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

/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: 1718135337084.jpg (2.47 MB, 4032x3024, PXL_20240611_194611362.jpg)

 

Are stalinists unironically retarded?

Stalin's refusal to believe in an imminent German attack can be seen as a tragic blend of stubbornness and miscalculation. Despite mounting evidence, he clung to a precarious sense of security, convinced that war was not on the immediate horizon. This skepticism created a false calm, a dangerous underestimation of the threat, and a reluctance to prepare adequately. His mindset fostered an atmosphere of denial, where warnings were ignored, and preparations were delayed. Stalin's disbelief was more than a simple error; it was a profound misreading of intentions, a costly oversight that led to severe consequences. His unwavering stance, rooted in a mix of strategic reasoning and personal conviction, ultimately set the stage for one of the most shocking and devastating invasions in history.(Retarded Sectarianism)

 

>>1883134
>Are stalinists unironically retarded?
idk but your post doesn't mention them much. just stalin himself, which i would hope any reasonable "stalinist" would be able to criticise.

 

>the only thing worse than the invading nazis is Stalin

 

It feels like OP forgot to write a couple of sentences.

 

no. they are ironically retarded.

 

>>1883134
I think the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was probably a huge mistake but it could be rationalized as a terrible tactical necessity (which is a different thing from being principled) and it'd also be a mistake to assume the people at this time were operating with some kind of omnipotent total knowledge and foresight.

 

You're wrong, OP.
- In May­ to June 800,000 reservists were called up.
- In mid-May 28 divisions were ordered to the western districts of the USSR.
- On 27 May these districts were ordered to build field command posts.
- In June 38,500 men were sent to the fortified areas of the border districts.
- On 12­-15 June the districts were ordered to move forces to the frontier.
- On 19 June, district HQs were ordered to move to new command posts. Orders were also issued to districts to camouflage targets and disperse aircraft.
- The day before the invasion Stalin issued an order for all troops at the border to go on alert
- Stalin spent the last months before the invasion overseeing military spending, preparing industries and transport for war
- As soon as the invasion started, the Evacuation Committee headed by Stalin ordered all industry moved to Siberia

>>1883161
>it'd also be a mistake to assume the people at this time were operating with some kind of omnipotent total knowledge and foresight.
That's very true. About Stalin's lack of trust. There were tons of contradictory reports coming from different sources: Soviet intelligence, German counterintelligence, Western intelligence, predictions by spies, diplomats, and so on. Many of these showed to be unreliable. Soviet intelligence believed Hitler would attack only when Britain was defeated, so did Stalin. They also believed the war with Germany would escalate at a slower pace, and not consist of history's largest invasion. Furthermore, Soviet leaders no longer trusted Western allies' intentions since the plans to bomb the USSR got leaked to the public. And Rudolf Hess's shocking defection only made the matter worse, the British actually used him to undermine Soviet diplomacy and spread the rumor that he was working on an alliance between Britain and Germany.

People think it's so easy to know and guess everything the enemy is doing.

 

Has anyone got links to porn?

 


 

>>1883305
>People think it's so easy to know and guess everything the enemy is doing.
There's also the fact that the invasion of the Soviet Union was a crazy-ass decision that led to the destruction of the Third Reich. I don't know if Stalin was projecting rational motivations onto Hitler, but… lesson learned.

 

>stalinism
No such thing

 

>>1883134
Montefiore drivel?

 

>>1883319
Stalin also projected the rational thing, that France would survive for like, more than 2 years. He could never really predict the "allies" would be this incompetent.

 

>>1883335
>incompetent
french financial elites prepared the surrender, it was more of a betrayal tbh, see the work of annie lacroix riz (although prolly not translated)

 

>>1883134
why all such thread start with a retard repeating anticommunist myths

 

>>1883338
Next OP is gonna say the next hit piece that Stalin shit himself in a room for weeks and did this to deviously test his power and to see who would dare initiate a coup in the middle of the largest ground invasion. It is ridiculous the amount of propaganda that surrounds Stalin to the point of cartoonish

 

>USSR BAD BECAUSE (insert hindsight)
Such a high school "smart kid" take. Stalin was trying to build an anti-fascist coalition and the liberal powers didn't want to and then Hitler struck first. It's not this grand betrayal you're revving in your tiny brain. Of all the "gotchas" you can pick, you pick the "haha he didn't predict Hitler going on an insane, suicidal attack early enough" GOTTEM. Stalin won that war too so your ramblings at the end is actual liberal cope.

 

>>1883316
porn sites should all have the extension .cum

 

File: 1718151604577.jpg (52.24 KB, 700x497, Molotov Ribbentrop.jpg)

Well hindsight is 20/20, and at the risk of torpedoing my reputation even more, I think it's important to recognize the "nuances" of geopolitics at the time.

