit motive to individual units of enterprise instead of doing a whole economy calculation which reintroduced generalized commodity production

Do we also need to go into how the so called ethnic cleansings were civilian evacuations from the front during the great patriotic war

>inb4 B-but what about the Crimean Tartars?

1 in ten were armed literal Nazi collaborators

Also the thing about the personality cult is true it didn't matter what he wanted he was revered, the only historically accurate moment in the Death of Stalin is the masses flooding to Moscow to mourn his death

 No.1274345

File: 1668935735431.jpg (451.05 KB, 1080x1533, 16529843200570.jpg)

>>1274341
>Deportation of ethnicities

Evacuation, actually.

>claiming that socialist commodity production is a thing


You get to communism through making commodities cost nothing

>personality cult


Oh noes, a little trot doesn't like Stalin

>breakdown of the democratic part of democratic centralism


Didn't happen either. Only due to the insistence on antidemocratic actions of trots and opposition did they get banned. Stalin defended democracy, not destroyed it

So, you cited 0 fucked up things, congratulations!

 No.1274349

>>1274344
>1 in ten were armed literal Nazi collaborators

No, that's Khruschevite propaganda. We had a thread a while back, where I've been bringing up the examples of Crimean Tatars who were made Russians in Post-Stalin USSR. To make it seem like an entire nationality was repressed, they've literally took away all Crimean Tatar heroes from them and then on top of that invented 1 in 10 fascist collaboration which would have justified deportation as punishment kind of thing. Reality, however, was that "deportations" were evacuations, with evacuated nationalities receiving every possible help in their relocation, from letting them take their homes with them, to relocated nationalities getting demobilized from war earlier, to getting juicy land plots in newly greened areas of Central Asia after the channels were finished, to their cattle being traded 1-to-1 from old to new place. And don't fucking forget that supposedly repressed nationalities DIDN'T HAVE THEIR RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. When USSR repressed kulaks, kulaks had their voting rights taken away, they had no right to join any kind of a union or to get elected as a representative of anything, etc etc. None of "deported" nations were treated like that

 No.1274361

>>1274341
>claiming that socialist commodity production is a thing
It is a thing. Socialism is transitional stage. Only under full communism there isn't gonna be any commodity production. Please, don't be retarded and mindlessly quote Marx to me, because Marx and Engels used terms socialism and communism meaning same thing.

And still USSR economy was heavily decommodified under Stalin with transition to planned economy, probably the least commodified industrial economy that existed to this day, so yeah, they were socialism country proper.

>Deportation of ethnicities

It was deportation of people from certain geographical regions, not really ethnicities. For example, many crimean tatars still lived in Crimea after deportations. And except deportations they weren't really repressed in any other way, so…

>breakdown of the democratic part of democratic centralism

Quite the opposite, under Stalin political participation of regular people was increased. If anything, Stalin's mistake was democratization too early.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/actually-existing-socialism/id1629249295?i=1000574970925

You really didn't study USSR outside of nazi/cold war propaganda buzzwords

 No.1274422

>>1274341
>don't give me that 'og I promise he didn't want it
We have a ton of records of Stalin saying that though. Even in direct correspondence. I think he just didn't fight it hard enough because he thought the people needed a central figure, which is what he tried to do with Lenin.

Stalin was a pragmatist.>>1274341

 No.1274473

>>1274268
Do you honestly think it's easier to convince people of an entirely different set of facts that virtually every historian rejects than it is to present an favourable interpretation of those facts that are widely accepted? Parenti's approach is way more effective with the average person than this Balayev guy I think.

 No.1274485

>>1274473
Most people dont care about historians and their "facts". The vast majority of people probably couldn't name a single one sovietology historian or what set of facts they are operating on. In fact no historian (even cia puppet like Conquest) says that USSR intentionally created the hunger of 31-32 and yet this is still opinion f the majority of people out there. You are pretty naive thinking that political position is a result of some rational deliberation and to change it you just need a right set of facts and arguments. As a general rule people don't use reason to make informed positions and opinions, they use reasoning to think of excuses to support already existing position and opinions. See >>1274287

 No.1274488

>>1274473
>Do you honestly think it's easier to convince people of an entirely different set of facts that virtually every historian rejects

It doesn't matter, lol, there's no compromising on historical truth. You either stop being a retard and stop spouting anticommunist nonsense, or you are forever stuck at capitalism - until smarter people make you go forward with kicks to the butt for believing into anticommunist lies

 No.1274490

>>1274488
Do you think Micheal Parenti is an anticommunist? Is he stuck at capitalism?
>>1274485
If that's your position then defending AES doesn't matter and there's no need to sperg on people who don't buy into the narratives of Furr and co.

 No.1274492

Good thread

 No.1274494

>>1274490
>If that's your position then defending AES doesn't matter and there's no need to sperg on people who don't buy into the narratives of Furr and co.
Depends on wherever we are talking mass propaganda or having fun on leftypol.

Also, those people who are already communist should be told the truth instead of some comporomise between truth and whatever porky is telling about communism today. The matter of hitorical truth for marxist is of grave importance because marxism is based on doing historical analysis.

 No.1274506

>>1274494
>Also, those people who are already communist should be told the truth instead of some comporomise between truth and whatever porky is telling about communism today
Sorry Anon but your version of the truth basically boils down to insisting that most of the available evidence is fake and seething at anybody who doesn't buy it. It's just not very convincing.

 No.1274513

>>1274287
Grillpilled Schizo post.

 No.1274517

Russian historian is my favourite poster on this site.

 No.1274523

>>1274513
You should learn what materialism is one day, leninhat. Maybe stop being such a retard with consistently one of the shittiest takes on this whole board after king lear.

>>1274506
>insisting that most of the available evidence is fake
I remember like half a year or year ago we discussed wherever NKVD used torture to force confessions on Moscow trials defendants. Your positions was "yes", because Getty said so. Getty's evidence? A guy who claimed he interview Molotov (Felix Chuev). The thing is, his book was publised in 90s, way after Molotov died, no witnesses to those interviews to confirm they even happened, no tape recordings, not even written transcripts of those interviews. And even in that book the wording is not exactly brimmed with confidence (molotov said that one guy looked like he was tortured or something). In ANY historical field other than sovietology using such "source" would make you look like some freak and get ostracized from scientific community. In sovietology? This is actually one of the most rigorous reserach done on the topic. At least it's not some anonymous defector or something. It's just one big joke.

Your response to criticism? "I just believe what Getty said, he is a historian". When confronted with undeniable argument that Getty is as much of a hack as Conquest you just retreated in denial.

If you want, you can call it "seething", but that just confirms what i ahve said earlier that people don't really look for evidence except to support their already existing position.

 No.1274526

>>1274523
>not even written transcripts of those interviews
The book contained written transcripts.
>In ANY historical field other than sovietology using such "source" would make you look like some freak and get ostracized from scientific community.
No it wouldn't, interviews with eyewitnesses are regularly used as evidence in mainstream historical research. You're just insisting that the interviews are fake because they say things you don't like.
>This is actually one of the most rigorous reserach done on the topic.
Rigorous research that is taken seriously by nobody outside a tiny circle of schizos.
>that just confirms what i ahve said earlier that people don't really look for evidence except to support their already existing position
You mean like you claiming that all evidence that contradicts your position, (including Soviet archives and the testimonies of people directly involved in those events) is fabricated?

