Haha, typical Stalinist--

If you can't beat them with your absurd, totalitarian, Stalinist musings...

SILENCE them! ;)

By all means mute me if you wish, Putin.

Sad for someone who calls me a hypocrite and claims to be open-minded, when someone disagrees with YOU they get a mute, whereas I mute no one.

Oh well...whatEVER will I do if Putin mutes me, my God?

Whenever I see a thread titled with someone's name I muted - which by the way is always you - I unmute them (you) because their (your) responses are usually quite comical.

Socrates, I don't see how you can say that WW2 would have been won without Churchill. In the summer of 1940, with France taken out of the war, the only enemy left to Hitler was the British Empire. Churchill was the man at the top, and he is the one who said that Britain would fight on. Perhaps some other man would have done the same, but in the face of the Blitzkrieg that took out all of Western Europe, I doubt it. WIth the British Army essentially disarmed after Dunkirk, Churchill refused to settle. His courage, and the courage of all the Brits who stood behind and with him, over that fateful year, is where Hitler started to lose. He was still an ally of the USSR at that point! There was extensive trade between the two. If Britain had sought a settlement at that point, and taken a neutral or submissive stance towards the Reich, than in 1941 all of the Nazi war machine could have focused on the USSR, with no distractions in the West or the Mediterranean. The Soviets barely survived 1941, and likely would not have if the Germans could have attacked a little sooner or a little stronger.

So, yes, Churchill's presence at the head of the British Government in that pivotal time, and the way he conducted himself, were definitely essential to keeping the Third Reich from winning the war. Did the Soviets do most of the heavy lifting after 1941? Yes, with help from the other allies in material and in providing other fronts. But the fact that Germany did not win in 1940 and 1941 is a credit to Winston Churchill.

Stalin was denounced more than most in the last will, the only reason he was not banished was because Zinoviev and Kamenev (at the time allies of Stalin) convinced the rest of the council against it because they were, as you said, also denounced (although to a lesser degree). Also the last will is reported to have denounced everyone (not including Stalin who had it worst) as to encourage them to share power as Lenin did not feel any capable of replacing him. And I haven't once turned to the secret speech or wikipedia (not that I am an anti-communist twit either!)

I don't think Churchill was a Genocidal Maniac, sure he did some things that could be classed as debateable, take distroying the entire french (our allies) fleet with the lose of thousands of lives rather than risk it falling in to enermy hands, but that doesn't make him a maniac, just someone who had to make tough decisions in difficult times.

Even if he was a maniac, in times of war I want as many Genocidal Maniacs on my side as I could find.

Also I doubt any British leader would have surrendered at that point, with no instant danger to the homeland and a history of jingoism and too much pride the wouldn't have surrendered. Moreover the Germans lost because they could not cope with the forces of the soviets and the americans, I feel British involvement was minimal. The Soviets would have probably lost if they attacked sooner, but the Nazi attack was delayed more by Italian incompetence rather than anything else. Labelling the soviets as allies is also misleading, they were officially but both were rearming for combat. Really I personally feel that Churchill did not save the allies in 1940/41, he was not under so much pressure in his little island (as much as we like to dramatise the Blitzkreig)

I don't think he was a maniac either, just a racist asshole who loved the empire (I'm assuming I don't need to argue that the empire was an evil outdated institution and we can accept that)

Maniac (how fitting)….

War is not about genocidal maniacs.. war is about tactical maneuvers and the guts to take a risk every once in awhile. Loss of life, including entire civilizations, is one thing that's different from genocide.

Hitler and his soldiers were genocidal maniacs. You want people like hitler on your side? That could lead to a lot of pain once you lose the war. And executions.

"And I haven't once turned to the secret speech or wikipedia (not that I am an anti-communist twit either!)"

I wasn't referring to you.

Stalin offered to resign his post as general secretary. He was unanimously voted to stay on. I doubt Kamenev had that much influence that his speech in defense of Stalin alone made everyone agree that Stalin should stay on.

"If you can't beat them with your absurd, totalitarian, Stalinist musings...

SILENCE them! ;)"

I've endured you and your friends anti-communist baloney for years now and never muted you once. But you've become beyond ridiculous.

