The Axis of Good vs. the Axis of Evil

[Sander]

]
Yes, my country is dying. Not because of Commies, but because of Yeltsin and Putin. They betrayed the CCCP, its people and its ideals. Treacherous swines destroyed the Soviet union, but in no way does it mean that the ideology died. Today about a third of people in Russia support Communists. And the number is growing from year to year. That's because the Communist party is the only real force opposing the present regime.

Wait, is that the Communist Party or those ridiculous Communist-Fascists?

It is quite a serious accusation. Let me ask you, however, where on earth have you found that number? Maybe you counted victims of Communism by yourself? I'm for constructive criticism only.

For constructive criticism? Eh? So if it isn't constructive, we can't say anything?
Anyway, Johnny-boy is largely right, you have Stalin and his reign of insanity, there's the many, many deaths because of Che and Fidel, there's Mao's idiotic plans, and I could go on.
As much as Communism is a nice ideology, more or less all attempts at establishing communism have failed or caused many deaths.

 

[[Rusty Chopper]]

I don't know much about it, but I was under the impression that life in russia was awful during communism - poverty, fear, near-universal corruption in the ruling party, waiting in long lines just to get a loaf of bread, etc. Do people want that back, or was it not as bad as I've been lead to believe?

That is a very interesting topic you've touched upon. I'll try to explain the whole thing.

The first and the main principle is not to confuse communism and poverty. They were together, but it doesn't mean that communism deliberately leads to poverty.

During the tsarist times the most of the people were very poor as well. Apart from that, they were slaves, deprived of rights. There's a saying that Russians in those times had nothing to lose but their chains. Very picturesque. I know, you'll mention 1861 and all that. But that liberation in fact was fake, and serfdom was replaced by unbareable taxes.

Moreover, peasants can't do without land, y'know. Since than their land was their former masters' property. Do you call THIS liberation?! No wonder Alexander II was assassinated. Then his son Alex III showed up with his idea of counter-reforms, which means fewer rights for the people. After him was that asshole Nikolai II, who didn't want to change anything in his agonizing empire...

OK, back to Communism. The 1920ies were a tough time for everybody. The Civil war had devastated the country and it was lying in ruins when Stalin came to power. It took him great efforts to force industrialization, but he succeeded.

And remember that the whole world was against Russia those times, so we had nobody to count on but ourselves. People were extremely poor, all the money were spent on building factories and power stations. Stalin was preparing the country for the war. Yes, he was. How could we come up with 21 thousand tanks by 1941 if Stalin was not thinking of the upcoming war?

But Hitler struck first and inflicted colossal damage on Russia. But through severe losses she got back upon her feet. I claim that without Stalin and without the Communist party by no means Russia would have survived. Losing 21 million people (the official number) means something, I suppose. While America grew richer thanks to WW2.

But no sooner had the Great Patriotic war been finished, than the Cold War broke out. Our economy, not fully restored, was a lot weaker than that of the US. Russia had to spend all her money on making an A-bomb of her own just to stay alive. The Arms’ Race eventually killed the Soviet Union.

And now what had remained if it is dying, too. Corruption, irresponsibility, alcoholism, poverty. This is the portrait of Russia today.

So nobody has ever given Communism a chance to develop.

Wait, is that the Communist Party or those ridiculous Communist-Fascists?

You're either trying to be sarcastic or just don't get a single thing...

So if it isn't constructive, we can't say anything?

Say whatever you like but don't accuse Communists of things they never did.

As much as Communism is a nice ideology, more or less all attempts at establishing communism have failed or caused many deaths.

Look at China. They have something to learn on.[/quote]

 

[Sander]

]

That is a very interesting topic you've touched upon. I'll try to explain the whole thing.

The first and the main principle is not to confuse communism and poverty. They were together, but it doesn't mean that communism deliberately leads to poverty.

During the tsarist times the most of the people were very poor as well. Apart from that, they were slaves, deprived of rights. There's a saying that Russians in those times had nothing to lose but their chains. Very picturesque. I know, you'll mention 1861 and all that. But that liberation in fact was fake, and serfdom was replaced by unbareable taxes.

