so a farmer wasn’t allowed to voluntarily hire himself out to another farmer in a mutually beneficial arrangement

It’s not mutually beneficial. You might want to familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of political economy.

And being forced, by men with guns and a notorious wiliness to use them, to labor for others – is the textbook definition of slavery.

Perhaps, but what does it have to do with the subject?

didn’t John Wayne Gacy own a construction firm?

I see that the guy made a lasting impression on you, but I fail to see the relevance. You’re reminding me of liberals denouncing Thomas Jefferson for sleeping with his slave woman.

As for Joe Stalin, I am not aware of him torturing or raping anyone. He ran a state. Right now, as we speak, countless people are being tortured and raped in American prisons, shot by the police domestically, and killed abroad (including babies, since you enjoy drama so much). Thus, by your logic every head of state is John Wayne Gacy. So, fine, keep raving and ranting. But it is getting boring.

I’m sure there’s also nostalgia for the Nazi period. Even Vichy France must look good to a lot of French right now.

I don’t think so. But if you do have credible polling data, I’d like to see it.

“Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We would not let our people have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”

There’s a whole bunch of fake quotes, and this is one of them. See, this illustrates your problem: indoctrination. Involuntary reflex, instilled by indoctrination. Too bad.

Post-NEP no individual or private entity was allowed to hire people for wages. This was also one of the ideological underpinning of the collectivization: eliminating the practice of rich farmers hiring poor peasants to cultivate their fields; preventing individuals from getting richer off someone else’s labor. That’s the key.

what’s the definition of ‘rich’?

so a farmer wasn’t allowed to voluntarily hire himself out to another farmer in a mutually beneficial arrangement, but rather both farmers now were forced at the point of a bayonet to labor for the benefit of the state, and hope that a little of their efforts somehow trickled back to them so long as Stalin considered them an asset to his regime, and if he didn’t then they’d both just be worked/starved to death. Nice.

Ignoring the most important fundamental feature of this remarkable experiment is the way to miss the forest for the trees.

the system of an open economy whereby one person works for another (a system I have found myself on both sides of over the decades) is not perfect, but it sure beats slavery. And being forced, by men with guns and a notorious wiliness to use them, to labor for others – is the textbook definition of slavery. And doesn’t include the humiliation of being forced to labor for a regime that has genocided your relatives and sent your immediate family members to the gulags. What kind of hell on earth they suffered I can’t even imagine.

Who cares about Joseph Stalin, whether he was sadistic or not? Factories were built,…

didn’t John Wayne Gacy own a construction firm? Presumably during the period he was torturing and raping young men to death, he also built things! Things that are probably around even to this day. Things that children play on and that keep the elements off of senior citizens heads.

Wasn’t there a Monty Python skit where they mocked anyone who worried about ‘who cares who killed who?’ ‘There’s a wedding to celebrate!’

There are opinion polls. Western opinion polls. Surely they won’t inflate the nostalgia for the communist period. It’s real.

I’m sure there’s also nostalgia for the Nazi period. Even Vichy France must look good to a lot of French right now.

I get that capitalism and exploitation have had extreme abuses over the millenniums and even today, and I get why the French built the guillotine and why they marched aristocrats up its steps and cheered as the blade made its grim descent. I’m certainly no fan of capitalism as it’s practiced today, and consider it all one huge crony/klepto/global theft mechanism and most of the international banksters belong in a cage.

But that in no way ameliorates the crimes and horrors of the Soviet period under Stalin. Where the survivors must surely have suffered unimaginable miseries and excruciating daily torments. Anyone who could think or had ability was a de-facto enemy of the state. What was it Stalin said about thoughts, thinking, the mind and ideas?

“Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We would not let our people have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”

says it all in my book

(didn’t post as a reply)

“Because marching in to end slavery is exactly the same as marching in to steal grain from farmers and starving them to death.”

It cannot be “stealing” of done by the government according to law. Or we can reverse things and go full mental about “but muh state rights!” as the chief reason for the American Civil War.

So in your world, for example, Nazi appropriation of stuff wasn’t stealing because it was done by a government according to that government’s laws. Good to know.

And you didn’t answer my question about the place holdeb by the Russian Empire economy-wise in the early XIX c. as compared to a century later.

I did answer your meaningless question. You just found the answer to be inconvenient. No worries – I’ll repeat it for you:

Early 19th century was before most of Europe enjoyed the industrial revolution so everyone was far behind China and India. Let’s look at share of world GDP over time.

Here is Russia’s share of the world’s GDP [you will have to refer to the original post for the link]

You see that Russia began expanding its share of world GDP around 1880 and that the expansion accelerated from 1900 to 1913. While Russia peaked during Soviet times it was already expanding prior to Soviet times. Indeed, Russia had a larger share of the world’s GDP in 1910 than it did in the 1980s.

The above of course contradicts the ridiculous idea that Rusisa’s industrialziation can be attributed to the Soviets. Russia was industrializing rapidly both in absolute terms and relative to the rest of the world from 1900.

Was that supposed to be an argument of some kind?

ridding the world of exploitation, or ridding the world of people (Gentiles) of ability?

Nah. Ridding the world of capitalist-style exploitation. Post-NEP no individual or private entity was allowed to hire people for wages. This was also one of the ideological underpinning of the collectivization: eliminating the practice of rich farmers hiring poor peasants to cultivate their fields; preventing individuals from getting richer off someone else’s labor. That’s the key.

Ignoring the most important fundamental feature of this remarkable experiment is the way to miss the forest for the trees.

Because the way I see it, Joseph Stalin was simply another John Wayne Gacy, (a Sadistic, power-crazed monster) who was able to operate on a larger scale. That’s all.

Who cares about Joseph Stalin, whether he was sadistic or not? Factories were built, tractors came to the fields replacing horse plows, electric lights and motors, real shoes, clothes, cigarettes. Rural peasants became pilots, engineers, generals. That’s what people remember and care about, not your amateur psychoanalysis.

And even those who survived the terror and gulags and mind/soul-numbing oppression found it to be spirit-crushing. I’ve been to communist countries, I’ve seen the results. Nothing to brag about, believe me.

There are opinion polls. Western opinion polls. Surely they won’t inflate the nostalgia for the communist period. It’s real.

Well, there are Stalinist PIGS like you as well.

“Because marching in to end slavery is exactly the same as marching in to steal grain from farmers and starving them to death.”

It cannot be “stealing” of done by the government according to law. Or we can reverse things and go full mental about “but muh state rights!” as the chief reason for the American Civil War.

So in your world, for example, Nazi appropriation of stuff wasn’t stealing because it was done by a government according to that government’s laws. Good to know.

And you didn’t answer my question about the place holdeb by the Russian Empire economy-wise in the early XIX c. as compared to a century later.

I did answer your meaningless question. You just found the answer to be inconveneint. No worries – I’ll repeat it for you:

Early 19th century was before most of Europe enjoyed the industrial revolution so everyone was far behind China and India. Let’s look at share of world GDP over time.

Here is Russia’s share of the world’s GDP [you will have to refer to the original post fo rthe link]

You see that Russia began expanding its share of world GDP around 1880 and that the expansion accelerated from 1900 to 1913. While Russia peaked during Soviet times it was already expanding prior to Soviet times. Indeed, Russia had a larger share of the world’s GDP in 1910 than it did in the 1980s.

The above of course contradicts the ridiculous idea that Rusisa’s industrialziation can be attributed to the Soviets. Russia was industrializing rapidly both in absolute terms and relative to the rest of the world from 1900.

Poland exploiter class, Pilsudchina, from the communist point of view.

got what they deserved eh?

what makes it [the Katyn forest massacre/genocide] front page material is what it shows about the nature of the Soviets. Their motivating principle, you see

Shrug. Communist principles, that was never a secret. The ideology declaring its purpose as ridding the world of exploitation, by capitalists and their servants: the clergy, the academics, the university professors, intellectuals, etc. For the benefit of the working people. Doesn’t sound too-too bad, at least in theory.

ridding the world of exploitation, or ridding the world of people (Gentiles) of ability?

Also, judging by the prevailing sentiment of those who lived it and then lived under a ‘liberal democracy’, not without some (if modest) success.

those who ‘lived it’ were necessarily not one of the tens, if not hundreds of millions of people who *died* of it. And even those who survived the terror and gulags and mind/soul-numbing oppression found it to be spirit-crushing. I’ve been to communist countries, I’ve seen the results. Nothing to brag about, believe me.

The flow of history tends to sift through and find and elevate individuals that are needed under the circumstances.

Himmler was doing God’s work?

or.. the flow of history tends to sift thought and find and elevate opportunistic, ruthless psychopaths who’re more willing than their competitors to betray, murder, terrorize and slaughter millions in their insatiable lust for power ?