 No.1274535

>>1274526
>The book contained written transcripts.
It did not. It was "compilation" shit. And anyway, there is zero proof that any of those interviews happened at all.
>interviews with eyewitnesses are regularly used as evidence in mainstream historical research
<Hey guys i interview some famous historical figure on almost every topic i possible could and wrote a book about it. Proofs of those interviews happening? What, you don't trust me?
Are you intentionally playing retard card here or something? FAKE interview is what am talking about.
>Rigorous research that is taken seriously by nobody outside a tiny circle of schizos.
Are you calling yourself a schizo? Did you fail to understand that i was talking about Getty? His work are considered rigorous, but in fact they are as ad as Conquest's.
>You mean like you claiming that all evidence that contradicts your position, (including Soviet archives and the testimonies of people directly involved in those events) is fabricated?
Give me a single piece of evidence that those interviews with Molotoc even happened and then we talk. Though even then with no tapes or at least Molotov's signature on some typed/handwritten transcripts it is gonna be hard t tell what in those interviews comes from Molotov and what from Chuev (intentionally or not).

 No.1274543

>>1274535
>And anyway, there is zero proof that any of those interviews happened at all.
Except for the 700 page book recording several years worth of interviews. If you are going to insist that these are all fabricated, you need to have an actual reason.
>His work are considered rigorous, but in fact they are as ad as Conquest's.
And yet he BTFO Conquest so hard that the latter had to reverse his position on a bunch of shit, including the accusation that the Holodomor was genocide.

 No.1274546

>>1274523
How am I not materialist lol

 No.1274548

>>1274543
>And yet he BTFO Conquest so hard that the latter had to reverse his position on a bunch of shit

Typical strategy of "historians", one claims 40 million losses for Soviets and other claims 27 millions, less, and then everyone praises 27 million guy for objectivity and his 40 million opponent concedes.

 No.1274550

>>1274543
>Except for the 700 page book recording several years worth of interviews.

Which is fake, and you trying to use it as a proof is circular logic. Find a proof OUTSIDE of that book, lmao

 No.1274552

>>1274543
>Except for the 700 page book recording several years worth of interviews.
No tapes with Molotov's voice or his signatures on taped/written interviews. No live eyewitnesses to those interviews even. Book no matter with how many pages is not the evidence to it's own truth. Otherwise Bible could serve as proof to existence of God.
>And yet he BTFO Conquest so hard that the latter had to reverse his position on a bunch of shit
So? Who cares? Conquest used "anonymous defectors", Getty used "interview" that never happened. Why should i care if flatearther "btfo" young earth creationist or vice versa? They are both shit anyway.

What is funny is that there are eyewitness testimonies, namely Davies and Pritt, who were present on the trials and weren't communist sympathizers and wrote about their experience with the trial, yet a book with fake interview written by some nobody in the 90s beats professional lawyers giving their opinion on the open trial they were present in.

You may want to start looking for actua evidence to this shitty book or just admit that Getty is basing his opinion on aboslutely fucking nothing. But i guess you are too much of a coward to admit you were wrong and change your position before undeniable evidence.

 No.1274554

>>1274550
>Which is fake
What evidence do you have that it's fake? You're the one using circular reasoning here. You're claiming the book is fake because there is no evidence that it's true, which presupposes that the existence of such an extensive record of the interviews is not proof that they actually took place. Do you expect me to believe that Chuev completely made up hundreds of pages of material from nothing?

 No.1274555

>>1274554
>existence of such an extensive record of the interviews is not proof that they actually took place

Author didn't present tapes for how many decades now, lmao? Neither did Molotov's wife, or who was it who was a witness of such interviews.

The biggest proof that interviews didn't happen at all is the absolute lack of interviews taken in similar way by any other Soviet leader. Nobody did tapes, everyone went through Soviet censorship from the beginning to end without any tapes ever mentioned by anyone

 No.1274557

>>1274552
>No tapes with Molotov's voice or his signatures on taped/written interviews.
That's also the case with Alex Haley's recording of the statements of Malcolm X that are the basis for his Autobiography. Do you also consider that to be fake too? I'm not sure how you think biographers and historians normally conduct interviews, but there usually isn't any reason to have somebody else literally in the room with them the whole time, nor is there any reason to publish any recordings they might make.
>What is funny is that there are eyewitness testimonies, namely Davies and Pritt, who were present on the trials and weren't communist sympathizers and wrote about their experience with the trial, yet a book with fake interview written by some nobody in the 90s beats professional lawyers giving their opinion on the open trial they were present in.
Iirc the person Molotov was talking about and saying was tortured wasn't present at those trials and was part of a wider purge.
>>1274555
Do you think most biographers publish all their notes and tapes from an interview?

 No.1274558

>>1274552
>What is funny is that there are eyewitness testimonies, namely Davies and Pritt, who were present on the trials and weren't communist sympathizers and wrote about their experience with the trial, yet a book with fake interview written by some nobody in the 90s beats professional lawyers giving their opinion on the open trial they were present in.

Hmmm, which one is a strnoger evidence in court - a book about tapes nobody ever heard, or a direct testimony? Jesus Christ antistalinists are grasping at straws

 No.1274561

>>1274557
>Do you think most biographers publish all their notes and tapes from an interview?

He was asked to present evidence for decades now, lol. Also, this shit costs fortune, he could have sold it for huge amounts of money, but instead he lived like a bitch off book's revenue or something, lol

 No.1274564

>>1274561
>He was asked to present evidence for decades now, lol.
Proofs?

 No.1274565

>>1274557
>Iirc the person Molotov was talking about and saying was tortured wasn't present at those trials and was part of a wider purge.

So, there's no account on that guy anywhere at all but the book, huh. Convenient :^)

>but there usually isn't any reason to have somebody else literally in the room with them the whole time, nor is there any reason to publish any recordings they might make.


Instead of moaning about "but what if it was true" you must present strong evidence of interviews happening. Lack of interviews with even the likes of Khruschev is the strongest proof that interview didn't happen. People like Voroshilov published their own biographies which were heavily edited by Soviet censorship, to compare.

 No.1274566

>>1274557
>That's also the case with Alex Haley's recording of the statements of Malcolm X that are the basis for his Autobiography.
I am not familiar with those, if they have similar lack of evidence to those interviews even happening, then yes, i would consider this interview at best a narrative fictional source of atuhor's opinions.

I bet though that Malcolm X interviews either have tapes (contrary to what you are stating), were done in public setting or have some eyewitnesses that they at least happened at all.

>I'm not sure how you think biographers and historians normally conduct interviews

There are whole rulebooks on how to do it, and the rule number one is to tape them. Or record immediately in any other way. Interview without any proofs of it happening is a fanfic.

>Iirc the person Molotov was talking about and saying was tortured wasn't present at those trials and was part of a wider purge.

And yet, Getty concludes that torture was used for forcing confessions on moscow trials too. Curious.

>Do you think most biographers publish all their notes and tapes from an interview?

They make them available when there is doubt in authenticity or even before that.

 No.1274567

>>1274564
>proofs?

Why? Claim that he was asked to do so is all that you need

 No.1274569

>>1274564
>Proofs
In the book itself, in author's notes, there is talk about publishing tapes. Yet nothing happened for decades.

You haven't even rea the book itself. What a fucking joke you are.

 No.1274570

>>1274567
You post about it happening is enough proof of it happening accoeding to sabocat logic :) Or maybe you need to make it longer, like 700 pages or something.