Moreover, peasants can't do without land, y'know. Since than their land was their former masters' property. Do you call THIS liberation?! No wonder Alexander II was assassinated. Then his son Alex III showed up with his idea of counter-reforms, which means fewer rights for the people. After him was that asshole Nikolai II, who didn't want to change anything in his agonizing empire...

OK, back to Communism. The 1920ies were a tough time for everybody. The Civil war had devastated the country and it was lying in ruins when Stalin came to power. It took him great efforts to force industrialization, but he succeeded.

And remember that the whole world was against Russia those times, so we had nobody to count on but ourselves. People were extremely poor, all the money were spent on building factories and power stations. Stalin was preparing the country for the war. Yes, he was. How could we come up with 21 thousand tanks by 1941 if Stalin was not thinking of the upcoming war?

But Hitler struck first and inflicted colossal damage on Russia. But through severe losses she got back upon her feet. I claim that without Stalin and without the Communist party by no means Russia would have survived. Losing 21 million people (the official number) means something, I suppose. While America grew richer thanks to WW2.

Russia also gained basically all of Eastern Europe, and failed to develop further. The Americans started a Marshall Plan which is basically what saved most of Western Europe, and it was also a huge benefit to the USA when Europe had recovered.

Your claim that Russia wouldn't have survived without Stalin may have some truth to it, but his tactic of using soldiers as cannon fodder wasn't really great either.

You're either trying to be sarcastic or just don't get a single thing...

Say what? I know that there is a communist party in Russia, and that there is a party of Communist-Fascists (which is the single most ridiculous combination I've ever seen) that was rather popular as well. I asked a simple question, one that you apparently see as insulting. I was merely inquiring as to which one you were referring to.

Say whatever you like but don't accuse Communists of things they never did.

Like what? Stalin didn't build those Gulags and killed millions? If you seriously believe that, you need to get a huge reality check.

Look at China. They have something to learn on.

What? You mean from their capitalist-inspired economic rise now? Or from when they were still really communist and Mao killed millions in a foolish attempt to reform China's agriculture?

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Communism is great! Just ask the Kulaks. Oh, wait...

 

[John Uskglass]

The first and the main principle is not to confuse communism and poverty. They were together, but it doesn't mean that communism deliberately leads to poverty.

There is an economic theroy that centrally planned economies can go through periods of rapid forced growth until they reach a GDP per capita of around 3,500, and that would explain why the diffirence between the two sides of the DMZ is fucking dramatic.

Apart from that, they were slaves, deprived of rights.

What rights did Stalinist citizens have? The right to look at pretty black cars?

There's a saying that Russians in those times had nothing to lose but their chains. Very picturesque.

It is pictureesque because it is propaganda. It is propaganda because it is a lie.

I know, you'll mention 1861 and all that. But that liberation in fact was fake, and serfdom was replaced by unbareable taxes.

I'm not a big fan of Tsarist Russia, but what about the February Revolution? I'm not a big fan of Socialism, but it had a Liberal component, and it's leaders tended to be smart, relitivley moral people. It also granted a hell of a lot more 'rights' then the Soviets EVER EVER EVER did.

Moreover, peasants can't do without land, y'know. Since than their land was their former masters' property. Do you call THIS liberation?!

Actually quite a bit of land was owned by the local commune, IIRC. The assumption was on the part of Alexander II that the Serfs could grow enough food for themselves and the Landlord's labor force would be more effective without the Serfs anyway.

The problem was more a problem of terrible agricultural techniques and a refusal on the part of the Serfs to adopt far more advanced agricultural techniques. Anna Karenina deals with that a lot, fascinating stuff, even if it's pretty fucking dated.

No wonder Alexander II was assassinated. Then his son Alex III showed up with his idea of counter-reforms, which means fewer rights for the people. After him was that asshole Nikolai II, who didn't want to change anything in his agonizing empire...

Yeah, but they where still better then the Soviet Tsars. A lot less people died, and a lot more art, philosophy and high culture came out of Imperial Russia then Soviet Russia. Communist nations tend to supress great works of art they do not think is made for the glory of Socialism (ie for the glory of the soviet beaurocratic aristocracy).

OK, back to Communism. The 1920ies were a tough time for everybody. The Civil war had devastated the country and it was lying in ruins when Stalin came to power. It took him great efforts to force industrialization, but he succeeded.