For decades, John Wayne Gacy was able to completely thrive and persevere while his victims all perished. Is that because fate and providence favored him for being less Mother Theresa-like than the boys he tortured and murdered? Because the way I see it, Joseph Stalin was simply another John Wayne Gacy, (a Sadistic, power-crazed monster) who was able to operate on a larger scale. That’s all.

There’s still a controversy. Many historians in Russia still believe that the evidence demonstrates that in fact Germans did it.

the only reason there’s any ‘controversy’ is because of liars and apologists for genocide – like you 😉

Soviets were never sold as ‘pure good’ or even ‘kinda good’ in the west. I guess you’re complaining about Nazism not being appreciated enough?

seems to me I remember the NYT writing about how good ol Uncle Joe was just enforcing some much-needed agrarian reforms when a few greedy naysayers in the Ukraine were stubbornly opposing the paradise of collectivization, and grumbling about not having a feast every night.

as for being a Nazi apologist, if saying Stalin and the genocidal Bolsheviks deserved to be killed to a man.. makes me a Nazi apologist, then so be it. But as long as I’ve been writing, it’s always been in condemnation of the Nazi ethnocentric hubris that overplayed their hand and brought so much suffering to the German people and others.

But it seems to be getting a face-lift these days. Still considered a useful tool, I guess.

naw, it’s just that the world is finally discovering who the real [Zio-]Nazis were all along.

Yeah, right. Also, global warming and Paris Hilton.

Trump and Putin seem to be playing nice together. No war in Ukraine, cooperation in Syria. Perhaps a Kurdish state?

hope you have your Rolaids handy

Because marching in to end slavery is exactly the same as marching in to steal grain from farmers and starving them to death.

It cannot be “stealing” of done by the government according to law. Or we can reverse things and go full mental about “but muh state rights!” as the chief reason for the American Civil War.

So in your world, millions of peasants were starved to death in order to speed up industrialization for the sake of preventing Poland from conquering the USSR.

Millions of peasants starved to death, yes. No one is denying that. Hey, I’m going to go as far as to admit that the famine had been aggravated in parts by the human factor. Namely – bu the kulaks, who sabotaged the harvesting efforts and the nascent kolkhozes. Blame them!

And I never said that Poland planned to conques the entire of the USSR – don’t lie. Only that they still had hard-on about the Intermarium and had military plans targeting UkSSR and BSSR.

And you didn’t answer my question about the place holdeb by the Russian Empire economy-wise in the early XIX c. as compared to a century later.

Слив зачситан. Fly away, писечка!

because Katyn proved that the Nazis were right all along, and that the Bolsheviks actually were less than human scum who consider every man, woman and child with a shred of ability as ‘the enemy’.

How many women and children were executed at Katyn? So far, as I know, those executed there were not 20 000, but 12 000 (by the Soviet authority) of the most hard core Russophobic Polacks, who’d gladly joined forces with the Nazis at the first opportunity. What you gonna do with them, really?

With that in mind, the question isn’t why did Hitler invade, but why didn’t the rest of the sane Western world join Hitler to wipe this scourge and abomination off the map, you see. In hindsight, I think all thoughtful people must agree that as bad as the Nazis were, the Soviet scum were so much worse that all people of good will should have done everything they could to kill as many of them as possible, no?

Question – do you support of the General Plan Ost then?

it’s funny in a way I guess.. every time someone brings up the Red Army sub-human rapists, notorious for raping and butchering women and children, right on cue,

They did it “right on cue”, really? That’s something new! Btw, Rurik – I’d go for the record and express my sincere desire that you, as a proponent of the Neo-Nazis, should follow you leaders in their methodology of ending their sorry lives – lest others do it instead.

I’m not ashamed of that sentiment in the slightest. There are either humans, or neo-Nazis for this world.

which had never been to a fair-sized town, had neither friends nor relatives in the army

These requirements are too strict. It wasn’t exactly like an uncontacted Amazon tribe, of course. Just uneducated rural peasants in a very large sparsely populated country; small villages, huge distances, and very bad roads. It’s a relatively common theme in Russian literature; I believe there was a BBC TV series recently by Bulgakov’s Young Doctor’s Notebooks. You’ll probably find something similar there.

I think it was Gletkin. But it’s not a fiction book telling stories. It’s more like analysis describing the logic, the philosophy of the new guard vs the old guard.

An unelected government in power due to invasion takes from farmers what they produced, without their permission. This is not theft in your world.

Southern Succession v. 2.0 when?

Because marching in to end slavery is exactly the same as marching in to steal grain from farmers and starving them to death.

Upcoming invasion in 1932? From Poland perhaps?

Poland had actual, working military plans for invasion and dismemberment of the USSR. They were serious about “Intermarium” shit.

So in your world, millions of peasants were starved to death in order to speed up industrialization for the sake of preventing Poland from conquering the USSR.

We’ve already gone over how industrialization without mass collectivization was happening before the Revolution.

And failing.

You have been failing to read, but industrialization of Russia was obvious.

For example, spread of railroads:

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/INDREV6.asp

In 1860 Russia had the least km of railways of any European power. In 1880 it was in 4th place, in 1900 in first. The source ends at 1900 but Russia continued to expand until the war.

Russia’s industrial growth rate of 8% in the last decade of the 19th century was the highest in Europe.

Easy question – take e.g. Russian empire of the early XIX century. Which place in the world economy did it held? Now, take early XX century Russia and ask the same question.

Early 19th century was before most of Europe enjoyed the industrial revolution so everyone was far behind China and India. Let’s look at share of world GDP over time.

Here is Russia’s share of the world’s GDP

You see that Russia began expanding its share around 1880 and that the expansion accelerated from 1900 to 1913. While Russia peaked during Soviet times it was already expanding prior to Soviet times. Indeed, Russia had a larger share of the world’s GDP in 1910 than it did in the 1980s.

You’re entitled to your opinion and you may even be right about that subset of the Russian peasantry which had never been to a fair-sized town, was never in the army, had neither friends nor relatives in the army, and lived outside the range of church-bells.

distrusting, separately, a Koestler’s character, it seems odd

Was it Ivanov or Gletkin? And does the author intend us to assume that either of these characters is always entirely truthful?

rather it was the mind and soul of Poland

Or, alternately, leeches on the body of Polish nation . Poland exploiter class, Pilsudchina, from the communist point of view.

what makes it front page material is what it shows about the nature of the Soviets. Their motivating principle, you see

Shrug. Communist principles, that was never a secret. The ideology declaring its purpose as ridding the world of exploitation, by capitalists and their servants: the clergy, the academics, the university professors, intellectuals, etc. For the benefit of the working people. Doesn’t sound too-too bad, at least in theory. Also, judging by the prevailing sentiment of those who lived it and then lived under a ‘liberal democracy’, not without some (if modest) success.

there should have been some soul-searching as to the kind of man our ‘good ol Uncle Joe’ was

The flow of history tends to sift through and find and elevate individuals that are needed under the circumstances. Those who can’t handle it get pushed aside, thrown away. Mothers Theresas don’t get to rule states and command armies. C’est la vie.

the NYT simply lied about Katyn and blamed it all on the Germans.

There’s still a controversy. Many historians in Russia still believe that the evidence demonstrates that in fact Germans did it.

has been sold as a cartoon version of pure good vs. pure evil- is beyond ludicrous

Soviets were never sold as ‘pure good’ or even ‘kinda good’ in the west. I guess you’re complaining about Nazism not being appreciated enough? But it seems to be getting a face-lift these days. Still considered a useful tool, I guess. So, don’t despair, there’s hope for you.

once they came to power, were the original evil that set in motion all the subsequent evils including Nazism, Zionism and today’s Eternal Wars

Yeah, right. Also, global warming and Paris Hilton.

‘Also, while Nazism ended up being even worse than Stalinism (though not by a huge degree), ‘

There we part company. Your statement is absurd and is only tenable in view of the fact that you must have certainly bought into the victor’s version of the war and all their atrocity propaganda against Germany. This is not to say that National Socialist Germany did not do anything wrong or never committed any real atrocities, but a huge amount of what is claimed against it is BS; whether the Zamerican, Brit, French or Soviet/Russian flavor of it.
All of the above, plus of course, the Zionist power configuration and also the current illegitimate German elite – elevated to power by the victors – have various reasons to desire their propaganda, er, “history”, to remain firmly in place.
As for the rise of the N.Socialists, it was a combo of the Bolshevik threat plus the terrible economic situation Germany found itself in, due to ruinous war-reparation obligations coupled with an international economic crisis.
They got to power and fixed the economy, without debt, and without causing the deaths of millions of people, and this went a long way in guaranteeing people support, even as the country later descended into war.

