Why was Warsaw's destruction not declared a Nazi war crime by Nuremberg? Was it actually destroyed by Soviets? There was no Warsaw destruction listed in court sentence anywhere, despite Poles putting loads of documents for the court to consider, just like Soviets did with Katyn, but were repelled by the court.
Was Stalin responsible for Warsaw destruction the same way he lost Katyn case in Nuremberg?
Dachau and Buchenwald aren't mentioned in the sentencing either, weirdly enough. Auschwitz had an episode of women getting neutered in indictment, but no mention of it in the sentencing. Were the Soviets responsible for all of those, I wonder? Judging by how it is claimed that since Katyn is missing in the sentencing, it means that court refused the accusation
Yes, it was the evil USSR that killed the Slavs, whom the Germans merely wanted to liberate from the poison of gommunizmus.
There's a book by Snyder which speaks of this.
>Goebbels admitted in his diary that Katyn was a Nazi falseflag
Where?
<Polish mass graves have been found near Smolensk. The Bolsheviks simply shot down and then shoveled into mass graves some 10,000 Polish prisoners, among them civilian captives, bishops, intellectuals, artists, et cetera. Above these mass graves they built installations to cover up any possible traces of their dastardly deeds. The secret about these executions became known through hints given by the inhabitants. Gruesome aberrations of the human soul were thus revealed. I saw to it that the Polish mass graves be inspected by neutral journalists from Berlin. I also had Polish intellectuals taken there. They are to see for themselves what is in store for them should their wish that the Germans be defeated by the Bolsheviks actually be fulfilled.
<Unfortunately German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarification. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.
There's only this bit
<Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks un- doubtedly will soon "find" that we shot the 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame them on us.
Which is Goebbels saying the Soviet massacre will now be blamed on Germany, not him admitting the Germans did it.
The discovery of these mass graves also prompted the Nazis to speed up the exhumation and cremation of their own mass graves such as at Treblinka to avoid the same thing befalling them as did the Soviets.
I don't know about any of this other shit (though I'm pretty sure it was Gorbachev who spilled the beans about this whole affair, not Yeltsin), but why would Goebbels write about a false flag in his diary as if it actually happened?
>>2913272>Unfortunately German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarification. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.This is the line for the admission. It doesn't make sense if one logically thinks it through. Almost like Goebbels was rambling and got lost in his own spiel.
I think many war crimes attributed to the Soviets are bullshit, but honestly Katyn made the most sense. Eradicating the aristocratic arch reactionary officers corps of the Polish army in war times at least makes sense from a socialist perspective. Remember that 10% of the Polish army came from an aristocratic background, so it wasn't just some generals but also the entire officer corps including petty officers.
Poland always had an excess amount of nobles, pretty much a million during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. They used to make that joke that some nobles can't own a horse because their plot pf land would end where the horse's ass would begin. Which was of course a huge drain on the working population and eventually led to the downfall of the Commonwealth.
We also have the signed orders of the "Polish Operation". I see absolutely no reason why they would forge this when they opened the Soviet archives.
>>2913315Goebbels says he doesn’t know why the ammunition is there. If Germany had carried out the massacre and framed the Soviets, Goebbels would have known the reason. The diary entry literally proves the exact opposite of German culpability.
>>2913325Katyn was committed by Nazis, as per Nuremberg trial. Soviets have documents on Polish POWs in gulags, having free entry and leave policy ala Chinese re-education camps in Xinjiang, and many fates of Polish POWs was that they settled down in Russia.
>>2913328>Soviets throwing German bullets into the Polish graves in 1940 so that Germans, when they inevitable take Smolensk and get to future "Katyn" site, will be framed for murder of Polish POWs >>2913341>>2913328Honestly, quite believable. Stalin was an asiatic man, fluent in witchcraft and arcane matters of astrology, he could realistically have known that Nazis will advance right to Moscow. Even Goebbels for a second was convinced that Germans might have done it, just like they did in Dachau, Buchenwald, Aushwitz, and other murder camps. Not in Katyn, though; that's impossible for them to have carried mass murders and framed Soviets for them
>>2913315Oh, and in regards to bullets. Those were gecko something something bullets, and the modern Katyn denialists' claim is that Soviets looted those in Finland and then used for killing the Poles.
There are ZERO facts provided for this conjecture, they just find the one only possible solution to a puzzle and then demand you to argue with their shit.
>>2913342>>2913344Careful with the sarcasm leftychud. There are too many retards who will not understand what you are saying.
Is none of you ever gonna address that the Russians literally admitted it, as evidenced from the Soviet archives? There are signed orders.
>>2913341>>Soviets throwing German bullets into the Polish graves in 1940 so that Germans, when they inevitable take Smolensk and get to future "Katyn" site, will be framed for murder of Polish POWsYou’re being obtuse. If the Germans had framed the USSR, then Goebbels would have known how the bullets got there. Instead, his diary entry shows that he’s confused.
>>2913357No, they won’t because they’re statist apologists.
>>2913360People who fake stuff quite often make mistakes like that. Lying is harder than saying truth.
>>2913357And now they don't admit to it. Your point? Why are you supplanting actual scientific research and actual court cases with political proclamations?
>>2913362>People who fake stuff quite often make mistakes like thatMeanwhile, Katyn denialists have to invent "aberrations of memory", "double counting", "typewriter girls making mistakes", "they were just stupid enough to put 31st June onto the document", etc etc
>>2913362Why would Goebbels be lying in his private diary?
The goebbels diary very obviously implies that at the very least he was not aware of it being German troops, that at the very least he thought it was a Soviet crime, and that he's confused as to why German ammo was found and is frustrated that it means a propaganda weapon has been turned against them.
>>2913315How so? Goebbels writes multiple times in glee about how great this thing is and how he's showing the German Volk how barbaric the Jewish-Bolsheviks are. Overjoyed he is writing about how the red cross will go do an independent investigation and how he's brought journalists and intellectuals there. Now something's come to light, German bullets, that might add some nuance to this slam-dunk propaganda victory and obviously he doesn't want that getting out.
This is all his
personal diary, mind you. He mentions Katyn 20 times over the course of like 40 pages. Even if the Germans did Katyn, Goebbels's diary does not seem like good evidence for it. I've attached the pdf this time, go read for yourself.
>>2913366Because from the get go diary was meant for publication. It wasn't a personal diary, it was a propaganda piece Goebbels wanted to sell
>>2913393Very interesting. Now, can you answer the OP question? Why are Nazi war crimes, mentioned in indictment, do not appear in sentencing, just like Katyn? Those weren't Nazi crimes, were the accusation repudiated or what?
>>2913373Btw, isn't it funny that Katyn denialists took literal Goebbels position on the issue word for word and claim that Soviets acquired German bullets somehow? They also take German exhumations at face value, even though Soviets unearthed 100 times as many corpses and did a much more thorough research on them, actually matching names and corpses - while Katyn denialists use Nazis list which famously contained fake entries, because Nazis, instead of actually finding names, did a funny trick of asking Poles to submit requests for finding a name of their missing loved one, and then put them in a Katyn corpses list, which is why there were both alive and fake entries
>>2913398Like I said in my original reply, I don't know much about the rest of the OP. I just thought the bit about the Goebbels diary was incorrect. If the Germans are indeed guilty of the massacre, I wouldn't want people incorrectly using evidence pointing in the opposite direction. That would be quite embarrassing and doing Nazi apologists a favor.
>>2913446This is fair enough. I have issues with your reading of Goebbels' words, but it's plausible - if we drop the fact that Goebbels was the one masterminding Katyn nonsense, alongside a bunch of other falseflags, like Vinnytsa - which is, i learned not so long ago, creatures like authors on katynfiles ALSO put on Soviets, despite universal recognition of it as a Nazi crime
>>2913397If that is the case, then he would have an incentive to spin a confident lie blaming the Soviets for future readers. He would know exactly why the bullets were there. Instead, he’s confused. As others have noted Goebbels does not mince words about real German atrocities elsewhere in the diaries, so why is he being wishy-washy here?
>>2913478>alongside a bunch of other falseflags, like Vinnytsalol
>>2913192It never happened. And if it did, they deserved it.
>>2913393How does Goebbels being kept in the dark about the true state of things, where he had to get parallel intelligence networks and was constantly butting heads with OKW minimize what I wrote? I mean the guy was bragging about genocide and at the same time was "horrified" by Katyn. That makes no sense unless he is mentally deranged. He always had a narrative to frame for any event. Exaggerate or invent the opponent's negativity while downplaying, denying or explaining away his own side's. The Bolsheviks cannot do as we do!
>The military men at the Fuehrer's GHQ have actually succeeded in eliminating the pictures of Katyn from the weekly newsreel. Unfortunately the Fuehrer did not have time to see the reel personally. He may possibly authorize their release next week. But by then they will be so old that they won't have any news value. The military rest their case on the morale of the families of our men missing in action. We have the choice of considering the feelings of these co-nationals of ours or the interests of the whole people. I regard the latter as higher and therefore advocate that we show up Bolshevism exactly as it is. Maybe the OKW realized it was their work and did not want it leaked, but Goebbels was like "IT MUST BE BOLSHEVIKS" because I WANT TO!!
>Unfortunately German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarification. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped. Why would the Russians throw the munitions if the bullets in the skulls won't match?
Why would the affair have to be dropped?
Why can't you say the Russians are framing you?
Why did you believe the Bolsheviks killed all the Pollacks in the first place?
The other thing you have to remember, is the judicial body that allegedly gave the execution order, the Special Council of the NKVD, did not have capital punishment authority in 1940. They maximum could sentence to 25 years. They were given capital punishment power in 1941. Not only were the munitions German, but also the hand restraints were German as well. And it just so happened that in 1940 the NKVD would know that in 1941 the Germans would change their executions protocol from stripping a prisoner of all insignia before shooting him, as was NKVD practice also, to just shooting him with all his stuff on him. Goebbels fell victim to the same propaganda techniques he accused his enemies of using.
all plausible deniability on katyn, romanovs and all the other soviet 'crimes' (exigencies of revolution) was lost the moment the archives were opened, denying it just makes you look dogmatic and unprincipled ngl
>>2913728>archives were openedNot in this case. Package #1 of all things turns out to be forgeries on Katyn. Romanov execution also was debunked to be a local decision and not a ritual murder order by Lenin.
>>2913747>Romanov execution also was debunkedincorrect, Trotsky even talks about it in his diary. I don't see why as a marxist this would be embarrassing for Lenin as Katyn would be for Stalin, they were obviously both the correct maneuver, and I'm not against lying with the help of plausible deniability but once thats gone owning up to is more productive than denying it
>''My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Ekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov, I asked in passing: 'Oh yes, and where is the Czar?' 'It's all over,' he answered. 'He has been shot.' 'And where is the family?' 'And the family along with him.' 'All of them?' I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise. 'All of them,' replied Sverdlov. 'What about it?'
>''He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply. 'And who made the decision?' I asked. 'We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally round, especially under the present difficult circumstances . . .' I did not ask any further questions, and considered the matter closed. >>2913671>I mean the guy was bragging about genocide and at the same time was "horrified" by Katyn.Doesn't seem so different from the common ML attitude about it, which is that it was bad if the Germans did it but based if the Soviets did it.
>>2913362>And now they don't admit to it. Your point? Why are you supplanting actual scientific research and actual court cases with political proclamations?My point is that, even for the biggest scumbags inside the Yeltsin clique, it seems nonsensical to forge a document just to make Russia look bad and cause possible reparation demands from Poland.
>>2913759 (me)
Also, source where Russia nowadays retracks their Katyn admission?
>>2913755Yes, because the action would be for different aims.
>you really think Class War is based but Race War is cringe? So hypocritical! >>2913671>Why would the Russians throw the munitions if the bullets in the skulls won't match? This is a strawman of Goebbels' entry. The Soviets didn't need to "throw" anything; they used the ammunition in the executions. The NKVD used German-made Walther PPK pistols to carry out the killings (imported from Germany during the Molotov-Ribbentrop period) because they were more reliable than what the Soviets domestically had. Goebbels actually guesses correctly when he says: "munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians."
>Why would the affair have to be dropped?The Germans having sold weapons to the "Bolshevik subhumans" would undermine German propaganda.
>Why can't you say the Russians are framing you?Because the diary entry is a genuine candid admission of uncertainty.
>>2913770What does Soviet social imperialism have to do with class war?