A few points: firstly Stalin and the USSR were genuinely blindsided by how quickly the Germans defeated France, they seemed to be under the impression that the French could hold out much as they did in WWI, so when France fell they were faced with a dilemma: either break the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact early when it may not be sound for the USSR to do so, or attempt to buy time and build up their industrial capacity. It's also important to remember that at the time he lived Hitler was perceived less the "ultimate evil" we portray him as and more or a powerful dictator, ultimately still a human being, and I think that's really important in understanding the mindset that Stalin was operating under. Germany had all the appearance of a rising power and the U.K. was, at the time, the global capitalist hegemon (though it was still quickly being displaced by America) and so from the perspective of a dutiful Socialist you have a real conundrum in who you negotiate with. Churchill ultimately wanted the USSR in the war, but the Soviets would be fighting without the advantage of Germany being squeezed between them and France, at least in theory.

Which brings me to maybe the most controversial aspect of history.

Fascist-Communist Diplomacy
Again, modern historical narratives mythologize WWII and, if you're a Communist, it becomes a struggle between Sith and Jedi, Fascism and Communism. However in the realm of actual geopolitics, national relations are defined more by things like the balance of forces and mutual benefit rather than merely ideology. So within that reality, the relationship between the USSR and various Fascist nations (Italy first and later Nazi Germany) is more nuanced than the Hollywood version we get.

Stalin's Daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, claimed her father once said something along the lines of:
>“Together with the Germans we would be invincible!”

Granted she also defected from the USSR later in life and it's entirely likely she's exaggerated or even outright fabricated statements from her father in much the same way that defectors like Yeonmi Park create absurd stories about North Korea.

However we *do* have a message from Hitler to Stalin that does share light on the realpolitick that tinged diplomacy between the two leaders:

>“For a final solution of what to do with this bankrupt English legacy, and also for the consolidation of the union of socialist countries and the establishment of new world order, I would like very much to meet personally with you. I have spoken about this with Messrs. Molotov and Dekanozov.”

–Adolf Hitler, quoted in What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa by David E. Murphy

It should be noted that the German Diplomatic Corps may have genuinely attempted to pre-empt a war with the USSR by inviting them into the Axis, while later depicted as more or less another maneuver to buy time, Germany's diplomats seemed to have something of a cautious admiration and respect for Stalin, with Ribbentrop even apologizing when he issued the declaration of war!

One element that factored into Hitler's decision to declare war, at least argued by Russian historian (and alleged crank) Andrei Fursov, is that Hitler increasingly relied on intelligence from the Abwehr under Wilhelm Canaris, and that in fact it was *Canaris* who was (as an agent of the MI:6) pushing for war with the USSR as a means of helping Britain. It's known that Canaris would give contradictory reports and falsify information to disrupt the Nazi war machine, and so I would argue it's *possible* he was portraying an image of Stalin and the USSR to Hitler that didn't cohere to reality. Simultaneously I've also heard claims that Churchill tried to "warn" Stalin of an imminent German invasion, but Stalin himself wasn't entirely sure if he could trust Churchill and suspected this could've been an attempt to manipulate him into provoking the Germans.

Here's Fursov explaining it himself (bear in mind that from what I understand he also has a reputation as a conspiracist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krDxRp23quo

There's a hotly debated claim that on August 19th, 1939, Stalin gave a speech to the politburo where he said the following:

>"Let us look now at the second possibility – namely, that Germany becomes the victor. Some propose that this turn of events would present us with a serious danger. There is some truth in this notion. But it would be erroneous to believe that such a danger is as near and as great as they assume. If Germany achieves victory in the war, it will emerge from it in such a depleted state that to start a conflict with the USSR will take at least 10 years.


>Germany’s main task would be then to keep watch on the defeated England and France to prevent their restoration. On the other hand, a victorious Germany would have at its disposal a large territory. Over the course of many years, Germany would be preoccupied with the exploitation of these territories and establishing in them the German order. Obviously, Germany would be too preoccupied to move against us.


>There is still another factor that enhances our security. In the defeated France, the French Communist Party would be very strong. A Communist revolution would follow inevitably. We would exploit this in order to come to the aid of France and to win it over as an ally. Later these peoples who fell under the “protection” of a victorious Germany likewise would become our allies. We would have a large arena in which to develop the world revolution.


>Comrades! It is in the interests of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time. We must step up our propaganda within the combatant countries so that they are prepared for that time when the war ends."

— Joseph Stalin, speech to the Members of the politburo, August 19, 1939

So essentially: keep the war between the Germans and Allies going until both sides are exhausted, and then use the resulting world situation to spread communism. Again, while the historicity of these claims are debated, they may serve to highlight the often complex diplomacy between Fascist states and the USSR. Once you're thrust into the realm of global politics, you can't exactly adhere to a purely ideological line. The relationship between Hitler and Stalin is one clouded by mistrust, some begrudging respect, and the very real reality that relations between nations didn't exist in a bubble or with wholly accurate and complete information. It could very well be that Stalin thought he could negotiate with Hitler and was genuinely blindsided by the invasion, we aren't in Stalin's head and so we genuinely don't know what the thought process was. We can only speculate.