But they were military officers,

that’s a dishonest mischaracterization

there were some military officers, that’s true. But it wasn’t just military officers who were rounded up and executed, rather it was the mind and soul of Poland. The clergy, the academics, the university professors and intellectuals. The business owners and politicians and writers and poets. Engineers, journalists, even royalty.

basically they cut the head off of Poland, right in line with the mantra to ‘kill the best of the gentiles’. (most of the NKVD officers at the time were Jews)

who were deemed dangerous.

no doubt

this one certainly isn’t the front-page material.

what makes it front page material is what it shows about the nature of the Soviets. Their motivating principle, you see. And also how the news of this atrocity was treated in the West, where there should have been some soul-searching as to the kind of man our ‘good ol Uncle Joe’ was. Instead, as per the Holodomor, and Walter Duranty’s satanic lies regarding the horrors there, the NYT simply lied about Katyn and blamed it all on the Germans.

we are all supposed to believe that the Nazis were the worst people ever who did the most awful things ever! And they did do awful things, but when you see the whole picture, and realize just how evil and murderous and demonic the Soviets were, then you begin to see that the conflict that has been sold as a cartoon version of pure good vs. pure evil- is beyond ludicrous. And that the truth is far, far more elusive and complicated.

The Bolsheviks who butchered these girls in a basement

once they came to power, were the original evil that set in motion all the subsequent evils including Nazism, Zionism and today’s Eternal WarsⓊ. Its incumbent upon us all to understand this stuff if we’re ever going to prevent another break out of a massive slaughter like WWII.

You are a pro-Stalin asshole and a sad little liar to boot.

“It’s an interesting notion, I must say, considering that the Nazis exterminated a quarter of the population of Poland; 5.5 million souls.”

Pure BS. Next you r gonna tell us how the evil natzee cannibals exterminated 20 million Russians, 6 million Jews, etc.
You are an Idiot.

Out of Bolshevik and Stalin apologists like Shamir, Lyttenburgh, Krieger, Martyanov here at Unz Mao Cheng Ji is the most despicable. At least Martyanov does it because he thinks of Stalin as a part of Great Russia identity that patriotic Russians nowadays want to draw inspiration from. It is misguided but at least understandable. But our little Mao here is beyond the pale.

Just as your characterization of those innocent people as “enemy officers”, demonstrates your rancid id.

I’m not saying it was justified; it certainly was an atrocity. But they were military officers, who were deemed dangerous. What I am saying, is that on the list of atrocities of the WWII period, from death camps, to the bombing of Dresden, to nuking 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this one certainly isn’t the front-page material.

Nazis exterminated a quarter of the population of Poland; 5.5 million souls.

there were a lot of deaths of innocents in that evil war foisted upon the world by Zionists/Bolsheviks. You know, the exact same people who’re foisting their evil wars upon the planet today.

The answer is simple. Like I said, turning Germany against Western and Northern Europe (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was a major Soviet diplomatic success.

no turning was necessary, the “West” (Zio-bankster scum) was just as under the thrall of the Fiend as it is today.

I’m not really all that bloodthirsty

Oh I get that. There usually is a vast divide between the goons who actually do the killing and their apologists. I don’t think Ehrenburg ever actually killed anyone personally, nor did Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler.

I don’t believe I mentioned any rapists at all, let alone justifying them.

every grunt in ‘defense’ (as if) of the Soviets is a direct attempt to ‘justify’ rapists and murderers.

Whoa. I got the impression that it was you who is using the very unfortunate Katyn massacre incident to justify, among other atrocities, …

what Katyn does and did, was to show to the entire world the nature of the Soviets. Just as your characterization of those innocent people as “enemy officers”, demonstrates your rancid id. You see? There really is much that can be glimmered about someone by the things that they say and do. Rounding up the best of Poland and lining them up at a ditch, and then summarily shooting them all dead and attempting to cover it all up, was a telling atrocity, in that it demonstrated the kind of people that the Soviets really were, just as all those who would downplay such an event, show us all the kind of pers0n that they are. It really is that simple.

And if you are so unpredictable, why don’t you surprise me?

I have no problem being predictable. Like the sun rising in the East, Rurik tells the truth.

because Katyn proved that the Nazis were right all along, and that the Bolsheviks actually were less than human scum who consider every man, woman and child with a shred of ability as ‘the enemy’

Did you figure this out all by yourself? It’s an interesting notion, I must say, considering that the Nazis exterminated a quarter of the population of Poland; 5.5 million souls.

With that in mind, the question isn’t why did Hitler invade, but why didn’t the rest of the sane Western world join Hitler to wipe this scourge and abomination off the map, you see.

The answer is simple. Like I said, turning Germany against Western and Northern Europe (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was a major Soviet diplomatic success.

In hindsight, I think all thoughtful people must agree that as bad as the Nazis were, the Soviet scum were so much worse that all people of good will should have done everything they could to kill as many of them as possible, no?

Nah. Not in my experience, not to mention that I’m not really all that bloodthirsty.

every time someone brings up the Red Army sub-human rapists, notorious for raping and butchering women and children, right on cue, as if it were some kind of justification for the rapes and atrocities, they mention what the Nazis had done. As if that justifies raping a child or its mother.

What in the world are you on about? I don’t believe I mentioned any rapists at all, let alone justifying them.

They’re like those American niggers that rape and then torture to death some hapless girl, perhaps set her boyfriend on fire, and then for a “defense”, mention slavery.

Whoa. I got the impression that it was you who is using the very unfortunate Katyn massacre incident to justify, among other atrocities, burning Belorussian (and does it also apply to Polish, Czech, French?) villagers alive.

one thing I’ll say about you lot, you’re predictable

I don’t have any ‘lot’. And if you are so unpredictable, why don’t you surprise me?

In this context, in the times like that, what is that makes execution of 20,000 enemy officers such a mind-boggling atrocity?

because Katyn proved that the Nazis were right all along, and that the Bolsheviks actually were less than human scum who consider every man, woman and child with a shred of ability as ‘the enemy’. With that in mind, the question isn’t why did Hitler invade, but why didn’t the rest of the sane Western world join Hitler to wipe this scourge and abomination off the map, you see. In hindsight, I think all thoughtful people must agree that as bad as the Nazis were, the Soviet scum were so much worse that all people of good will should have done everything they could to kill as many of them as possible, no?

Brave German Wehrmacht exterminated millions of Soviet servicemen

it’s funny in a way I guess.. every time someone brings up the Red Army sub-human rapists, notorious for raping and butchering women and children, right on cue, as if it were some kind of justification for the rapes and atrocities, they mention what the Nazis had done. As if that justifies raping a child or its mother. They’re like those American niggers that rape and then torture to death some hapless girl, perhaps set her boyfriend on fire, and then for a “defense”, mention slavery.

one thing I’ll say about you lot, you’re predictable.

In the first post October Bolshevik government there was one (ONE) Jew – Trotsky. In the Central commitee of the RSDRP(b) consistng of 31 members there were 7 Jews – as well as the equal number of the Ukrainians.

Sources, plox, for your rantings.

An unelected government in power due to invasion takes from farmers what they produced, without their permission. This is not theft in your world.

Southern Succession v. 2.0 when?

Upcoming invasion in 1932? From Poland perhaps?

Poland had actual, working military plans for invasion and dismemberment of the USSR. They were serious about “Intermarium” shit.

We’ve already gone over how industrialization without mass collectivization was happening before the Revolution.

And failing.

Easy question – take e.g. Russian empire of the early XIX century. Which place in the world economy did it held? Now, take early XX century Russia and ask the same question.

Indeed. The existence of the genocidal Bolshevik regime made possible the attempt for extreme countermeasures. No Bolshevik takeover of Russia, no Nazi takeover of Germany.

Right now, there are no communists in charge of my country – Russia. There is no official idealogical reason for confrontation. And yet the West is throwing and hissy fit after another in order to justify its own “defensive” measures against “resurgent Russia”.

The thing is – “Bolshavism” is an excuse. The West is perfectly capable to tolerate any kind of shit given the rulers of that countries follow their wishes.

“Bolshevism” is just an excuse for pro-Nazi arseholes. Russia was inveded by whatvever iteration of “the West” for centuries, and said “the West” used trumped up reasons and accusations to justify it since… XIII century

The government wasn’t ‘stealing’,

Taxation is theft! Driving licenses are theft! Gary “Aleppo?” Johnson 2016!