Not really. Agricultrual collectivization was a disaster without compare until Mao and the Khmer Rouge, and if Soviet Industry boomed so much during these years then why where Soviet soldiers forced to charge without guns? Why where they defeated by the Finns? Why did their quality of life suck ass?

And remember that the whole world was against Russia those times, so we had nobody to count on but ourselves.

That is nobody's fault but Stalin & Freind's. Weimar, the USA, the Uk and especially France would be cool with a February Revolution Russia.

Stalin was preparing the country for the war. Yes, he was. How could we come up with 21 thousand tanks by 1941 if Stalin was not thinking of the upcoming war?

21 thousand utterly useless deathtraps, you mean? Are you suggesting that Russia was prepared during the beginning of the war?

But Hitler struck first and inflicted colossal damage on Russia.

Stalin's fault for being part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and trusting it.

While America grew richer thanks to WW2.

We won WWII as much as you did. And frankly, a Soviet victory against anyone but the Nazis is a loss for all of humanity.

But no sooner had the Great Patriotic war been finished, than the Cold War broke out. Our economy, not fully restored, was a lot weaker than that of the US. Russia had to spend all her money on making an A-bomb of her own just to stay alive. The Arms’ Race eventually killed the Soviet Union.

More like the fact that you guys could not sustain GDP growth sufficiant to maintain military parity with the West and still develop domestically.

Why?

Because Communism suxxorz.

And now what had remained if it is dying, too. Corruption, irresponsibility, alcoholism, poverty. This is the portrait of Russia today.

Only because the artists are honest. The picture was drawn by idiots and ideologues during the Soviet era.

So nobody has ever given Communism a chance to develop.

That's a lie. Communist nations dominated a huge portion of the world for half a century, how the fuck is that not a chance to develop?

Look at China. They have something to learn on.

That's thanks to Kensyan, not Marxian, economic policy. Maoist economic policy was the worst economic policy ever.

nd that there is a party of Communist-Fascists (which is the single most ridiculous combination I've ever seen)

Then why did Orwell predict it in 1984? Remember the ideology of Eurasia?

The two ideologies are brothers under the skin.

(That is Communism and Nazism, not Socialism and Conservatism.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Query: What is the modern-day equivalent of the theory of Menshevikism? Besides Kerensky getting his liberal-socialist party outed, is there any ideology that comes close to those original ideals?

 

[John Uskglass]

Besides Kerensky getting his liberal-socialist party outed, is there any ideology that comes close to those original ideals?

I'd say Social Democracy pre 'Third Way'.

 

[Brother None]

Just picking out a few things 'n stuff.

There is an economic theroy that centrally planned economies can go through periods of rapid forced growth until they reach a GDP per capita of around 3,500, and that would explain

THEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!!!!

Source?

Also, notice how half the Netherlands is a blob of light. No peace for the Dutch.

What rights did Stalinist citizens have? The right to look at pretty black cars?

People often miss the essential difference between Serfdom and Communist opression, which is that Serfdom was a kind of straigh-line fuedalism. The Tsars, especially the early ones, ruled the nobility, the nobles were the boss of the serfs, 'cept state serfs. Sending serfs into Siberia en masse was something unheard of in pre-Petrine times and still pretty rare up until the Army Reforms of the 19th century.

It certainly wasn't as limitless or as, tsss, efficient as Stalin was. Worshiping ye Olde Father Stalin is pretty sickening.

It is pictureesque because it is propaganda. It is propaganda because it is a lie.

Yes. State serfs had it moderately well. Serfs had a kind of traditional right to land, a right they felt they lost at 1861.

Actually quite a bit of land was owned by the local commune, IIRC.

"Quite a bit" is not correct. The pressure on farmers certainly did increase as they lost quite a bit of land to the nobility, one of Aleksandr II's appeasing moves. Of course, this was quite a nice stimulus to the growth of (heavy) industry and cities. Sadly never matured.

The assumption was on the part of Alexander II that the Serfs could grow enough food for themselves and the Landlord's labor force would be more effective without the Serfs anyway.

