Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "4a4b"
channel.
-
9
-
9
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@owenbelezos8369 Why would I take economic definitions that come from a man with no formal education in economics, not one day spent in a job related to economics, and whose writings on "economics" have been continuously dunked on by actual economists for the last hundred years. Almost all of Marx's theories have been disproven over the years. At this point, Marxism is no longer an ideology, but a religion, maybe even a cult.
And you couldn't be more wrong on your definition of Socialism. It isn't inherently worker-oriented, but collective in general. The "worker" argument didn't became a thing until Marx, but Socialism existed since the French Revolution, decades before Marx was even born. That's because Socialism is simply collective, Marx argued for urban workers (proletariat) to be the collective, other variants of Socialism argued for a different base. The biggest mistakes Marxists make is assuming they hold a monopoly on Socialism, that all Socialism is Marxism.
The state is a collective entity, any system in which the state controls the means of production and distribution of goods is automatically Socialist. Since in China, the CCP has its fingers in essentially all industries and little can be done without its permission, it fits the definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theburgerboy5936 Ukrainians and Belarusians were never in support of the Soviet Union, that's a post-war myth invented by the Soviets to justify their invasion and conquest of those areas. Both countries were independent states prior to the Soviet invasion: The Belarusian Democratic Republic and the Ukrainian People's Republic. The Ukrainians in particular were so opposed to Bolshevism, that they allied with the Poles to fight against it, despite Poland having just taken Western Ukraine for itself when it invaded the West Ukrainian People's Republic.
You completely ignore the fact that the Soviets ALLIED with the Germans following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. They agreed to jointly invade a neutral nation in-between them and carve it up. That's a level of cooperation that far exceeded anything any other country did with NSDAP Germany before the start of the war. Even Fascist Italy didn't aid Germany militarily until the war had already been going on for about a year. Even before that, during the early and mid 30s, the Soviets had agreements with the Germans to test out military equipment on Soviet territory in order to avoid the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. This agreement originated with Weimar Germany, but continued after the NSDAP took over. The Soviets DID NOT terminate this deal after that. By doing this, they directly contributed to Germany advancing its military technology and capabilities.
Your assumption is bunk. Stalin never made any preparations for an "inevitable" invasion by Germany. He was taken completely by surprise by the invasion because he was not expecting them to invade. Instead, he seemed more concerned with invading more neutral nations next to him, like Finland. Only in that case, without German cooperation, the Red Army got its ass handed to it on a silver plater by the much smaller Finnish Army.
There was no logically reason for the Soviets to ally with the Germans to jointly invade Poland. Having Soviet assurance of peace was one of the primary reasons why Hitler felt the time was right to invade Poland in the first place. For decades after the war, the Soviet Union repeatedly denied that it even collaborated with NSDAP Germany to begin with. Finally when they admitted it, it was only then that this "not ready yet" and "bidding time" arguments came about. That's because these arguments are the result of propaganda trying to justify an unjust invasion of a neutral country. During the period of time between the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa, there were even brief talks between Germany and the USSR about the USSR possibly joining the Axis Alliance.
1
-
@theburgerboy5936 Relatively few Ukrainians and Belarusians joined the Soviets in comparison to the numbers of them that fought in the various armies against the Soviets. Many Ukrainians and Belarusians also fought in the White Army, do you take that to mean they wanted to restore the Russian Empire? In terms of raw numbers, the Ukrainians and Belarusians that supported Bolshevism were far, far less numerous than those who sought independence. So much so that the Communist parties that emerged in Ukraine and Belarus were small and obscure, and the overwhelming majority of the Red Army that invaded Belarus and Ukraine was composed of ethnic Russians. Ukrainian and Belarusian support for the Bolsheviks is a myth propagated by communists to this day to justify Soviet Imperialism.