 No.1274572

>>1274564
Jesus Christ

http://aleksandr-kommari.narod.ru/kaganovich.html

Chuyev have claimed that he took interview with Kaganovich on 98th year of Kaganovich's life. Have some fucking shame, dude

>- Как говорят в Одессе - слушай сюда! - Каганович доверительно прикладывает ладонь к груди. - Я вам даю самый цимис, то, что никому, кроме вас, о себе не говорю!


<what I am saying to you I didn't say to anybody else!


HAHAHAHAHA

 No.1274578

>>1274565
>I am not familiar with those, if they have similar lack of evidence to those interviews even happening, then yes, i would consider this interview at best a narrative fictional source of atuhor's opinions.
Then you're a dumbass because that's standard practice for conducting interviews for a book.
>rule number one is to tape them
Do you think such tapes are usually published? Tapes are taken to record the subject's answers so you can refer to them when writing the actual book. It's the same as taking rough notes which serve as a reference for the actual work itself. They are generally not made public.
>Getty concludes that torture was used for forcing confessions on moscow trials too. Curious.
That has no bearing on the validity of the interviews themselves.
>They make them available when there is doubt in authenticity or even before that.
There isn't serious doubt's about their authenticity apart from a handful of online retards.
>>1274569
>In the book itself, in author's notes, there is talk about publishing tapes.
You have a citation for that? It's not in the English version, but I know the Russian version is longer.
>>1274570
So do you just disbelieve every historical record that predates photography, film, and audio recording?

 No.1274579

>>1274572
Next Russian wiki https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#%D0%97%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9B._%D0%9C._%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0

Check this out. Volkogonov has claimed that Kaganovich was living in Kalinin, meanwhile official records say that Kaganovich was living in Moscow.

Next:

>Родился в еврейской семье крестьян Моисея Гершковича Кагановича и Гени Иосифовны Дубинской (1860—1933) в деревне Кабаны Радомысльского уезда Киевской губернии Российской империи. В семье было 13 детей, шестеро умерли. По свидетельству Кагановича, его отец работал на смоляном заводе неподалёку от деревни: «Жили очень бедно — в хибаре, где раньше был сарай. Все семь человек спали в одной комнате на лавках»[5]. Однако Рой Медведев, ссылаясь на воспоминания очевидцев, утверждает, что отец Кагановича был торговцем скотом[6].


Roy Medvedev says that Kaganovich's father was cattle trader, while Chuyev has claimed that his father was a worker on "Resin Plant"

 No.1274582

>>1274572
Many people just don't understand what 90s were and how much shlock on soviet (and not only soviet) history was published back then. People were ungry for "The TRUTH" and market didn't fail to provide. Back then there were thousands book of "super secret truth straight from NKVD archives/interviews with ghost of Stalin" that had anything from Stalin wanting to attack Germany first and was prepared to offensive war to communism being a conspiracy of jews/statnist/secret vampires (sometimes everything at the same time). Everyone who could claim even a grain of legitimacy tried to cash on that. People were suddenly finding secret caches of nkvd/kgb.cheka archives and diaries of their famous relative on their attic and publishing all those "secrets". Sometimes more than one diary for a person (insert the joke about having several relic right hands of John the Baptist).

 No.1274583

>>1274578
>So do you just disbelieve every historical record that predates photography, film, and audio recording?

Yes, actually. I don't believe in Alexander coming to India and building a buttload of Alexandrias in Bactria. Sounds like Indian archeologists siphoning govt funds for random excavations, lol

But to answer correctly, evidence mustn't contradict other evidence and be consistent with character and "historical process", so to say.

>There isn't serious doubt's about their authenticity apart from a handful of online retards.


There isn't serious doubt from retards, all the smart people just ignore Chuyev's books, lmao

 No.1274585

>>1274582
Yeah, totally. Europeans had a craze about Anastasia princess being saved from getting shot, for example, with loads of accounts of living people claiming she survived. How could they all lie?!?!?! There was a concensus that she survived!

 No.1274587

>>1274583
>Yes, actually.
Oh okay, so you're just an actual schizo.

 No.1274588

>>1274578
>You have a citation for that? It's not in the English version, but I know the Russian version is longer.
Stop dodging and start posting any evidence to those interview happening.
>So do you just disbelieve every historical record that predates photography, film, and audio recording?
Depends on the context. There is a whole science field dedicated to analysis of reliability of historical sources based on such context. Under such methodology this book is relegated to narrative source of author's (Chuev's) opinions. Not in the least because it's basically a single source of such claim that can't be corraborated with other sources.

Just fucking admit that you believe only because you want to believe and let's be done with it. I am pretty tired of you trying to weasel of this (again).

 No.1274590

>>1274587
Do you have any actual proof Alexander managed to get to Ind, lol? The very fact he got there was presented as A MIRACLE by historians of Alexander, and we talk about a relatively small number of phalanxes coming through Persia to India, through disease and deserts, finding water in desert, without proper fucking supply lines, with MIRACLE AFTER MIRACLE required to get him there. It's basically Trojan War, it's a myth, there's no proofs to it but merely artistic descriptions upon artistic descriptions

>schizo


Again, show proof, lol. You don't have any proof, you just show the book and demand to believe it - and refuse to show evidence outside the book to support it

 No.1274593

>>1274587
>Oh okay, so you're just an actual schizo.
He was hinting about how many of those sources must be corraborated with other sources and archealogical findings to be considered true in historical science.

Are you really that dumb, sabocat?

 No.1274594

>>1274588
>There is a whole science field dedicated to analysis of reliability of historical sources based on such context
You mean that same field where the consensus holds both the archives and the interviews are valid sources?
>Under such methodology this book is relegated to narrative source of author's (Chuev's) opinions.
No it's relegated to Chuev curating the information given to him by Molotov, which is completely different.

 No.1274596

>>1274593
You mean like how Chuev's book is corroborated by the archival materials?

 No.1274597

>>1274594
>You mean that same field where the consensus holds both the archives and the interviews are valid sources?
Not alone, never alone. You don't understand shit about the topic. Sources are analysed based on their context to stablish level of sredibilit and then corraborated as a whole along with other evidenc (cultural, archeological etc)
>No it's relegated to Chuev curating the information given to him by Molotov, which is completely different.
First post evidence that anything like that happened.
>>1274596
>You mean like how Chuev's book is corroborated by the archival materials?
They aren't. And then again, Getty is satisfied with Chuev's book alone.

Stop dodging and post evidence.

 No.1274599

>>1274596
It's not corroborated by archival material. We have attempts to legitimize claims by pushing into the archives fakes, but those fakes contradict other evidence from the archives anyway. So, tough luck here, lol

Anyway, Chuyev was published by those guys https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/860374 Terra printing house/business/whatever. It was one of the first private publishing houses in former USSR, lol. It's not a scientific publisher, they printed anything without oversight, and journo in article claims that nobody fucking knows if publishing house is profitable or not, hinting at some secret shit. Also, that Terra for staying solvent really fucking hopes for the state buying their books, lol

 No.1274601

https://bulvar.com.ua/gazeta/archive/s44_64256/6492.html

Here is the interview with Motov's grandson where he claims that if those interviews happened they would be conducted without any recordings because Molotov denied the chance of recording his knowledge of those times even to his own grandson. Meaning that those tapes can't even exist in the first place and Chuev would have to rewrite hours of conversations from his memory alone. Meaning that even if those interviews happened, they are of very low accuracy and consist of as much Molotov's testimony as from Chuev's retranslation of them.