You're an apologist for Soviet social imperialism the same way shitlibs are apologists for American imperialism.
>>2913671>Maybe the OKW realized it was their work and did not want it leaked, but Goebbels was like "IT MUST BE BOLSHEVIKS" because I WANT TO!!So first it's Goebbels getting lost in his own spiel and now it's Goebbels making his own headcanon about something he didn't know all the ins and outs of?
Again, the OP image says Goebbels admitted in his diary it was a false flag. I don't see that in the pdf I posted. If you're going to take the position that the Germans did the Katyn massacre, you're doing the other side of this argument a favor by using Goebbels's diary as evidence because it does not include an admission of guilt. As mentioned above I don't know much about this shit. I just took issue with this own thing.
>>2913753>Quoting TrotskyCan you present anything else?
The whites were not rallying for the restoration of the Tsar because he abdicated the throne and hence broke his oath of coronation.
>>2913801>because they were more reliable than what the Soviets domestically hadObjectively bullshit. The firing rate speculated would be well within the capabilities of the nagant without significant wear and tear and other bullshit about overengineered German tech. Don't forget the claim made by the old man on camera that they used a "ladies pistol" to make the shots.
>guesses correctlyLibshit to nazi pipeline confirmed
>would undermine German propaganda.Everybody knew about the non-aggression pact
>diary entry is a genuine candid admission of uncertainty.I meant, why could not he say in the propaganda that it was framed, not the diary.
>You're an apologistYes I am. And you are an apologist for nazis, defending their retarded claims because you love the mainstream which is very anti-communist. Even putin loved pinochet.
>Soviet social imperialismLiterally never existed outside of very specific cases like the East Germany aviation industry and the Polish computer industry. And even then, I did not find anything outside of western sources biasedly describing things. They even lied about OGAS being killed in 1970s, when in reality it was planned for the mid-2000's.
>>2913761There was a court case where the government removed a memorial plaque on the medical institute that was rumored to have an execution chamber in the basement because it was physically impossible to conduct executions in that environment and there was no evidence there were executions there in the first place. Had to dig around and find it, but mostly anti-russian opposition complaining about it.
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4340794Also, this is more recent, but quite open, the official state-media TASS openly calling it "Katyn Falsification".
https://tass.ru/obschestvo/20515213Just run it through google translate.
>>2913831>So first it's Goebbels getting lost in his own spiel and now it's Goebbels making his own headcanon about something he didn't know all the ins and outs of?Those two are not contradictory. Goebbels was the PR guy. And when the PR guy gets tasked with complicated fixing, he might start unravelling especially a narcissistic paranoiac like Goebbels.
>I just took issue with this own thing.I understand you. If one were rigorous, then Goebbels did not admit to the executions, I just read between the lines because I am a turbo schizo autist.
>>2913360I don't even get the point of denying it, If the Red Army came to my country and massacred of bunch of nobles, military officers and other aristocrats I'd be greeting them as liberators tbh
>>2913883>I don't see that in the pdf I posted.This might be better, but still Goebbels had mental issues. Imagine being horrified of getting shot in the head but unfazed by emaciated corpses from exhaustion and starvation.
>Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon "find" that we shot the 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame them on us. >>2913884> If the Red Army came to my country and massacred of bunch of nobles, military officers and other aristocrats I'd be greeting them as liberators tbhAh you see that's not what happened though. The Nazis used Katyn because nobody cared what the Soviets did to their citizens, but the Polish military was there under internment from 1939, so they were essentially foreign citizens. In the minds of the public that was going to be seen like kidnapping and murder akin to the Lindbergh case.
>>2913883>I meant, why could not he say in the propaganda that it was framed, not the diary.The point is that the massacre goes from a slam dunk case into a he-said-she-said where the Nazis already have little credibility in the eyes of the Polish masses, and thus becomes quite useless.
>>2913892Seems reasonable. I accept this explanation.
>>2913883>Objectively bullshit.How is a revolver more efficient than a pistol? If you were going to kill thousands people, would you rather have the revolver, in which you have to load each round individually, or the pistol with a magazine?
>Libshit to nazi pipeline confirmedI'm a Nazi for saying the Soviets imported German munitions as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? AESissies are so pathetic. Literally no different from Amerisharts who view any criticism as siding with their "enemies."
>Everybody knew about the non-aggression pactThat's not the point you illiterate retard faggot. The point is German propaganda would be severely handicapped by the fact that the "Bolshevik subhumans" used German-made pistols to carry out Katyn.
>Yes I am.Then your opinion is useless.
>And you are an apologist for nazisProof?
>Even putin loved pinochetAnd Castro loved Franco (and the CIA at one point).
>Literally never existed outside ofSo it did exist by your own admission. Besides, there are far more examples than just those two.
>>2913884>If the Red Army came to my country and massacred of bunch of nobles, military officers and other aristocrats I'd be greeting them as liberators tbhSo should Iranians rejoice?
>>2913892>he-said-she-saidBut it isn't "he-said-she-said." We have the documents proving Soviet culpability after the opening of the Russian archives, we have forensics, we have eyewitnesses, and the last time the victims were seen was in spring 1940 during the Soviet occupation.
Even the US was involved in the cover up. Kinda reminds me of how the US helped Iraq cover up the Halabja chemical massacre by blaming Iran.
https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/katyn-massacre>>2913920It's a legitimate question. Why are you only a cuck for Soviet imperialism but not American?
>>2913923wtf does the spade even mean brah
>>2913921oh my god retard, its about it becoming a he-said-she-said for the Nazi-Soviet propaganda war in 1941-1945.
>>2913883>picrelI'm a zoomer so 1994 was around a decade before my time, but Putin wanting to act like Pinochet was applauded by the Germans?
Well, they certainly got what they wanted. Putin's the dictator now. I imagine it didn't go as they expected though.
>>2913759>forge a document just to make Russia look badThey were shitting on USSR, not on Russia, and they had very small planning horizon, as per usual for porkies. They were trying to be really friendly with Poland, letting them do whatever Poles pleased in Russia, and this had resulted in Katyn forgeries.
Modern Russia doesn't recognize the documents, btw. They call admission of guilt to have been a self-humiliation ritual.
To illustrate, you can look up "Ничего кроме правды. Нюрнбергский процесс. Воспоминания переводчика" a book of nonsense sponsored by GERMANS, where author equates Nazis with Soviets on every page and claims that everyone in USSR always knew that Katyn was a Soviet crime, lol.
Don't be stupid, Soviet archives were walked over by Germans, Poles, British, Americans, everyone who could and everyone who wanted, in the 90s. Today, all the anti-Soviet stuff is getting found in Ukrainian archives, Katyn-related shit included. It's all so fucking transparent
>>2913947btw, when you explore "archival evidence" of Soviet crimes, be especially vigilant about PROJECTS of letters, reports, orders, etc etc. You can spot forgeries quite easily like this
>>2913921>we have forensicsBurdenko commission had 100 times as many forensics as Nazi commission on Katyn
>we have eyewitnessesSoviets brought to Nuremberg 100 times more eyewitnesses, though
>last time the victims were seen was in spring 1940 during the Soviet occupationWrong, eyewitnesses saw them in 1941, both Soviet and German accounts support this
>Even the US was involved in the cover up.Real conspiracy theory territory here
>>2913949>Burdenko commission had 100 times as many forensics as Nazi commission on KatynWho cares about the number? Besides, many of the Burdenko witnesses recanted in the 1990s.
>Soviets brought to Nuremberg 100 times more eyewitnesses, thoughThe Soviets only called three people to the stand, none of whom were actual eyewitnesses to the killings.
>Wrong, eyewitnesses saw them in 1941, both Soviet and German accounts support thisThe 1943 investigation found letters and newspapers that abruptly ceased in the spring of 1940.
>Real conspiracy theory territory hereHow? The US suppressed information it had that pointed to Soviet culpability. This was elucidated in the Madden Committee, and the documents they based their findings on were declassified in 2011.
>>2913947I don't get it. Are you saying the letter is a forgery simply because it was never sent? Also, not sure why you think the only proof is some letter. lol
>>2913959>I don't get it. Are you saying the letter is a forgery simply because it was never sent?I know you are trolling rn, but I have seen people like this. I wonder, if this is naivety or stupidity
>>2913962Why do you think the letter is fake then?
>>2913959>>2913962Also, listening to bad signal's content on youtube on Katyn, 90s methods of extracting evidence for Soviet guilt was something else. They NEVER got any eyewitness of Soviet crimes to sign ANYTHING. They were all afraid of giving a punishable by law official statement, lol. "My fingers do not bend, so I had my interviewer sign papers admitting Soviet guilt for me!"
>>2913963Because it was never sent, duh. It's not a real document because it was never officially verified. It's like signing papers with your own signature, instead of a forgery like I mentioned earlier - one is official document you can get persecuted for, and another is AT BEST a case of reputation damage, with USSR no longer existing to hold you accountable
>>2913964>>2913965>90s methods of extracting evidence for Soviet guilt was something else. They NEVER got any eyewitness of Soviet crimes to sign ANYTHING. They were all afraid of giving a punishable by law official statement, lol.Yes, but those witnesses were never fundamental to proving Soviet culpability. It's not like the testimony they gave to the Burdenko Commision wasn't made under duress either (much more duress). Besides, not all witnesses were coerced. For example, although he wasn't part of the original Burdenko Commision, Dmitri Tokarev who was the NKVD chief in Kalinin at the time openly admitted to ordering the execution of some 6,000 Poles to Russian investigators.
>Because it was never sent, duh.That makes no sense. You can write a letter and change your mind about sending it. I don't even know what the letter in question even is, but your basis of denying its authenticity is incredibly dubious and indicative of a confirmation bias.
>>2913965>>2913964The KGB guy who did this shit later went to live in Poland, and Poles rewarded him for his service by letting him and his family starve and beg in the streets, despite receiving medals from Polish president. Lol, lmao even, from a KGB operative to a beggar in Poland, what a career advancement!
>>2913966>hose witnesses were never fundamental to proving Soviet culpabilityThey were. There never was any documental evidence of SOviet guilt, in fact, all the documental evidence proved Nazi guilt, including Nuremberg Trials' results. As it is well known, Nuremberg trials put the blame for Katyn on Goring, and Goring was supposed to be hanged for it.
>You can write a letter and change your mind about sending it.Then it does not belong to argumentation about rapes in Poland. It's not an official document with signatures, there are HUGE doubts about letter being real in the first place
>>2913970He didn't sign anything, lmao. Watch the video. He did say all this shit, and then NEVER SIGNED IT. This means he wasn't under any oath
By the way, katynfiles site claimed that German Nazis didn't shoot Polish POWs almost ever, and they didn't even force them to work in labor camps, Germans were very chivalric towards Polish POWs and didn't torture or torment them.
>"It was really unlike Soviet caricatures about Nazis shooting thousands of Polish POWs!"
>>2913975Doesn't Poland have laws against rehabilitation of Nazis? Can somebody notify Polish authorities of Romanov from katynfiles for his rehabilitation of Nazis?
>>2913971>They were.No, it wasn't. Beria and the Politburo memos with Stalin's signature from 1940, and the Shelepin from the 1950s. Of course, you say these are forged, but where is the German equivalent? Some show trial the Soviets staged in the 1950s and three witnesses at Nuremberg WHO WEREN'T EVEN EYEWITNESSES TO THE KILLINGS?
>including Nuremberg Trials' resultsThere wasn't a ruling.
>Nuremberg trials put the blame for Katyn on Goring, and Goring was supposed to be hanged for itIt was dropped.
>Then it does not belong to argumentation about rapes in Poland.Why not? How does changing your mind about sending a letter mean said letter is fake?
>It's not an official document with signaturesWhy does a document need signatures for it to be real? That makes no sense.
>there are HUGE doubts about letter being real in the first placeSuch as? I don't even know what the letter is. lol. Do you?
>He did say all this shit, and then NEVER SIGNED IT.Where is that in the transcript? The interrogator tells him the law about giving a false testimony and the interrogation continues. If he refused to sign something wouldn't that mean criminal liability?
>>2913977>Beria and the Politburo memos with Stalin's signature from 1940PROJECTS of orders of politburo, lmao?
>Shelepin from the 1950sThat's a proven forgery, too
>where is the German equivalentYeah, dude, that's how mass murders actually happen - Germans destroyed paper trails, but left behind corpses and circumstantial evidence. Soviets, meanwhile, only have forged documents for mass murder of Poles, ordered from the very top.