Not really, Aleksandr was fully aware the Serfs could not survive and certainly not thrive on the land they got. Remember that Russia doesn't have a lot of arable land outside the Black Earth strip, certainly not enough to feed its citizens, as proven by the many late-19th century famines, especially under the various economic reforms seen under Aleksandr III and Nikolaj II.

The problem was more a problem of terrible agricultural techniques and a refusal on the part of the Serfs to adopt far more advanced agricultural techniques. Anna Karenina deals with that a lot, fascinating stuff, even if it's pretty fucking dated.

Do not consider Count Tolstoj a premiere source of information on serfs.

To blame serf poverty on outdated agricultural techniques is mostly true, but not the entire story. Heavy taxes and relative overpopulation did force them to adapt such things as crop rotation in the end. The Russian system was not flawed of itself, though, and could survive independently though with little to drive them forwards, much as Dark Age Europe. 't was Pëtr the First that drove them forward, mostly because he wanted to, and a lot of serf troubles stem from that.

Yeah, but they where still better then the Soviet Tsars. A lot less people died, and a lot more art, philosophy and high culture came out of Imperial Russia then Soviet Russia. Communist nations tend to supress great works of art they do not think is made for the glory of Socialism (ie for the glory of the soviet beaurocratic aristocracy).

A lot less people died but Russia also made less progress.

Do not underestimate the wilfulness of people like the Russians when it comes to the greatness of their country.

Not really. Agricultrual collectivization was a disaster without compare until Mao and the Khmer Rouge, and if Soviet Industry boomed so much during these years then why where Soviet soldiers forced to charge without guns? Why where they defeated by the Finns? Why did their quality of life suck ass?

He said industry, not war industry. An odd comparison, John.

Stalin's projects and 5-year plans were mildly succesful from certain viewpoints. It just depends on how you want to look at them. In making Russia grow as an industrial power, sure, they had some success. From any other sane and long-term view, they were insane failures.

That is nobody's fault but Stalin & Freind's. Weimar, the USA, the Uk and especially France would be cool with a February Revolution Russia.

Yes, but arguably they'd be cool with the Soviets too if it weren't for the US' paranoia and propaganda.

We won WWII as much as you did. And frankly, a Soviet victory against anyone but the Nazis is a loss for all of humanity.

's not the point. To the US WW II much like the Iraq war now was a chance of expanded industry to pull your economy up. Fake economies floating on warfare are a historically well known fact and the US had made use of it a lot. Really, WW II *was* good for the American economy.

Whereas most of profitable Russia and the later Soviet Union was bombed, burned or otherwise destroyed. West Germany had US aid to rebuild it, the other side of the wall had no such resources.

More like the fact that you guys could not sustain GDP growth sufficiant to maintain military parity with the West and still develop domestically.

Why?

Because Communism suxxorz.

Or possibly because Russia was not on the industrial level to pull such a feat in a land-war while under direct attack at this point. Communist or capitalist, really doesn't matter, result was the same.

Or would you argue Russia would've been more ready under a line of Nikolas II-tsars than it was under Stalin? Heh.

Only because the artists are honest. The picture was drawn by idiots and ideologues during the Soviet era.

He wasn't saying the artist wasn't honest, he's saying it's all your fault.

Buncha bullshit, if you as me.

That's a lie. Communist nations dominated a huge portion of the world for half a century, how the fuck is that not a chance to develop?

Arguably communist segregation from capitalist economy stops communism just as much as it stops capitalism. So yeah, kind of a non-argument.

(That is Communism and Nazism, not Socialism and Conservatism.

It's more Leninism-Communism and Maoism with Nazism.

Nazism after all was an ideology birthed for the Nazi state. Communism is older and saying it is akin to Nazism because the USSR and People's Republic were is kind of odd.

Query: What is the modern-day equivalent of the theory of Menshevikism?

There is none, practically, except as a fringe movement. The Mensheviks were no different than the Bolseviks in end-goal. And nobody really is striving for that end-goal anymore. Pre-Third Way Labour kind of counts, yeah, but realistically there were few major European parties after WW II who still wanted the same end goal as the Mensheviks. So even pre-Third Way Labour with its goal of a strong welfare state isn't that much like the Mensheviks. After all, no Pre-Third Way Labour governments ever declared GB to be a Socialist State.