It's a big joke.

 No.1274603

>>1274601
<- Вячеслав Михайлович был участником самых значимых событий ХХ века, прожил долгую жизнь, но мемуаров не оставил. Почему?

<- Самым серьезным аргументом для него было то, что ни Ленин, ни Сталин мемуаров не писали. К тому же он не имел доступа к документам. «Хорошо, - говорил, - Черчиллю: лежит себе в ванне, все документы под рукой, и надиктовывает свои мемуары». Да и не хотел дед писать в корзину, понимая, что воспоминания не будут опубликованы. И еще: он очень хорошо понимал, что у семьи могли быть проблемы, если его мемуары опубликуют. Хотя, мне казалось, я его уже почти что уговорил, даже специально для этого купил магнитофон, но после первой же записи он это дело прекратил.

 No.1274604

>>1274601
I'm scrolling Chuyev's book right now. Check this out:

>В половине наших встреч, да, точно, в семидесяти из ста сорока, в 1970–1977 годах участвовал Шота Иванович Кванталиани, историк по образованию, добрейший человек, с живым, ярким, моторным характером. Он умер внезапно в декабре 1977 года – и 50-ти не было.


Chuyev claims that at half the interviews with Molotov there was ANOTHER PERSON present - Shota Ivanovich Kvantaliani (Kvantaliani family name), who died in 1977. How convenient that there's no eyewitnesses despite everything, lol

 No.1274605

>>1274601
>Here is the interview with Motov's grandson
Post recordings or this interview didn't happen.
>>1274597
>Sources are analysed based on their context to stablish level of sredibilit and then corraborated as a whole along with other evidenc
And yet the vast majority of historians consider both the interviews and the archives to be valid as primary sources, meaning that they have been subjected to this exact process of scrutiny and found to be credible.
>>1274599
>We have attempts to legitimize claims by pushing into the archives fakes
Once again, when something contradicts your views just claim it's a fake lmao.

 No.1274607

>>1274603
>- Дед считал, что многие репрессированы заслуженно. Поймите, он был из разряда людей, которые прошли через тюрьмы, ссылки, гражданскую войну. Тогда ведь жертв гораздо больше было. В гражданскую погибло 15 миллионов человек, в том числе от голода и болезней.

Grandson says that Molotov has said that 15 million people died in Civil War, Jesus Christ. That grandson was a historian himself, lmao.

 No.1274608

>>1274605
>Once again, when something contradicts your views just claim it's a fake lmao.

Yes. Can you prove it's not fake? I've presented evidence that AT LEAST suggests that there should be MORE EVIDENCE that a thing happened. Instead all I get is you crying that nobody believes you without proof

 No.1274609

>>1274608
>Can you prove it's not fake?
<Can you prove a negative?
Lmao.
>I've presented evidence
No you haven't, you just insisted that it's fake because there were no published recordings even though this is the case for most biographies based on interviews.

 No.1274610

https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4_%D1%81_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BC:_%D0%98%D0%B7_%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%A4._%D0%A7%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0

So, quotes.

>– Но тогдашняя официальная доктрина была: воевать будем на чужой территории, малой кровью.


Bullshit, there was no official doctrine of fighting a war on others' territory with little blood. This shit comes from Tukhachevsky's attempts at war doctrine, and USSR was specifically NOT FOLLOWING Tukhachevsky's retardation. Molotov could not not have known that

>— Чаем поил. И разговаривал насчет того, что вот надо бы встретиться со Сталиным, когда удобнее… Сталин его не принимал несколько дней и попросил меня: «Поезжай к нему, посмотри, что за тип». Жил он на даче Сталина, на Ближней. Я поговорил с ним и сказал Сталину, что его стоит принять. Человек он умный, крестьянский вождь, такой китайский Пугачёв.


According to Chuyev, Molotov has said that 1) Stalin asked Molotov to vet Mao before meeting personally 2) That Mao was Chinese Pughachov, a peasant rebellion leader (and implied that not communist). Yep, totally believable

>Ленин понимал, что с точки зрения осложнения дел в партии и государстве очень разлагающе действовал Троцкий. Опасная фигура. Чувствовалось, что Ленин рад бы был от него избавиться, да не может. А у Троцкого хватало сильных, прямых сторонников, были также и ни то, ни се, но признающие его большой авторитет. Троцкий – человек достаточно умный, способный и пользовался огромным влиянием. Даже Ленин, который вел с ним непримиримую борьбу, вынужден был опубликовать в «Правде», что у него нет разногласий с Троцким по крестьянскому вопросу. Помню, это возмутило Сталина, как несоответствующее действительности, и он пришел к Ленину. Ленин отвечает: «А что я могу сделать? У Троцкого в руках армия, которая сплошь из крестьян. У нас в стране разруха, а мы покажем народу, что еще и наверху грыземся!»


Says that Lenin wanted to get rid of Trotksy, but couldn't do anything about him because "Trotsky has a peasant army in his hands". Meanwhile in reality, Trotsky ran away from under Lenin's direct rule over the army on his armored train and almost got imprisoned for it, lmao. Lenin's direct rule over the army, which made Trotsky seethe uncontrollably, was a fact, and yet Molotov again didn't know that?

>— Конечно, Ленин. Строгий был. В некоторых вещах строже Сталина. Почитайте его записки Дзержинскому. Он нередко прибегал к самым крайним мерам, когда это было необходимо. Тамбовское восстание приказал подавить, сжигать все. Я как раз был на обсуждении. Он никакую оппозицию терпеть не стал бы, если б была такая возможность. Помню, как он упрекал Сталина в мягкотелости и либерализме. «Какая у нас диктатура? У нас же кисельная власть, а не диктатура!»


Claims that Lenin was harsher than Stalin, and that Lenin ordered to destroy Tambov Rebellion in blood. For you who do not know, back in 1990s Tambov Rebellion was a big anticommunist topic ala "no, you dumb communist, didn't like communism and didn't rebel against the Tsar, here, there was this Tambov Rebellion where people have risen up against you! It proves you where conquerors, not people's rulers!" Curious how Molotov admits to anticommunist myths :^)

>>1274609
We talk about truth here and not about silly debate rules. Grow up past American schooling system, lmao, those don't apply to reality

 No.1274611

>>1274604
Yeah almost 10 years before Molotov himself did.
>>1274605
>Post recordings or this interview didn't happen.
The interview is published while the other party is ALIVE. He is STILL alive. Interview was published 12 years ago, it is reasonable to assume that if they just fake interviewing high ranking state official, he would notice and there would be repercussions.

Please stop trying to parrot my arguments and try to actually understand the reasoning behind them.

>And yet the vast majority of historians consider both the interviews and the archives to be valid as primary sources

I don't need personal opinion of historians when i have methodology to check sources with. Most proper historians (meaning ourside of sovietology field) wouldn't consider this book as source of anything else but author's opinions.

Again, you don't understand the actual arguments. Or you do, you just too stubborn/cowardly to admit you are wrong and reevaluate your position with intellectual honesty.

>>1274607
>Grandson says that Molotov has said that 15 million people died in Civil War, Jesus Christ. That grandson was a historian himself, lmao.
Actually he didn't say that molotov said that. They only thing that he attributes to Molotov himself is opinion that majority of people were repressed for a good reason. The rest is his own narrative.