You are being very fucking stupid
>There wasn't a ruling.>It was dropped.It wasn't dropped, ever. There was a ruling as well. Consult OP
>>2913192 for obvious fucking questions that arise if you insist on Nuremberg dropping Katyn during Nazi trials, lmao
>changing your mind about sending a letter mean said letter is fake? >Why does a document need signatures for it to be real?Because without a signature there is no RESPONSIBILITY for the letter, meaning IT COULD BE A FORGERY, a RUMOR, or PIECE OF PROPAGANDA
>If he refused to sign something wouldn't that mean criminal liability?No, it would mean he wasted interrogator's time, but it's not a crime
Katyn denialists continue to being retarded, lmao
>>2913977>PROJECTS of orders of politburo, lmao?>That's a proven forgery, tooHow? Who forged them? They were just sitting in the Soviet archives lol.
>Germans destroyed paper trailsActually, not really. We have plenty of documents on the Einsatzgruppen executions the Germans carried out.
>It wasn't dropped, ever. There was a ruling as well. Where is Katyn mentioned in the final ruling?
>Because without a signature there is no RESPONSIBILITY for the letter, meaning IT COULD BE A FORGERY, a RUMOR, or PIECE OF PROPAGANDASo any letter without a signature is a potential forgery? That would be the vast majority of writing.
>No, it would mean he wasted interrogator's time, but it's not a crimeRefusing to give testimony is a crime. The interrogator literally says that.
>>2913977>>2913978>>2913981Okay, Beria memo. Literally went through a forgery expertise, which literally called it a forgery. Physical evidence: it was written on two different typewriters, with first 3 or 4 pages not matching last page in context and typewriter.
Shelepin one literally calls one of camps to be near Kharkov, while in reality it was 250 km away in Russia, not Ukraine. This kind of a mistake is impossible for a Russian. This mistake alone is enough, but there were plenty more, like a supposedly top secret document for Khruschev being sent using normal mail, lol
>They were just sitting in the Soviet archives lol.It's not unheard of for "archival evidence" being literally inserted into archives
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16525During 2005 to 2006, The National Archives undertook an investigation in response to allegations that certain documents cited in three books by Martin Allen and held in The National Archives were forgeries. The investigation, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police and forensic services, identified 29 forged documents in total.
The three works citing the forgeries are:
Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies (London, Macmillan, 2000).
The Hitler / Hess Deception: British Intelligence's Best Kept Secret of the Second World War (HarperCollins, London, 2003).
Himmler's Secret War: the Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler (Robson Books, London, 2005).
The investigation was catalysed by correspondence received by the National Archives in October 2004 from an eminent Second World War historian that cast doubts on the authenticity of these documents. A limited examination was made but no firm conclusions were drawn from it at the time.
In June 2005, Mr Ben Fenton, a journalist with the Daily Telegraph, wrote to The National Archives also questioning the authenticity of some of the documents cited in the book 'Himmler's Secret War'. This newspaper requested that the five documents be forensically tested at a private laboratory at its own cost, which The National Archives agreed to allow under its supervision. The results indicated that all five documents were forgeries.
A further investigation identified an extra 24 National Archives referenced documents cited in Martin Allen's books. These documents were forensically tested in government laboratories and also found to be forged documents.
The Metropolitan Police investigation evidence was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided in 2006 not to pursue a conviction in the courts.
The forged documents were extracted from the files in which they were found during the investigation in 2007 and have been placed in this record series.
>>2913981>Refusing to give testimony is a crime. The interrogator literally says that.That's for PROVEN witnesses. When investigation orders you to write a testimony, and you refuse it. Tokarev wasn't a witness, and he didn't provide a testimony. Furthermore, a case against CPSU, for which Tokarev shit was created in the first place, never actually took Tokarev's testimony, namely because it wasn't signed, lol
>>2913981>Where is Katyn mentioned in the final ruling?Where is Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, you retard?
>Come back to the thread the next day<WTF where did these CIA guys come from>>2913916>If you were going to kill thousands peopleExcept they did in other executions and they used nagants or TT's if on hand.
>I am a Nazi for saying the Soviets imported German munitions No, for saying Goebbels "guesses correctly". You already determined in your head he was right.
>Not the pointThe point being nobody really believed what the nazis were saying because they knew they were lying, exaggerating and just plain fantasy bullshitting their way in their broadcasting.
>opinion is uselessYet you somehow value the opinion of nazis when they are just as tribal as hasbarabots
>ProofsYou make special pleading for nazis but not the soviets.
>Castro loved Franco (and the CIA at one point).Days of mourning is just diplomatic courtesy. Funny how they opened embassies after Franco's death. If he loved Franco, why not open them before his death? As regards CIA, yeah, before the revolution kek. What do they teach you at Langley? Or are you a pollack? You seem too invested in ascribing soviet guilt here.
>So it did exist by your own admissionI was steelmanning you and even then you came up short. Far more examples, like what?
>>2914220>Funny how they opened embassies after Franco's death. If he loved Franco, why not open them before his death? I incorrectly assumed the embassies were closed. Turns out they were manned by charge d'affaires and not ambassadors, my bad.
>In spite of Franco's anticommunism, Cuba and Spain held diplomatic relations after Fidel Castro came into power and became Prime Minister of Cuba in 1959.[6] In 1960, Prime Minister Castro expelled the Spanish ambassador Juan Pablo de Lojendio e Irure[7] after an argument on TV, where Castro accused the Spanish embassy of supporting counter-revolutionary groups in Cuba.[8] The Spanish ambassadorship in Cuba would remain vacant for the next 15 years, however, diplomatic relations between both nations continued at the level of chargé d'affaires.[9]
>When the United States decreed an embargo against Cuba in 1960 and 1962, its Latin American and European allies followed suit, however, Francisco Franco did not place an embargo on Cuba. American pressure against the Spanish embargo breach was deflected by the renegotiation of the American military bases in Spain in 1963.[citation needed] >>2914220There's like one or two RUSSIANS, not even Poles, with butthurt about Stalin and who prefers it if Soviets killed Poles in Katyn, not Nazis, to the point of denying Nuremberg trials.
Or at the very least they are continental European, because they have the same assumptions about what counts as normal in legal proceedings that they fall under katynfiles' Nazi simps' spell and believe in sentencing requiring Katyn to be there - while Anglo-Saxon aka Inquisitorial court operates different, and so Anglos/Americans should expect the court to be on the side of indictment, also trying to find guilt instead of being a neutral observer and a true judge, like in continental Europe. So, if Katyn is in indictment, like many other examples, like murder camps, Warsaw city, numerous POW executions, torture, etc etc, it means that court did not strike it out of the indictment, meaning sentencing, whether it has or not Katyn, implies guilt over things that are still in the indictment. It's even in the Nuremberg trials' rules! In plain text!!! But then katynfiles said "nuh-uh, it doesn't count!", and retards became enthralled by their false nazi worshipping statement
>>2913964I am surprised nobody posted a link to the series.
Imo the whole thing is very confused. In their memoirs both Kaganovich & Molotov independently cite 3000ish Polish officers executed in 40 for crimes commited in the Polish-Soviet War two decades earlier. But that number is 5-7 times less than what is often claimed for Katyn.
>>2914250Molotov has no memoirs, it was a forgery by a starving journalist. Kaganovich probably the same, needs researching
>>2913983>Literally went through a forgery expertise, which literally called it a forgery.Is that the one commissioned by the Communist Party of Russia. Yes, that expert didn’t actually examine the original document but rather a copy of the document. Thus, he had no way of examining the age of the paper and ink, which is how you actually exposed forged documents. Nevertheless, his conclusion actually found no evidence of technical forgery, but this was misrepresented by the party.
https://katynfiles.com/content/romanov-rp-5.html<During microscopic examination (MBS-10 microscope, magnification up to 32X) of images of page-by-page fragments of typewritten text, no signs of technical forgery of their originals were found.>it was written on two different typewriters, with first 3 or 4 pages not matching last page in context and typewriterNot sure how reprinting the last page proves a forgery, but OK. See above link.
>Shelepin one literally calls one of camps to be near Kharkov, while in reality it was 250 km away in Russia, not Ukraine. This kind of a mistake is impossible for a Russian.I believe Shelepin did not have the execution records in front him, which explains the mix up. And POWs were actually executed in Kharkov. So the mix up is just sloppy writing.
Shelepin also later confirmed the document’s authenticity.
https://katynfiles.com/content/romanov-rp-6.html>It's not unheard of for "archival evidence" being literally inserted into archivesThe difference is there’s no evidence of the Katyn files being forgeries.
>>2913986Where in the transcript does Tokarev refuse to sign? The interrogator never fives him anything to sign in the first place, according to the transcript at least. Here it is again:
https://diedreiraben.substack.com/p/wodzimierz-woynski-protocol-of-d>>2914220Don’t dodge, faggot. No one is saying they never used their own munitions lol. You said a Nagant is comparable to the Walther in efficiency. So answer the question. Would you rather have the pistol with the magazines or the revolver and load every round individually?
>No, for saying Goebbels "guesses correctly". You already determined in your head he was right.Goebbels guessed right because his guess is in line with the evidence we have now. The Germans DID sell Walthers to the Soviets and the Soviets often DID prefer foreign weapons.
https://historical-fact.livejournal.com/88653.htmlhttps://katynfiles.com/content/romanov-7-65.html>The point being nobody really believed what the nazisWho cares about the Nazis? Even all the relevant parties at the times believed it was the Soviets, including the Polish government in exile, and the Western Allies (see Madden Commission). Nuremberg also rejected the Soviet story.
>Yet you somehow value the opinion of nazis when they are just as tribal as hasbarabots>You make special pleading for nazis but not the soviets.Cope.
>Days of mourning is just diplomatic courtesy.Cope status: reinforced.
>Far more examples, like what?Rather focus on Katyn for now. Don’t feel like derailing the thread and getting into other shit. You can consider this a “victory” for you.
>>2914403Possibility to kill POWs does not equal that Soviets did it. Instead of factual evidence, your side of the argument consists entirely of "sloppy" bureaucrats, sold Walthers that may have been used here and there, a honest mistake of putting Kharkov "close to" Tver that was 250 km away, etc etc.
>katynfilesYep, that's the guy I was talking about. Retard at katynfiles grasps at straws, and with him, his whole brainwashed nazi-loving reader list
>conclusion actually found no evidence of technical forgery, but this was misrepresented by the party.No, expertise straight up said that they've found the evidence of typewriter that was used for inserted pages to also be the typewriter used for other contentious documents, decades apart from 1940, lol. I bet romanov-retard simply didn't mention it, didn't he? As is his usual modus operandi to sell you lies
>>2914410>Possibility to kill POWs does not equal that Soviets did it.It’s not a possibility. We know the Soviets did it. All the evidence indicates that. Feel free to start presenting evidence that it was a Nazi crime. The whole denialist camp never tries to put together its own coherent narrative, just try (and fail) to poke holes in the existing one. Like we have so much evidence for the Nazi Einsatzgruppen shootings, so it shouldn’t be hard.
>Retard at katynfiles grasps at straws, and with him, his whole brainwashed nazi-loving reader listHow is Sergey Romanov a Nazi? He also writes for Holocaust-Controversies blog which attempts to debunk Holocaust denial. You are mentally ill.
>expertise straight up said that they've found the evidence of typewriter that was used for inserted pages to also be the typewriter used for other contentious documents, decades apart from 1940, lolI just quoted you Molokov’s conclusion. There was no forgery lol.
I don't know what is more pathetic: Hounding on a dead state, or taking a bullet for a dead state?
didn't happen & they deserved it & it will happen again
>>2913916>How is a revolver more efficient than a pistol? If you were going to kill thousands people, would you rather have the revolver, in which you have to load each round individually, or the pistol with a magazine?You guys talk like mob lawyers at a trial while a bunch of made guys start ratting each other out in the 90s. Eh, your honor, some punk kid claims he saw my client drop that weapon years ago meanwhile he was using it to shoot at cans and impress his friends
>>2914403>romanov katynfilesConcession accepted. You must be a pollack who doesn't understand english because when I said they already used nagants and tokarevs in executions, they made that decision for me.
>copeStalin was too nice to the "occupied countries". That's my cope.
>>2914434Good to know you have no rebuttal other than to appeal to dogma.