Yes, my country is dying. Not because of Commies, but because of Yeltsin and Putin. They betrayed the CCCP, its people and its ideals. Treacherous swines destroyed the Soviet union, but in no way does it mean that the ideology died. Today about a third of people in Russia support Communists. And the number is growing from year to year. That's because the Communist party is the only real force opposing the present regime.

Just goes to show you people never learn.

Still, that 1/3 really doesn't matter for shit. What's important now is what Putin decides to do. No more, no less. His first-term liberalism that pulled Russia back on its feet post-Elcin was fine, his second-term oppressiveness, stupid Chechnya policy and waste of gas...not so much.

Build the China pipeline, build the Europe pipeline, than use the gas to pull up and build a viable economy (rather than letting the economy float on oil a la Saudi Arabia). It really's not that difficult and it's a surefire way to get Russia moving, finally.

But nooo, let's go back to communism, it's done us *so much good*.

Yeeesh.

 

[John Uskglass]

Source?

I have no idea. I read it in one of my dad's econ books a long, long time ago.

But it sounds reasonable. To me at least. It would account for the rather remarkable failure of command economies after some initial growth.

Worshiping ye Olde Father Stalin is pretty sickening.

Then why not pick on Rusty Chopper?

Do not consider Count Tolstoj a premiere source of information on serfs.

Heh, no, I don't, thus pretty fucking dated. You obviously know quite a bit more about this then I do.

A lot less people died but Russia also made less progress.

The social order of Russia would have changed after 1917, if the winners where Social Democrats, Octobrists and Kadets (OH FUCK YES) or even Reactionaries. None of them might have grown as fast initially, but all of them would not have expirianced such bizzare stagnation.

Yes, but arguably they'd be cool with the Soviets too if it weren't for the US' paranoia and propaganda.

You cannot be serious here. People hated and feared the Bolsheviks all over the world. The Spartisicst revolution and a dozen other similar ones did not help.

People may not agree with me here, but Fascism and Nazism both needed the fertile ground of Bolshephobia to prosper.

Really, WW II *was* good for the American economy.

Yeah, so? Are you going to argue it was some kind of immoral imperialist war on the part of the United States or our greatest hour in which we managed to make money and save the fucking planet from three diffirent totalitarian nations within a decade?

the other side of the wall had no such resources.

Because the Soviets put them all on trains to Moscow?

Or would you argue Russia would've been more ready under a line of Nikolas II-tsars than it was under Stalin? Heh.

Honestly, Russia would have been better off even IF WWII happened. Stalin's warmaking abilities where among the worst ever, his diplomatic foresight nigh on non existant and his basic ability for rational thought was always in question.

It's entirely likely that Russia might not be industrialized IF WWII starts, but it's also incredibly likely that the best Russian generals are not either in fucking Siberia or killed by that deranged monster.

Communism is older and saying it is akin to Nazism because the USSR and People's Republic were is kind of odd.

Fascism also predates it's time in power, but in both the case of Communism and Fascism the results are the same, thus it is fair to say that as political systems the only known results are very close to being the same.

After all, no Pre-Third Way Labour governments ever declared GB to be a Socialist State.

That's cause of 1983, Kharn, not much else.

 

[[Rusty Chopper]]

Your claim that Russia wouldn't have survived without Stalin may have some truth to it, but his tactic of using soldiers as cannon fodder wasn't really great either.

Oh really. Maybe you’ve seen too many “Enemy At The Gates”-like movies? What I know for sure, you have no right to call my great-grandfathers “cannon fodder”. Anyways, American soldiers will be never called cannon fodder just because every time Germans attacked them, they fled. Remember the battle in the Ardennes. Joseph Dietrich did not have enough gas to refuel all his tanks, according to his own words, he believed it would be his last battle, but it turned out a great victory. And to prevent total defeat of the allies Stalin ordered marshal Konev to advance his 1st Ukrainian front. It drew significant German forces from their offence on the West front.

I know that there is a communist party in Russia, and that there is a party of Communist-Fascists

Communists-Fascists? OMG never heard of such a party. Sounds as ridiculous as Democrats-Slavers. There are two parties you could probably speak about. The first is NBP (the National-Bolshevist party). The guys are stupid and unlucky, but persistent. Anyways, nobody takes ‘em seriously. The second party is NSO (the National-Socialist society). It is truly fascist and thus illegal.