>>1274609
So you admit there is ZERO evidence to those interview happening and your only argument is "you can't prove that they didn't happen". You do understand that it's the exact position of religious lunatic on existence of god?

>No you haven't, you just insisted that it's fake because there were no published recordings even though this is the case for most biographies based on interviews.

Zero evidence to something happening means it didn't really happen. Otherwise we go into territory of "you can't prove unicorns don't exist".

 No.1274616

>>1274609
>Can you prove a negative?
But that is exactly what you are asking us to do. We ask you to provide evidence to POSITIVE statement - "this interview happened", you are asking us to provide evidence to NEGATIVE statement - "this interview didn't happen".

At least learn the actual meaning of words you use.

How old are you, btw?

 No.1274618

>>1274610
>— Программа скандальная для коммунистов. Коммунизм в 1980 году — вот уже 1981 год — нет коммунизма! И не может его быть, и не могло его быть. Не могло быть ни при каких условиях к 1980 году, потому что надо достраивать социализм. <…> Не могло этого быть, по науке никак не может быть, нет ни внутренних условий, ни международных. Коммунизм требует обязательно и того, и другого – завершить построение социализма и вместе с тем двигаться вперед. Но у нас оно не завершено и сейчас. Поэтому я и указываю, что политической задачей остается завершение построения социализма. Дай бог, это тоже потребует не одной пятилетки и, может, даже не одного десятилетия.

Ah, and here Molotov says the dumbest shit that communism is impossible while there exists capitalism elsewhere. Molotov was a real communist, you know? And yet he says this Khruschevite cope

 No.1274620

>>1274611
>it is reasonable to assume that if they just fake interviewing high ranking state official
No it isn't. What makes it "reasonable" to assume that?
>Most proper historians (meaning ourside of sovietology field) wouldn't consider this book as source of anything else but author's opinions.
Source: your ass. Historians aren't going to automatically doubt the authenticity of a document unless there is a specific reason to. You yourself are readily admitting that you're only doing it based on an assumption
.>>1274616
>We ask you to provide evidence to POSITIVE statement - "this interview happened", you are asking us to provide evidence to NEGATIVE statement - "this interview didn't happen".
I'm presenting the transcripts of the interviews as evidence that they happened. You are claiming that these are not valid evidence, but don't have any actual basis for doing so. Instead you're just turning around and insisting on additional evidence, even though doing so presupposes that the transcripts themselves aren't valid. Your position is entirely circular.

 No.1274623

>>1274620
>No it isn't. What makes it "reasonable" to assume that?

Cause there's no law that punishes historians for faking documents, lol, and historians need to eat something, so they have incentive to fake interviews for money.

>I'm presenting the transcripts of the interviews as evidence that they happened.


Where's the transcripts?

 No.1274627

>>1274623
>>1274620
>Cause there's no law that punishes historians for faking documents, lol,

By the way, memorial foundation in Russia is now "a foreign agent", and various Gulag museums stopped receiving government checks. How easy it is for a state to stop supporting one or the other "official history", yikes

 No.1274628

>>1274623
>Cause there's no law that punishes historians for faking documents, lol
That's not a reasonable basis for an assumption that they're faked.
>Where's the transcripts?
The book is almost entirely transcripts.

 No.1274629

File: 1668966339201.jpg (53.31 KB, 400x400, 16661145903940.jpg)

>>1274628
>The book is almost entirely transcripts.

So, you presented no transcripts, you presented your stupid book, and then claimed that presenting the book proves the book. Congratulations, you are religious

 No.1274632

>>1274629
>and then claimed that presenting the book proves the book
I'm saying that hundreds of pages of transcripts of interviews is evidence that they happened. You're just saying that they don't count as real evidence for no reason.

 No.1274637

>>1274632
>I'm saying that hundreds of pages of transcripts of interviews is evidence that they happened

No, they are not. You can't prove something by itself. You were specifically asked to show proof book is right, you tried to fool everyone by saying "transcripts", and then when asked to show those transcripts you just said "read the book".

Dude, you are religious. You don't prove something by that something, you need other accounts to prove it. You tried to prove it by saying "but h-historians accept it", but it's not a proof either because their acceptance is based off the book as well. That's religious shit right here.

Meanwhile, >>1274610
>>1274618
Here I am showing how book contradicts reality.

 No.1274639

>>1274620
>No it isn't. What makes it "reasonable" to assume that?
Because it is a direct attribution. Duh. Are you an idiot?
If you learn of the faked interview with yourself and could do something about it, would you do it? A person of sound mental capabilities would, which is why it is reasonable to assume that. If those "interviews" were published way before Molotov's death, we could also reasonably assume that he heard of them and if he didn't publish any refutation we would assume he agrees with them and they really happened.
>Historians aren't going to automatically doubt the authenticity of a document unless there is a specific reason to.
Except there is no document. There is a book published in 90s, meaning that without any other evidence it could only be a historical source for that time period and a source of uathor's opinions.
>I'm presenting the transcripts of the interviews as evidence that they happened.
No you are not. First of all, book is not a transcript, it is presented in a compilation of cut out parts of different conversations organized by theme, meaning that it is NOT a trasncript. Buy a fucking dictionary, moron. Or at least google the words you are using. And there is zero evidence to attribute this book to Molotov. That's it.
>You are claiming that these are not valid evidence, but don't have any actual basis for doing so.
You are using existence of published book as proof that events described in that book actually happened. It is no evidence of anything except of your severe mental retardation.

 No.1274641

>>1274627
>By the way, memorial foundation in Russia is now "a foreign agent"
Doesn't matter, tehre are hundreds of other anticommunist organizations. They had problem with this one because it recieved fundings from abroad and also pushed a narrative that wasn't well received by current government (i.e. puting building a new ussr)
>and various Gulag museums stopped receiving government checks
False.

 No.1274647

>>1274632
You can't provide any evidence that this book is "transcript" of anything but Chuev's fantasies and desire to cash a publisher's cheque.

Can you please provide your real name and name of your mother so that after her death i could publish 700 pages of "transcripts" of her agreeing to suck my dick and eat my shit.

 No.1274649

>>1274637
>You can't prove something by itself.
I'm not. You are asking for evidence that the interviews happened. The extensive transcripts of the interviews compiled in the book are such evidence. You're claiming that this evidence isn't valid, but this claim has no basis.
>Here I am showing how book contradicts reality.
No you're showing how the book contradicts your opinions.
>>1274639
>A person of sound mental capabilities would, which is why it is reasonable to assume that.
No it isn't. Again, it isn't reasonable to just assume that the Autobiography of Malcolm X was all fabricated, and nobody does this. This is a work based on interviews, released after the death of the subject, the transcripts and recordings of which are not published. Yet the authenticity of the document is not questioned, despite the fact that you're insisting that any historian outside the field of Sovietology would do so.
>book is not a transcript
The book is primarily composed of written versions of oral questions and answers in the interview. It's a transcript by definition.
>it is presented in a compilation of cut out parts of different conversations organized by theme
That's called curating, and every biographer does it with this kind of material.
>You are using existence of published book as proof that events described in that book actually happened
I'm using the transcribed interviews published in the book as proof that the interviews happened.

 No.1274652

>>1274637
Jesus fucking Christ

>– С этим делом мы, конечно, немножко переборщили, но на юге кое-что намечалось. Однако во всем надо знать меру, а то можно и подавиться.