>>2913770Agree tbh. I don't really know or care who did it. But if the Germans did it then it was because they saw Poles as subhuman and wanted to exterminate them as a people. If the Soviets did it it was because they correctly saw the aristocratic and bourgeois officer corps of the Polish army as oppressors of the Polish workers and peasants.
>>2914412There is no evidence for Soviets doing it. Katyn denialists literally refuse Nuremberg trials, lie about the trials, and thrn pretend that their theory, built on conspiratard levels of assumptions - Soviets terrifying everyone into forgetting the poles, nkvd shooting with german bullets and pistols, treating tokarev refusing to sign as a proof that he signed (lmao), that "documents" having a billion inconsistencies means no doubt over their authenticity, that Katyn not in Nuremberg's final verdict means Nuremberg refused it, while ignoring lack of Dachau, Buchenwald, etc, which are only mentioned in indictment as well, etc etc - that this shit theory is the original, legally, widely accepted position, when in fact it's just a widespread conspiracy theory ala holodomor
You are a retard grasping at straws, ignoring evidence, ignoring arguments, repeating a tired debunked over and over. You can't even answer OP properly - who the fuck did Dachau and Buchenwald, which are not in Nuremberg's final verdict, just like Katyn? It's an obvious Nazi war crime, committed exactly like Nazis did everywhere else
>>2914412If a nazi rehabilitator romanov defends holocaust, there is a big suspicion in regards to holocaust. You shouldn't let shitters like him defend history
Lmao, i've dragged you through dirt a couple years back, and yet here you are again with your nonsense stance, with zero changes in argumentation. You simply fucking ignored all the evidence to start your bullshit anew
Expertise did, in fact, say that "Molotov's" letter was written on 2 typewriters. And that one of typewriters was used for other contentious documents, decades apart from "Molotov's letter". Furthermore, it contains a myriad of errors, you can watch bad signal for a point by point investigation.
I also put an example before about forgeries in British archives, and how newly found documents were put into a book as a sensation. This is EXACTLY how anti-communist authors operated for decades, especially in the 90s
>>2914549Rape? You mean, that allegation which was based on unsigned, unsent letter, the use of which you defended by assuming WITHOUT ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ASSUMPTION that it was a real letter, and that it only was unsent because of le evil terrifying KGB? This is a fucking conspiracy theory, it's not an argument, you are just plain NOT ALLOWED TO USE THIS SHIT in an argument, neither will court ever accept unsigned, unsent letter like that
>>2914412>How is Sergey Romanov a Nazi? He said that Germans treated Polish POWs chivalrously and that there weren't any executions, apart from some excesses.
>Like we have so much evidence for the Nazi Einsatzgruppen shootingsWhat evidence?
Soviet "evidence" of Soviet guilt is nonsense on every level, ripe with errors, aberrations of memory, random numbers, assumptions, full on comedy like "my pa escaped his execution order by the NKVD, got apprehended when ran away, and put into a penal battalion, where he died 3 years later!", shit like claiming that German pistols, bullets, ropes, mean that NKVD was trying to false flag pristine clean Germans who never committed any crimes towards Polish POWs, nuh-uh
What German evidence of war crimes? Like what quality are we talking about here? We know for a fact that Germans hid mass executions under claiming that Zyklon-B, despite the quantities used, was merely an agent to fight lye infestation on their prisoners. Because, you know, Jews were a dirty race ( /s for fuck's sake, don't you dare to ban me again for quoting Nazi argumentation)
Oh, and you know in what context Romanov put the "clean chivalric Nazi regime" argument? In the context of trying to explain how Nazis woouldn't commit a massacre of Polish POWs in 1941, lmao. Imagine being such a piece of shit that you'd claim that Nazis didn't kill POWs in 19-fucking-41. It's a straight up lie, you are being fed literal shit by a Nazi propagandist Romanov
Oh, and by the way. According to forgeries, Soviets through troikas have executed 1800 Polish POWs, but researchers have only ever established the identity of 22 of them. That's the approximate extent of overexaggeration of Soviet crime punishment system - by a factor 100
>>2913192Out of 58 Nazi war crimes in the indictment that mentioned time and place - ala Buchenwald, Katyn, Aushwitz - only one made it's way into the final verdict. Can you guess, which one?
That's right, the execution of British POWed pilots. I guess Nazis weren't responsible for anything else but killing 50 British pilots, huh
This is what Romanov shithead is doing by claiming that Nazis weren't persecuted for their crime at Katyn by Nuremberg court - rehabilitating Nazis of all their PROVEN crimes
>>29146411946, Hess' defence tried to present to the court a photocopy of secret Soviet-German pact. Court refused to take this document into account, citing that AUTHENTICITY of this document cannot be verified, since defence refused to name the person who provided them this document, meaning that that person was supposed to be called in to the court for questioning, with all the fun stuff applying to them, like criminal punishment for lying in court, LMAO
>>2914549Liquidating the Polish ruling class so that Polish workers and peasants can rule the country for themselves isn't genociding Poles, its liberating them. It's exactly what the Russians had done to their own parasitic rulers in their revolution.
>>2914769if you kill your enemies, they win
>>2914629>>2914633>>2914634>>2914638>>2914640Alright, good to know you have no evidence that the Nazis did Katyn other than DA BOOLETS and FORGERIES!!!11!!
>>2914769Yeah, that was it. It totally had nothing to do with Germany and the USSR splitting Eastern Europe into "spheres of influence" as part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Fucking campist retards.
>>2914960Leaving aside all the actual reasons for why the Soviets signed Molotov-Ribbentrop in the first place (i.e. the total rejection Poland and the West of an anti-Nazi alliance and the fact that Poland's eastern territories had been seized from Soviet Russia in a war of aggression), that has zero bearing on my argument. The Soviets integrated those territories into the USSR and thereby made them socialist, which obviously necessitates the elimination of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie as a class. What exactly is the nature of your objection? Just shooting them all may have been excessive, but these people were class enemies. Neutralizing them was necessary, even if it didn't need to be quite so brutal. They had done the exact same thing to this class of people in Russia. Was that a bad thing too?
>>2914960It fucked over japan, who had just signed the anti comintern pact with germany
>>2914960>campistCampists are historically progressive. There are good camps and bad camps. Stop trying to impose a universal standard on cops and robbers. One is good, the other is bad. If you think you are not a campist, you belong to the third-camp of inept losers.
>>2914995>Leaving aside all the actual reasons for why the Soviets signed Molotov-Ribbentrop in the first place (i.e. the total rejection Poland and the West of an anti-Nazi alliance and the fact that Poland's eastern territories had been seized from Soviet Russia in a war of aggression), that has zero bearing on my argument. The USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to effectuate its imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe (it's a meme that imperialism must require a profit motive), as well as to buy time for an eventual offensive war on Germany. The apologetics you give about the USSR ostensibly wanting to ally with the West has no bearing on the fact that the Soviets were always going to attempt to expand its borders westward.
>What exactly is the nature of your objection?Crimes like Katyn were measures taken by the state capitalist Soviet bureaucracy in asserting its imperial control over newly-annexed Eastern Poland. It had nothing to do with letting "Polish workers and peasants" rule the country, which is some idealist trash, but rather eliminating one strain of bourgeois class rule in favor of another another.
>Was that a bad thing too?Yes, although the circumstances aren't really the same.
>>2915088>One is good, the other is bad.Binary thinking like this is for retards, so it makes sense you believe this.
>>2915105>The USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to effectuate its imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe (it's a meme that imperialism must require a profit motive)If by "meme" you mean the entire Marxist understanding of the concept then okay. The fact is that the USSR and Polish communists oversaw the rapid industrialization of Poland and its development into a modern urban society. It was actually a net drain on the Soviet economy due to the extensive subsidies offered for Polish industry. This is a relationship that's precisely the opposite of imperialism, which stunts development in the periphery to fuel the core.
>the fact that the Soviets were always going to attempt to expand its borders westwardGood, they should have kept going.
>Crimes like Katyn were measures taken by the state capitalist Soviet bureaucracy"State capitalism" that just happens to conform to the description of the lower stage of socialism given by Marx.
>It had nothing to do with letting "Polish workers and peasants" rule the country, which is some idealist trashSo you don't think that feudal and bourgeois armed forces should be dismantled? You don't think that their state power should he smashed? This is idealist trash to you?
>but rather eliminating one strain of bourgeois class rule in favor of another anotherMake up your mind, were they bureaucrats or bourgeois? Those two things aren't the same.
>YesSo you're just a liberal then.
>>2915126>If by "meme" you mean the entire Marxist understanding of the concept then okay.As defined by who? You, some random retard online? The standard theory of imperialism wasn't even develop by Karl Marx, so there isn't a singular "
"understanding" of it.
>It was actually a net drain on the Soviet economy due to the extensive subsidies offered for Polish industry. This is a relationship that's precisely the opposite of imperialism, which stunts development in the periphery to fuel the core.I'm not sure why you're shifting the goal posts to late Cold War dynamics when we're talking about the Molotov–Ribbentrop period. Anyways, these were political investments required to maintain compliant satellite states. To think this was anything other than Cold War strategic maintenance is more idealist trash.
Regardless, in the early Cold War, the USSR extracted resources from Poland, e.g., coal, joint-stock companies, unequal trade terms, and imposed a command economy that tied Poland to Soviet needs. Those later subsidies were a response to the contradictions of this earlier extraction, and to the recurring crises of the Polish command economy.
Both are forms of imperialism, as imperialism can be independent of profit. You can call it "social imperialism" or geopolitical "hegemony," whatever.
>Good, they should have kept going.You're okay with imperialism as long as the imperial army has the word "people's" or "worker's" in its name.
>"State capitalism" that just happens to conform to the description of the lower stage of socialism given by Marx.Not really. The lower stage of communism presupposes the means of production are common property that "belong to the whole of society," not controlled by a state bureaucracy. This was articulated in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
>So you don't think that feudal and bourgeois armed forces should be dismantled? You don't think that their state power should he smashed? This is idealist trash to you?Your framing of Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe, to say that they actually cared about letting "Polish workers and peasants" rule the country, was idealist trash, yes.
>Make up your mind, were they bureaucrats or bourgeois? Those two things aren't the same. The bureaucracy functions as a collective capitalist, even without private ownership. The bureaucracy owns the means of production via the state; the bureaucracy thus allocates investment, production, and the extraction and allocation of surplus value. Therefore, the bureaucracy is a new de facto bourgeois.
>So you're just a liberal then.Ad hom.
>>2914960> no evidence that the Nazis did Katyn other than DA BOOLETS and FORGERIESEntire fucking Nuremberg trials, lmao, put the blame on Katyn on Nazis. There was Burdenko comission.
You are the denialist here, not me. You deny facts and bring here conspiratard katynfiles
>>2915159>Entire fucking Nuremberg trials, lmao, put the blame on Katyn on NazisWhen? Where is it in the final judgement?
>>2915158Poland allied with Hitler to attacks Czechoslovakia, by doing so breaking non-aggression treaty with USSR that stipulated that neither side should attack third parties.
Then, later on, Polish government disintegrated to the point that Polish ambassador to USSR emigrated to Britain instead of receiving Soviet note.
>>2915160Where is Dachau in the final judgement, retard? Out of 58 named Nazi crimes in the indictment only 1 made it to verdict - execution of British POWed pilots. What, are you going to claim that Auschwitz was't done by Nazis?
Answer me already, fucktard. You've been evading this question for 100 posts
>>2915160>>2915161Oh, and to prove that indictment counts towards final verdict, that Nuremberg put actual, proven Nazi crimes into indictment and that Germans were actually judged for them, there were things that were refused from being added to the indictment, namely:
>>2914643 Never made it to the indictment as a part of conspiracy to start a war
>>2915161>Then, later on, Polish government disintegrated to the point that Polish ambassador to USSR emigrated to Britain instead of receiving Soviet note. And this was the reason for USSR taking over territories abandoned by the Polish government - protection of USSR and peoples living there against "political instability" aka an aggressive military power.
There is nobody else to blame for Polish people but their government, which enabled Hitler to march on and on, in spite of USSR offering a solution to the problem. Poland participated in Hitler's division of Europe, and then got partitioned itself.
>>2913272>Unfortunately German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarification. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.<If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.<whole Katyn affair would have to be droppedWhy would he drop the Katyn affair over bullets, if it was so insignificant and easily believable explanation that Germans merely sold the bullets?
Lmao, Goebbels is a better judge of what people will see as believable and trustworthy than you
>>2915158>As defined by who?Lenin.
