Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radunMARSHAL "I've said that Fascism does not care about economics, and you still come up with things like "If you claim that fascism was based on capitalism". No you pathetic degenerate, I have not once stated that Fascism is based on capitalism, I said that it doesn't care about economics. Which part of that sentence you do not understand? If you knew anything about fascist ideology, you'd be aware that it doesn't cover economics at all. What I said is that Fascists regimes in Italy, Germany, Spain, Chile etc had capitalist economics, mostly classical liberal, not out of belief but out of convenience. You should go read some books about that period, since you have obviously never read any about that subject."
"You don't have to link me NEP, I know everything, literally everything about the history of European communism in the 20 century. And I'll tell again, there's no valid comparison in terms of economic policies between two ideologies of which one doesn't care about economics, and the other one is all about economics. In terms of applied Fascism in fascist states of the first half of the 20th century, their economic policies are with no exception purely capitalist, and very often in the spirit of classical liberal economics. Even the more recent fascist regimes like Pinochet's Chile were also purely capitalist, in fact Friedman was Pinochet's economic adviser. These fascist regimes didn't turn to capitalism out of their belief in capitalism, but out of convenience. Capitalism, especially liberal one, is really efficient in terms of making money and as such really convenient to a regime that's all about nationalism and military might."
You contardict yourself in this two statements. You claim that fascism do not cover economy as a aspect of ideology. I never heard that anyone with that reasoning, you are the first man that ever claim that. I don't know any historian who claim the same. In fact simple check in wiki give the information taht you can read yourslef:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/02/22/the-economic-leadership-secrets-of-benito-mussolini/#709d6c268e6c
Also you didn't mention that italian facism and german nazism have different definision of state and role of race in it. Italian version was in many ways different from nazism. But that is not the point of disscusion
If you don't understand what I wrote: "If you claim that fascism was based on capitalism" This sentence was conclusion of your claim that facsism is any way conected with socialism and is in bed with capitalism. Then what economical system is goal of facsism? You claim that is no concern of facsist, i don't agree and I argue that facsism and nazism were another branch of socialism. In simple example North Korea is communist country, but state ideology is more facsist and stiil they implementing socialist economy. China oficially is communist, but everyone know that is capitalist country. Names are just names, practice is much more than oficial statements. Maybe we both are wrong but capitalism wasn't declared and implemented by facsist as a prefered system. Economy of 1930 Germany and Italy were diretced to reject capitalism, not like you claim. Both regimes have own visions of economy.
"I've never said that Marxism is the only school of Socialism, actually I've never said anything about Marxism altogether nor stated or shown in any way that I'm a Marxist, you pathetic, pathetic moron."
Maybe you are not marxist, but in your description of socialism you use marxist definition. You wrote from position that sounds like classic marxist. It is just simple observation. Maybe here I'm wrong.
"Regarding "Stalin's disaster economy", that's again propaganda and pamphlets speaking from you since you're not able to question any narrative nor form your own opinion. Calling Stalinist economy a disaster economy is not just ignorant, but also idiotic. The USSR under Stalin has achieved economic growth of unprecedented rate, beating even Japanese and German growth. Stalinist economy is the very reason the USSR was able to outperform economically and defeat the NAZI Germany which was an European industrial powerhouse for century at that point, and that's the mainstream view with historians."
If you read some raw data you can compare industrial output of both countries (III Reich and USSR) in years before war and in WW2. If you compare disadvantage in III Reich position in resources, then you see that even then USSR in any way outperform Germany. Stalin's "reforms" cost life milions of USSR citizens, hard to see in that great achivment. Famine on mass scale, massive drop in consumption of goods in civilian market, low efficency of industrial base and low quality of products. You compare USSR to Japan, you forgett that Japan start from much lover position in start of XX century. Aslo after 1905 Russia starts effective reforms to pretend to become one of the biggest industrial power in Europe. That can't help Russia in WW1, but that show that Stalin didn't do anything special in terms of russian economy. In scale of tragedy that was product of his policy, effects are not that great. And also USSR without Lend-Lease and military cooperation from UK nad USA, can't win with Germans. Battle of Atlantic consume much from resources, industrial capacity and manpower of III Reich. Air attacks on Germany also keep major Luftwaffe forces from Eastern Front. Other fronts keep german forces off balance. That is fact that only soviet and russian historian can't accept it.
