[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ 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.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


 

Why was stalin such a paranoud lunatic? And who was his most indefensible kill?








Body tooo short dhottyggccccccvggdddddxxxxfffffghhhjjjjjgggggccccccvvvvbbbbbb

>>2430992
>And who was his most indefensible kill?
Tukhachevsky of course. One Tukhachevsky is worth at least 10 Bukharins.

it isn't paranoia if they're out to get you

>>2430999
They should've got the bastard before he buried the movement.

>>2430992
>And who was his most indefensible kill?

The random hundreds of peasants and workers at the start of the purge who resisted his production quotas. Big name party members were all lib'd up by the time of their murder tbh most helped Stalin get in power in the first place

>>2430992
Stalin was an innocent pure Boi dat dindu nuffin

>>2431063
Bordiga purged the original bolsheviks for being quote "falsifiers, deniers, modernizers". Bordiga killed Trotsky himself.

>>2431000
Fuck off, Bukharinite.

>>2431082
He could be also trotskyite. Enemies are everywhere around you tankie-kun.

As a Stalinist I'm ok with Trotskyists and Bukharnites and I think most officials were killed from paranoia and fake evidence generated by Western states as wel as torture that Stalin and the NKVD failed to discern the legitimacy of.

Why did alot of the old bolsheviks needed to die anyway? Why not just send them to a special prison camp?

>>2431834
They were probably scared they would pull a Trotsky and start trying to undermine the ussr from afar

>>2431857
How are they going to pull a trotsky if they were put in a work camp? Trotsky was able to do his stick because he was exiled. What im wondering about is just putting them in a work camp under supervision

File: 1755157534799.jpeg (27.29 KB, 500x412, images (71).jpeg)

>>2430999
>Total paranoia is just total awareness.
t. Charles Manson

>>2431858
It was just more dangerous to leave them alive, even imprisoned they could be seen as a rallying point for oppositionists. Also they were deemed literal traitors and "enemies of the people" who could not be rehabilitated. Killing them was swift, permanent and an absolute solution to the threat they posed (to Stalin or to the revolution, take your pick)

>>2431862
Admittingly deng exists. Mao, gang of four and etc decision to not kill him and even allow him back did lead to deng rising to the top. And depending on your pov this could be seen as the restrotation of capitalism in china

>>2431863
Ehh in hindsight the threat was probably overblown and the reaction to it more unnecessary. It's not like the paranoia stopped Kruschev from coming to power and taking a big fat dump on Stalin's grave (and thus by extension the communist system and the party up until that point), but at the time with the knowledge available to them it was probably fairly logical

>>2431864
> It's not like the paranoia stopped Kruschev from coming to power and taking a big fat dump on Stalin's grave (and thus by extension the communist system and the party up until that point), but at the time with the knowledge available to them it was probably fairly logical
fair enough

>>2430992
>Why was stalin such a paranoud lunatic?
Nation-building induces psycosis

Stalin only commited one error in his entire life: stopping at berlin


>>2431901
Hitlers opinion was entirely wrong. The cope stalinoids will come up with to defend their murderous replacement father figure is hilarious.

>Tukhachevsky is a nazi becuase uh…. um…
>Stalin isn't a nazi even doe he fueled the nazi war machine and replaced ussr internationalism with national socialism

>>2431914
Some of them even quote cia documents (lel statlin wasnt a dictator)

>>2431919
How could he be dictator if he still needed buerocracy to run a country? Checkm8 trots.

>>2431920
gasp you are telling me stalin wasnt a superpowerful tyrant who managed every single microthing in the soviet union. THis clearly means stalin wasnt a dictator and not that stalin was just a human being who needed bueacrats to run things for him. Thanks for enlightening me to the truth

>>2431901
Goebbels was coping, Tukhachevsky case greatly diminished the outgoing modernization, adaptation and structure of the Red Army and empowered incompetent and old-minded clique of Kulik, Budyonny, Voroshilov etc. Young, visionary marshalls were all purged.