>Anyways, these were political investments required to maintain compliant satellite states. And yet the Western powers very rarely did it in their colonies.
>Both are forms of imperialism, as imperialism can be independent of profit. This is a liberal understanding of imperialism that just treats it as when any country meddles in the affairs or has hegemony over another. By that logic it was "imperialism" for the US to re-absorb the Confederacy. It's useless as a concept because it tells us nothing about the actual relationship between the nations in question, or whether socialism and development are being advanced or hindered.
>The lower stage of communism presupposes the means of production are common property that "belong to the whole of society," not controlled by a state bureaucracy. Marx specifically describes the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the state. Even if there Soviet form of management and government was undemocratic in many ways (and it was), this doesn't change the mode of production any more than a capitalist country ceases to be capitalist just because it has a fascist autocracy rather than a liberal republic. In the USSR industry was operated according to a common plan, markets private property, and general commodity production were abolished. This is socialism even with its flaws.
>Therefore, the bureaucracy is a new de facto bourgeois.Not in the slightest. The centralization of the means of production in state hands fundamentally alters the relationship between the managers and the workers. Firms don't operate according to the capitalist logic of profit maximization because they don't work in constant competition with one another. This in turn reduces (if not eliminates) the drive to lower wages and raise prices, the drive to gut services, the need to pursue the economic exploitation of other nations, etc. In short it eliminates the central driving force that characterizes worker-bourgeois relations under capitalism, drives them into constant antagonism, and gives rise to capitalism's most murderous tendencies. Their relationship is fundamentally different even in the absence of proper democratic oversight. This is plainly shown in the low degree of economic inequality in socialist states, the high degree of worker security, and the "privileges" of the nomenklatura which appear downright quaint next to the obscene excesses of capitalist elites.
>>2915176Stewardship is not ownership. If it was the same thing, there would be no need to dissolve USSR and restore proper capitalism
>>2915180This. If the USSR were really some kind of bureaucratic mode of production created by and for the managerial stratum then they would have had no reason to dissolve it and create bourgeois states. This clearly indicates that they saw Soviet socialist institutions as a hindrance to their interests rather than serving them. The USSR is far better understood as a form of progressive Caesarism, wherein state power was not wielded directly by workers, but in alliance with them and in ways that advanced their interests.
>>2915185Capitalism cannot have such progressive caesarianism, though. Oh, they love to pretend that they have it, quote nonsense about how Soviet or Chinese factory build up is equivalent in wealth creation to Japan financialization or Poland selling strawberry to Europe or USA soybeans to China, but in truth, such massive growth only ever truly happened in socialist states
>>2915176>Lenin.Since when was Lenin "the entire Marxist understanding" of imperialism?
>And yet the Western powers very rarely did it in their colonies.They absolutely have. Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam, literally everything USAID does, etc. These are all states in which the United States has spent billions of dollars buying political compliance.
>This is a liberal understanding of imperialism that just treats it as when any country meddles in the affairs or has hegemony over another.Imperialism is when a core state denies a junior core/periphery state sovereignty to the effect that the dominant state controls or severely constrains the weaker state's economy, institutions, or foreign/domestic policy to serve the core’s strategic, political, and/or economic interests. This benefit is not exclusively related to economics, although it can be (e.g., Western consumption is highly dependent on unequal exchange with the Third World).
In fact, most United States-led "regime changes" yield very little benefit for American capital interests in the aggregate, and often leads to 'less' bilateral trade.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/26/is-there-a-payoff-from-u-s-intervention-to-protect-u-s-assets-we-found-few-trade-benefits/>By that logic it was "imperialism" for the US to re-absorb the Confederacy.No, that represents a crisis and reconsolidation in the imperial core.
>It's useless as a concept because it tells us nothing about the actual relationship between the nations in question, or whether socialism and development are being advanced or hindered.It tells you a lot: coerced dependency, resource extraction, imposed institutions, military occupation, limits on sovereignty, etc. These can all distort development relative to the imperial power's needs. For example, the Marshall Plan advanced Western Europe's development in exchange for dependency on the United States. This is because US imperial interests needed Western Europe as a bulwark against the USSR.
>Marx specifically describes the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the state.Right, but state ownership isn't part of the lower stage of communism. Have you even read 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'?
>Not in the slightest. The centralization of the means of production in state hands fundamentally alters the relationship between the managers and the workers.Not really. Shifting from private to state-capitalist doesn't eliminate the relation to capital or class. Workers are still separated from the means of production; they still sell their labor-power; they still produce surplus value, which is then extracted by the state-capitalist bureaucracy.
>Firms don't operate according to the capitalist logic of profit maximization because they don't work in constant competition with one another.Competition is only one mechanism through which the capitalist mode of production imposes its logic; however, it is not the logic itself. The separation of producers from the means of production and the extraction of surplus value is the driving force behind the capitalist mode of production. This remains in the state-capitalist mode of production.
>This in turn reduces (if not eliminates) the drive to lower wages and raise prices, the drive to gut services, the need to pursue the economic exploitation of other nations, etc. In short it eliminates the central driving force that characterizes worker-bourgeois relations under capitalism, drives them into constant antagonism, and gives rise to capitalism's most murderous tendencies.State capitalism can lower wages by decree, intensify labor, and suppress consumption to fund heavy industry and armaments. It can raise prices through state monopoly and turnover taxes. It can gut services by militarizing the budget and prioritizing accumulation over need. And it has absolutely exploited other nations.
>Their relationship is fundamentally different even in the absence of proper democratic oversight.If there is no "proper democratic oversight," or some form of mass ownership of the means of production, then it cannot be classified as the lower stage of communism.
>This is plainly shown in the low degree of economic inequality in socialist states, the high degree of worker security, and the "privileges" of the nomenklatura which appear downright quaint next to the obscene excesses of capitalist elites."Socialist state" is an oxymoron. "[L]ow degree of economic inequality" is irrelevant.
>>2915185Stagnation, technological lag, and imperial overreach made the Soviet state-capitalist mode of production less stable. The Soviet bureaucracy did not surrender its power, but rather transformed it to escape the constraints of state ownership. During the privatization rape of Russia, the Soviet nomenklatura leveraged their existing administrative networks to acquire state enterprises, factories, and natural resources for a fraction of their real value (loans-for-share scheme). 61% of the post-USSR business elite in Russia were Soviet nomenklatura.
https://studfile.net/preview/11064546/page:39/You cannot separate the plunder of Russia in the 1990s from the state-capitalist shithole the October Revolution eventually established. Worker's emancipation was doomed as soon as those WW1 German imperialists put that balding manlet Lenin on that infamous sealed train to Russia.
>>2915232>picJust so you know, British museum officially recognizes lord something's letters that "proved" that Lenin received any money from Germans as forgeries. Same for Zinoviev's letter
>>2915232>muh statesUnmarxist. Imperialism should be viewed in context of class politics, not retarded understanding of states
>muh nomenklaturaDidn't inherit shit, at best they got pensions in the West, all the porkies and new leaders came from komsomol and easy business loans of perestroika and black market shit and hoarders-speculants. Reformists weren't even bureaucrats, bureaucrats rebelled and eventually as industries' lobby, while new wealth concentrated in oil - and got squeezed over the years out of the country
>>2915241Ah, my mistake, it was Sisson documents. They were debunked in 1956. It's quite amazing that despite a widely known fact, an anti-communist believing in USSR being responsible for Katyn doesn't know this. I bet, in 1920-30s there were a lot of accusations like you did earlier that thrir opponents just dismiss facts as forgeries
>>2915241Sort of. The Sisson Documents are widely believed to be forgeries, but it’s universally accepted that the Bolsheviks received German money in some form via German Foreign Office spooks like Alexander Parvus.
>>2915243>>2915244Oh, you’re that mentally ill Katyn denialist that needs to make 5 posts to get your poopy points across. Nvm.
>>2915245Not believed, proven to have been forgeries.
German money to Bolsheviks did not exist.
Katyn denialists are those who deny Nuremberg trials declaring Katyn a Nazi crime.
>>2915232>Since when was Lenin "the entire Marxist understanding" of imperialism?Since he provided the most robust and thorough analysis of it and virtually every major Marxist work on the topic has built on his theory.
>Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam, literally everything USAID does, etc. These are all states in which the United States has spent billions of dollars buying political compliance.The US did not substantially improve the industrial development of any of these countries. On the contrary they actually reduced it. Iraq was one of the most thoroughly developed and industrialized countries in West Asia before the US bombed them. Just because the Americans are spending money there doesn't mean that they're actually overturning the standard pattern of imperialist relations. In Afghanistan virtually all the money being dumped into the country was being pocketed by corrupt warlords or funneled back to American contractors who took the money but did no actual work. By the end of the Cold War the disparity in GDP per capita between the USSR and Poland was only around 1.5x. Its vastly higher between Western imperialist states and their dependent neo-colonies. The nature of the relationship was obviously radically different.
>Imperialism is when a core state denies a junior core/periphery state sovereignty to the effect that the dominant state controls or severely constrains the weaker state's economy, institutions, or foreign/domestic policy to serve the core’s strategic, political, and/or economic interests. US re-annexation of the Confederacy fits this definition btw.
>It tells you a lot: coerced dependency, resource extraction, imposed institutions, military occupation, limits on sovereignty, etc. These are all very vague, which is why they tell us nothing except the fact that a larger country is dominating a weaker one. It doesnt tell us what kind of institutuons are imposed, what interests the military occupation is there to protect. Taking the American Civil War as an example again, the US Army occupied the South and imposed the institution of free labour. Two of them also just don't apply to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact since the relationship wasn't extractive, and they were only "dependent" to the extent that the Soviets were propping up their economies at their own expense (i.e. the opposite of imperialism).
>Right, but state ownership isn't part of the lower stage of communism. Yes it is, Marx and Engels lay this out clearly in the Communist Manifesto and the Principles of Communism. They obviously considered state ownership as the main model for socialism, and nowhere do they say anything to indicate its absence from the lower phase or the use of some alternative form of collective ownership at this stage.
>Workers are still separated from the means of production; they still sell their labor-power; they still produce surplus valueWorkers in the USSR did not sell their labour power. Employment was a right, workers were not in competition with each other to drive down wages, and there was no reserve army of labour. Labour power was thereby decommodified. Marx writes in Critique of the Gotha Program that the extraction of surplus is a necessary part of lower stage socialism to support the maintenance and expansion of the means of production, support those who cannot work, etc. He explicitly criticizes the notion of the "undiminished proceeds of labour" going back to workers as utopian.
>The separation of producers from the means of production and the extraction of surplus value is the driving force behind the capitalist mode of production. No it isn't. Without life and death competition between individual firms, there is no constant drive for accumulation to avoid being run out of business. Moreover surplus doesn't accrue to the managers as their private property, but accrues to the state according to a national plan. Not even the highest government and party officials got to simply pocket industrial profits, which is why what counted as elite luxury by Soviet standards was pretty modest by Western ones. This means that there is no structural necessity or even incentive to constantly squeeze wages or chase growth for its own sake. It removes the central driving force behind the opposed interests of labour and capital.
>State capitalism can lower wages by decree, intensify labor, and suppress consumption to fund heavy industry and armaments. It can raise prices through state monopoly and turnover taxes. It can gut services by militarizing the budget and prioritizing accumulation over need. Of course it *can* do these things. The difference is that it can also not do them. Capitalist societies *must* do them or else they'll collapse. This makes Soviet style socialist societies objectively more capable of representing worker interests, which is why they were very obviously doing that by leading the charge in guaranteeing the economic rights and workers, creating a society of unprecedented economic equality, supporting liberation causes globally, etc. Its no coincidence that the end of the USSR saw the global retreat of labour rights and the worker's movement.
>then it cannot be classified as the lower stage of communismWhy not? No other mode of production is dependent on the particular form of its administration. Feudalism doesn't cease to be feudalism because it has an absolute monarchy rather than a council of nobles. Capitalism doesn't cease to be capitalism because it has a fascist dictatorship rather than a liberal republic. Why should socialism be the only mode of production defined by its form of government rather than its economic system?
>"Socialist state" is an oxymoron. Dawg if you're an anarchist just say that. Why even bother trying to invoke Marx if you disagree with his fundamental concept of socialism?