I'm glad you weren't Putin, I actually like you and find your views interesting (despite a lot of disagreements). Let's not deny Stalin's ruthless ambition? As a consequentialist I'm not saying it's a bad thing, Stalin was much better as a leader in WW2 then I think most of the others would have been, but he was still ruthless ambitious and striving to become dictator

I never said the Brits would have surrendered. I doubt that. I think it likely they would have sought a peaceful coexistence, and an end to hostilities. Without Churchill's backbone, that is.

I think it's safe to say that both Hitler and Stalin were evil bastards. I will grudgingly give Stalin credit for being a more effective evil bastard.

I still disagree, there was the conflict in Africa and the middle east which meant peace was unlikely

Putin, for the same reason that I don't like Bush and don't like Romney, I don't like Stalin. I'm not at all saying that Bush and Romney are like Stalin, but one ideology is the same and that is the focus on the rich. Stalin made Moscow a great place. He really did. But outside of Moscow? You know, the other hundreds and thousands of square miles of Russian territory? It kind of sucked. Big time.

I don't necessarily like what Obama has done here, but I don't like that Romney and Bush focus on the rich. You can't deny that the rich have the ability to provide for themselves if necessary. They are rich for a reason. The ones with no money on the other hand could use some help and I'm one that thinks the poor deserve it more than anyone else does.

As was once said.. "The comfort of the rich depends on the abundance of the poor." I don't know who said it, but damn they are smart. The poor suffer, the rich prosper.

It's not a Communist view to say we should help the poor a little. I'm not saying we should eradicate the rich. Stalin wanted to eradicate the poor and anyone that disagreed with that statement. That's radical in the biggest sense - the same sense as the other leaders we all condemn too. (Except Caesar, but that'll come around…)

Why Putin, and I thought you'd muted me! :D

But anyway...to all OTHERS...since Putin's muted me (or we'll assume he has, to clear the air here...)

Proof of USSR action against Jews?

I think Invictus provided that rather nicely with the Doctor's Plot...

Linked again below for your convenience...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/plot.html



And I'd like to point out Winnie never did something like THAT.

"The Soviets barely survived 1941, and likely would not have if the Germans could have attacked a little sooner or a little stronger. "

By 'barely survived' you mean barely lost the opportunity to crush the Germans right then and there. In the winter of 1941 they were being reinforced with Siberian shock troops who were well rested, experienced (via fighting with Japan) and knew how to fight in winter. They were successfully mobilizing for an offensive against German positions around Moscow. The morale of the German generals was weak. Indeed it's amazing how well the Germans did despite the sabotage of their generals. Leningrad was already a stalemate, the Germans were content with simply blockading it. The Battle of Britain was completely irrelevant.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luly90KdgT1qk3jq8o1_500.gif

You people are nuts.

"Let's not deny Stalin's ruthless ambition? As a consequentialist I'm not saying it's a bad thing, Stalin was much better as a leader in WW2 then I think most of the others would have been, but he was still ruthless ambitious and striving to become dictator"

The country was at all times led by a committee, a committee which often disagreed with itself and which sometimes made decisions that Stalin voted against (something which could not be done in any liberal democracy). Stalin never held any position other than General Secretary, and didn't want one. The fact that he didn't spend his days writing memoirs and lengthy defenses against the myriad attacks against him demonstrates he wasn't the kind of egomaniacal power mad person he was made out to be. The people who criticize the purges never bother to address the serious problem of enemy infiltration into the Soviet Union, and terrorism directed against it. This is a country that endured more than dozen imperialist countries invading it at the time of the revolution. The whole world wanted it destroyed.

In the words of John Reese from Person of Interest "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you".

He still was a dictatorial power? I actually think purges are sometimes needed, those of Lenin for instance, but do you not think that they went a bit far? Even after accepting the imperialist countries who were trying to destroy it (and yes I agree the west were awful there).

Leningrad wasn't a stalemate. Hitler didn't want the civilians on his hands, and preferred to starve the city than conquer it. Another example of how his brutality was actually a liability, IMO.

If the Germans had attacked in May 1941, instead of June, it is highly likely that they would have taken Moscow before the snows set in. Now, I will grant that Stalin would likely have left the city in the same state Napoleon found it, and the war would likely have continued. But the variables get more complicated, and more favorable to the Reich.

It's too bad the "imperialists" didn't succeed in throttling the Soviet state in the cradle.