Incorrect, Molotov-Ribbentrop contained provisions planning the join invasion of Poland. This is something that is well known among historians to the point where only Communists and Russian deny it. The territory "invaded by the Poles two decades earlier" was Belarusian territory. The Belarusian Democratic Republic allied with Poland to fight against the Soviets, along with the Ukrainian People's Republic. The land was never Communist or supported Communism.
And? You're ignoring that in those cases, neither Poland nor Hungary had written agreements to do so, they just did it. There was no cooperation with Germany whatsoever. Contrast this to the invasion of Poland, where we have numerous documents and photographic evidence of Soviets collaborating with Germans during the invasion.
Stalin was a fool who got played by Hitler. By the time the German invaded in 1941, there had already been plenty of opportunities to stop the Germans. The first was the invasion of Poland, as the Soviets simply could have not agreed to jointly invade Poland, as it was Soviet assurance of peace that was the primary reason that Hitler felt the time was right anyway. When Hitler was fighting France and Britain to the West, Stalin did nothing. The Germans had nearly the entirety of their army in the West, the Red Army, weak as it was, could've easily made it right into Berlin had it wanted to during this time.
"The Soviets fully expected that the Germans would focus on the Western allies for the next few years, since they believed the Germans would never risk fighting a 2 front war."
Yeah, the Soviets GAVE the Germans a one-front war. Again, you completely ignore the fact that the Soviets willingly cooperated with the Germans during this time.
It was not a non-aggression pact, as I've explained. It contained provisions carving up Eastern Europe into spheres of influence and the joint invasion of Poland.
Taking resources and human capital from a conquered enemy isn't "collaborating." Making a plan to jointly invade another country and divide it is collaborating.
The talks happened though, and both sides negotiated on it. That's something that the U.S. or Britain never came anywhere close to. The U.S.S.R. collaborated with NSDAP Germany to such a high degree, that the question of the Soviets joining the Axis Alliance was on the table.
I suggest you stop consuming propaganda. The whole "delaying the invasion" argument is sheer nonsense invented in the post-war years in order to cover up Soviet Imperialism. Stalin used the partnership with Hitler to take half of Poland, the Baltic countries, and attempt to invade Finland.
1
-
@theburgerboy5936 And where are you pulling those numbers from? It doesn't even include the various other militias and disorganized forces that fought both the Reds and the Whites, but separate from the official militaries of the Belarusian and Ukrainian states, or the number of Belarusians and Ukrainians that fought in the Polish and Lithuanian armies. In any case, the number of Ukrainians and Belarusians who fought against the Bolsheviks dwarfed the number of those who fought for the Bolsheviks. Hardly enough reason to justify Soviet Imperialism.
The point of your first paragraph was to come up with excuses to justify an invasion, taking arguments right out of Soviet propaganda. It doesn't take much to discredit such nonsense. The strong majority of Ukrainians and Belarusians wanted no part of the Soviet Union, and it takes nothing less than mental gymnastics to argue in favor of Soviet Imperialism.
Again, you show yourself to be incorrect. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was more than a non-aggression pact. It contained provisions carving up Eastern Europe and the joint invasion of Poland. By arguing it was a "mere non-aggression pact" you indeed were denying or attempting to downplay the most significant aspects of the agreement, which is downright dishonest and reeks of Communist propaganda, as much of what you say does. It was not a peace treaty, it was an agreement to divide up lands that didn't belong to either signatory.
Your reasoning for defending the pact is also nonsensical. If the Soviets main goal was to "buy time until the invasion" then signing the agreement does the exact opposite of what they intended. By removing Poland from the equation, Germany is now on the USSR's doorstep. This places the USSR next on the chopping block. The answer for this is simple: the USSR was not "buying time," they were seeking to conquer territory that didn't belong to them, and used the agreement so that the Germans would give them a free hand in taking what they wanted, just as they were giving the Germans a free hand to take what they wanted, at the expense of the various smaller nations that lied in-between Germany and the USSR.