>but rather transformed it to escape the constraints of state ownershipBut if this entire state apparatus was built exclusively around their interests at the expense of workers, then how could it have been a constraint? You're tacitly admitting that the Soviet system was ultimately a barrier to their interests, which clearly implies that it was serving some other interest and not just their own.
>>2915341>Since he provided the most robust and thorough analysis of it and virtually every major Marxist work on the topic has built on his theory. I reiterate my initial question: "As defined by who? You, some random retard online?" Lenin isn't the end all be all on what imperialism is. Marx and Engels never formulated a systematic theory of imperialism, so it's definition is interpretative.
Besides, Lenin's description of imperialism's mechanics isn't even his own work. It's heavily copied from J. A. Hobson, who is a British liberal economist.
Moreover, Lenin acknowledged imperialism isn't exclusive to the capitalist mode of production. Thus, non-capitalist states such as the USSR (if you were to wrongly define it as such) can be imperialist, even under Lenin's narrow framework:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm<Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But "general" disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: "Greater Rome and Greater Britain." Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital.>The US did not substantially improve the industrial development of any of these countries.You said the "Western powers very rarely did it," with "it" being the "political investments required to maintain compliant satellite states." Your argument, to paraphrase, was that the "Western powers very rarely made political investments required to maintain compliant satellite states." That's asinine. The United States expends billions of dollars in maintaining compliant vassal states. The examples I mentioned: Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Vietnam are perfect examples of American imperialism purchasing compliance at exorbitant costs. Rather than being purely extractive, empirical data shows American imperialism pays inordinate costs for little to no aggregate benefit to American capital interests; regime changes generally leads to less bilateral trade. More broadly, the vast majority of the world's FDI is concentrated in the Global North. This directly contradicts Lenin's assertion that capital flows to the Global South, where wages are lower and materials are cheaper. Obviously, this doesn't mean the Global South is free of imperialist extraction; it just proves Lenin's empirical definition of imperialism is crude.
>By the end of the Cold War the disparity in GDP per capita between the USSR and Poland was only around 1.5x. Its vastly higher between Western imperialist states and their dependent neo-colonies. The nature of the relationship was obviously radically different.Whether development has progressed or regressed is not decisive to the question of imperialism. In the case of the Marshall Plan in Western Europe, it progressed development. In the case of Afghanistan, it regressed development. Yet, both are imperialist. Imperialism can both progress and regress development, as it's contextual to the imperial power's needs; those late-Cold War subsidies (early Cold War dynamics were highly extractive) merely represent a cost of maintain Soviet imperialism, not some bizarre altruist ideal. The appeal to GDP is not decisive; the USSR's imperial domination over Poland was its control over Poland's politics, military, and economy. I'd also push back on your use of GDP, as GDP calculations in centrally planned economies are highly unreliable, although this is irrelevant to my broader point.
>US re-annexation of the Confederacy fits this definition btw.No, it represents a crisis and reconsolidation in the imperial core.
>These are all very vague, which is why they tell us nothing except the fact that a larger country is dominating a weaker one. It doesnt tell us what kind of institutuons are imposed, what interests the military occupation is there to protect.The definition gives you an axes of analysis. It doesn't have to prespecify every institution or interest. The material analysis fills that in.
>Taking the American Civil War as an example again, the US Army occupied the South and imposed the institution of free labour.The Confederacy was a secessionist region within the same polity, so no, your example doesn't track. The material stakes are intra-core.
>Two of them also just don't apply to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact since the relationship wasn't extractive, and they were only "dependent" to the extent that the Soviets were propping up their economies at their own expense (i.e. the opposite of imperialism).This is a selective interpretation of the USSR's dynamics with the Warsaw Pact states. Early Cold War dynamics were highly extractive via joint-stock companies that gave the Soviets direct control over key sectors; reparations that consumed nearly half of national budgets; and unequal exchange over resources. Between 1945 and 1960, over $23 billion was expropriated from Eastern Europe. Like I said, those later subsidies were a response to the contradictions of this earlier extraction; they were payments for political, military, and ideological compliance.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781003720126_CH04/merchants-kremlin-l%C3%A1szl%C3%B3-borhi>Yes it is, Marx and Engels lay this out clearly in the Communist Manifesto and the Principles of Communism.No, retard. That isn't part of the lower stage of communism, that's part of the transitional period—i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat—that precedes the first stage of communism.
Critique of the Gotha Programme IV:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm<Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.>Workers in the USSR did not sell their labour power. Employment was a right, workers were not in competition with each other to drive down wages, and there was no reserve army of labour. Labour power was thereby decommodified.Workers remained disconnected from the means of production. They were allocated to jobs by the state, which directed investment and production. Labor power was not fully commodified, but it was still subject to state extraction. The surplus was extracted by the bureaucracy, not by the traditional private producers.
>Marx writes in Critique of the Gotha Program that the extraction of surplus is a necessary part of lower stage socialism to support the maintenance and expansion of the means of production, support those who cannot work, etc. He explicitly criticizes the notion of the "undiminished proceeds of labour" going back to workers as utopian. This only establishes that a surplus product is necessary. It says nothing about the form of surplus appropriation. In the first stage of communist society, commodity exchange, value, and wage labor are all non-existent. None of this applies to the state-capitalist USSR.
>Without life and death competition between individual firms, there is no constant drive for accumulation to avoid being run out of business.Like I said, the capitalist mode of production isn't defined by the number of competing firms. It's defined by accumulation through wage labor and exploitation. A monopoly is still capitalism. Besides, competition between firms isn't the only factor for accumulation. Inter-state competition does the same thing; the same "accumulate or die" imperative exists here.
>Moreover surplus doesn't accrue to the managers as their private property, but accrues to the state according to a national plan.If the state controls the disposal of surplus value, then it occupies the structural position of the capitalist shareholder. Legal ownership and effective appropriation are the same things de facto.
>This means that there is no structural necessity or even incentive to constantly squeeze wages or chase growth for its own sake. It removes the central driving force behind the opposed interests of labour and capital. It removes the central driving force behind the opposed interests of labour and capital. What are you babbling about? The USSR did all of those bad things.
>Why not?Because that's not the definition of the first stage of communism put forth by Marx or Engels?
>Why even bother trying to invoke Marx if you disagree with his fundamental concept of socialism?I'm not? There is no "socialist state" according to Marx or Engels.
Here's Anti-Duhring:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm<The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution. >But if this entire state apparatus was built exclusively around their interests at the expense of workers, then how could it have been a constraint? You're tacitly admitting that the Soviet system was ultimately a barrier to their interests, which clearly implies that it was serving some other interest and not just their own.A system can serve a ruling elite while still fettering its individual members' preferred way of realizing their interests. State regulatory agencies in capitalist economies follow the same logic: captured by the industries they oversee, yet they still constrain individual firms into complying with the state's laws. By your logic, the SEC serves the public. Constraint is not evidence that the system served workers; it may just be how the ruling elite enforces its own class interest.
>>2915689>Marx and Engels never formulated a systematic theory of imperialism, so it's definition is interpretative.They were arguing for class relations as alpha and omega of all social relations, thus imperialism should be viewed from CLASS perspective, not NATIONS.
Imperialism per Lenin is ruling capitalist class of one country, facing internal market's inability to grow any further, provide any more profits, expands abroad. After bringing poverty and ruin to it's own workers, it strives towards bringing the same shit to other markets. Market in this case means a territory where some country's capital has a monopoly.
In other words, we see modern USA's imperialism quite nakedly - securing Europe's market via causing a war between Russia and Ukraine, it now enjoys a monopoly (for a while). This causes a raise in prices at home - and Trump DOESN'T FUCKING TRULY CARE. IT'S GOOD FOR PROFITS. Trump wars Iran - GAS PRICES SOAR! AND IT'S EVEN BETTER FOR PROFITS. And this secures European and Asian oil markets even better! This is textbook imperialism.
Europe for a long time enjoyed monopoly in Russia. Russians themselves are brainwashed by Euroid imperialism to the point local producers pretended to be Germans and Americans to sell local made stuff. They also enjoyed minimal Russian gas and oil prices, but since 2010s, Russia started asserting itself on European markets, and that market manipulation irked European capital pretty badly. They've already destroyed and imperialised Yugoslavia, and they envisioned a future where Russia is destroyed and balkanized as well, with Euroid overlords prospering in every statelet. Russia's vision for Europe, to compare, was for Russia to sell oil to the West and Europe to sell machines to Russia. Then, in 2014 onwards, Europe got pissed even more at Russia instituting a Russian sphere-wide tariff union, which undercut European profits heavily, and they imposed on Ukraine a choice - either EU or Russian tariff union. Ukraine exploded, as Ukraine's industries were Russian market-oriented and Ukraine's political class was EU compradors. Which one is imperialist here? It's Europe, obviously. This shit, and Europe sanctioning Russia on every good possible, caused immense suffering for Euroids' own population. It raised profits, too. And now we have Euroid propaganda talking about how CHYNAH made Russia attack Ukraine beucase CHYNAH wants to imperialize European Union! CHYNAH took our markets, and doesn't want to shaaaaare!!1
Both of those - USA and EU - are textbook imperialist behaviour. It's all systematic, it's all class based, it's all profit driven.
>The examples I mentioned: Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Vietnam are perfect examples of American imperialism purchasing compliance at exorbitant costs.Those never produced anything but tyrannical regimes that bought weapons to murder their own citizens.
>>2915689>I'm not? There is no "socialist state" according to Marx or Engels.So the opportunist who denies the dictatorship of the proletariat wants to use anti-Duhring to say that there is no socialist state in the texts of Marx and Engels?
Let's see the context of the paragraphs of the selective text that you posted, then following the next paragraph of the same text:
<This solution can only consist in actually recognizing the social nature of the modern productive forces and in therefore bringing the mode of production, appropriation and exchange into harmony with the social character of the means of production. This can only be brought about by society's openly and straightforwardly taking possession of the pro-ductive forces, which have outgrown all guidance other than that of society itself. Thus the social character of the means of production and of the products, which today reacts against the producers themselves, periodically ruptures the mode of production and exchange, and enforces itself only as a law of nature working blindly, violently and destructively, will be quite consciously asserted by the producers, and instead of being a source of disorder and periodic collapse will change into the most powerful lever of production itself.
<The forces operating in society work exactly like the forces of nature – blindly, violently and destructively, so long as we fail to understand them and take them into account. But once we have recognized them and understood their action, their trend and their effects, it depends solely on ourselves to increasingly subject them to our will and to attain our ends through them. This is especially true of the mighty productive forces of the present day. As long as we obstinately refuse to understand their nature and their character – and the capitalist mode of production and its defenders resist such understanding with might and main – these forces operate in spite of us and against us, dominate us, as we have shown in detail. But once their nature is grasped, they can be transformed from demoniacal masters into willing servants in the hands of the producers working in association. It is the difference between the destructive force of electricity in the lightning of a thunderstorm and the tamed electricity of the telegraph and the arc light, the difference between a conflagration and fire working in the service of man. With this treatment of the present-day productive forces according to their nature, which is now at last understood, a socially planned regulation of production in accordance with the needs of the community and of each individual takes the place of the anarchy of social production. The capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer and then the appropriator as well, will thus be replaced by the mode of appropriation of the product based on the nature of the modern means of production themselves: on the one hand, direct social appropriation as a means of maintaining and extending production, and on the other direct individual appropriation as a means of existence and enjoyment.
<By increasingly transforming the great majority of the population into proletarians, the capitalist mode of production creates the force which, under penalty of its own destruction, is compelled to accomplish this revolution. By increasingly driving towards the transformation of the vast socialized means of production into state property, it itself points the way to the accomplishment of this revolution. [b]The proletariat seizes state power and to begin with transforms the means of production into state property. But it thus puts an end to itself as proletariat, it thus puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, and thus also to the state as state. Moving in class antagonisms, society up to now had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, that is, particularly for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, villeinage or serfdom, wage-labour) given by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of the whole of society, its concentration in a visible body, but it was so only in so far as it was the state of that class which in its time represented the whole of society: in antiquity, the state of the slave-owning citizens, in the Middle Ages of the feudal nobility, in our time, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.[/b]
<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877, Part III: Socialism, II. Theoreticalhttp://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/AD78.html#p3s2Let's look at another quote to see if there is this anti-statism of yours with Engels:
<III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
<Frederick Engels, 1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Chapter III [Historical Materialism]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htmNow let's see what Marx has to say:
<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [b]conquest of political power by the proletariat[/b].[…]
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.[…]
<[b]The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class[/b]; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.[…]
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmDid you forget when Marx mentioned the dictatorship of the proletariat?