Many historian and economist are convince that industralization will be going in USSR whitout horrors created by Stalin. Trotsky was decided to preper USSR to spread revolution and if he will be next ruler of USSR, industralization will be one of his goals. Many soviet economic specialist (killed by Stalin in his terror) propose another forms of industralization in connection to NEP. Not only Stalin saw that problem.
"Khrushchev's liberalization had nothing to do with changing the USSR economy away from central planning, it just emphasized more on consumer goods rather than military production of Stalin's era."
If you don't see difference in Stalin and Khrushchev economic policy in can't help you. Yes that was still central planning economy. But you can't just magicly change profile of production in whole country from military production to "emphasized more on consumer goods" whitout big changes in the economy itself. Tha is more than change name of factory. Khrushchev liberalization bring changes in pressure on soviet society. Terror of 1930 and 1940 was gone. Changes were more deep rooted than just decsions in Kremlin. Even in Brezhnev's era pressure on workers and rest of economy can't be compared to stalinist terror. That is very important factor. One of many in that change in USSR economical status. Gorbashev's liberalisation was also big and important change in soviet economy. But still failed because of communist ideology.
And you wrote:
"Neo-fascists in eastern Europe tend to assert socialist economics since people in this part of the world have experienced communist welfare states, social programs and worker's rights, so they tend to view these policies as something of a golden standard of state policies. Since fascists are populists, aka telling people what they wanna hear, they stand for socialist welfare policies and worker's rights, which, of course, doesn't at all mean they would implement these if they ever come to power."
Not only as you called "Neo-fascists in eastern Europe" compare Hitler policy to ways of socialism. Also "communist welfare states" and "worker's rights" do not exist in any of communist countries. That is just an propaganda. In West in contrast of communist East, workers have rights and real and working walfare programs. Independent trade unions can't exist in communist country, that why polish Solidarity was enemy of polish communist goverment and that why this regime try to crush it. Only party decide what was law, noone had any rights. On paper communism give you all rights , but in reality you are just a slave od state. Claim something else is just a lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radunMARSHAL You quote article that state that historians disagree about economical policy of fascism. Then you state that historians agree whit your point. That what is your logic? They agree in or not? In links that i'll give you have statement of many ways to see fascism, not like you claim only one!
And statement that 99% of scientist agree about something is also incorrect, the is no such study to support that. That is jsut words of some amator journalist. Not scientist!
You also claim that switching from production military materials is not that problematic. That is very big simplification. If you cover few factories it is very easy to do it. But if you talk about whole model of production, distribution of materials and chain of cooperation that is not that easy. You need years to do it in scale of soviet economy. In any other economy that also cause lot of problems, look on post WW1 economies of France, GB or Germany! From higly militarised economy to peace time economy.
"Welfare in communist states was that everyone had a complete healthcare coverage, had a decent pension after retirement, had a house or a flat, could educate themselves as high as they wanted free of charge, that everyone had a job etc. Worker's rights covered things like 8 hour shift, how much overtime work is payed, number of days off work, 30 workdays or something in SFRY, lower age for retirement for labor intensive trades etc. These are exactly the economic policies eastern European neo-fascist stand for and they often consider themselves far left rather than far right, though they are obviously far right. They hate both the fascists and the communists but for different reasons than you think. Communists for their anti-nationalism, atheism and modernism, and fascists for destruction in WWII and the fact that they considered the eastern Europeans an inferior race."
Maybe you should remember that Yugoslavian communis was much lighter version than stalinist communism. Titio break relations with Stalin because of difference in vision of communism.