Didn't the superior Red Army in terms of equipment, technology, numbers were holded back by Finland with a ridicule casualty ratio? Didn't Marshalls like Voroshilov openly criticized the structure and the lack of communication and decisiveness in the Red Army?

In the first days of the 'surprise' German invasion, the entire Red Army had fallen into disarray and German forces marched with 1:10 casualty ratio, did our pure, revolutionary souls in the Red Army deserve such a fate? Could this not be prevented?

The only soviet marshall whose tactics prolly had k/d ratio > 1 is Rokoskovsky, who was a proponent of Deep Battle just like Tukhachevsky. ( and was in the purge list before the WWII )

>Why was stalin such a paranoud lunatic?

the big ass civil war that was fresh in everyone's memory probably played a part on it.

>>2432038
stalin had ptsd and bpd

>>2431956
>Didn't the superior Red Army in terms of equipment, technology, numbers were holded back by Finland with a ridicule casualty ratio?

hat fact that it took the Red Army several months to defeat the Finnish forces was used in many quarters to denigrate the efficiency of the Red Army. As Edgar 0'Ballance* puts it:

"The picture spread abroad was that of an inefficient, bumbling, primitive army, which only with difficulty had managed to subdue a poorly armed foe, one-fifth of its size. . . . This view was widely and gladly accepted, because it was what many people wanted to believe."
(E. O'Ballance: op cit.; p. 152).

In fact, testifies O'Ballance:

"The strategical plan . . . was reasonably sound. .
Mass assaults were continually going on night and day. To keep this up for four weeks . . . was in itself an extraordinary performance. .
The Red Army soldier came out of this campaign magnificently, and his bravery, his endurance and his fortitude in the face of deadly fire, on short rations and under extreme climatic conditions was amazing. He had warm clothing (contrary to what is frequently alleged".
(E. O'Ballance: op. cit.; p. 152, 153, 154).

Major Arthur Hooper, in his detailed study of the Soviet-Finnish war, goes even further:

"General Meretskov's plan, well conceived and boldly executed, was on a scale worthy of the past great masters of the art of war".
(A. S. Hooper: 'The Soviet-Finnish Campaign'; London; 1940; p. 24).

and the Military Correspondent of 'Tribune' declares:

"In the main attack on the Mannerheim Line there were no indications of serious military weaknesses. The artillery preparation and support was clearly very heavy; there was no relaxation of pressure; the number of strong points and concrete artillery positions, etc., taken by the Russians was announced regularly, and that number increased. . . . There are few large offensives against defended positions in the Great War of which that could be written."
('Tribune', No. 168 (15 March 1940); p. 9).

As the 'News Chronicle 'pointed out after the Soviet victory:

"Those foreign commentators who stated that Stalin had made a fatal mistake in Finland have been proved wrong".
('News Chronicle', 14 March 1940; p. 2).

The Soviet campaign against Finland was regarded by Soviet military scientists as a model. As Sergey Biriuzov* says, the strategy and tactics adopted by the Red Army in the war with Finland were later successfully applied on a larger scale in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45:

"The storming of the 'Mannerheim Line' was regarded as a model of operational and tactical art. Troops were taught to overcome the enemy's protracted defence by a gradual accumulation of forces and a patient gnawing through of breaches in the enemy's fortifications".
(S. S. Biriuzov: 'The Lesson Learned too well', in: S. Bialer (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 137).

A number of Western correspondents pay tribute to the tactical skill of the Red Army:

"The Russians are reported to have shown considerable tactical skill in managing their tanks".
('Daily Telegraph', 14 February 1940; p. 1).

to its ingenuity and inventiveness:

"The Russians had experimented intelligently themselves, introducing such new devices as armoured sleighs, three-storeyed dug-outs and dummy encampments to draw bombing aeroplanes to anti-aircraft guns. . .
Most of the armament was first-class stuff – anti-tank rifles, machine pistols, machine guns, and a new type of revolver that does not jam. The Russians, indeed, must have a remarkable inventiveness."
(‘Times’, 18 March 1940; p. 7).

and to the bravery of its soldiers:

"There (on the Isthmus – Ed.) the Russian divisions had fought with a courage which has rarely been equalled by Russian soldiers in this century".
('Daily Telegraph', 6 March 1940; p. 1).