<The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.
<[b]Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat[b/].
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter IVhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htmMarx answered Bakunin this same question, denying the anarchists and affirming the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat:
<"We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim – the foundation of a people's state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state."
<[b]It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means[/b]. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.
<Works of Karl Marx 1874, Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm >>2915940The DoTP isn't "socialist." It’s a transitionary phase that should, ostensibly, wither away into the first stage of communism. If the state still exists, then the first stage of communism hasn't been reached. "Socialist state" is an oxymoron.
>>2915943You are still mistaken. The dictatorship of the proletariat forms part of the political reorganisation of a new class that will become the ruling class, abolishing the bourgeois state and establishing a new state, with the proletariat organised as a class. Marx does not distinguish between communism and socialism in his writings, but there is a difference between the proletarian state – that is, the socialist state – and the economic organisation of communism in its lower and higher stages. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists prior to the establishment of the socialist economy; for this reason, it encompasses the transitional process of expropriation and the utilisation of state capitalism, abolishing private property and isolated, backward forms of ownership, and continuing even into communism in its lower phase.
The withering away of the state is only completed with communism in its higher phase, once global socialist hegemony has been established, all the contradictions in society that prevent the withering away of the state have been resolved, the workers are disciplined, and the means of production in socialist states globally have been developed to the point of producing a surplus of consumer goods.
Let us first look at some quotes regarding the peasantry after the proletariat assumes power:
<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us no reason to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its extreme consequences, until the last small craftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.
<Engels 1894: The Peasant Question in France and Germany, Part 2: Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htmAs you can see here, Engels is also including the situation of the dictatorship of the proletariat while peasants still exist.
But perhaps you were referring to the *Critique of the Gotha Program* regarding communism in its lower phase?
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.[…]
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmAs you can see, there is a difference between the lower and higher phases of communism; if the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet withered away, and private property has been abolished—along with the classes of owners and the anarchy of production for market profit—in favor of the organization of a socialist economy, then it makes sense to speak of a socialist state:
<The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”
<Marx-Engels Correspondence 1875, Engels to August Bebel In Zwickauhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm#staterevSo you are going to deny that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state? Let's see the quotes then:
<The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.
<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.[…]
<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.
<The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.
<Karl Marx: The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May, 1871, [The Paris Commune]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htmNow, here is what Engels has to say about this:
<This shattering [Sprengung ] of the former state power and its replacement by a new and truly democratic one is described in detail in the third section of The Civil War. But it was necessary to dwell briefly here once more on some of its features, because in Germany particularly the superstitious belief in the state has been carried over from philosophy into the general consciousness of the bourgeoisie and even of many workers. According to the philosophical conception, the state is the "realization of the Idea," or the Kingdom of God on earth, as translated into philosophical terms, the sphere in which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized. And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes root the more readily since people are accustomed from childhood to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its lucratively positioned officials. And people think they have taken quite an extraordinarily bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the victorious proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as possible until such time as a generation reared in new, free social conditions is able to throw out the entire lumber of the state.
<Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Communehttps://marx2mao.redspark.nu/M%26E/CWF71.htmlWith all this in mind, you could, if you wish, classify the dictatorship of the proletariat after the socialization of the economy as a socialist state, since the Paris Commune was crushed before it could socialize its economy, while communist revolutions like the USSR completed their revolution and socialized their economy.
Shelepin's letter is a forgery. It's proven by pseudo-Shelepin calling VKP(b) as CPSU in 1940. Party started being called CPSU only in 1952, while Shelepin quotes some kind of a resolution of central committee of CPSU dated 1940
Funnily enough, Katyn denialists list this forged memo with a title "…in accordance with resolution of VKP(b) from 1940", because their retarded forgery was already written like that, and rewriting it to mention VKP(b) instead of CPSU in text itself is already impossible
>>2913192So what exactly is so horrible about killing enemy officers? Why even deny this?
>>2916631It doesn't matter, what matters is that USSR didn't do it. All the facts support my position
Came here to laugh on anticommunist retards, but I found out that some of you who are on "my side" are equally as retarded
>>2915168>>2915169>Final verdict, presented by Rudenko, against Hans Frank. >Rudenko>final verdictYou do know that Rudenko was the Chief prosecutor and not the judge, right? And that he couldn't carry out any verdict at the trial, right?
You've read the title of your Russian source which says
>Заключительная речь Главного обвинителя от СССР Р.А. Руденко<Closing speech by the Chief Prosecutor for the USSR, R.A. Rudenko.right?
At least read your fucking sources. This is just embarassing
>>2918315>Rudenko was the Chief prosecutor and not the judge, right?It was inquisitorial aka anglo-saxon court. Prosecutors are on judges' side and did verdicts.
>>2918326>It was inquisitorial aka anglo-saxon courtOk, I didn't know that.
>Prosecutors are on judges' side and did verdicts.Does it really work that way? I was always under the impression that the prosecutor gives recommendations to the court, or appeals for the harshest verdict but does not carry out the verdict itself.
Which would make sense even in the context what Rudenko said in the final of his speech
>Выступая на этом Суде от имени народов Союза Советских Социалистических Республик, я считаю полностью доказанными все обвинения, предъявленные подсудимым. И во имя подлинной любви к человечеству, которой исполнены народы,принесшие величайшие жертвы для спасения мира, свободы и культуры, во имя памяти миллионов невинных людей, загубленных бандой преступников, представших перед Судом передового человечества, во имя счастья и мирного труда будущих поколений я призываю Суд вынести всем без исключения подсудимым высшую меру наказания — смертную казнь.
https://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/163734-zaklyuchitelnaya-rech-glavnogo-obvinitelya-ot-sssr-r-a-rudenko-stenogramma-zasedaniy-mezhdunarodnogo-voennogo-tribunala-ot-29-i-30-iyulya-1946-g#mode/inspect/page/56/zoom/4
<And in the name of the sincere love of mankind which inspires the peoples who consented to the greatest sacrifices in order to save the world, freedom and culture, in memory of the millions of innocent human beings slaughtered by a gang-of murderers, who are now before the Court of a progressive mankind, - I appeal to the Tribunal to sentence all the defendants without exception to the supreme penaltyhttps://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=imt >>2915689>Rather than being purely extractive, empirical data shows American imperialism pays inordinate costs for little to no aggregate benefit to American capital interests; regime changes generally leads to less bilateral trade.Exactly how it works retard, imperialism will lead to less trade since resources will be extracted.
>What are you babbling about? The USSR did all of those bad things>le badmoralism
>More broadly, the vast majority of the world's FDI is concentrated in the Global North. This directly contradicts Lenin's assertion that capital flows to the Global South, where wages are lower and materials are cheaper.What? You just contradicted yourself.
>>2918426oh ok, i misread, still not true. China, Vietnam, asian tigers in general disprove your notion
>>2916041None of these excerpts mention anything about the state being part of Marx's definition of the first stage of communism (what normies usually refer to as "socialism").
>>2918426>imperialism will lead to less trade since resources will be extractedLess trade means less extraction, retard.
>moralismNo argument.
>What? You just contradicted yourself.When?
>>2918432>oh ok, i misreadDumbass.
>>2918495<None of these excerpts mention anything about the state being part of Marx's definition of the first stage of communism (what normies usually refer to as "socialism").You are overlooking another point if you deny the necessity of the state as an instrument for the proletariat to maintain its supremacy—an instrument advocated by Marx and Engels in opposition to the anarchists, who insisted on the abolition of the state rather than on creating the conditions for the state to wither away.
<Since 1845 Marx and I have held the view that one of the ultimate results of the future proletarian revolution will be the gradual dissolution of the political organisation known by the name of state. The main object of this organisation has always been to secure, by armed force, the economic oppression of the labouring majority by the minority which alone possesses wealth. With the disappearance of an exclusively wealth-possessing minority there also disappears the necessity for the power of armed oppression, or state power. At the same time, however, it was always our view that in order to attain this and the other far more important aims of the future social revolution, the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew. This is to be found already in The Communist Manifesto of 1847, Chapter II, conclusion.
<The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organisation of the state. But after its victory the sole organisation which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfil its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune.
<Does it require my express assurance that Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward in its present form by Bakunin? The whole internal history of the International Workingmen's Association is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International; the main hindrance in their way was Marx. The five-year struggle ended, at the Hague Congress of September 1872, with the expulsion of the anarchists from the International; and the man who did most to achieve this expulsion was Marx. Our old friend, F. A. Sorge, in Hoboken, who was present as a delegate, can give you further details if you wish. And now for Johann Most.
<Marx-Engels Correspondence 1883, Engels to Philipp Van Patten In New Yorkhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/letters/83_04_18.htmAs you can see here, this gradual dissolution of the political organization known as the state will not occur as long as capitalists and the threat of their agents exist. You have overlooked the fact that the communist revolution is a global phenomenon; if a revolution takes place in one country, the threat of global hegemonic capitalism remains, and therefore the state persists—even alongside what has already been socialized within the proletarian state.
<17. Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
<No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
<In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.[…]
<19. Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?<No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
<Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
<It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
<It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
<Frederick Engels 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmDon’t forget also what Marx wrote:
<It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states.
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter Ihttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmHere Marx refers to this other quote:
<Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter I: Bourgeois and Proletarianshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htmFrom this, one can conclude that there will be no "full communism" in a single country as long as the threat from other capitalist countries persists; this implies the continued existence of the state. Even though the conditions for abolishing private property already exist worldwide, if a specific country lacks the necessary means of production, the use of state capitalism, involving state-owned enterprises, can create those means, thereby completing the socialization process as quickly as possible.
>There was no Warsaw destruction listed in court sentence anywhere, despite Poles putting loads of documents for the court to consider, just like Soviets did with Katyn, but were repelled by the court.
This is because Poles should not be listened to under any circumstances, ever. Every time a Pole opens their mouth they find a new way to disappoint me.
>>2916649so it's purely optics question?
>>2919852No, it's a question of historical truth, regardless of optics
>>2919826Right. There is still no mention of the state in Marx's description of the first stage of communism. I'm not sure what these excerpts are meant to prove.
>>2920118So if in other circumstances they did do it and it was blamed on the germans, then we'd argue about how soviets did or did not do it
>>2920224Good thing that Soviets didn't do it, and we don't have to talk about hypotheticals. Instead, we have solid facts, such as German leadership being hanged for committing Katyn
>>2920266>German leadership being hanged for committing KatynAh, so it must be in the verdict. Can you quote it?
>>2920279Consult OP
>>2913192Out of 58 confirmed Nazi crimes, only 1 made it into verdict. Same as Katyn.
>>2920285>Out of 58 confirmed Nazi crimes, only 1 made it into verdictNope.
>>2920287What are you on about? Do you see Dachau or Buchenwald or Aushwitz anywhere in the verdict?
>>2920291>>2920295>>2920296None of these are about Katyn lol
Please quote where Katyn is mentioned pls snd thank
>>2920305Find Buchenwald, k thanks
>>2920314There's an entire section on the concentration camps
Now quote where Katyn appears pls and thank
>>2920305Katyn was mentioned in Goring's case, and Katyn was never strucken out of the indictment. Since Goring failed to defend even one case against himself, Katyn is still in
Meanwhile, there were documents stricken out. For example, when a defendant tried to sneak in "secret protocols" of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
>>2920322What? All of those:
>>2920291>>2920295>>2920296Speak about Katyn. Buchenwald was never mentioned by name.
Oh, and also, destruction of Warsaw was never mentioned either.
>>2920324I can't find it in your picture. Can you post screenshot of Göring's case exactly where Katyn is mentioned?
>>2920324>Meanwhile, there were documents stricken out. For example, when a defendant tried to sneak in "secret protocols" of Molotov-Ribbentrop.I mean, a defendant tried to ADD to the indictment by claiming that secret protocols were real and factual. Court dismissed the document and struck it out of indictment because authenticity of such document was never proven
>>2920327It's not in the verdict, it's in 17th volume, Otto Starmer was defending Goering, asking for witnesses and such. Since it was never struck out of the protocols, it's still a Goering's crime, as per Nuremberg trials' rules - since Nuremberg trials run under inquisitorial anglo-saxon court rules
>>2920336Can you post it here? I would give you many thanks.
>>2920341https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-01-46.aspIt stopped loading for me, but you can look it up here still.