The difference there is that Poland and Hungary made no agreement with the Germans to do so, they just came in and took what they wanted, which amounted to little more than a collection of several villages each, all areas inhabited by ethnic Poles and Hungarians. The Soviets made explicit military agreements with the Germans, and cooperated with them militarily during the invasion of Poland.
Stalin's motives obviously weren't to prevent German expansion. He contributed to it himself by helping Hitler invade Poland. How can you argue both things don't inherently contradict each other?
Do you know anything about WWI? That's is exactly the scenario that happened in 1914. The Germans threw everything they had at France with the intent of knocking it out so they could turn and face the Russians. The Russians invaded almost immediately, forcing the Germans to split the forces and fight a 2-front war. Had the Soviets actually responded to the German invasion of France, the Germans would not have allowed the Soviets to do whatever they wanted for a month until France could be defeated, they would've split their forces like they did in WWI. This means that it's unlikely Britain and France would've been pushed out of Europe anywhere near as quickly as they actually were, if at all. Stalin simple chose not to interfere. He saw the Capitalist West as the primary enemy of the Soviet Union, and was more than content with allowing Germany and the West to kill as many of each other as possible while he sat back and watched.
And? It doesn't debunk the massive amount of Soviet collaboration that existed with the Germans during the 1930s and first year and half of the war.
"Delaying the war"
They didn't delay anything. In fact, they triggered the war by agreeing to invade Poland along with Germany. The thing I must keep repeating because you keep insisting on ignoring is the fact that the invasion of Poland started WWII. The invasion of Poland primary happened because Hitler was given assurance of peace by Stalin through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin, seeing opportunity to conquer territory for himself, gave Hitler a free hand to invade Poland. If there was even a moderate possibility that the Soviets would've gone to war with the Germans immediately should Poland be invaded, the invasion simply wouldn't have happened, at least not at that time. The Winter War hadn't happened yet, so the Germans didn't know how bad of a state the Red Army was at this time.
Nobody defends the Soviet Union except people sympathetic to Communism. Quite literally nothing the Soviets did during this time is even remotely justifiable. Allowing Germany to invade Poland (as well as invading half of it for yourself) does nothing to prevent Germany from expanding or slow it down militarily, or making yourself more ready militarily. It does the opposite of both things. The Soviets directly contributed to German military development in the 1930s by allowing them to test new equipment on Soviet territory to get around the Treaty of Versailles (which alone should tell us Stalin knew well at this time that Hitler did not care for treaties . . . either that or Stalin was simply an idiot). 20 years prior, they invaded most of their neighbors in Eastern Europe after promising them independence. The overwhelming majority of fighting men from these nations fought AGAINST the Soviet Union. Most of the arguments you are trying to use only came about after the war ended, and the Soviets were looking for excuses. It was only then that the "we were buying time" argument emerged.
To put it bluntly, you are trying to defend the indefensibly, which leads me to believe you're a Communist for the same reason that only a National Socialist would try to justify Germany's actions during this same period.
1
-
@theburgerboy5936 Yes, but you're ignoring a very significant chunk of Ukrainian and Belarusian fighters, all of whom fought AGAINST Bolshevik takeover. Very convenient thing to ignore for someone arguing Ukraine and Belarus "wanted" to be invaded by the Soviets.
Lol, a Wikipedia user. That explains a lot.