Вопрос о Прибалтике, Западной Украине, Западной Белоруссии и Бессарабии мы решили с Риббентропом в 1939 году. Немцы неохотно шли на то, что мы присоединим к себе Латвию, Литву, Эстонию и Бессарабию. Когда через год, в ноябре 1940 года, я был в Берлине, Гитлер спросил меня: «Ну хорошо, украинцев, белорусов вы объединяете вместе, ну, ладно, молдаван, это еще можно объяснить, но как вы объясните всему миру Прибалтику?»

Here Molotov straight up admits to dividing Europe with Ribbentrop, lmao. That's ahistorical shit, Chuyev just admits to crimes Molotov and USSR simply didn't commit.

>Министр иностранных дел Латвии приехал к нам в 1939 году, я ему сказал: «Обратно вы уж не вернетесь, пока не подпишете присоединение к нам».


>Из Эстонии к нам приехал военный министр, я уж забыл его фамилию, популярный был, мы ему то же сказали. На эту крайность мы должны были пойти. И выполнили, по-моему, неплохо.


Here he says they forced Estonia and Latvia into USSR. Again, ahistorical bullshit. Released documents of Soviet foreign relationships from state archives contradict this Molotov claim. I've been copy pasting excerpts from those documents a couple of months ago, it was a completely different story there.

>Если бы мы не вышли навстречу немцам в 1939 году, они заняли бы всю Польшу до границы. Поэтому мы с ними договорились. Они должны были согласиться. Это их инициатива – Пакт о ненападении. Мы не могли защищать Польшу, поскольку она не хотела с нами иметь дело. Ну и поскольку Польша не хочет, а война на носу, давайте нам хоть ту часть Польши, которая, мы считаем, безусловно принадлежит Советскому Союзу.


"We did a treaty with Germans for half a Poland because otherwise Germans would have annexed the entire Poland!" Again, Chuyev just admits from Molotov's POV to every Soviet crime invented in 1990s and in the West during Cold War. Secret Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols didn't exist, and sphere of influence was a normal thing.

>– А Бессарабию мы никогда не признавали за Румынией. Помните, она была у нас заштрихована на карте? Так вот, когда она нам понадобилась, вызываю я этого Гэфенку, даю срок, чтоб они вывели свои войска, а мы введем свои.


>– Вы вызвали Гэфенку, румынского посла?


>– Да, да.


>«Давайте договариваться. Мы Бессарабию никогда не признавали за вами, ну а теперь лучше договариваться, решать такие вопросы». Он сразу: «Я должен запросить правительство». Конечно, раскис весь. «Запросите и приходите с ответом». Пришел потом.


>– А с немцами вы обговаривали, что они не будут вам мешать с Бессарабией?


>– Когда Риббентроп приезжал, мы тогда договорились. Попутно мы говорили непосредственно с Румынией, там контактировали.


Again, contradicts official documents from archives. It were actually the Romanians themselves who started Bessarabia transfer talks, because the results of Finnish war made them very fucking talkative.

So, I just proved Molotov book to be fake. Congrats to you, sabocat, for believing a book of lies

 No.1274655

>>1274652
>Again, contradicts official documents from archives.
You mean the archives that are all fake and unreliable?

 No.1274659

>>1274649
>No you're showing how the book contradicts your opinions.

No, I'm showing how it contradicts documents from the archives >>1274652

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, i've lost the damn link AGAIN. Wait a bit, i'll go trying to find an actual document, not a RESEARCH by some HISTORIAN, in that cesspool that refuses to show me original texts

 No.1274663

>>1274659
>No, I'm showing how it contradicts documents from the archives
You mean the archives full of fakes that can't be relied upon?

 No.1274665

>>1274663
You should have been reading what i've been writing. Added fakes don't remove existing documents, so all those added fakes do is to create contradictions in archives.

 No.1274668

File: 1668967788842.gif (1.14 MB, 250x250, chuckle.gif)

>The archives are full of fakes except for the documents that say things I like
>There's no evidence that the Molotov interviews took place except for the hundreds of pages of transcripts which don't count
>Sources should be assessed according to a rigorous methodology, but also all the people who apply that methodology to the archives and interviews are lying
Thank you for confirming this thread as an absolute circus.

 No.1274671

>>1274665

AAAAAAAA I hate this shit. How do I get one book of this set http://militera.org/docs/all/d/b22805/ It's one of those with the diplomatic exchanges of USSR in 1938+, and it totally contradicts Chuyev's Molotov shit

 No.1274672


 No.1274674

>>1274649
>No it isn't.
yes it is, just because you do not posess sound mental capabilities, doesn't mean other people don't.
>Again, it isn't reasonable to just assume that the Autobiography of Malcolm X was all fabricated, and nobody does this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autobiography_of_Malcolm_X#Collaboration_between_Malcolm_X_and_Haley
<Marable says the resulting text was stylistically and ideologically distinct from what Marable believes Malcolm X would have written without Haley's influence, and it also differs from what may have actually been said in the interviews between Haley and Malcolm X
Plenty of people actually do suggest that it's mostly fiction. Also, unlike with Chuev, there is tons of evidence if not proof - people do seen Malcolm X and Haley together, the fact that they were working together on the autobigraphy was known before Malcolm X death too, there is also shitload of author's notes that OTHER reasearchers got hand unto.
>the transcripts and recordings of which are not published
They actually are. Same article
<Marable studied the Autobiography manuscript "raw materials" archived by Haley's biographer, Anne Romaine, and described a critical element of the collaboration, Haley's writing tactic to capture the voice of his subject accurately, a disjoint system of data mining that included notes on scrap paper, in-depth interviews, and long "free style" discussions. Marable writes, "Malcolm also had a habit of scribbling notes to himself as he spoke." Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in a sub rosa attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative".[25] This is an example of Haley asserting authorial agency during the writing of the Autobiography, indicating that their relationship was fraught with minor power struggles. Wideman and Rampersad agree with Marable's description of Haley's book-writing process.[32]

Nothing like this exists for Chuev's book. Not. A. Single. Piece. Of. Evidence.

>The book is primarily composed of written versions of oral questions and answers in the interview. It's a transcript by definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcript
< a written, printed, or typed copy
This book is not a copy of those conversations. Even if we assume those conversations happened, it is clear that they are not written as they were actually happened. It is a collection of quotes from different conversations arranged freely together. You don't know everything that they talked about, so you can't even know if those quotes are taken out of context, for example. You can take several conversation and take out aprts of them and rearrange together in a way that they would tell a completely different story from original.
>That's called curating, and every biographer does it with this kind of material.
Which is why biography is NOT a transcript.
>I'm using the transcribed interviews published in the book as proof that the interviews happened.
<Author said he didn't lie, so i believed him. His book is proof enough alone.
Sure. At least you can take solace in the fact that you are not as retarded as king lear.

 No.1274675

>>1274668
>to prove that my book is right I present you my book that says my book is right
>I am smart

 No.1274678

>>1274668
Check out what communist Molotov was saying

– Ходят разговоры о том, что перед войной вы со Сталиным, чтобы задобрить Гитлера, решили отдать ему Прибалтику…

– Это не имеет ничего общего с действительностью. Мы [c. 19] прекрасно понимали, что Гитлера подобный шаг не только не остановит, но, наоборот, разожжет его аппетит. А нам самим пространство нужно.