>>2920346I read through it and it does not appear like the Soviet side had a good argument in court. They said signal battalion 537 carried out the executions and the Nazis were like signal groups do not have enough weapons for such actions. It really feels like the Soviet side had no experience with bourgeois law. Asking about Butz and other members af the German team like trying to imply it was a provocation but cannot get the defense to admit it. Too much reliance on weak circumstantial evidence the defense easily gets away with. If the rest of the Nuremberg trials were like this, I understand why Nazi apologists laugh at them.
>>2920374>it does not appear like the Soviet side had a good argument in courtExcept Soviet side has the only arguments in that court, because the other side said nonsense like wolves digging 1.5 meters into the frozen soil to get corpses out, lmao
>>2920380>>2920374Oh, and by the way, how do you rate Ahrens' words that Germans were conducting live fire drills in the same forest where they "found later" Polish corpses?
>>2920324>What? All of those:German massacres that have nothing to do with Katyn.
>Speak about Katyn. Buchenwald was never mentioned by name.The concentration system as a whole was mentioned. Where is Katyn?
>>2920389Are you implying that Germans didn't kill Polish officers and intelligentsia outside of concentration camps?
Do you even know that Poles killed by Germans in Katyn were POWed by Germans and kept in a concentrtion camp, until eventual murder?
>>2920390Katyn isn't mentioned in the verdict because not even the Nuremberg judges were convinced the Germans did Katyn.
>>2920386>>2920380I am not a lawyer so I don't know how a case like this should be handled. The Tyler Robinson case was the latest I saw and I found it weird how the old defense lawyer was trying to undermine a DNA forensic method. That being said, since this was not a jury trial, I find the whole thing a hard to follow mess of he said she said. Germans said stupid shit too, but I don't see any evidence from Soviet side except towards the end about body decomposition. Like how do they know it was exactly that unit that did it and not some einsatzgruppe?
>>2920395He was talking about specifically the destruction of Warsaw.
>>2920395Doesn't mention destruction of Warsaw, only of ghetto. I guess, Soviets did it, right?
Like another anon said it best,
>>2920325>>2920396>but I don't see any evidence from Soviet sideExcuse me? Burdenko commission? Massive amount of forensics and witness testimonies, as well as making fun of German idiotic defence?
>>2920398>>2920399What do you think "aggression against Poland" entails?
Btw the Soviet prosecution at Nuremberg only fielded 3 witnesses for Katyn, none of whom were actual eyewitnesses to the massacre.
No wonder Katyn was dropped from the final verdict lol.
>>2920403By that logic Katyn also falls under German Aggression against Poland.
>>2920405Neither did Germany. They just claimed some people told them something.
>>2920406>By that logic Katyn also falls under German Aggression against Poland.No, because Katyn was Soviet aggression.
>Neither did Germany.How are they supposed to prove a negative?
>>2920409>Soviet aggressionNot at the time of the nuremberg trials
>prove a negativeUsually the side making the accusation has to prove it. In this case, the nazis should have brought witnesses to nuremberg who claimed to hear and see nkvd executions in 1940.
Are you Polish by any chance?
>>2920425>Not at the time of the nuremberg trialsExactly. Which is why Katyn was rejected in the final judgement.
>Usually the side making the accusation has to prove it.Yes. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, agreed. The Soviets did not fulfill their burden, which is why Nuremberg rejected their allegations.
>>2920448>Real men don't wear crowns, drop the jewellery, become the ChadZesty.
>>2920149These excerpts only prove that as long as the conditions for the withering away of the state are not met, there will still be the dictatorship of the proletariat, this means that even with the socialization of the economy there will still be the dictatorship of the proletariat to maintain the supremacy of the proletarian class, this means that there will be a socialist state even having extinguished the bourgeoisie within a country, abolished private property, the anarchy of production and social classes of owners in the country that had a communist revolution.
This follows what Marx and Engels wrote:
<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat[…]
<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.[…]
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmAny proletarian state that has socialized its economy to follow a national economic plan, enabling workers to acquire means of consumption without profit, in accordance with labor and need, will be a socialist state; because an international bourgeoisie will still exist elsewhere in the world, alongside agents funded by it to oppose the supremacy of the proletariat, there will therefore be a proletarian state, and thus a socialist state, so long as there is no global socialist hegemony.
>>2920525Socialism is the first stage of communism. There is no mention of the state in the first stage of communism.
>>2920527Wrong. When Engels and Marx wrote about the withering away of the state they were referring to the high phase of communism, that is, full communism, the lower phase of communism has limitations of bourgeois rights:
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter Ihttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmMarx writes about what transformations there will be in communist society. He is not writing at all that the state will be abolished as you keep thinking that it is:
<"Present-day society" is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries, more or less free from medieval admixture, more or less modified by the particular historical development of each country, more or less developed. On the other hand, the "present-day state" changes with a country's frontier. It is different in the Prusso-German Empire from what it is in Switzerland, and different in England from what it is in the United States. The "present-day state" is therefore a fiction.
<Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.
<The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.
<Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter IVhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm >>2920576>the lower phase of communism has limitations of bourgeois rightsNone of which includes a state. The state, i.e., the DotP, is primarily used to ostensibly crush counterrevolutionary sentiment.
You can keep copy-pasting irrelevant excerpts about the transitionary phase all you want. There is no evidence that the state is part of the first stage of communism.
>>2920613Your own citations prove my point by the way.
>>2920614>>2920613You remain mistaken. A country that has socialized its economy following a revolution still faces the problem of capitalists abroad acting against a proletarian state; therefore, the state will persist.
You have once again overlooked the passage Marx wrote: "What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'."
From this point on, he is not denying the persistence of the state in a communist society; this means you are wrong to claim there will be no dictatorship of the proletariat during the lower phase of communism. For that is the conclusion here.
>>2920625>A country that has socialized its economy following a revolution still faces the problem of capitalists abroad acting against a proletarian state; therefore, the state will persist.This is mostly Lenin's interpretation. The DotP per Marx and Engels strictly focuses on suppressing the domestic bourgeois. Engels expected simultaneous revolution across the advanced nations.
>You have once again overlooked the passage Marx wrote: "What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'."He is asking what state-like functions might remain in communist society, not that a state will necessarily exist in the lower phase.
>he is not denying the persistence of the state in a communist societyNobody said he "denied" anything. If anything Marx is being opaque. Nevertheless, a state is not described anywhere in the definition of the lower phase of communism. If you want to argue the DotP continues into the lower phase, you need to argue that the transition period and the lower phase are the same thing, even though Marx distinguishes the two.
>>2920646>This is mostly Lenin's interpretation. The DotP per Marx and Engels strictly focuses on suppressing the domestic bourgeois. Engels expected simultaneous revolution across the advanced nations.You remain mistaken. Expecting revolution in several countries does not mean insisting that reality *must* produce simultaneous revolutions. Marx's own writings—such as the *Communist Manifesto* and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*—indicate that the proletariat must initially contend with its own national bourgeoisie; had Marx stubbornly insisted that a simultaneous global communist revolution was mandatory, neither he nor Engels would have supported the Paris Commune.
Furthermore, they would not have offered the critique contained in the following passages:
<It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune, but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.
<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Communehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm
<If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting. What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a capacity for sacrifice in these Parisians! After six months of hunger and ruin, caused rather by internal treachery than by the external enemy, they rise, beneath Prussian bayonets, as if there had never been a war between France and Germany and the enemy were not at the gates of Paris. History has no like example of a like greatness. If they are defeated only their “good nature” will be to blame. They should have marched at once on Versailles, after first Vinoy and then the reactionary section of the Paris National Guard had themselves retreated. The right moment was missed because of conscientious scruples. They did not want to start the civil war, as if that mischievous abortion Thiers had not already started the civil war with his attempt to disarm Paris. Second mistake: The Central Committee surrendered its power too soon, to make way for the Commune. Again from a too “honorable” scrupulosity! However that may be, the present rising in Paris – even if it be crushed by the wolves, swine and vile curs of the old society – is the most glorious deed of our Party since the June insurrection in Paris. Compare these Parisians, storming heaven, with the slave to heaven of the German-Prussian Holy Roman Empire, with its posthumous masquerades reeking of the barracks, the Church, cabbage-junkerdom and above all, of the philistine.
<Marx to Dr Kugelmann Concerning the Paris Commune, April 12, 1871https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_12.htmBesides, you are overlooking this:
<Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.
<Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
>He is asking what state-like functions might remain in communist society, not that a state will necessarily exist in the lower phase.But you said that he denied there would be state functions. My argument is that the conditions for the withering away of the state will not be met until there is global socialist hegemony—or do you think it is possible to have full communism in a single country while surrounded by capitalists?
>Nobody said he "denied" anything. If anything Marx is being opaque. Nevertheless, a state is not described anywhere in the definition of the lower phase of communism. If you want to argue the DotP continues into the lower phase, you need to argue that the transition period and the lower phase are the same thing, even though Marx distinguishes the two.When Marx writes about the lower phase of communism he writes about an economic change in the organization of society's means of production along with its class relations due to the abolition of private property, social classes and the anarchy of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a change of political control where the proletarian class organized as a class will become the ruling class to socialize the economy, abolish social classes and suppress those who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class. This new social order will endure until the state withers away completely; while various changes may occur, the state will remain to suppress those who wish to return to the previous order—a necessity arising because foreign capitalists will fund agents to act against any proletarian state and attempt to overthrow it.
>>2920681>Expecting revolution in several countries does not mean insisting that reality *must* produce simultaneous revolutions. Marx's own writings—such as the *Communist Manifesto* and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*—indicate that the proletariat must initially contend with its own national bourgeoisie; had Marx stubbornly insisted that a simultaneous global communist revolution was mandatory, neither he nor Engels would have supported the Paris Commune.Doesn't address anything I've said, but ok.
>But you said that he denied there would be state functions.I said there is no mention of the state in the lower phase of communism, which remains true.
If the state cannot wither away until global socialism, then the DotP persists throughout the transition, up to the point where global conditions are met. It does not follow that the state is a feature of the lower phase of communism. You're still equivocating between the transition phase and lower phase of communism.
>When Marx writes about the lower phase of communism he writes about an economic change in the organization of society's means of production along with its class relations due to the abolition of private property, social classes and the anarchy of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a change of political control where the proletarian class organized as a class will become the ruling class to socialize the economy, abolish social classes and suppress those who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class. This new social order will endure until the state withers away completely; while various changes may occur, the state will remain to suppress those who wish to return to the previous order—a necessity arising because foreign capitalists will fund agents to act against any proletarian state and attempt to overthrow it.Begging the question.
>>2920435>Which is why Katyn was rejected in the final judgement.There was NO rejection of Katyn anywhere in Nuremberg. Buchenwald and destruction of Warsaw are not in the final judgement, but are proven to be German acts - same as Katyn.
You cannot claim that Nuremberg had doubts about Katyn without invoking that Buchenwald and Warsaw destruction weren't Nazi crimes - which is Nazi crime denialism.
You have to drop this line of argument permanently, because Nuremberg did, in fact, persecute Goring, Hess and others for Katyn. But specifically Goring was the defendant on Katyn, and Nuremberg didn't abscond him of guilt during the Katyn hearing, as it was not stricken out of indictment. This is also proven by the fact that Nuremberg did drop stuff out of indictment, like the aforementioned case of secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which was DISMISSED by Nuremberg court outright as having no factual evidence behind it even existing
>>2920711Oh, and also, Romanov
not a real person btw, but rather a collection of anticommunist writers from katynfiles doesn't go over Nuremberg trials' rules and proceedings specifically because if he were to read them out loud his whole position would fucking collapse. Hence, instead of open and direct going over rules and proceedings, he instead tries to recreate them off records of certain cases - a certified conspiracy theorist behaviour. In our case, though, he is more like those sleazy climate change denialist scientists who attack late edits on papers as a proof of paper being rushed and untrustworthy
Katynfiles takes you people for idiots. It's not factual, it's propaganda
>>2920701You remain mistaken. In the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx is already including the lower phase of communism when he writes about the state.
<Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter IVhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm >>2920836>Marx is already including the lower phase of communism when he writes about the state.That's not what the excerpt says, you copy-pasting retard. He's referring to the organized collective and community of a potential communist society, not to a state in the traditional, class-based sense.
>>2921643You remain mistaken. Marx is criticizing Lassalle's concept of the "free state," which tends toward class conciliation without resorting to anarchist fantasies.
Unique IPs: 64