This did not prevent 'Daily Herald' from reporting in February that

"Informed circles in Moscow state that Meretskov and his entire staff were shot soon after General Shtern arrived on the Finnish front from the Far East".
('Daily Herald', 23 February 1940; p. 6).

A month later, after the war had ended and General Meretskov had been decorated with the Order of Lenin, the press was reporting:

"Decorations awarded today suggest that the Soviet campaign was conducted by a staff presided over by General Meretskov.
General Shtern – reported to have been put in command of the Soviet forces in the later phases of the campaign – is not mentioned, which suggests that he never left command of Soviet forces in the Far East."
('News Chronicle', 23 March 12940; p. 2).

The final word on the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-40 may be given to Read and Fisher:

"In strictly strategic terms, as far as Stalin was concerned. the Winter War had been a success. It had been brief; it had not spilled over into the larger conflict, . . . and, above all, had achieved its purpose, The northern approaches to Leningrad were now secure and the USSR controlled access into the Gulf of Finland".
(A. Read & D. Fisher: op. cit.; p. 416).

http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/CL-FINLANDWAR90.html

>>2432061
Muh k/d tho

File: 1755185170936.png (859.6 KB, 1600x1220, ClipboardImage.png)

Hitler attacked the USSR and tried to do as much damage as possible, as was the plan from the start when Ford built factories in Germany and capitalists sent funds to help Hitler's election campaign back in 1932, Stalin was right.

If you start to see interwar Europe as a countdown until capitalist countries were ready to start a counterrevolutionary campaign against the Soviets (again) then a lot of decisions are starting to make sense. Stalin was able to look back on the seven coalitions against revolutionary France back in the 18th & 19th century, those reactionary forces would never ever give up ever, even though the reaction is the capitalists themselves now in comparison to the feudal lords vs capitalists back then.

Theres another case to be made about Dengist China speedrunning industrialization, but many are only ready to hear it after WW3 ended.

File: 1755186091432.jpg (108.16 KB, 684x1100, Orders_Nov_1939.jpg)

>>2432061
All of the commentors here are sounding very optimistic and ignore the fact that the primary purpose of the campaign was invading the entirety of the Finland in a short time and establishing a Finnish SSR.

>and, above all, had achieved its purpose, The northern approaches to Leningrad were now secure and the USSR controlled access into the Gulf of Finland


I'd not say so if you account what happened then…

(From https://histdoc.net/history/velikie1939_e.html )

https://histdoc.net/pdf/Doklad_no_4587,29_oktjabrja_1939g.pdf
I could find the army plan of Meretskov here and translated it via AI,
In the logistics section of the document:

10. Logistics
Basing:
— 8th Army on Kirov Railway; supply stations Petrozavodsk & Lodeynoye Pole; Kem and Kochkoma depots for Shmyrev Corps.
— Murmansk Group: supply from Kola & Murmansk; Kandalaksha direction from Kandalaksha station.
— Karelian Isthmus: 50th Corps from Vaskelovo rail line, 19th Corps from Beloostrov line.

Stock levels:
— Ammo: 1.4–1.5 basic loads
— Rations/fodder: 4 days
— Fuel: 2 refills
— Operation needs: Vidlitza – 3.5 loads; Isthmus – 5 loads.
— Daily advance assumption: Vidlitza – 15 days; Isthmus – 8–10 days at 10–12 km/day.

What the actual plan suggested was the breakthrough of the Karelian Isthmus in just 8 to 10 days, what happened irl was that the Soviet advance had immediately stalled against the Mannerheim line, instead the advance took over 2 months with extensive artillery fire and high-casualty advances.