Oh, wait…

The Netherlands Minister in St. Petersburg (in a report to London which was published in a British Government White Paper and then suppressed) testified to the overwhelmingly Jewish and non Russian nature of the first Bolshevist Governments, the leaders of which were shipped to Russia from other countries.

One report that did get published by the British government was “A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia” 1919 with hundreds of first hand accounts by mostly British people caught up in the Jewish Bolshevik horror show. Google: ” A Collection of Reports, Bolshevism in Russia 1919″.

There’s no doubt about the identity of the Jewish leaders urging wholesale murder.

And the US ambassador to Russia, David Francis, who reported the situation daily in 1917 to the US government said the same thing, “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution” (see David R. Francis’, “Russia from the American Embassy April, 1916 November 1918 “). https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/1461171571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494397987&sr=8-1&keywords=russia+from+the+american+embassy

something for you to jerk off to

Thanks, but I’m not to much into violent fantasies. Keep it to yourself.

Brave German Wehrmacht exterminated millions of Soviet servicemen, by various means, starvation being their favorite. General Karbyshev (a Cossack, by the way), the famous Soviet war hero, was frozen to death for refusing to cooperate with the Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Karbyshev . Over 600 Belorusian villages were burned down together with all the villagers of all ages burned alive. In this context, in the times like that, what is that makes execution of 20,000 enemy officers such a mind-boggling atrocity?

In a report to a United States Senate Committee in February, 1919, the Rev. George A. Simons (who was Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd from 1907 to 1918) said that of 388 members of the Bolshevist Government 371 were Jews, and 265 of these Jews from the Lower East Side of New York.

Lol. This is positively charming.

To say I don’t trust Koestler (more precisely one of his presumably less trustworthy characters) on this statement, or Karlin’s Irish peasants for that matter, would be a massive understatement.

You may distrust Koestler all you want (distrusting, separately, a Koestler’s character, it seems odd), and you might be right, but that doesn’t mean every Koestler’s word is untrue. That particular story rings true to me; of course your opinion may differ…

I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don’t know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.

To say I don’t trust Koestler (more precisely one of his presumably less trustworthy characters) on this statement, or Karlin’s Irish peasants for that matter, would be a massive understatement.

“The early Bolshevists, of 1917-19, were predominantly imported Jews, not Russians, and the early massacres bore the signs, not of mob violence, but of vengeance taken by imported Jewish rulers. The Netherlands Minister in St. Petersburg (in a report to London which was published in a British Government White Paper and then suppressed) testified to the overwhelmingly Jewish and non Russian nature of the first Bolshevist Governments, the leaders of which were shipped to Russia from other countries. In a report to a United States Senate Committee in February, 1919, the Rev. George A. Simons (who was Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd from 1907 to 1918) said that of 388 members of the Bolshevist Government 371 were Jews, and 265 of these Jews from the Lower East Side of New York. The Times of March 1919 reported that ‘of the 20 or 30 commissars or leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than three-fourths are Jews’. In 1920, 447 of the 545 members of the Bolshevist Administration were Jews. Jews predominated in government service, of all grades, and even in 1933 the Jewish Chronicle stated that ‘Over one-third of the Jews in Russia have become officials’.” – Douglas Reed’s “Lest We Regret” which is available free online.

Like anything else, it seems mysterious to people who are ignorant but not to people who actually know what was happening. Do you know anything about mid 20th century history?

Nazis barely came to power. Widespread and legitimate fear of Bolshevism was a factor in that.

The government wasn’t ‘stealing’, nor was it ‘every piece of grain’.

An unelected government in power due to invasion takes from farmers what they produced, without their permission. This is not theft in your world.

And I already commented on the big-picture context: super-rapid industrialization in view of the upcoming invasion – remember?

Upcoming invasion in 1932? From Poland perhaps?

We’ve already gone over how industrialization without mass collectivization was happening before the Revolution. As it did all over the world. One did not depend on the other. Russians are not some sort of monkeys, who could only industrialize with mass famine.

You will claim that this was necessary to speed things up. That without it, what – 80% of tanks would have been produced than otherwise? 60%? Weighed against the cost of 8 million dead people (and perhaps 2 million people who could have been soldiers, but were dead) plus demoralization reflected in early mass surrenders, I’m not sure it was worth it.

As for you wikipedia quote, that’s just someone’s opinion.

Taking grain was a fact. Prevented peasants from leaving, forcing them to starve in their villages, was a fact. Death rate was a fact.

You might want to do something about these fantasies of yours.

something for you to jerk off to

What is ironical is that many of the excuses Stalinist pigs use are very similar to those used by the apologists for British imperialism.

well LK, they were bestest buddies after all

psychopathic peas in a pod

No Bolshevik takeover of Russia, no Nazi takeover of Germany.

What is this, some new-age ‘butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causes hurricane in China’ bullshit? Is this how you feeeel? Sounds desperate, but okay, vent your frustration…

“I haven’t seen any evidence that any of the Soviet times famines were deliberately engineered”

Then you haven’t read any books on the subject or only those written by the most strident apologists for Stalin.
As AP and others have said, there is plenty of evidence that the regime carried out policies which caused or made the famines worse.

As for the Brits, what’s that got to do with Stalin?? The Brit imperialists were major scumbags and criminals, and in some cases they were very much responsible for famines indeed, such as the mid-19th Century Irish famine.
What is ironical is that many of the excuses Stalinist pigs use are very similar to those used by the apologists for British imperialism.

Nazism and 1930s European fascism in general was an attempt, by European elites, to counter and stamp out communist movements in their own countries: Italy, Germany, France, etc. In the context of the Great Depression.

Indeed. The existence of the genocidal Bolshevik regime made possible the attempt for extreme countermeasures. No Bolshevik takeover of Russia, no Nazi takeover of Germany.

Also, while Nazism ended up being even worse than Stalinism (though not by a huge degree), with the exception of the Ustashe in Croatia none of the fascist regimes came close. They weren’t even as deadly as Leninism.

For Germany specifically, it’s the opposite, it’s the failure of the German bolshevik revolution that led to the rise of Nazism.

If you want to go back, go to the logical starting point. The end of the German monarchy made Nazism possible.

A Bolshevik Germany would likely have been worse, globally, than the Nazi one. It would not have been as deadly in central Europe as the Nazis were, but it likely would have led to the Bolshevization of the entire West. In that case, the collective death toll probably would have been higher than already existed, as the Bolsheviks would have murdered millions in Germany, France, Italy, etc.

In your demented mind Nazism and Bolshevism are the only two possibilities.

So government forces stealing every piece of grain from starving peasants wasn’t deliberate in your world.

If you want to have a discussion, you might want to try to express your thoughts in a less bizarre way. The government wasn’t ‘stealing’, nor was it ‘every piece of grain’. And I already commented on the big-picture context: super-rapid industrialization in view of the upcoming invasion – remember? Again, I’ve seen no evidence that the famine was engineered, to starve people to death.

As for you wikipedia quote, that’s just someone’s opinion. Opinions, as I’m sure you already know, are like assholes, each of us has one.

You might want to do something about these fantasies of yours. It sounds worrying.

No Bolshevik revolution —> No Nazis in Germany

Nazism and 1930s European fascism in general was an attempt, by European elites, to counter and stamp out communist movements in their own countries: Italy, Germany, France, etc. In the context of the Great Depression. The Great Depression is the key here.

For Germany specifically, it’s the opposite, it’s the failure of the German bolshevik revolution that led to the rise of Nazism. And that’s not even particularly controversial. Had the revolution of 1918-19 succeeded (no SPD betrayal, no murder of Karl and Rosa), Nazism would’ve had no chance of snowball in hell.

I haven’t seen any evidence that any of the Soviet times famines were deliberately engineered.

that’s because you’re ideologically a mass-murdering commie scumbag just like Stalin was 😉

anyone who downplays the horrors and atrocities and mass-murderous reign of terror that Stalin and the Bolsheviks imposed on those millions of tragic victims- is just as bad as the murderous son of a bitch himself in my book.

there are a lot of people who are endemically envious of their betters, and many of them are driven by this unbearable envy to kill and often torture to death the objects of their private torment. If a Russian town or village was full of people and ability, that town likely was thriving before the advent of the commie/Bolshevik sub-human murderous thugs. When ever Stalin’s goons came upon such a village, they would often simply machine gun every living soul in sight. And then do the same to the livestock and then burn the place down to the ground so that these “privileged” bourgeoisie would die of exposure or starve or both.

Cossacks, for instance- were notoriously Russians of ability, and were thus hunted down and slaughtered when ever these Mongol mongrels got the chance. But it wasn’t just Cossacks that the commie hoards butchered, but anyone and everyone of ability. That hated ability that drives lumbering, drooling sub-humans insane with hatred/envy.