You wrote about welfare state in communism when all that "communist achivments" were present in capitalist system in the same time on much bigger scale. You should also remember that some of this privliges of "communist welfare state" stay only on paper. Medic covarage in western Europe was much bigger and on higher quality level than communist version. Education and science were much more effective in western democracies than in communist block. Just look how technological progress was much faster on West than in communist countries. Even if communism could train good engineers, that engineers can't produce own projects because communist industry wasn't ready to do it. Look on design and production of computers. Communism have some inventors with projects, but no production capacity in this field. In capitalist society they just build factories and build computers to sell them!
For so called decent payment you can't buy so much. Maybe you have money but shops sre empty! Noi bread, no toliet paper... just like in Venezuela today!
Most funniest of your claims is that communism is not interested in nationalism. You should check Stalin's speeches from WW2, or why Romania, Albania or even Yugoslavia were in opposition from USSR. National interest of this countries was more important than inernational communism! They even prefer stay in close relations with (like Yugoslavia) USA or other capitalistc countries. Maybe that was way for "sucsess of communism" in your country.
I live from birth to 2016 in Poland. And i can say what was real effects of communist economy versus capitalist economy. Poverty, lack of essential products. Industry producing low quality products or products that no one can buy because of high prices!
When after WW2 communists captured power in Poland they crete mirror of soviet economy. Hevy industry concetrated on military production and low civilian goods production. That create social tencions, that broke out in 1956. Fisrt things that was in the workers want was bread and work! The same happend in 1970 and 1980! Basicly each time communist regime use brutal force (including tanks on streets!)and when that fail they try to change policy to better in some way economical status of entire population (not only party members). From crisis to crisis, tha was economy of socialism. Even in 1970' with big investment and credits from banks from West, communist economy can't change that immanent state of crisis in Poland (the same state that was present in many forms in all communist countries).
Communism as it goes is economical failure, that why USSR and other communist countries never can compare in real numbers wealth of citzens capitalist industrial powers. Capitalism long ago win with this terms with communism. Poepole living in democratic capitalist state have more rights and wealth than in any communist country ever. Communism just bancrupt as a economical and social system. Look on todays North Korea, atomic power with famine killing whole nation!
And even when everybody can use medical sevice in communism that not mean any way that is good quality system. Lack of medicines, shortage of personel, all that is typical for communist system. I live in it and don't try sell me lies about something i see by my own eyes.
You also try to convince me that i don't really know nothig about political systems. Let me say that you are mixing things that can't be compared.
Absolute monarchy is any way totalitarian system. It is a product of feudal production and social system and in any way can't be called totalitarian. In this type of monarchy it is possiable existense of political parties, there is different level of economical freedom. The real thing that state absolute monarchy is that monarch is absolute authority in this system. All power and laws are created in interst of monarch and state. As Loius XIV claim 'L'etat c'est moi' ('I am the state'). That was statement of power, but is not the same that create totalitarian state. In this system everyone should obey authority of the king and his biurocracy for interest of state. Monarch is ruler but also servant of the state. Nothing less, nothing more.
If you compare that to concept of totalitarian state, there is lots of differences. First is that in totalitarian state nothing is privat, no possesion or psoition in society is free from state ownership (absolute monarch never usurp that much control over citizens). Second is that no opposition is allowed in state. Absolut monarchy tolerate critic in borders of law, but in totalitarian regime law forbids any criticism of state.
Third is that in monarchy is intersted in economical efficecy of economy in any forms, privat or state ownership. In totalitarian state practice of privat ownership is non-existing or stricly limited and controled by state.
You can find much more differences in this two systems. You also toook authoritarism as the same as a totalitarism, that is two different systems. Pinochet was authoritarian, not real fascist as you claim. It is communist trend to call everything else than communism as a fascism.