"Leningrad wasn't a stalemate. Hitler didn't want the civilians on his hands, and preferred to starve the city than conquer it. Another example of how his brutality was actually a liability, IMO. "

Which is why he continually said that Leningrad needed to be destroyed, and implored his quisling Finns to help him take it. The plan to blockade it didn't have anything to do with the fact that the Soviets waged successful counterattacks at the end of 1941, pushing the Germans back beyond the Volkhov.

"It's too bad the "imperialists" didn't succeed in throttling the Soviet state in the cradle."

You're right, heaven forbid those uppity workers and peasants take power. Back to serfdom and vassaldom for them. Deniken's rule would have been amazingly liberal, naturally.

I seem to recall the serfs being freed in the 19th Century. And what came after 1917 was worse than serfdom.

Had the Germans not waited out through the winter and simply conquered Leningrad, the stalemate wouldn't have mattered. No praising Hitler for that idiocy, nor Stalin because it couldn't have been hard to fight that tired German army with the numbers he pulled up.

In defense of the Finns, they were quite reluctant to aid Nazi Germany, and demonstrated this in both their general foreign policy and steadfast refusal to aid the Nazis in any way beyond reclaiming territory lost in the Winter War. Moreover, the Finnish refusal to close the ice supply lines, while perhaps not nearly as morally praiseworthy as supplying the city themselves, saved countless lives.

In fact, failure to take St Petersburg can be partly blamed on Finnish intransigence, as well as spectacular Soviet force of will and the transformation of all the cities factories into tank-making engines shortly prior to the beginning of the siege.

What followed 1917 was worse than serfdom in the sense that the entire world invaded the country, and repressive tactics were adopted to forestall the destruction of the country. I am willing to grant some degree of sympathy. Most of the 'white' Russians were monsters in ways that would make Stalin at his most paranoid and violent blanch.

"I seem to recall the serfs being freed in the 19th Century."

Right, by giving most of the good land to the gentry and overcharging the ex-serfs for the crappy land they were given. Oh and I guess we should gloss over Alexander III and his pogroms.

"I seem to recall the serfs being freed in the 19th Century. And what came after 1917 was worse than serfdom."

Yeah - high quality education, healthcare, increased living standards, a proletarian renaissance in terms of art and culture. The right for national minorities to speak their own language and have their own schools. Cultural centers for gypsies. Much worse than serfdom.

That being said Putin, your predictable vilification of Trotsky as a morally and ideologically bankrupt opportunist who did not nothing but demonize and terrorize the Soviet Union really saddens me. The fixation on Trotskyism has been perhaps the single biggest reason why mainstream Communists alienated the rest of the left in the twentieth century and it boggles my mind that it continues.

Firstly, to say that Trotsky did nothing for communism but undermine is shockingly at odds with any fair analysis of the civil war. Until Trotsky took command of the recruting and logistics, the Red Army was being outfought and outsupplied on nearly every front. Trotsky's administrative genius and ability to inspire the most ardent communist volunteers was absolutely decisive. I would say that were it not for Trotsky, it is possible that the Soviet Union could have been destroyed at it's inception. Some appreciation might be in order.

Secondly, it is very clear that Trotsky was much less of an opportunist that Lenin, Stalin, Kamenev, most of his fellow Bolsheviks. Like the rest of them, he abandoned earlier more radical (or more bourgeoisie) to join the Bolsheviks out of pragmatic reasons, but never stopped advocating Menshevik-inspired left wing approaches to problems. In fact, his inability to compromise politically and move to the right along with the rest of politburo was precisely the reason that Lenin didn't hand the reigns of power over to Stalin, a man who was far more opportunistic when it came to defining his ideological commitments and moral boundaries.

Finally, any evidence that Trotsky wanted to terror-bomb the Soviet Union or any such nonsense is just that; nonsense. It's true that while in Mexico Trotsky bemoaned the Stalinist government and advocated for world revolution, but that's what left-communism demanded. Did he vilify the regime that had killed his dream of a fully equal society, a leader in world revolution, and one that had tried to kill him (and would eventually succeed)? Yes, but can you damn well blame him?

Intolerance for leftist dissent is the only thing that is going on here.

At the very least I am thankful that you didn't brand him as a secret Tsarist or fascist sympathizer. :P He has been called that, and much worse by many a communist party. The man was coloured in shades of gray, but I think that communists and anarchists alike should appreciate his contributions.