And even after the Mannerheim line was broken, Soviets, out of their failure in ending the war quickly with costly advances- having been afraid of an Allied intervention, agreed with the peace and were ceded Karelia that secured Leningrad (and nothing bad happened after, yay! :> )

Oh, but after just one year later, Karelia which was annexed to secure any direct invasion or bombardment in Leningrad was retaken by the Finnish forces during their continuation war alongside with other ceded territories and more. This deems that the Winter War was a failure and you shouldn't look at it without the context of the future, which ultimately contributed to the German invasion and opened a northern front for the USSR.

>>2431901
"uhhh guys the purges were justified because adolf hitler said so" are you retarded?

>>2432252
(Me)

The German ambassador in Moscow comments the war against Finland to the German Foreign Ministry

https://histdoc.net/pdf/NaSo1940-01-08.pdf

The Ambassador in Moscow to the Foreign Office
Telegram

Most urgent
Moscow, 8 January 1940 – 16:41
Secret – Received: 8 January 21:05
No. 47 of 8 January

With reference to your telegram No. 10 of 3 January (Pol VI 21) and No. 42 of 6 January (Pol VI 32 g I).

After 5 weeks of attack the Red Army in Finland has so far nowhere achieved victory worth mentioning. The slow progress of the Red Army and the occasional setbacks are the result of the skillful opposition of the Finns, difficulties of terrain and climate, and above all very considerable faults of Soviet organization, particularly as regards equipment and provisioning.

Nevertheless there can be no doubt of the ultimate victory of the Red Army in this fight. It is merely a question of time, the approximate length of which it is impossible to predict.

(In here the German ambassador expresses his belief in the ultimate victory of the Red Army in the long duration but admits the operational failures of the Red Army, and at the end, unfortunately- the USSR couldn't go for the ultimate victory)

The situation came about owing to the fact that the Soviet Government was not sufficiently prepared for such a war, since it had expected Finland, just as the Baltic countries, to yield finally to its demands. A misjudging of the situation on the part of the Finnish Government caused the Soviet Government to feel obliged to use force in order to avoid a loss of prestige after it had laid down a definite minimum program in Molotov's speech before the Supreme Soviet on October 31.

The war against Finland was from the very beginning unpopular with the population of the Soviet Union. The fear of war, which has always been strong among the masses here and which had temporarily been diminished by the conclusion of the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany, has been given a new impetus by the Finnish conflict. This sentiment is strengthened by the absence of victories at the Finnish front, increasing supply difficulties, reports about imminent price increases, and the large number of Red soldiers with frozen limbs who are crowding the provincial hospitals.

I see confirmation of the existing difficulties in a statement by Molotov, with whom I had a conversation yesterday during the conference session and who spoke in connection with the Finnish conflict about a serious situation, the strength of the Finnish fortifications and the unfavorable effects of the severe cold.

When I asked how the Soviet Government regarded the possibility of support by third states, especially Sweden and Norway, Molotov said that the Soviet Government was aware of the danger that would arise if England and France should use Sweden and Norway for their own ends and had therefore warned the two Governments on January 5 and 6 through appropriate notes.In these notes the Soviet Government had reproached Sweden and Norway for tolerating hostile actions directed against the Soviet Union and incompatible with the neutrality of these two countries and had pointed to the possibility that complications might arise. The Norwegian Government had answered at once, protested its determination to maintain strict neutrality, and laid the blame for certain happenings in Norway on private groups as well as the opposition press. No official written reply from Sweden had yet been presented, but in accepting the note Günther had already given a similar tentative answer by word of mouth.

(According to the German ambassador, the USSR was scared of Allied intervention via Norwegian and Swedish territories- so the Winter war had to be a quick war)

Moreover, the Soviet Government expected that Germany would use her influence with Sweden in a suitable manner.

When I remarked that the Finns could not in the nature of things expect ultimate victory and would therefore probably be ready to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Government, Molotov did not, interestingly enough, make an entirely negative reply but answered with the words that it was "late, very late" for this and that it would have been better for the Finns to accept the Soviet demands in the first place.