But you also don't understand that right wing and lefy wing of policy are in strict definition covered from French Revolution to today. Some part of this shift with changes in policy and society. Some simplest difference:
Right wing is covered in protection of privat property and rights as a rights of indyvidual. The right side is more interested in evolution of society than revolution, because right wing claim that revolutions cause more damage then create good. Traditions and legacy of past are very important for this side of political spectrum. Right take human nature as a state of fact, not social construct.
Left is concetrated in interest of groups. See revolution as a way of future and reject any respect for traditional values. See in that danger of rejection of progress. Privat property is not in any way seen as a part of program. Inividual rights are covered in rights of group. Human nature in left is something you can change by socialisation.
There is so many other definitions, but if you look on policy of Hitler and Mussolini you see how far they were from right side.
Socialism is his origin anti-individualistic and not interested in any form of personal freedom outside given group. That is a roots of modern totalitarism, rejection of indyvidualism and rights of indyvidual. Interest of many overcome interest of few. You should know this statement.
1
-
@radunMARSHAL
In the response that every historian and economist agree with you, or 99%, or 90% or.....whatever you claim.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/Samuelsfascism.html
You user that line:
"The economics of fascism refers to the economic policies implemented by fascist governments. Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist. Baker argues that there is an identifiable economic system in fascism that is distinct from those advocated by other ideologies, comprising essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.[1] Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2] Feldman and Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders cannot be explained within a logical economic framework.[3]"
But in article is also position:
"Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[12] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[13][14] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[15]"
That mean they see their economy as a third way between capitalism and communism. But they were not international but national socialist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
The your claim is false. Nice that you state one qoute to twist whole text.
"Claims that engineering and science in socialist states was lagging behind the West is an obvious bullshit. If it was so, there wouldn't have been an arms race or space race. The difference between the capitalist West and the socialist East was that the West did not have to allocate most of their research and industry into military effort, while the Soviets had to do that"
I claim that even with good engineering and science communism and socialism is lagging in technology behnid capitalistic countries. Space and arms race was in long term disaster for communist economy. Whit many succeses communist lost both of them. That was failing of communism/socialism itself, that idea can't really work. Many of sucsess of communists were based on intelligence and gain in other ways technology. Atomic bomb, rocket and jet engines or electonics were captured or stolen. In science communism was dogmatic and reject any discoveries that was in aynway in contrradiction with official ideology.
And you should add that military allocation was normale practice in communist countries because of aggressive nature of communism and need to keep population in line with communist regime. Capitalism countries don't need to do it. But even with lower percentage GDP consumed by military West could overspend the Eastern Block, because capitalism was much more better economic system.
Did they outclassed non-communist in any aspect of technology?
Capitalism give us internet, GPS, mobil phones, PC and much more technology used in modern world. What advanced technology was produced in communism?
Only technology in military!
Even this high quality products of communist countries were easy to buy in West and not that easy to buy in communist countries. Difference in workers payn in both economy play for capitalism not communism.
Next you compare Yougoslavia to stalinist USSR as a example of economic reforms? You should then wrote that Yougoslavia never implemented fully communist economy. Privat property were't attack like in other communist countries. Yougoslavian economy was uniqe mix of socialism and capitalism. At that terms is not in any way good example to wrote about politics in USSR.
"There's no lighter version of communism, since no state was ever communist. Communism is impossible, it's an utopia, it's bullshit to think it's achievable. "
Whit this i can agree. Communism is utopia, but tries to impemanting it happens, That is position to critic of socialism and communism. Socialism or communism can't work. Some ideas could be implemented but as a whole idea of marxism or most extremist socialist is flawed. It always goes to"that was no real socialism/communism" argument. Look on humanitarian disaster in Venezuela or North Korea today.
"Fascist Italy and Germany were ethnic nations, so their nationalism was very different from anything that could arise in socialist nations since socialism, Marxism and leftism in general are not compatible with ethnic nations and ethnic nationalism."