That’s basically the story of communism in the 20th century in a nutshell

So government forces stealing every piece of grain from starving peasants wasn’t deliberate in your world.

Russian wiki is more detailed than English:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_(1932%E2%80%941933)

“Согласно исследованиям доктора исторических наук В. Кондрашина, в ряде регионов РСФСР и, в частности, в Поволжье массовый голод был создан искусственно и возник «не из-за сплошной коллективизации, а в результате принудительных сталинских хлебозаготовок». Данное мнение подтверждают очевидцы событий, говоря о причинах трагедии: «Голод был потому, что хлеб сдали», «весь, до зерна, под метелку государству вывезли», «хлебозаготовками нас мучили», «продразвёрстка была, весь хлеб отняли». Сёла были ослаблены раскулачиванием и массовой коллективизацией, лишившись тысяч репрессированных хлеборобов-единоличников. В Поволжье комиссия ЦК ВКП(б) по вопросам хлебозаготовок во главе с секретарем ЦК партии П. П. Постышевым постановила изъять запасы хлеба у единоличников и хлеб, заработанный работниками колхоза. Под угрозой репрессий председатели колхозов и руководители сельских администраций были вынуждены сдать практически весь произведенный и имеющийся в запасах хлеб. Это лишило регион запасов продовольствия и привело к массовому голоду. Аналогичные меры были приняты В. М. Молотовым и Л. М. Кагановичем на Украине и Северном Кавказе, что вызвало соответствующие последствия — голод и массовую смертность среди населени”

Yeah, just happened because “turbulent times.”

Famines under Stalin didn’t “just happen.”

Indeed, I agree, and that’s what I said too: turbulent, revolutionary times. Shit happens in ordinary times; Crazy Fucking Shit happens in turbulent times. I haven’t seen any evidence that any of the Soviet times famines were deliberately engineered.

I noticed that famines have been discussed in this thread already. Famines happen, especially in turbulent times, times of great transitions, times of instability.

Deliberate famines – those caused not by nature but by government policy – are a different story. Famines under Stalin didn’t “just happen.”

If they count as governments ‘killing’ people, then you should probably quit wasting your time here and go somewhere to scream at the British government

Stalin treating ethnic Russians like British colonialists treated Indians doesn’t mean that Stalin didn’t kill millions of Russian peasants.

Of course, most of those Indian famines were not deliberate in nature.

Millions of Russian peasants starved to death don’t count?

I noticed that famines have been discussed in this thread already. Famines happen, especially in turbulent times, times of great transitions, times of instability. If they count as governments ‘killing’ people, then you should probably quit wasting your time here and go somewhere to scream at the British government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

I think that you are gravely understating, but uncle Joe was faced with a grave problem of mass-murderers and vandals in the Party, curbing them took thirty years.

By then, the doctor’s plot, I cannot judge if it is true or not, Stalin was a heavy drinker, but he was also tough, so I think he could have survived for a few more years if he had not been murdered.

Quiz question that I cannot answer, in Djugashvili’s underground days, his codename was Koba, and that of his closest associate was Koma. I have never seen the real name of Koma.

Thank the Lord that Trotsky was eliminated, Mercador did the world a great favour.

And you think those were the only Russians that Stalin’s government killed? Millions of Russian peasants starved to death don’t count?

Pre-black ships (Commodore Perry) and Japan of soon after was a mix. There really was little idea of ‘Nippon’ as a thing, and conditions varied greatly with the ruling family in the fiefdom, and whether they were green, amber or red to the Tokugawa.

Advanced clockwork, medicine, industrial systems, ceramics were gleaned from the Dutch trade prison in the south, noble families in the south and west didn’t pay much attention to the Tokugawa rules, so there was much exchange (and nastiness, citing the invasion of the Ryuku kimgdom by Satsuma as a relatively early one at the time) with China and Korea. Perry was faced with cannon as he arrived, sure, the tech. was outdated by a century or so, but large gun emplacements were in place.

Perry was such an arsehole, the cannon should have been used on his mini-fleet, sure, they would have bombarded the shore, but they would have had nowhere to go except away.

Stalin killed 3 million Russians.

According to the archive research by pro-western organization Memorial Society, the number of Soviet citizens convicted by political security services between 1921 and 1953 (that’s 32 years) was 5.5 million. 1 million of them were sentenced to capital punishment. That’s 1 million people brought to trial, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed over a 32-year period. I imagine many of them would self-identify as ‘Russians’, but obviously not all, probably something like 60-70%.

http://w3.osaarchivum.org/updates/2005/publications/terrorstatsen.htm

jilles dykstra wrote: ‘Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.’
To which sad little liar, Lyttenburgh, replied:
‘No, they were not. Othervise – go and prove your ballsy claim’.

I have nothing but admiration for VVP for his work as our head of the state. But he is not a historian, and cannot be used as authoritative source in such discussion. Here Putin is simply wrong. And by saying that it does not mean that I suddenly became against his foreign and inner policy. No, I’m stating a fact.

Want to know about the number of Jews in government? Fine!

And you failed to provide a real answer to my question, i.e. the mebership of the Jews in the RSDRP(b)

Stalin was a monster, no doubt about that.

Define “monster”. In order to have a fruitful discussion, we must come to common terms.

The person who can tell how many people died from his actions, is Anatoly Karlin, a regular contributor to UNZ. He has done research on this.

No, Karlin is a random fuck with no special education in that area. What can tell this are professional historians – and they already told us this (see Zemskov). Next – we must determine what number were, indeed, innocent victims and who got what they truly deserve. Just because they were executed in Stalin’s lifetime does not make them innocent as if by magic(k).

Hitler and NS lost that titanic war, were totally destroyed and have been subjected to the most intense and never ending negative propaganda, EVER.

We should remember that the Stalinist regime produced millions of victims

Hey LK.,

knowing what I know about the nature of the Soviets/Bolsheviks, I sometimes find it untenable to suffer the lies and distortions heaped upon the victims of these murderous, genocidal fiends.

every Ukrainian that died (horrifically) during the Holdomor, is just as notable and deserving of commemoration as every Jew that died during the Holocaust. To pretend that some were more deserving of sympathy – is to deny not just the humanity of all the others who suffered so terribly, but it means denigrating our own humanity as well.

imho 😉

After reading your characteristic of the SOVIET PEOPLE being sub-human

Oh, another lying POS!

did I ever say Soviet “people” fuck face?

or did I say specifically Soviet sub-human goons?

why is it you lying shitbags never have the intellectual wherewithal to defend your indefensible tripe without resorting to lies and smears and duplicity, eh?

for the record, when I say Soviet sub-human goons, these are some of the lowlifes (you’re defending) that I’m talking about

http://rense.com/general39/allied.htm

sub-humans on two legs are not just the notorious Soviet Red Army rapists, they can manifest in all ethnicities and nationalities

Salomon Morel is the perfect example of a Jewish sub-human POS

here’s a perfect example of an American (I would call him a dog, but I have far, far too much respect for dogs..) – sub-human:

now a lying POS like you might not be able to see beyond your own masturbatory narrative – with your pathetic apologies for Soviet genocidal outrages against all norms of human decency, but the rest of us are fully capable of comprehending raw, abhorrent evil (Soviet period under Stalin) vs. the shreds of human empathy that define what it means to be a human being, vs. a lowlife sub-human shitbag on two legs.

for the record

What your hero Stalin did was much worse, but you make up all sorts of excuses and lies for the man and his murderous regime.
Double standards much?

How come then that under Stalin the population, industry and education in the whole USSR increased, while in RF in the “Glorious democratic 90s” under Yeltsin it all went to shit? Oh, right – the West was with us! Yupeeee!

You must understand that that Lyttenburgh, Andrei Martyanov(smoothie) and Sergey are all Stalinist propagandists.
I. Shamir too.

It is quite bizarre to read their “logical” contortionism and outright lies.

Stalin won the war. He always had defenders, before and after the war, not only in Russia, but also in the West, including academics, generally of a leftist persuasion. This is still the case, even today.

I take it, you were rooting for the other side (Hitler) to win?

And the mantra that runs though men like Kaganovich (and his assorted Soviet sub-human goons and apologists) is to *kill the best of them*, huh?

After reading your characteristic of the SOVIET PEOPLE being sub-human, I have nothing else to say for you, userperson “Rurik”. Those who treat the Soviet People as sub-humans can mask their Russophobia whatever they want, but it always show.

Go and fuck yourself.

jilles dykstra wrote: ‘Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.’
To which sad little liar, Lyttenburgh, replied:
‘No, they were not. Othervise – go and prove your ballsy claim’.