 

>>1883351
The book aludes indeed to this a few lines afterwards

 

>>1883378
I read all this

 

File: 1718154720051.jpg (78.1 KB, 792x768, 7nvy7ozt0o161.jpg)

>>1883387
One addendum worth mentioning is that famous Hitler line where he calls Stalin a "Cold-hearted Blackmailer" in that the Germans and Soviets had genuine and serious divisions in their diplomatic vision which made conflict, if not inevitable, than at the very least highly likely. Sure there's the issue of "Lebensraum" which made the Soviets see the Germans as a genuine security threat, but you also have Hitler desiring a kind of "self-sufficient" Germany, autarky in a word, for security reasons. Time and again it was the issue of trade and economics that allowed the British to to overcome continental powers in Europe and this is something that they utilized in war going all the way back to Napoleon. For Germany to "have its place in the sun" it needed to overcome Britain's strength in the global market. This is something you see in Fascist Italy's propaganda, where they claimed that Anglo Capitalists wanted the rest of the world to serve as sweatshop workers so they could get cheap consumer goods.

So in conducting diplomacy with the Soviets, Hitler repeatedly wanted to push them east and had encouraged them to claim India (Molotov discusses this in "Molotov Remembers") whereas the Soviets wanted a strong border on their west. That very same strong border however would endanger Germany's goals of self-sufficiency: with Russia's seizure of Bessarabia putting a major source of Germany's Oil and Gas supply in danger. From Hitler's perspective Soviet diplomatic goals would render Germany dependent on the USSR for a huge bulk of its resources, and perhaps even without a security guarantee. Imagine for a moment how America's relationship to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States would look if they had a robust weapons industry and industrial capacity, as well as the ability to strike other oil and gas reserves outside of their borders?

However from the Soviets perspective, German diplomacy seemed similarly absurd. Without a strong border they'd be susceptible to invasion from the West, not to mention that "conquering India" would drag them into a hot war with the world's pre-eminent capitalist power. The ideological divide between the two only reinforced mutual feelings of distrust and made war appear inevitable.

 

>Another retarded westoid thinking that bs cia put into his brain is actual history.
It all so tiresome.

 

>>1883378
The whole idea that Stalin was unprepared for the invasion is historical revisionism. To begin with, Soviet military doctrine WAS trading territory for enemy corpses since fucking Frunze. Then Soviets have voiced their objections to Germans "preparing invasion into Britain" close to Soviet borders. Soviets had placed troops deep in their territory, just like you are supposed to do in a mobile type of warfare. Retarded one line of defence ala Maginot is what capitulated both France and Finland in face of modern mobile warfare doctrine (and Soviets have capitulated Finland faster than Germans France, revisionists just like to pretend that Strange War didn't happen)

Next. People who genuinely believe that Stalin was supposed to listen to random ass deserters and diplomats and whatever just have no fucking idea how much similar nonsense happens every fucking day. Soviets had NKVD and foreign intelligence, Stalin listened to them, and took necessary steps to before 22 June. There was a silent mobilization underway, troops have received move and training orders weeks before the war happened. There's also the case of Yugoslavia postponing the invasion of USSR by a month or two

>b-but Germans have advanced deep!


They've lost 4 million troops in 1941 alone, or third of infantry and half of their tanks, almost no pre-1941 German pilots have survived to 1942, millions of horses died, which were the backbone of their logistics. Germans have looted and repurposed Europe's worth of weaponry to throw at USSR, and USSR still destroyed Germans, single-handedly grinding their armies to dust.

Germans had a plan to advance to Archangelsk-Astrakhan line before September, you know? They've planned to take Leningrad, Moscow AND Stalingrad in 2 months. Their plan hinged on USSR being retarded like France and putting all Soviets troops on the border, and then Germans breaking through and encircling everyone and avoiding the attrition warfare (that have murdered Nazis). Nazi propaganda that Soviets have lost 3 millions to encirclements wasn't proven by anything, it was just Goebbels repeating pre-war plans until Autumn came, until German HQ actually bothered to send trusted people to look at frontline situation of their troops. It turned out that modern Ukraine-like propaganda of enemy losses doesn't actually kill the enemy

 

>>1883442
>another retarded eastoid thinking that the bs he got straight from the soviet ministry of truth is actual history
It's all so tiresome.

 

>>1883662
>equating communist and capitalist sources
Westoids still can't accept the fact that they are the ones living under the watchful eye of all and every Orwell's ministries

 

>>1883763
The neoliberal think-tank cunts are exaggerating the threat as much to encourage the West to move faster on it as to throw shade. I mean, it's their job.

Which is entirely orthogonal to the question of whether the states whose fandom you consume are building anything materially different, or whether they have only more completely built the same techno-Fordist superstructure as the Western Puritans have dreamed of for centuries.


Unique IPs: 22

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