Settlement of the Soviet-Finnish conflict would in my opinion foil British intentions, afford the Soviet Union considerable relief, and if it came about with our help would mean a great gain in prestige for Germany apart from other advantages, for instance undisturbed deliveries of ore from Sweden. However, to begin with, the following questions, still completely open at present, arise in this connection:

1. Does the prestige of the Soviet Union permit taking up negotiations at all in these circumstances?

2. What conditions will she set in this event?

There is no doubt in my mind that, if such a possibility does exist or should arise, the person of Tanner, who is here considered the "evil spirit" of the past negotiations, will disappear from the scene.

SCHULENBURG

Source: Documents on German foreign policy 1918-1945. Series D. Volume VIII. No. 513. Washington, Department of State, publication 5436, 1954.

>>2432289
>opinion of retarded krauts
Discarded

>>2432061
What a giant wall of pathetic cope

>>2430992
From Stalins PoV all of them were justifiable because he was a closet russian chauvinist and supporter of capitalism like his stalinist ilk today. So he suceeded because a Russian national-capitalist state has taken the place of socialism which he wanted to sabotage so much.

>>2431914
Clearly Hitler was biased towards the nation he planned to colonize and exterminate.

>>2432519
He wasnt biased but he was just projecting his own situation with his generals onto stalins as by 1943 it was becoming obvious the war lost or atleast not going to end favorably and many in germany were realizing this.

Daily reminder that Stalin dream of a nazi-soviet alliance against the british-american imperialism and he didn't see no problem with Hitler racism and reactionary ideas.

>>2430992
>The affair that led to the 1937 indictment and execution of Marshal Tukhachevsky and of numerous other leading members of the Red Army must be understood in this context of civil war (latent or manifest) within the new ruling group that had emerged from the collapse of the ancien régime, of mutual accusations of treason and collusion with the imperialist enemy, and of the real activity of the secret services in recruiting agents and in deception.

>There is a long prehistory behind this affair. Lenin already saw a Bonapartist danger looming over Soviet Russia and expressed his worries about it to Trotsky as well: would civilian power really succeed in being obeyed by the military? In 1920 Tukhachevsky seemed to want to sovereignly decide the victorious march on Warsaw that he dreamed of. In any case, leading historians observe today, a ten- dency for the brilliant general who “might very well have become the Bonaparte of the Bolshevik Revolution” clearly emerged. Ten years later Stalin was warned by the GPU about plots that were being woven against him in military circles. Was it mere fabrication? In April of the following year, serious doubts about Tukhachevsky were formulated by Trotsky, who made this analysis of the situation in the USSR following the political defeat of Bukharin and the “right wing” connected with him: now the main danger for socialism was not repesented by the “Thermidorian overthrow,” which formally preserved the Soviet character of the country and the Communist character of the party in power, but by the “Bonapartist overthrow,” which takes “a more open, ‘riper’ form of the bourgeois counterrevolution, carried out against the Soviet system and the Bolshevik party as a whole, in the form of the naked sword raised in the name of bourgeois property.” In that case, “the adventurist-praetorian elements of the type of Tukhachevsky” could play a major role. Countering them “with arms in hand” would be the “revolutionary elements” of the party, the state and—note well—“the army,” gathered around the working class and the “faction of Bolshevik-Leninists” (i.e. Trotskyists).


>This stance represented a new element in the conflict between the Bolsheviks: while keeping “the armed forces under his control,” Stalin “also took care not to involve them too closely in all the controversies and intrigues which shook party and state.” Now clearly the opposition sought to set foot or consolidate its presence in the army in the name of the struggle against the Bonapartist danger, which only it would be able to deal with in a consequential manner. And yet, without allowing himself to be impressed by the Bonapartist danger thus evoked, in 1936 Stalin elevated Tukhachevsky and four other military leaders to the rank of marshal. It was a promotion decided in the context of a reform that saw the army abandon “from a predominantly territorial into a standing force” and restoring “the old pre-revolutionary discipline.” On December 21 of the same year, together with the other members of the Soviet political and military leadership, the newly appointed marshal celebrated Stalin’s birthday at Stalin’s home, “till 5.30 in the morning!” points out Dimitrov.