Putin, 80-85% Bolsheviks Revolution were Jews

http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-first-soviet-government-was-mostly-jewish/
Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish

The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:

Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins.

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution — partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin’s dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

Louis Rapoport, Stalin’s War Against the Jews (New York: Free Press, 1990), pp. 30, 31, 37. Also pp. 43, 44, 45, 49, 50.

“The person who can tell how many people died from his actions, is Anatoly Karlin, a regular contributor to UNZ. He has done research on this.”

What you wrote above shows beyond any doubt what an imbecile you are. Try reading a few books as opposed to some blogger for a change.

“Tell me L.K., how many Native Americans yous ancestors obliterated? Was it one of your ancestors who stabbed Crazy Horse in the back?”

Troll, quick to change subject eh?
How many? Not even one, we ain’t from Zamerica.

Stalin was a monster, no doubt about that.

The person who can tell how many people died from his actions, is Anatoly Karlin, a regular contributor to UNZ. He has done research on this.

Tell me L.K., how many Native Americans yous ancestors obliterated? Was it one of your ancestors who stabbed Crazy Horse in the back?

“Your comments on Hitler is pure trolling, worthless.”

Uncle Alfie lover, LK:

Hitler was a syphilitic, closeted homosexual drug addict.

He had a big behind. Look at the pctures of him.

He consumed every day 3 capsules of shit, aka as feces, obtained from Bulgarian peasants.

Before you start frothing at the mouth, I suggest you read Dr. Morel’s memoirs.

You can find them in the Internet.

P.S. Dr. Morel was Hitler’s private physician.

BS.
The number of victims under Stalin, when the famines are included, is in the range of 15-20 plus million people. The records for the slave labor camps are very much incomplete, many of those who were shot were not recorded and many who died due to deportation are unknown, etc.
Your comment on Hitler is pure trolling, worthless.

Sergey; ‘Nazis were coming regardless of whether there were Tsar or Stalin in power and Wehrmacht was very different animal from what WWI German military was.’

Pure BS. You are a fantasist Sergey. Even with the NS in power, which would be dubious without your heroes taking over Russia, there was no certainty of war at all. In fact, during WW2 Germany only turned on the S.U bc of the Stalin regime constant blackmail of Germany, –
which was fighting a difficult war while the Soviets were not – and threatening encroachment upon Germany’s fragile raw material areas and locs.
Stalin was busy at work preparing a massive invasion of Germany and Europe and was barely preempted by Hitler. Many Russian historians have reached the same conclusion which is why the Russian government has currently passed legislation to protect the totally fraudulent version of the ‘great patriotic war’.

Sergey, the fantasist then goes: ‘Also, under Bolsheviks Soviet people fought like they would have never fought under exploiters.’

That must be the reason why, despite your heroes draconian measures to keep the Red Army men in place, terror measures really, millions surrendered and deserted. Desertion continued into 1942. Soviet data shows that during the war, more than 1 million court martial trials were held and more than 158,000 soldiers were executed.
As Marshal Georgi Zhukov noted “In the Red Army, it takes a very brave man to be a coward.”

Unlike the nonsense you spout, there was a clear tendency, among the Soviet troops, despite all the brainwashing propaganda and terror, of surrender and desertion.
But why? Well, clearly a lot of the soldiers did not feel so enthusiastic about fighting for a regime which had killed and/or visited horrific sufferings on millions of people already before the war.
Many draconian orders were issued to deal with these ‘problems’.
Ever heard of the NKVD blocking units?

Not only was Stalin responsible for millions of deaths even in peacetime but the Soviet citizens who died in the war were much more victims of the Stalinist regime than of Germany’s NS regime:
First and foremost because, as I have explained in other posts, Stalin was very much responsible for bringing about WW2 and later the titanic conflict with NS Germany. It did not have to happen.
Secondly, we need to examine, beyond the feel good myths of Stalinism and neo-Stalinism, how the Stalinist regime treated its own troops and civilians during the war. It amounted to complete disdain for human life. This is all very well documented.
Re Stalin’s secret war on the Red Army’s pows, historian Nikolai Tolstoy, writes in ‘The Secret Betrayal’:

“Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

“What was committed against Russia (USSR) and Russians in 1990s is nothing short of genocide.”

What your hero Stalin did was much worse, but you make up all sorts of excuses and lies for the man and his murderous regime.
Double standards much?

Stalin killed 3 million Russians.

Hitler is known to have killed the greatest number of white men in history. Maybe he was a feminist and a closeted cultural Marxist.

Hey Rurik,

You must understand that that Lyttenburgh, Andrei Martyanov(smoothie) and Sergey are all Stalinist propagandists.
I. Shamir too.

It is quite bizarre to read their “logical” contortionism and outright lies.

Stalin won the war. He always had defenders, before and after the war, not only in Russia, but also in the West, including academics, generally of a leftist persuasion. This is still the case, even today.

It’s safe to be a Stalinist pig, as it should be. Free speech and inquiry must prevail and confronting interpretations of events must be allowed if history is to have any real meaning, as opposed to being mere propaganda.
Not so long ago, the Saker, very disingenuously, stated that Stalin and Hitler were the most reviled men ever, or something to that effect.
There is obviously no comparison… Stalin won the war & was on the “good guys” side and, as i said, always had an army of propagandists to paint a rosy picture of him and his murderous regime.
Hitler and NS lost that titanic war, were totally destroyed and have been subjected to the most intense and never ending negative propaganda, EVER.

We should remember that the Stalinist regime produced millions of victims but it also had a veritable army of enforcers. As someone said, every family had a victim but also a perpetrator.

That’s, I imagine, what played a major, major role in determining the outcome of that war. And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war. And for these projects to materialize, for things to happen on that scale within that time-frame, it certainly did require some serious determination and some serious sacrifices.

And Hitler was aware of this. Like he said,

(300) “If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! …..They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed – and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works.”

And about American production:

(135) “The great success of the Americans consists essentially of the fact that they produce quantitatively as much as we do with two-thirds less labour. We’ve always been hypnotized by the slogan: “The craftmanship of the German worker”.
……. “In America everything is machine made , so they can employ the most utter cretins in their factories.”

This is why social-democracy made more sense. It allowed the bourgeoisie do their thing, and its socialism was based on taxing the private sector to provide basic services for all.

Creating a welcoming environment for productive people.

A genuine moral system is where the community upholds certain values and expects individuals to respect them and live up to them. But communism affixed morality to an identity. So, if you were bourgeois, you couldn’t be moral no matter how good and decent you were because you were of the ‘exploitative’ class. And if you were prole, you were good and justified simply because you belonged to the righteous class of noble victims. That kind of morality is too easy.

It’s not morality at all, it’s demonizing the opponents that you plan to dominate or destroy. It happens in every war.

In contrast, for the cursed groups, morality is an insurmountable challenge since their identity is affixed to evil no matter what they do to prove their moral worth. To be straight white male means you suck really bad in the Current Year. You can be the nicest guy, but PC says you’re immoral due to identity.

The current target being set up.

But things get even more problematic with more diversity. Diversity is manageable if there is a solid core of majority population. Failing that, each group thinks more tribal and sectarian. Singapore worked so far since Chinese made up the overwhelming majority. But if demographics were to change in the future, things can be very different.

In other words “divide and rule” doesn’t work with a solid ethnic core majority.

This is where communism failed with its radical war on all business culture. Instead of being anti-business and anti-entrepreneurial, the neo-national-socialism must acknowledge that the bourgeoisie are the best creators and managers of industry.

Welcoming business and entrepreneurialism within the rules of the game (for example; pay taxes, no bailouts, no Special Interest Congressmen),

The problem, of course, is that the bourgeoisie may prefer profits and privilege over the interest of nation and people.

Of course they do. They live in a competitive business environment with a few winners and many losers. Profits allow them to survive another day. They don’t care about the losers.

That’s why a country needs a “Guardian” class completely independent of commerce to set and enforce the rules – i.e. build solid walls around the reactor to protect the nation while still having access to the energy.

I have an old copy somewhere of “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” by Gary Allen, a John Birch Society member, that details the origins of the western bankers assistance in the creation of communism. I expect that you’ve probably read it. Cheers

Communism is bad!

Nazism is bad!

Nice try Mr. Wayfarer.

Now tell us what happened to the Native Americans, the African slaves, the Congolese under the Belgians?

How about the Vietnamese, the Laotians and Cambodians?

How many people have been killed with Democracy bombs in Central Asia and the Middle East?

I am sure, Mr. Prager resides in a glass house.

Also, under Bolsheviks Soviet people fought like they would have never fought under exploiters.