That's exactly what you're trying to argue though. The Soviets invaded Ukraine and Belarus in the aftermath of WWI and took them over. That is established fact and a blatant example of imperialism. You seem to be coming up with excuses in order to justify this action, by trying to argue "a lot of Ukrainians and Belarusians fought in the Red Army," yet you ignored at first the fact that a lot more of them fought against it. Eventually you conceded that the White Army alone had more Ukrainians and Belarusians in it than the Red (which by itself is very telling), but still ignored the many other factions and groups involved, all of whom opposed the Bolsheviks taking over Ukraine and Belarus. There were many ideologies and factions at play, but the overwhelming majority of whom did not want to be taken over by the Bolsheviks. Your using a fallacy by trying to argue that because there were many ideologies at play and overall opinion was largely divided, the Soviets were justified in taking over those countries even though the pro-Soviet population of those countries was far outnumbered by those who did not want Soviet takeover.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an alliance. You agree to jointly invade a country with someone else, that makes you de-facto allies during the ensuing invasion. At what point did I deny this? I address both because you seem to be arguing both the invasions of Ukraine/Belarus and the Pact were both justified. Neither were justified. Even your own language shows this to be true, you describe it as the "reconquering of Western Ukraine and Belarus." These lands were never Soviet to begin with, as I explained before. They were part of independent Belarusian and Ukrainian states, both of whom fought against Soviet invasion, along with Poland. Apart from a brief period of time when the Soviets were invading Poland (before they got pushed all the way back to their own borders by the Polish Army) Western Belarus and Ukraine were never controlled by the Soviets, nor had significant pro-Soviet sentiment.
No agreements the Soviets made with the Germans during this time could be justified, all of them helped Germany to advance military and move closer towards its ultimate goals.
Because, as I said, nothing the Soviets did during this period can really be justified. Most of the excuses you are attempting to make come from Soviet propagandists. The "buying time" argument, which seems to be your main point, only emerged in the post-war years as an excuse to justify the Soviet cooperation with the Germans in the 30s and the start of WWII. Nobody willfully accepts propaganda as legitimate arguments unless they themselves subscribe to the ideology the propaganda comes from. By this same measure, only people sympathetic to National Socialism try to justify the invasion of Poland from the German side.
Again, how exactly does that justify a Soviet takeover of the country? The number of those who fought against the Red Army dwarfed those who fought in it. So much so, that the Ukrainian and Belarusian states allied with Poland, despite having numerous border disputes with it, to fight against the Soviets. The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians and Belarusians wanted independent states, the question and argument was what that state should be. Far fewer wanted the Bolshevik invasion that ultimately happened. This line of reasoning has not gone away in the modern world, Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext that some of the population in the East of the country is pro-Russian, despite the fact that they are few in number compared to those who are anti-Russian (anti-Russian takeover at least).
"Because apparently the only reason anyone could possibly defend any nation is if they are completely ideology bound to speak positively of them"
Which is true when we speak of nations like NSDAP Germany, the Soviet Union, and Red China: ideologically driven totalitarian states responsible for more war crimes, genocides, and other atrocities than anyone else during that same time. Nobody defends NSDAP Germany except those sympathetic to it. Likewise, nobody defends Soviet actions (let alone their atrocities) except those sympathetic to it. You're trying to justify both the Soviet takeover of Ukraine and Belarus, and the the invasion of Poland 20 years later. I consider both of these to be atrocities.
1
-
@theburgerboy5936 At what point did I disclose my ideology, if any?
I disagree with you because you are trying to justify imperialism and collaboration with National Socialism, which the Soviet Union did. Furthermore, all of your arguments are taken right out of the Soviet play book (which is, you guessed it, propaganda), which I've heard being regurgitated by tankies on numerous occasions.
They never change: buying time this, trying to prevent expansion that. It's like the Holodomor 10 years earlier, they try to argue it was a naturally occurring famine because of the climate, despite no weather records from the time being able to back up that claim. All they have to back it up is government statements issued long after the fact. It's exactly the same with your "buying time" arguments. The Soviet government outright denied they collaborated with the Germans at all for decades. When they finally admitted it, only them did the buying time argument emerge. If that really was their intent, why not just say so?
The true intent of the Soviet government was to take over Eastern Poland and the Baltic by making an agreement with Germany to allow each other to invade neutral countries in-between them.
You argue the cooperation was justified and the invasions of Ukraine and Belarus were justified. I point out you're arguing in favor of imperialism. Suddenly I'm "changing your argument." No, I'm pointing out your argument is absurd and overtly defending actions that I regard as unjustifiable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1