Really? You should read how communist propagand use nationalism and racism to attack enemies of communism. How in Africa communist call all whithes as a colonizers and blacks as only a victimes. Into the WW2 communist more and more use nationalist propaganda. The same is in North Korean and Vietnamees propagadna, or todays Chinees propaganda. Polish communism was in propaganda very nationalist. In many way like in nazi Germany. Indeed Marx was racist.
Failing of international socialist movement before WW1 in part was caused by nationalist movement in socialist parties! Socialist of Europe first decide to choose interest of nation before interest of interantional workers class.
Your knowledge of communismt and socialist look very one-sided.
"Absolute monarchy and feudal monarchy are two very different and distinct systems. You should do a research on that subjects."
If you comapare french absolute monarchy to tsars Russia you have two different and distinctsystems. Both are based on feudal values, but in one you see first glimps of proto-capitalism but in second system was typical feudal monarchy, even into 18th and early 19th century. You don't understand that in one term absolute monarchy can be use in different places. But still it is a feudal base system. Democracy also was different in many places in vast time periods.
Also in yur own words:
"Right is concerned with preserving the social hierarchy and stratification, so conservatism, and the left is concerned with breaking the social hierarchy and stratification."
If you look on ideology of fascism and nazism. Both want destroy classic social fabric, build new society . Both want create new natiosocialism, not marxist socialism! Even your defenition move Hitler to left side.
1
-
@danielgreen6302 You realy don't understand that socialism is not only marxism? Rebuilding social structure, destroying "unwanted "class/race in this society to build better future. State as an absolute and total ruler, that is socialist agenda. Marx want destroy bourgeois as a ruling class, Hitler want destroy Jews because in his eyes they are trying to rule the world. Are ever try to read Hitler's works, or Mussolini's? Economical and social practice of nazism and fascism are similar with main socilaisit ideas. Economy is only tool, they belive that state "own" economy, that is not right-wing. Stalin or Mao uses right-wing propaganda in many times, noone name them as a right-wing. Also I thin that dogma about fascism and nazism as a right-wing was a trick from stalinist propaganda handbok. The same slender he use against all of his enemies, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin. All of them were by stalinists "right-wingers".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nuclear Confusion Oh my, Rose Luxemburg do not agree with you. Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky do not agree with you. "But the workers are interested in the complete amalgamation of all their fellow-workers into a single international army, in their speedy and final emancipation from intellectual bondage to the bourgeoisie, and in the full and free development of the intellectual forces of their brothers, whatever nation they may belong to."
Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto:
"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."
Maybe some racist slurs from father of communism. He was very eager to destroy some "less" value nations and races. His anty-semitism was in some way were near Hitler's views.
"Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled “On the Jewish Question,” which was published in 1844. Marx asked:
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/05/10/ugly-racism-karl-marx/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2019.1548094
International patriotism in Marx works just mean global ploretarian state. Only you can be pathriotic to communist country, either you should do everything to destroy capitaist state. No countries, only global communist paradise. Patriotism still play large scale communist propaganda. In my youth noone said "nazi Germans" but stricly Germans were enemy! Of course not from DDR, that was good and socialist Germans, not that bad from West.
And maybe Mao critisese Han nationalism, but still practice of Chinees Communist Party was embrace chauvinism above other nationalities living in China. Look on Tibet case or traetment of national minorieties in China.
In one hand they accuse national interest as a danger for world revolution. To later form own definition of "patriotism". Just like some other thinker ...guy called Hitler, but need just change proleratariat to race. Plus race domination on ploretarian revolution and you have.....
"2)You miss all the internationalist propaganda and you pick only the war time one, which is not even targeting people ethnically at all."
Hey i don't wrote and paint it. In pre WW2 works of soviet ideologs yopu have condemnation of nation and state as a opposite to dreammed "communism" as a worldwide domination of ploretariat. Again no nations, no countries.