>It was precisely this reform that aroused the indignation of Trotsky. On the one hand, he resumed the old accusation that the Red Army “has not stood aside, however, from the processes of degeneration of the Soviet regime. On the contrary, these have found their most finished expression in the army.” On the other hand, Trotsky adopted a new tone, mentioning the “the formation of something in the nature of an oppositional faction within the army” which, from the left, lamented the abandonment of the “perspective of world revolution.” And the text quoted here in some way insinuates that to such opposition Tukhachevsky himself could be attracted. Tukhachevsky, who, in 1921, had even fought “somewhat too impetuous[ly],” for the formation of the “international general staff,” could scarcely recognize himself in the abandonment of internationalism and indeed in the “deification of the status quo,” which had by then taken over in the USSR. What can be said of this later text from Trotsky? Agitation within the army had continued apace and had seemed to be growing stronger: only now the struggle on the horizon saw not the “faction of Bolshevik-Leninists” pitted against the Bonapartist generals, but a substantial part of the army and its leadership against the Thermidorian and traitorous leaders of the Kremlin. The resistance of the Red Army or its rebellion against the central power would be all the more justified by the fact that the new course actually configured itself as “a kind of twofold state revolution” which, breaking with the Bolshevik October, proceeded arbitrarily to the “abolition of the militia” and the “the restoration of officers’ castes 18 years after their revolutionary abolition.” According to this view, by eventually rising up against Stalin, the Red Army would have in fact foiled the coups he had engineered and restored revolutionary legality. As if all this were not enough, the Trotskyist “Opposition Bulletin” evokes an imminent army revolt. Perhaps a measure taken in Moscow a few months before the trials was aimed at facing this possible danger: “On 29 March 1937 the Politburo issued a resolution mandating retirement or dispatch to civilian work for Red Army officers who had been expelled from the party for political reasons.”


>Further fueling the climate of suspicion and concern, rumors were being circulated by White Army Russian circles in Paris about a military coup being prepared in Moscow. Finally, in the second half of January 1937, information reached the Czechoslovak president Eduard Beneš concerning Secret “negotiations” in progress between the Third Reich and “the anti-Stalin clique in the U.S.S.R., Marshal Tukhachevsky, Rykov and others.” Was there any foundation to the accusation or was the whole thing a set-up by the German secret services? Also, in early 1937, conversing with Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath, Hitler had rejected the idea of an improvement in relations with the USSR, but added: “It would be different if things in Moscow were to develop in the direction of absolute despotism, based on the military. In that case it would not be permissible to waste the opportunity to make our presence felt again in Russia.” Beneš had also made the French leadership aware of the “negotiations,” “whose confidence in the Franco-Soviet Pact was con-siderably weakened.” So it was not only Stalin who gave credence tothe rumors or information passed on by the Czechoslovak president. And, on the other hand, even after the conclusion of the Second World War, Churchill seems to endorse Moscow’s version, pointingout, as we shall see, that the purge had affected the“pro-German elements,” to which he added: “Stalin was conscious of a personal debt to President Beneš.”


>After the “trial” and execution had already taken place, in asking the key question (“was there really a military conspiracy?”), Trotsky forwards an answer that gives pause: “It all depends on what people call a conspiracy. Every sign of discontent, every time dissatisfied people draw closer together, every criticism or argument about what must be done in order to halt the devastating policies of the government—is, from Stalin’s point of view, a conspiracy. And undera totalitarian regime, without any doubt every opposition is the embryo of a conspiracy.” In this sense an “embryo” was the generals’ aspiration to protect the army from the “demoralizing intrigues of the GPU.” Is this the refutation of the conspiracy thesis or its admission in the “Aesopian language” imposed by circumstances? Drawing attention to this ambiguous statement is the above-mentioned fervent Trotskyist Russian historian (Rogowin), who finally took up Tukhachevsky’s thesis of the “anti-Stalinist conspiracy” and placed it in a “Bolshevik” rather than bourgeois political framework.