There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that the Bolshies had quite a bit of financial backing by the (foreign, e.g., Wall Street) exploiters.

Could not have been achieved at evolutionary 2-3/ annual growth. Considering international situation there was no other way.

I wonder how much of the growth was due to arms shipments from the “Allies.” Apparently Stalin obtained enough war materiel through the Persian Corridor to equip 60 Soviet Divisions.

Also, wasn’t the largest ruck factory in the world built in the USSR by Americans? And how about trade with the West through guys like Armand Hammer?

I think Wall Street was a significant supporter of the Bolshies too, as suggested by the famous image by Robert Minor.

“Dee-Lighted!” by Robert Minor in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911).

Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

I’m asking because I really don’t know, but would like to.

and you expect me to believe they could stand to Germany circa 1941

No Bolshevik revolution —> No Nazis in Germany

It takes time and pain to produce something on Lenin order and great luck.

Follow the money and you will understand Lenin’s and Trotsky’s luck.

It is possible that they broken off the leash later and when against their pay masters but they succeeded in carrying out their main task which was the destruction of Russia.

“The facts that you persistently ignore show that they did not unleash industrialization. It was unleashed in the 1890s. Nor did they unleash education. 80% of Russians kids were in school before World War I.”
Russia had 70-75% illiteracy rates at the time. Again, Andrei pretty much posted all relevant information regarding Russia overall position among great powers but you are relentless at peddling complete baloney. Does it make you feel any better. Russia had 5th place as things gone. It is akin me claiming I finished the race fifth albeit it took me twice as long to reach finish as the fourth contestant. Russia was backward country with huge issues unable to provide military with basics like bullets and shells.
There is no speculation as to what Communists achieved. Fat chance Russia under Tsars could manufacture 106 000 tanks under conditions Communists have. Tsarist government lost war to Japan in the worst possible way. Same people lost Civil war and you expect me to believe they could stand to Germany circa 1941?
Nazis were coming regardless of whether there were Tsar or Stalin in power and Wehrmacht was very different animal from what WWI German military was.
Tsarist Russia had nothing to stand up to that danger. it would have been Mongolian invasion but with far worse outcomes. Also, under Bolsheviks Soviet people fought like they would have never fought under exploiters.

Love or hate Bolsheviks one cannot deny that without them coming to power and unleashing industrialization

all they unleashed was the simmering hatred of armies of sub-human thugs and goons who slaughtered the best of Russia and everywhere else they imposed their demonic, Old Testament blood-lust

were it not for the netherworld hatred in the souls of the Bolsheviks, (who were funded by their like-minded NY bankers fellow tribalists), there would have been no Nazis or WWII carnage and horrors.

The Bolsheviks of Russia, (and their fellow travelers here today running things in the ZUSA) were and are the bane of humanity. Torture is their preferred method, mass-murder is their calling card, lies are their language, and hate is their all-consuming driving force.

May they all rot in the depths of Dante’s n’th

Another post, another absence of facts. Understandable – reality is not on your side.

Outcome is that Gorby rose from some provincial background to graduate from top soviet university, and then rose to power, joining the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1971 at age 40 and eventually become supreme ruler of the USSR. You claim he was an “imbecile” – that is not the outcome of an imbecile.

Again – reality is not your strength.

Gorby’s intelligence is of course a trivial matter. I’m pursuing this point because it once again highlights your ignorance and poor approach to reality.

Love or hate Bolsheviks one cannot deny that without them coming to power and unleashing industrialization and military educational build up most of Russians

The facts that you persistently ignore show that they did not unleash industrialization. It was unleashed in the 1890s. Nor did they unleash education. 80% of Russians kids were in school before World War I.

But, as we see – you don’t like facts.

most of Russians, Ukranians and Bellorussians would be compost for Germans

The facts that you ignore are that the fear of Bolshevism enabled the Nazis to win close elections. Also – and unike the previous statment this is a bit speculative – without Bolshevism it is uncertain that Germany would have been capable to almost reaching Moscow and killing tens of millions of people. Bolshevik destruction of its capable officers, massive population loss, demoralization, probably contributed to early German victories, allowing for huge territory grab. The tsars didn’t allow the Germans to go east of Poland and Lithuania, remember.

Love or hate Bolsheviks one cannot deny that without them coming to power and unleashing industrialization and military educational build up most of Russians, Ukranians and Bellorussians would be compost for Germans and Jews would be ash. If you have different opinion you as usually have no clue. esli bi da kabi da vo rty virosli gribi is what you are doing. I am ok with charts btw. I also know that history is a bitch***. At one time China lost more than half of population through similar bad luck.

1) Kulaks were not the most capable. They were most unscrupulous and low on morals bloodsukers, literal miroyeds.

wow

looks like you missed your opportunity to be one of Kaganovich’s NKVD goons- forcing men, women and children to die slowly and excruciatingly of starvation in front of their fiedish eyes.

what is it about being a hate-consumed POS that people like you took so much pleasure in torturing to death a race of people that were/are far, far better than you in every way. It’s like how some blacks torture to death their white victims. I guess when you’re morally and spiritually and physically mediocre, (or worse) nothing gives you more pleasure than torturing to death a people who are your superiors in every way, shape and form.

The Kulaks were hated because they were successful – read intelligent and hard working and capable with something called raw, sheer human ability. IOW they were ‘privileged’ with good genes- and their success as farmers was a direct expression of those good genes.

And the mantra that runs though men like Kaganovich (and his assorted Soviet sub-human goons and apologists) is to *kill the best of them*, huh?

Who were the Bolsheviks? Whose interests they represented? Who really wanted to kill Russia?

the exact same ones that want to kill Russia (and the rest of the West) today

It takes time and pain to produce something on Lenin order and great luck. People of such caliber do not come often. USA has not in such dire straits like Russia long enough to produce such giant. I think Putin by allowing thieves to keep 90 percent of all Russia wealth are setting Russia for yet another round, that ‘s if enough Russians will be left after consumption by so called “elites”. On the bright side Russia is in the best position to return to right and progressive path of using national wealth for common good as experience is there. Will and action is required. Would be nice if it happened from the top.

Truth? you have no clue neither about truth not outcomes. How come then Tsar was so despiced that no one came out to protect him? Why Russian Civil war was so ferocious if things were going so we well? On the other hand I perfectly understand why Stalin had to deal with opposition the way he did. Otherwise they would be arguing until cows came home all by themselves.

Outcomes is all that mater. You clearly have no clue.

I cannot understand why are you saying Bolsheviks crashed Russian birth rates?

That’s because you apparently can’t read charts.

I already posted it:

Collapse started in 1925.

Despite your lies about about Bolsheviks crashing Russian birth rates one could not expect mostly city based country to have similar birth rates mostly rural based population.

See the chart above. The collapse in Russia’s fertility rate under the Bolsheviks began before its urbanization increase and was much steeper. Here is Russia’s urbanization:

So while urbanization played some role it was not the main one.

Of course, starving to death otherwise fertile 10-12 million peasants between the famines of 1922 and 1932 didn’t help.

Firstly you need to look at what climate and condition exist…. In Canada population is concentrated along Southern border… The rest of Canada is not dissimilar to Russia and despite larger than China territory Canada boasts minuscule 30+ million population.

Oh boy, something else you know nothing about. If you were the product of the Soviet educational system – it’s good proof of something.

Here is a map of global climactic zones:

While much of Russia is indeed not suitable for mass agriculture, the temperate parts in Europe and the far east are still enormous, comparable to that of Western Europe and capable of easily supporting 400 million people. Nobody is talking about a billion people in Russia. Russia is dramatically underpopulated.

Moscow has a climate similar to that of Montreal, a city in Canada’s populated South.

If not for Bolshevism, what is now the Russian Federation itself would probably have had 200-250 million by 1990, and Ukraine would have had around 70 million. Even a loss like in the 90s would have resulted in Russia still having enough people to be a world power.

“That’s right, Gorbachev, coming from some obscure southern Russian village where people couldn’t speak the language properly, graduated from MGU, rose through the Communist Party to get into the Politburo, and outmaneuvered everyone else in order to become the Soviet leader. ”

You clearly have no idea what it took to rise at the time.

I have a much clearer idea than you do, given that I have personal information from people who were involved with this rise and you got your idea from what you saw on TV or whatever.

Gorvachov talent was that he was not antagonizing anyone, soft and round guy unoffensive.

Wow, so that’s all it took for an “imbecile” from the village to graduate MGU, join the Central committe of the Communist Party in 1971 at age 40, and eventually beat everyone to get to the top leadership position of the entire country. I am not a fan of the Soviet system but this ridiculous indictment of it reflects your own personal characteristics and intelligence, rather than the reality of the system.