But into the war always or invasion, or next purge you always finde some national or race beating. Every other country want invade USSR, but brave communist always invade others with "peacefull intentions"
"3) Comparing Socialism Internationalism with Hitler's New World Order and Rosenberg's theory of Aryan Race is a false equivalent fallacy."
Why? Because if you just change terms in communist works, you have( in Hitler view) family of aryan countries/satelites working for embracing racial ideas of Hitler. I do not claim that is the same, but is to similar to claim that the sources are different. How is different in action building new society on class/race theory. Genocide of enemies, creating classless/racial pure society as an final goal of regime.
In US they use rewrite Mein Kampf and leftist just love it as a progresive program.
And i judge communism on it's effects not rhetoric.
"4)Polish Operation isn't very well documented so I won't comment on that. Yet you fail to see, because you beg the question, that they targeted NATIONALISTS*, *NOT nationalities!!!"
No, you are wrong, it is very well documented. NKVD aim whole polish minority in west USSR. Polish Communist Party basicly was destroyed. Whole upper and middle levels of communist organisation in USSR was extermineted. Aim was crush any sign of distincion from "soviet nation". There were no place for any single sign of polish culture in USSR. Only handfull of ultra-loyal new communist leaders were chosen from this population, people that belive that Poland will became next soviet republic.
In the same manner purges were executed in Karelia, or in Middle Asian soviet republics. Key to exterminations and sovietization was nationality of "enemies", second the "social" status. Look how holodomor targeted Ukrainians, not whole soviet population.
Socialism in one country was just stage to preparation into new war, after fall of communist coups in Germany and Hungary or Finand. Still the main goal was worldwide revolution.
Rest was just propaganda.
"It's like saying that Soviets should have not fought against German soldiers, because they were working class, right? Or that they should have not take measures against Estonian or Ukrainian Nationalists that joined the SS, right? So basically attacking nationalists, in your view, is attacking an entire ethnic group, right? This is nonsense and I'm stunned that you can't see your flawed reasoning."
Then why Red Army rape, kill and steal from civilians on captured territories? Even after when fascist and nazist were defeted. Estonian, Latvian, Lithuenian or Polish or German civilians should been never enemies of USSR. But they were treaten like enemies. No one was safe, mass deportation, extaermination of elites that was typical soviet methods. People fighting with nazist were arrested and executed as a enemy of USSR and colaboraters to Hitler. Don't try spin facts. This is all well documented. Hungerian were so brutalised by Red Army, that 30% female population in country was raped. That was one of main reason why they so much hate USSR and rebel in 1956 against soviet domination.
1
-
1
-
@Nuclear Confusion In your vision you really can't grasp that only communist can be patriotic in that definition. Other states of patriotism are imperial and oppresive, or even nationalist. Marx in very clear way state that patriotism si only acceptable when serve into interest of ploretariat. And final goal of ploretariat is worldwide dictartorship. In opposition in reality communist very ofent use nationalistic propaganda.
"A literal nonsense, since Tibet is an autonomous region even to this day. "
Really funny ,with mass Chinss colonization and suppression of local culture. Tibetans have no voice in that autonomy.
"And My point it's still valid; you dismissed everything that contradicts your view and you portraited that as the general view, with facts that hardly can be considered "nationalist propaganda". Your whole theory is demolished by the fact that Lenin fought against Russian chauvinism, and Stalin did the same."
They fought with that so much that the russian language and culture dominate
whole USSR. Supressed the other cultures, whitout any real autonomy. But hey they claim to fought with it.....
"NO, I am right! That Polish Operation isn't well documented, no sovietologists got around it and the claim comes from only two guys who claim the operation. The accounts of the victims of the Purge disprove your nonsense and your whole narrative debunks your claim, since you can see they targeted high ranks, not specially on ethnic grounds! >Aim was crush any sign of distincion from "soviet nation" False and not even the people who support the narrative don't claim such a nonsense. You are debunked by the actions of soviet authorities, the post-WW2 situation and the fact that USSR was a federation of multiple republics."