TLDR: Among the people who corroborated the idea that a coup was preparing against Stalin were: Hitler, Benes, the French government and reactionary Russian emigres. Most suspicously Trotsky considered Tukhachevsky more evil than Stalin, but suddenly changed his mind and started insinuating that the army might become the agent of his precious permanent revolution (personal amibitions).

>>2432465
This is the first time I've seen a decent post from a Marx flag

>>2432610
How's the weather at Langley? What's the best pizza place around there?

>>2432610
post sources

you won't

>>2432610
Both were to autistic for that to ever be reality, we know Stalin asked for alliances with Britain and France before having to accept Hitlers, so no.

>>2432638
NTA, but anons claim is kinda valid, i'll post some stuff bout that.

>>2432610
Though you forget about the fact that prior to the friendship with Nazi Germany, USSR tried to form a coalition against Nazis for numerous times and each attempt were rejected by allied powers.

>british-american imperialism


It was more like anglo-french imperialism back then XD
From Stalin's statement in 1939 which is published in pravda
https://histdoc.net/pdf/A_Statement_by_Stalin_on_Allied_Responsibility_30.11.1939.pdf

The editor of Pravda asked Comrade Stalin for his opinion of the Havas report of the speech allegedly made by Stalin to the Politburo on 19 August, in which he is said to have expressed the thought that ‘the war should go on as long as possible, so that the belligerents are exhausted’. Comrade Stalin has replied as follows: This Havas report, like many of its reports, is a lie. Of course, I do not know in which particular café chantant this lie was invented. But whatever lies the gentlemen from Havas may tell, they cannot deny that:
(a)It was not Germany that attacked France and England, but France and England that attacked Germany, taking on themselves responsibility for the present war;
(b)After the outbreak of hostilities Germany made peace proposals to France and England, and the Soviet Union publicly supported Germany’s peace proposals, since it thought and still thinks
that a quick end to the war would radically ease the situation of all countries and peoples;
(c)The ruling circles of England and France rudely rejected both Germany’s peace proposals, and the Soviet Union’s efforts to bring the war quickly to an end.
These are the facts. What can the café chantant politicians of the Havas agency put against these facts?

…And in Pravda during 1940, this article regarding the anniversary of the Non-Aggression and Friendship pact with Germany was published
https://histdoc.net/pdf/godo1940.pdf

It is a very interesting read and a very interesting, mysterious occurence for myself, was this realpolitik, 4d chess, dunno but here are some parts I scrapped:

>A year ago, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet-German nonaggression pact was signed in Moscow. This treaty is one of the important documents in the history of the international relations of our era for it marked a sharp change in development of the Soviet-German relations and was "a turning point in the history of Europe and not only Europe" (Molotov).


>Signing of the treaty put an end to enmity between Germany and the USSR, an enmity that was artificially kindled by the provocateurs of the war driven by the friendship between the peoples of the USSR and Germany into a cul-de-sac.


>When signing the treaty, both sides proceeded from such a standpoint that enmity between both states, as shown in history, never benefited either the German people or the peoples of the USSR. The distinction of political systems and ideology could not and should not have served as an insuperable obstacle to establish peaceful and genuinely good-neighbourly relations between both states.


>The standpoint of the Soviet Union was defined by its permanently principled and consistent policy of struggle for peace, a policy which was with utmost clarity formulated by Comr. Stalin in the report to the 18th party congress:

"We stand for peace and for strengthening of business ties with all countries, we stand and we will stand in this position since these countries will maintain the same relations with the Soviet Union and since they will not try to violate the interests of our country".

>The maneuvers of the Anglo-French imperialists collapsed both in Moscow and in Berlin. Already the economic negotiations, which began in the summer of 1939 between Germany and the USSR and ended with the conclusion of a trade and credit agreement on August 19, 1939, showed that there are all the possibilities for peaceful and mutually beneficial economic cooperation.