So, I was speaking all the way about CPRF (the Communist Party of Russia), the former CPSU. I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of fascists.

Stalin didn't build those Gulags and killed millions? If you seriously believe that, you need to get a huge reality check.

All right. Here you are the official numbers of prisoners in gulags during Stalin’s reign:

1930 --179.000
1931 --212.000
1932 --268.700
1933 --334.300
1934 --510.307
1935 --725.483
1936 --839.406
1937 --820.881
1938 --996.367
1939 --1.317.195
1940 --1.344.408
1941 --1.500.524
1942 --1.415.596
1943 --983.974
1944 --663.594
1945 --715.505
1946 --746.871
1947 --808.839
1948 --1.108.057
1949 --1.216.361
1950 --1.416.300
1951 --1.533.767
1952 --1.711.202
1953 --1.727.970

The total number of sentenced to death for political reasons from 1921 to 1953 is 642.980.
-sentenced to imprisonment 2.369.220
-sentenced to exile 765.180

WHO OF US NEEDS REALITY CHECK?!

You mean from their capitalist-inspired economic rise now?

Definitely, their huuuge economical rise. Soon China will be telling other countries what to do, not America (which is sure a lot worse).

Communism is great! Just ask the Kulaks.

Btw, my last name is Kulakov. Wanna ask me?

What rights did Stalinist citizens have? The right to look at pretty black cars?

We had a constitution, if you’re not aware.

We use to call those cars “ravens” or “Black Marias”. Quite the symbol of the epoch, ain’t it?

It is pictureesque because it is propaganda. It is propaganda because it is a lie.

You doubting Thomas. (: How many times I’ve heard these words! That kind of logic can be applied to anything you like.

but what about the February Revolution?

“If the February Revolution had given land to the peasant, the October Revolution could not have happened.”
Leo Trotsky.

Yeah, but they where still better then the Soviet Tsars. A lot less people died, and a lot more art, philosophy and high culture came out of Imperial Russia then Soviet Russia. Communist nations tend to supress great works of art they do not think is made for the glory of Socialism (ie for the glory of the soviet beaurocratic aristocracy).

You’ve got a point here. Soviet Russia was poorer in artists and philosophers, than Imperial Russia. But Tsarist Russia was an underdeveloped agricultural state. And in this case I’d prefer industrialization to high culture.

if Soviet Industry boomed so much during these years then why where Soviet soldiers forced to charge without guns?

No shit, Soviet soldiers had no guns?! I’ll give you official numbers here again.

The quantity of guns manufactured in Germany from the middle of 1941 up to 1945:

-machineguns –1.048.500
-rifles and carbines – 7.845.700
-submachineguns –935.400

Meanwhile in USSR (the same dates):

-machineguns –1.515.900
-rifles and carbines –12.139.399
-SMGs –6.173.900

Maybe Wehrmacht had more problems with armament?

Why where they defeated by the Finns?

It was next to impossible to break Mannerheim defence line with minus 40 degrees Celsius in thick fir forests with snow-cover as thick as 1.5 meters. But the Red Army broke it.

Why did their quality of life suck ass?

War is hell. Or what d’you mean?

21 thousand utterly useless deathtraps, you mean?

Soviet tanks on 1939:

T-26 (45mm gun,1machinegun) –9000
T-26A (short 76mm gun) –no info
T-28 (76mm gun, 5 machineguns) –600
T-35 (2 45mm guns, 76mm gun, 6 machineguns) –64
T-38 and T-38 (1 or 2 machineguns, amphibian) –4000
BT-2 (37mm gun, 1 or 2 machineguns) –600
BT-5 (45mm gun, 1 or 2 machineguns) –1900
BT-7 (45mm gun, 2 machineguns) –4600
BT-7A –no info
BT-7M (45mm gun, 2 machineguns) –no info
T-34 (76mm gun, 2 machineguns) –1225
KV-1 (76mm gun, 3 machineguns) and KV-2 (152mm gun, 3 machineguns) –636
T-40 (2 machineguns, amphibian) –no info
T-50 (45 mm gun, 2 machineguns) –no info

As you can see, I lack information. Sorry for that.