Yeah, still not true. Look on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
Lot of evidence, all facts are in opposition to your claims.
And you claim that USSR was real federation? Really? You make my laugh.
"Estonian, Latvian, Lithuenian or Polish or German civilians should been never enemies of USSR. False. Latvia was literally a fascist dictatorship. Estonia fought a against the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. Poland started a war of conquest in 20's against Russia which was in the middle of a Civil War. As I expected, you have no clue about the history of USSR and you beg the question very hard. > No one was safe, mass deportation, extaermination of elites that was typical soviet methods. So executing Nazi leaders was a soviet method? Huh, interesting. Mass deportation happened in Europe after WW1 aswell. Most of the deportation in USSR happened because of WW2, not despite of it! "
You claim that all victimes, civilian and from cultural elite from this countries were nazi?
And you use soviet propaganda lies about historic events. Polish-Bloshevik war was part of soviet attemp to invade western Europe.
"We must direct all our attention to preparing and strengthening the Western Front. A new slogan must be announced: Prepare for war against Poland."
Vladimir Lenin long before war starts in early 1919.
Me:People fighting with nazist were arrested and executed as a enemy of USSR and colaboraters to Hitler.
"You: no evidence, another claim that is as relevant as the other you spewed."
Then read that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_Moczarski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Sixteen
All that prove you ignorrance of history. Real history, not marxist.
>In US they use rewrite Mein Kampf and leftist just love it as a progresive program.
"And ofc a false claim in order to enforce your mental gymnastics. Nothing such thing exists"
Really? This not in any way agree with you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair
https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/
It takes 5 sec to check it. You were so lazy to even try to check this part. Nice to know that you are dishonest in your reserch. Ilove when some accuse sombody that he claim somethnig and dno't check that in any way. That was very controversial discovery in american academic world. Much more schocking that you can imagine.
About war crimes made by Red Army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
Maybe I can't now find books with I clearly remember that sum of Hungarian woman raped by soviet soldier was in aroud 30%. Soviet cover that under liberation propaganda.
Also i red mémoire of soviet soldiers that state clearly how brutal was liberation made by Red Army.
Very good part about that is in book by Mark Solonin, Нет блага на войне/ Nothing good at war.
Then don't tell me about spinning reality and evidence. Go fast to you commrads for new instructions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я Problem with your narration is that either Mobilisation Plan-41 or "Considerations on the Strategical Deployment of Soviet Troops in Case of War with Germany and its Allies" were offensive plans not defencive.
About you calling a Mikhail Meltiukhov. There is a thing he stated:
Note that, due to the fact that Soviet archives were (and in some cases still are) inaccessible, in some cases exact figures have been difficult to ascertain.
The official Soviet sources generally overestimated German strength and downplayed Soviet strength, as emphasized by David Glantz (1998:292). Some of the earlier Soviet figures claimed that there had been only 1,540 Soviet aircraft to face Germany's 4,950; that there were merely 1,800 Red Army AFVs facing 2,800 German ones, etc.
In 1991, Russian military historian Meltyukhov published an article on this question (Мельтюхов М.И. 22 июня 1941 г.: цифры свидетельствуют // История СССР. 1991. № 3) with figures that differed slightly from those of the table here, though with similar ratios. Glantz (1998:293) was of the opinion that those figures "appear[ed] to be most accurate regarding Soviet forces and those of Germany's allies", though other figures also occur in modern publications."
Funny how you own historians do not agre with your claims.
http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html
Next thing,you attack qualification of Victor Suvorov. Suvorov/Rezun is former Soviet Army officer and intelligence operator. He is well qualified to understand and analyse military plans. Historians are less qualified to this. Ataccking someones knowledge is quite funny if you have no evidence for it.
About Stalin intentions, by his own words
"As we know, the goal of every struggle is victory. But if the proletariat is to achieve victory, all the workers, irrespective of nationality, must be united. Clearly, the demolition of national barriers and close unity between the Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Polish, Jewish and other proletarians is a necessary condition for the victory of the proletariat of all Russia. "
"The only real power comes out of a long rifle."