>And indeed, the fact is that two largest states of Europe agreed on peace and excluded the possibility of a military conflict between them, and by it limiting the scope of actions of the Anglo-French organizers of war, restricting bridgeheads for the second imperialistic war which soon bursted out. As a result of signing of the Soviet-German pact the whole eastern Europe was removed from the threat of being transformed into a theater of war. There is no doubt that securing the peace in the eastern Europe promoted in enormous extent also preservation of peace in the Balkans.


>The message about the Soviet-German pact ringed as the last caution to organizers and fomenters of an imperialistic war. This warning, however, did not take any effect. War began. As its first victim fell to the core rotten Polish state, thrown into a military adventure by relying on the notorious "guarantees" of London and Paris.


>The Soviet-German pact had the largest value in development of the peace policy of the Soviet Union, for securing the safety of Soviet boundaries. The Soviet Union, when a war broke out between England and France on one side and Germany on the other, took a neutrality position.


>A year has passed since the time of signing of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact. The Soviet-German relations, built on a new basis, passed the test with honour, especially to be indicated, that this test took place in a situation, exceptional in its strain, in the atmosphere of the war spreading out into an enormous scale, a harsh aggravation of contradictions between the largest states of the capitalist world, in an atmosphere for birth of new conflicts, in the conditions of constant and persistent attempts of known international elements to hammer a wedge into the Soviet-German relations.


So yeah, things were pretty interesting back then.

>>2431000
>They should've got the bastard before he buried the movement.
soy socialists: "Its not FAIR that a strongman dictator has taken power! Why can't evolutionary dialectics of struggle give all the hegemony to me, a weak zine artist who heroically struggles against Pantone color marker oppression? Stalin is ontologically EVIL, he actually took power and dared to defend it, how horrible! The horrible dysfunctional violence of the USSR is just like the horrible dysfunctional violence of Palestinian terrorists, whose random and mindless violence is proof they are not real communist revolutionaries like my German /r/Ultraleft friends"

see also: https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/

>>2432212
>counterrevolutionary campaign against the Soviets
every World War was a war to dissolve international proletarian unity

>>2432610
You are talking out of your ass. The original bolshevik attitude towards imperialist countries focused primarily on inter-imperialist rivalry. They hoped to achieve a victory similar to the one they achieved after WW1. They had no preference towards either of the two imperialist blocs based on their original revolutionary experience. Any realpolitiks and geopolitics-based considerations only pushed them towards the Western imperalists and the bourgeois left as the USSR forced several communist parties to ally the socdem types against the fascists and it was the sole supporter of the Republicans against the Nationalists in Spain. The reason why people in the West only focus on the period between 1939-41 and not 1933-39 is because of Cold War mythology that wanted to equate the lesser imperialist powers with the country that fought and suffered the most against them.

At worst it could be said the USSR was indifferent towards fascism compared to their attitude towards the West, which would have been a clear expression of self-preservation instincts. Ideologically it's hard to say that Western imperialism was truly better than German imperialism. Consider the millions of Indians the British Empire starved to death to have enough material to win the war (some third world communists like Ho Chi Min adopted this exact position before the war).

>>2432676
r/UltraLeft still remains the most communist place on the internet, right after the site of the ICP (.org).

>>2432692
You forgot worldsocialism.org

File: 1755207838057.png (1.29 MB, 1125x955, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2432708
No that's definitely liberal, there is no party but the Internationalist Communist Party (.org) and Bordiga was its messenger. The "World Socialist Party (New Zealand)" and its blasphemous texts can be nothing more than the works of falsifiers, deniers and modernizers derived from the social-democratic bourgeois tribes of Mensheviks as kin of Stalin and Mao.

>>2432713
MARXSHALLAH
AMADEO AKBAR

File: 1755209440753.png (26.67 KB, 1058x151, ClipboardImage.png)



Unique IPs: 37

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]