You think that the Soviet Union of the 1960s – 1980s was the kind of place where Forrest Gump could come out of nowhere and become supreme leader.

“BTW, I provided a number of facts in my post. Yours included none. The pattern continues.”

What facts?

So you didn’t carefully read what I wrote. For example I provided facts in this post too. You just wrote your feelings and made failed attempts at reasoning.

Destroyed country. NATO on Russia doorsteps. Population and economic collapse. barely restored military still only possible due to Soviet heritage.
Can any person who who gets one of the strongest countries in the world with virile and capable population, large and working economy and formidable military ends within 6 short years with destroyed country and military divided unhappy population and everybody hating him not being imbecile?

The irony is that the Bolsheviks – who were also not imbeciles – had their country in an even worse position in the early 1920s. Famine killed 5 million, population crashing, massive loss of territory, exodus of educated people, (temporary) decline in education. By your logic Lenin, Trotsky, etc. must have been total idiots when, in reality, they were malevolently brilliant.

The reality is that intelligence and skill when it comes to seizing power doesn’t necessary translate into good governance.

I meant it as a joke. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I never mentioned his accent as to why he was who I stated he was.

“That’s right, Gorbachev, coming from some obscure southern Russian village where people couldn’t speak the language properly, graduated from MGU, rose through the Communist Party to get into the Politburo, and outmaneuvered everyone else in order to become the Soviet leader. ”

You clearly have no idea what it took to rise at the time. Gorvachov talent was that he was not antagonizing anyone, soft and round guy unoffensive. Likable as we say. That until he got into position where choices many hard had to be made and serious responsibility taken. Then he quickly became despised by everyone having no support at the end. Hence all his funny footwork ending with becoming president and the whole referendum thing. He could not answer single simplest question straight. I am sure you did not live than hence comes all nonsense you post.

“BTW, I provided a number of facts in my post. Yours included none. The pattern continues.”
What facts?
You behave like a man who is standing next to the elephant and see only its tail.
The facts are staring into your face all results of this man rule.
Destroyed country. NATO on Russia doorsteps. Population and economic collapse. barely restored military still only possible due to Soviet heritage.
Can any person who who gets one of the strongest countries in the world with virile and capable population, large and working economy and formidable military ends within 6 short years with destroyed country and military divided unhappy population and everybody hating him not being imbecile?

Again, do not play sophistry games with me. I am not going to play your games but will cut through all BS of your with one simple question.

What were the outcomes of Gorbachev in power? Outcomes is the only thing that matters.
If you say outcomes were good than we have nothing to talk about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

Same publishing house?

“In a country the size of Russia it was a great sign. Russia had room for at least 400 million Russians if not more. It is much bigger than China or India.”

For the time in question it was a necessary thing considering all factors including mortality.
I cannot understand why are you saying Bolsheviks crashed Russian birth rates? Did Bolsheviks introduce similar one child per family legislation like Chinese did? On the contrary, Bolsheviks introduced all those good and free things that allowed Soviet women to have kids and grow them healthy and educated. Whatever happened in 20th century was combination of problems that had no been resolved for century or more coming to head with some really bad luck similar to Mongolian invasion. The problem was that those hits to population were coming one after another but still you cannot deny this :
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8

Despite your lies about about Bolsheviks crashing Russian birth rates one could not expect mostly city based country to have similar birth rates mostly rural based population.
Even since 1946 population was steadily growing and now look at what happened without Communists doe snot matter how flawed at the end they became.
The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Regarding size of Russia. Size doe snot matter in this case. Firstly you need to look at what climate and condition exist. China and India both have extremely favorable locations to support large population hence China always was very populous country since ancient times and so was India. Vast territories in Russia are not favorable both for human habitation and for agriculture while in many parts of China there can be grown up to 3 crops per year it is impossible in Russia. In Canada population is concentrated along Southern border… The rest of Canada is not dissimilar to Russia and despite larger than China territory Canada boasts minuscule 30+ million population. Russia is an extreme case how population can adjust to unfavorable conditions.

“Not Russians.”

RF population of 200 million would be absolutely great. The whole of USSR 400 million would be possible too. Also, considering we are from different generations I considered all of Soviet people as OURS. There also were far less Uzbeks, Tadzhiks and Caucasus people in RF then than now.

“If Bolsheviks hadn’t crashed Russia’s birth rate, Russia could have absorbed 90s-style demographic damage. ”

I already wrote above that city based population could not have similar birth rates compared to rural one. You also taking out of equation WW2 damage. Was that also Bolsheviks undoing?
Why than modern Russia with such young guys as you cannot produce at least 3 healthy kids?
How many kids have you got? Would not it better to lead by example and start walking the walk instead of talking the talk. I am older than you probably much older and I am at replacement level.
The issue of current Russia inability to get out of demographic trap has everything to do with the system that is in Russia. It is literally squeezing life out of Russia. Those parasites and thieves they are eating Russia and Russian alive. Which is where you should direct your anger and energies if you want positive outcome.

FYI, I used to live in China overall for 2 years and I will tell you you would not want to have the level of population they have there. Both India and China are ticking population bombs. They are in clear overshoot. Thinking that 1+ billion is good is crazy. There is only so much resources to go around . It is akin saying that 600 lbs person must be very strong and virile due to his size despite him being unable to move at all. The level of pollution and related mortality over there is horrendous.
There was reason why China introduced one child policy but they will have to pay for procreating like rabbits regardless. Look at another 30-50 years of their history. i am not being optimistic.

Communism has future, not only past!

Are you seriously suggesting that you are in favour of re-embracing a system that calls for the common ownership of the means of production (i.e. Land, Labour, and Capital) and the Dictatorship of the Proletariot, whatever that means, even after having the opportunity of witnessing the horrendous results of this failed experiment?

While I’m far from being an ardent defender of today’s crony capitalist system, the answer surely does not lie in re-embracing a system that has its own set of inherent contradictions, as clearly demonstrated by the historical record.

IMHO, I’d recommend simply letting this system quietly rest in the trash bin of history and try finding other, more palatable, ways of improving the human condition.

“I guess that is what it took. But communist idea was pretty much dead by early 1970s. You know why? Because Russians started to live not too badly–first time in Russian history. Personal cars, TVs, Sochi and Crimea vacations, free flats, free superb education, Aeroflot–hey, life was good!”

I agree. Life was good. i was flying planes every year which I cannot afford now. Life was good was going beyond material things and there was air of confidence in the future. Everybody was sleeping soundly no worrying about lots things now everybody worries about. And demographically situation was positive for decades even despite echo of WW2 and previous famines.
You are also touching very interesting point. Was socialism possible without 1. Communist party in charge. 2. Without ideological foundation.
Capitalist society do have ideologies and have private property protected and paramount.
While considering into what Communist party was turning then and is now as well, I believe communist part in charge is not necessary but firm ideological foundation of what socialist state and economy is and is necessary. Overall looks like Russia and capitalism are completely incompatible. More than that capitalism is like poison that killing Russia.
It is actually topic not for this format of course. Enjoy the weekend

I am 1/4 Dagestani.

And Voldemort was 1/2 muggle. 🙂

Read the Black Book of Communism.

This book relies just a little bit less than entirely on rumours, unverified data and hearsay. It is very shallow on sources and is widely criticized as a propaganda piece with too much inaccuracies to be treated as a definite and respected source. Besides, the authors of this excuse of a book appeared to be unable to distinguish of those who were truly executed and those who were repressed, ergo this insane number in millions.

Try again.

Perhaps you got me wrong. I like Russians. The ones I knew personally and the ones I know from Russian literature. But you are right. Vodka kills people. Why so many Russians opted to shorten their lives is a separate topic. Many Russians know how to drink but many do not know how to drink. Is Soviet system responsible for it? Good question.

That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin

For that you must first get a new Lenin. And new Revolution to boot.

Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states – because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.

Such naivety! No, precisely because they are so “advanced” you will be in need of new ChKa more than ever. Do you really think that they will gladly agree to surrender their power, that they truly respect the law and hold it sacred, or that the security apparatus won’t protect them and instead joyously join ranks with the masses?

How can you bring said revolution in the so-called West, when the people there lack class consciousness and refuse to believe that you can/must develop it, and who subscribe wholeheartedly to the idea that, no, there is no such a thing as the “class struggle”?

In order for Revolution to begin in the USA one thing must be done – the idea of the so-called “American Dream” must be exposed as a fraud and a lie. Now, only after that, there will be enough anger and disappointment to shake the people up and try to make them see the things as they are. If not accomplished, you’d get a bunch of new Heemeyers going postal with no lasting effect whatsoever.