– Писатели это говорят…

– Писатели могут быть обывательского толка. Абсолютная ерунда. Прибалтика нам самим была нужна.

– Ты все записывай, – говорит мне Шота Иванович. – Пользуйся счастливым случаем: «Находясь у В.М. Молотова, я поднял этот вопрос…» Ни один писатель так близко не бывает, как ты. И это надо сберечь. Пройдет пять-шесть лет, это будет очень полезно.

– И может пригодиться, – говорит Молотов. – Могут появиться новые вопросы.

<we needed Baltic States ourselves! We needed SPACE!


Come on, dude, have some fucking dignity, don't believe retarded books

 No.1274682

>>1274668
>The archives are full of fakes except for the documents that say things I like
No one is saying that except you, moron. Historical truth is established by corroboration of different historical sources. If say 5 of different sources say one thing and 1 other says something that contradict it and is not more reliable than other 5, then this one is considered to be wrong. It is as simple as that. So yeah, the archives can have fakes and mistakes and yet we can still pull some historical truth out of them by cross-referencing them with each other and other evidence.

You are trying to present someone saying "this specific document is fake or wrong because more documents, not less reliable than this one, say other thing" as "it's all fakes". You are doing this either because you are really to stupid to understand nuance or you are intellectually dishonest coward. I don't really care which one.

 No.1274686

>>1274678
More bullshit.

Когда приезжал Риббентроп в 1939 году, мы договорились, а в сентябре-октябре уже свое взяли. А иначе нельзя. Время не теряли. И договорились, что в пограничных с нами государствах, в первую очередь в Финляндии, которая находится на расстоянии пятидесяти километров от Ленинграда, не будет немецких войск. И в Румынии – пограничное с нами государство – там не будет никаких войск, кроме румынских. «А вы держите и там, и там большие войска». Политические вопросы. Мы много говорили.

Он мне: «Великобритания – вот об этом надо разговаривать». Я ему: «И об этом поговорим. Что вы хотите? Что вы предлагаете?» – «Давайте мы мир разделим. Вам надо на юг, к теплым морям пробиться».

<we won't have troops there! You need to break towards south sea to India!


It's like I am reading pdox games MP AAR, lmao. Compare to actual real life diplomacy from here >>1274672 >>1274671

 No.1274690

>>1274682
>No one is saying that except you, moron. Historical truth is established by corroboration of different historical sources.
I simply don't believe that you have either done the research or possess the capacity to determine which are fakes and which aren't, and it really seems like you're doing it purely based on what confirms what you already believe.

 No.1274694

>>1274690
>I simply don't believe that you have either done the research or possess the capacity to determine which are fakes and which aren't
And you don't believe based on what, pray tell? It is quite clear in this thread that you are the one lacking any credible source for your position.
>and it really seems like you're doing it purely based on what confirms what you already believe.
Can you please stop parroting what i say? It is childish.

Getty is a hack and you are a moron.

 No.1274696

File: 1668969030838.png (154.78 KB, 288x288, 16533063564910.png)

>>1274690
I'm literally posting you a link to DIPLOMATIC MAIL of USSR in 1938+, with a lot of it from Molotov, and tell you to compare Chuyev's fakery to actual Molotov diplomatic writings

Abridged version of things that do not match are all over the thread.

 No.1274701

>>1274696
FUCKING LMAO

>– Нас упрекают, что не обратили внимания на разведку. Предупреждали, да. Но, если бы мы пошли за разведкой, дали малейший повод, он бы раньше напал.


>Мы знали, что война не за горами, что мы слабей Германии, что нам придется отступать. Весь вопрос был в том, докуда нам придется отступать – до Смоленска или до Москвы, это перед войной мы обсуждали.


Molotov apparently said that "we knew that we are weaker, that we will have to roll back a lot in case of an attack", but earlier there was a quote where Molotov was saying that USSR's war doctrine was "with little blood, on enemy's territory" (per Tukhachevsky). Come on now, Chuyev can't even remember what he was writing multiple chapters earlier, lol

 No.1274702

>>1274696
Bruh you can't honestly just post a link to a bunch of digitized documents and leave it at that. If you're going to make this argument then you need to specifically cite the passages in the document that contradicts a specific passage in the interview. Then, because you allege that the archives are full of fakes, you need to demonstrate what makes this particular document more credible than the interview. Even if you do all that, it wouldn't prove that the interviews didn't take place, since discrepancies like that could be explained by Molotov misremembering things.

 No.1274703

>>1274702
>Even if you do all that, it wouldn't prove that the interviews didn't take place, since discrepancies like that could be explained by Molotov misremembering things.
If he became so senile that he says opposite thing from what actually happened, oppositre from what he wrote himself, then you can just throw away the whole book anyway.
>Bruh you can't honestly just post a link to a bunch of digitized documents and leave it at that.
He does more than you ever did in this thread. At least comply to his level of sourcing standard before complaining. Read, uygha, read.

 No.1274705

>>1274702
Dude, those documents have 26 tomes, in multiple books each, with each book having 800+ pages. I'VE READ THOSE LETTERS I'm taking about, believe me, and only those relevant passages and letters I KNOW ABOUT from reading them I talk about. You can possibly google in those docs and find Finland and WW2-related shit, like Romanian envoy offering USSR talks about Bessarabia directly after Finnish war ended, like Baltic states negotiating independent trade with Reich while under Soviet "occupation", stuff like that.

Also, you did offer me to read the book as a proof transcripts happened, so HAHA at you

 No.1274708

>>1274702
>Even if you do all that, it wouldn't prove that the interviews didn't take place, since discrepancies like that could be explained by Molotov misremembering things.

HAHAHA, literally came about a passage from Chuyev about this

>…Сколько раз беседуем на эту тему, столько раз уточняю. И через пять, и через десять, и через пятнадцать лет Вячеслав Михайлович говорит одинаково, и у него это – не попытка оправдания, а неколебимое убеждение. Вот сидим на даче в Жуковке, приехал писатель Иван Стаднюк. Молотов следит за публикацией его романа «Война», оценивает положительно, дает советы. Прочитав третью книгу романа, упрекнул автора в том, что у него Сталин высказывает предположение о том, что немцы не нападут на нас ранее 1942 года, – Стаднюк в данном случае опирается на воспоминания маршала К.А. Мерецкова.


Chuyev says that Molotov had the same opinion about the start of the WW2, about Hitler attacking suddenly, for 15 years. Same opinion, no misremembers, always the same. How cute

 No.1274709

>>1274701
>but earlier there was a quote where Molotov was saying that USSR's war doctrine was "with little blood, on enemy's territory"
Wait… are you serious? Molotov doesn't say that. Chuev does, and Molotov corrects him and says this was not the doctrine. Are you actually illiterate?
From the English version:
>(Chuev): But official doctrine at the time was that the war would be fought on
foreign soil, to spill little of our blood.
<(Molotov): Who could draft such a doctrine—if you please, invade our territory, and, if you please, fight here?! Of course the minister of war would say, “Little of
our blood will be spilled, and the war will be fought on foreign territory!”
That’s just propaganda. Such sloganeering prevailed over our real policy.
This too was necessary and indispensable.
>>1274703
>At least comply to his level of sourcing standard before complaining. Read, uygha, read.
He can't even tell which parts of the book are Chuev's questions and which are Molotov's answers.