"If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a 'peace conference', you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes."
There is no sence even take on rest of your's claims.
Again I remind you:
1) you still do not show any evidence on existing any defence plans for war with Third Reich in 1941.
2) You still do not adress you false claim to Solonin thesis about real level of Soviet losses in WW2. You claim basicly that he wrote opposite to that he wrote in reality. You accuse him to inflation of numbers when he claim that losses were smaler than official stated!
Not mention that if Stalin inavde Poland in 1939 to protect USSR and you claim that he start doing that weeks before 22nd June 1941. You are can't agree with yourself. Nearly two years of war in Europe and Stalin still need to prove that Hitler is aggressor? 2 years to prepare army and Red Army start mobilisation in last days.
You maker Stalin grnius and idiot in one sentence. Decide which version is better!
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я "You completely ignore my big answer. I give you the last chance to get the feedback correctly."
That is rather comical. You bring on yourself claim that we today have documents that prove aggressive deployment prepared in plans and in dislocation of Red Army, but in the same time without any evidence you claim that Soviet offensive plans were nothing more than form of defence. I'm shocked, that mean that Hitler and Wermacht in years 1939-43 were in deep defence. That make sence if offensive plans are in reality defencive one. That is mos deep discovery of communist war science. We are defending in attack and atacking in defence.
But beeing seriuos, how I can treat your claims with respect when you make some non-coherent stance. For you, evidence provided by historians and documents from archives are missunderstood, but you quote historians without context because that qoute is making your case . You bring opinion of historian only in part that is making your argument valid. But when the same historian is making argument against you opinion he make mistake and he is non real historian.
2. I f you look how Stalin forbid any cooperation between socialis and German communist in time when Hitler rise to power that thesis is coherent. Communist as a one of the biggest parties didn't do nothing to cooperate with socialdemocrats and block NSDAP in Reichstag. They do that in line of Stalin decision that Komintern would oppose socialdemocratic movments as they claim "socialfascism". Thanks to that Stalin basicly help NSDAP gain inffluence and suppport.
The same policy was implemented against in whole Europe. And in 1939-40 French communist party on Moscov orders sabotage war against Third Reich. For
Maybe Stalin did not elect Hitler but he help him, by isolating KPD.
3. Red Army was after mobilization even before 17th September 1939. Later was next waves of mobilisation. Do you claim that Red Arny just attack Poland without any plam amd randome forces.
MAybe you should check facts before you again start cliaming that there were no moblisation before 1941!
Please stick to facts that you can prove.
" I do not blame Mr. Solonin for inflation of numbers. I say that he misunderstands what these numbers mean. For example, the official number of dead Soviet citizens is 26.6 million. Solonin says this is an artificially high number. But in reality, it is correct, it simply includes the categories of indirect losses (unborn people). Thus, Mr. Solonin mixed up these two categories and simply named the correct numbers in his opinion. But in reality, the numbers 26.6 and 16+ are correct. Thus, Mr. Solonin’s article does not make sense."
" I don’t need to spend time additionally studying his articles because this makes no sense."
That is your own words from four dats ago! You do not read his article and you attack him, now you are claiming that he do not understand numbers! When he wrote about rejecting that manipulation hiddeen in "unborn people" category and provide his numbers step by step! And it is true that official numbers of soviet losses in WW2 are still highly inflated over 20 milions dead!
You are mixing facts.
Unborn people is non-exicting number, this is just statistc trick to add number that have no sence in reality. How you can provide number of "unborn" people? Using this method 6 milions of polish victimes of WW2 you can claim that in reality Polish losess should be counted in 8 to 10 milions because in this time we lose unborn childrens! Or even more. Solonin state what he see as a correct number and name some historians that made claims that number is much higher! Where he is wrong! Because you do not make his claim false! ou just make character assasination!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1