 No.1274711

>>1274709
<He can't even tell which parts of the book are Chuev's questions and which are Chuev's answers.
Stop dodging you snake. It is about sourcing your claims, and you done none of that while only complaining that people don't present their sources exactly as you wish tey would. Fuck off and learn how ctrl + f works already.

 No.1274712

>>1274709
>That’s just propaganda. Such sloganeering prevailed over our real policy.

Except it wasn't even a real slogan, lmao. There's zero proofs anyone said such a slogan in real life officially, it was Triandafillov's doctrine which Tuchachevsky pushed for adoption, but it never was adopted, Dzerghinsky's doctrine of exchanging territory for enemy corpses was. Say, when historians try to prove that USSR wanted to attack Germany, all they can work with is memoirs of one and a half of officers who "heard" some talks of higher ups of fighting a war on enemy territory, lmao

 No.1274718

>>1274711
Nobody has sourced anything! All that's been done is posting links to collections of documents without even citing which particular one contradicts particular claims in Chuev's book, or why those particular documents should be taken as reliable while others should not be. When pressed on this the response was literally "I've read them, trust me bro lmao". Embarrassing.

 No.1274721

More nonsense.

>– То ли Жуков ошибается, то ли я запамятовал, – говорит Молотов. – Позвонил Жуков. Он не сказал, что война началась, но опасность на границе уже была. Либо бомбежка, либо получили другие тревожные сведения. Вполне возможно, что настоящей войны еще не было, но уже накал был такой, что в штабе поняли: необходимо собраться. В крайнем случае, около двух часов ночи мы собрались в Кремле, у Сталина, – когда с дачи едешь, минут тридцать-тридцать пять надо.


>– Но Жуков пишет, что разбудил Сталина и доложил, что бомбят. Значит, уже в час ночи бомбили?


Zhukov was a general, one of many. There was no reason whatsoever for Stalin to talk to Zhukov over whether or not Germans have declared war onto USSR, lol. That's bullshit gleamed straight from Zhukov's memoirs where he invented loads upon loads of bullshit about his participation in the war. During Khruschev Zhukov was even repressed for such glory hounding, but when Zhukov agreed to corroborat other glory hounds' stories (check just how many war medals Brezhnev had - compared to Zhukov), Zhukov was let back into Soviet pantheon

>>1274718
Let's twist it a little bit. YOU don't have any proofs to validity of this interview, so how about you go snooping into official archival documents I posted and prove that they don't contradict each other? :^)

 No.1274727

>>1274721
>Когда началась война, рассказывает Молотов, он со Сталиным ездил в Наркомат обороны. С ними был Маленков и еще кто-то. Сталин довольно грубо разговаривал с Тимошенко и Жуковым.

Lmao, Stalin together with Zhukov travelled to people's commissariat of defence for clarifications on June 22th. Jesus Christ, Zhukov was a GENERAL at the time, not anyone fucking important, why would Stalin travel with him anywhere, you Chuyev fucktard

 No.1274740

>>1274718
>Nobody has sourced anything!
Are you blind or retarded?

 No.1274744

>>1274718
>When pressed on this the response was literally "I've read them, trust me bro lmao".
The actual response was - "read them, faggot". No one asked you to trust us.

Last time we had this conversation you never quoted anything either, i had to wade through this entire shitty book of yours to find the claim about torture (in the end the actual phrase was different from what you have claimed it to be), so don't complain when people don't bother to look for exact paragraph in their sources either.

 No.1274748

>>1274727
>…Читаю Вячеславу Михайловичу стенограмму встречи генерала армии С.М. Штеменко с читателями. Штеменко говорит: «В книге В. Соколова «Вторжение», неизвестно по какой причине, неправдоподобно излагается начало войны… Он считает, что армию у нас до войны учили только наступать. Ну и что же? Мы и сейчас учим армию наступать, иначе армия никогда не одержит победу. Это истина, известная еще Спартаку. Далее, он критикует и ставит под сомнение правильность нашей военной доктрины… Не веря в Сталина, невозможно было б в такой обстановке победить врага».

>– Правильно, – говорит Молотов.


Yet more about Tukhachevsky's doctrine supposedly being the Soviet official doctrine. Here it's twisted through Shtemenko (some general?) words that soldiers get taught to attack because otherwise army won't ever win, lol

>В этот период у Сталина находилось пять полнокомплектных армий, вооруженных новой техникой. Под Москвой операциями тогда командовал Жуков, и, несмотря на его неоднократные просьбы и мольбы, Сталин не дал ему ни одного батальона и сказал, чтобы он любой ценой продержался. Тогда мы считали, что Сталин допускает ошибку. В декабре месяце, когда немецкие войска были обескровлены, Сталин ввел эти войска в действие. Немец от Москвы был отброшен.


>Тогда мы только поняли, насколько Сталин велик не только в стратегии, но и в тактике.


And here Molotov supposedly says that Stalin was commanding tyrannicaly, all alone, and was personally denying reinforcements to everyone - just to use them in a critical moment to destroy Germans! LMAO, Chuyev has no fucking clue how Stavka worked, how army works, how reinforcements work. Come on now

 No.1274752

>>1274748
I think you can stop now. Everybody else can already see how stupid this book is. And sabofag wouldn't change his mind even if we resurrected Molotov himself or time travelled back to when he was alive and got his testimony.

 No.1274788

File: 1668974225612.jpg (22.87 KB, 640x360, 640px-Honklhonk.jpg)

>Chuev's interviews are contradicted by the archival material (archival material which needs to be assessed on a case by case basis due to the existence of fakes)!
>Post a bunch of opinions without backing
>Posts massive collections of documents without any elaboration about which documents contradict which claims
>Doesn't post any reasoning as to why any such documents (if they even exist somewhere in the collection) are reliable and not fakes
If this were a first year history course you would get an F.

 No.1274803

>>1274788
yeah im starting to recognize why "stalinists" like him are fringe

 No.1274807

>>1274803
According to OP he's even fringe among Russian pro-Stalin writers.

 No.1274808


 No.1275550

>>1274788
The only clown here is you, sabofag. You claim that a published book is a prooft of it's own truth. You can't provide a SINGLE piece of evidence that those interviews with Molotov happened yet you keep pretending that it's not just some cash grab on Chuev part, but a real interview.

 No.1275552

Boomer: Check
Communist: Check
Skitzo: Check
"History buff": Check

Oh yeah, its all coming together

 No.1275569

>>1275552
With all those marks he's probably correct

 No.1275612

According to Chuev himself, the actual trasncripts take 5 thousand pages
>Темы бесед с Молотовым были весьма разнообразны, они касались самых напряженных моментов послеоктябрьской истории нашей страны. Это – краткий конспект встреч с Молотовым, дневниковые записи наших бесед. Здесь небольшая часть моего «молотовского дневника», составляющего свыше 5 тысяч страниц на машинке. Да, все эти годы я постоянно вел отдельный дневник, детально записывая каждую беседу, каждое высказывание, а в последующие встречи переспрашивая, уточняя.

Page 3, second paragraph of the book. None were published or shared with other writers/researchers.

This is just to show how retarded sabofag is, since he didn't read the actual book nor even know what a fucking transcript is, while screeching aout how this book is an actual transcript and we just should believe Chuev.

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=12E27D4EE366563C375CCF3F4E52E1DB
Link to the book, since i can't attach fb2 apparentely.


Unique IPs: 69

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]