German tanks on 1939:

Pz.I (2 machineguns) –1445
Pz.II (20 mm gun, 1 machinegun) –1223
Pz.III (37 mm gun, 2 machineguns) –98
Pz.IV (short 75 mm gun, 2 machineguns) –211
Pz. 35 (t) (37 mm gun, 1 machinegun) –no info
Pz. 38 (t) (37 mm gun, 2 machineguns) –no info

The total number of tanks Hitler had on June 22, 1941 is 3350.

That’s all for now, thanks for attention.

 

[Sander]

]
Oh really. Maybe you’ve seen too many “Enemy At The Gates”-like movies? What I know for sure, you have no right to call my great-grandfathers “cannon fodder”. Anyways, American soldiers will be never called cannon fodder just because every time Germans attacked them, they fled. Remember the battle in the Ardennes. Joseph Dietrich did not have enough gas to refuel all his tanks, according to his own words, he believed it would be his last battle, but it turned out a great victory. And to prevent total defeat of the allies Stalin ordered marshal Konev to advance his 1st Ukrainian front. It drew significant German forces from their offence on the West front.

I'm not talking about the capabilities of the soldier, but the way they were equipped and used in battle is, quite simply, as cannon fodder. This isn't true for the Germans or the Americans because their leaders thought more highly of the lives of their own soldiers.
Hell, the fact that about twice as many Russian soldiers than German soldiers died should show this.

Communists-Fascists? OMG never heard of such a party. Sounds as ridiculous as Democrats-Slavers. There are two parties you could probably speak about. The first is NBP (the National-Bolshevist party). The guys are stupid and unlucky, but persistent. Anyways, nobody takes ‘em seriously. The second party is NSO (the National-Socialist society). It is truly fascist and thus illegal.

So, I was speaking all the way about CPRF (the Communist Party of Russia), the former CPSU. I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of fascists.

Aha, okay. The communist-fascists I was talking about would be the NBP, by the way.

All right. Here you are the official numbers of prisoners in gulags during Stalin’s reign:

1930 --179.000
1931 --212.000
1932 --268.700
1933 --334.300
1934 --510.307
1935 --725.483
1936 --839.406
1937 --820.881
1938 --996.367
1939 --1.317.195
1940 --1.344.408
1941 --1.500.524
1942 --1.415.596
1943 --983.974
1944 --663.594
1945 --715.505
1946 --746.871
1947 --808.839
1948 --1.108.057
1949 --1.216.361
1950 --1.416.300
1951 --1.533.767
1952 --1.711.202
1953 --1.727.970

The total number of sentenced to death for political reasons from 1921 to 1953 is 642.980.
-sentenced to imprisonment 2.369.220
-sentenced to exile 765.180

WHO OF US NEEDS REALITY CHECK?!

So, then, what the hell were you talking about when you said '
Say whatever you like but don't accuse Communists of things they never did.'

Definitely, their huuuge economical rise. Soon China will be telling other countries what to do, not America (which is sure a lot worse).

Yet their rise in power is largely due to adopting capitalism in favor of communism.

 

[Jebus]

21 thousand utterly useless deathtraps, you mean?

What the fuck? Those Soviet tanks kicked ass...


Also, John, if I were you I wouldn't belittle the Soviet logistics during WWII without knowing what the fuck I was talking about.



Like the Soviets would've defeated the Germans without rifles... Idjet.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Like the Soviets would've defeated the Germans without rifles... Idjet.

They outnumbered the Germans 5 trillion to 1, they would have defeated them if they all farted on them at the same time.

[/historical fallacy]

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Are you going to argue it was some kind of immoral imperialist war on the part of the United States or our greatest hour in which we managed to make money and save the fucking planet from three diffirent totalitarian nations within a decade?

Three? I can only count two, one of which never had capacity or ambition to conquer the entire planet.

 

[Ashmo]

Wait. The US defeated three powers?

What'd that be?

Japan? Jeah. Except that you didn't simply defeat them, you massacred two cities worth of civilians after their de facto defeat. Yay, Democracy.
Not to mention that Japan overstretched itself by far.

Germany? Hitler was pretty good at fucking up the war without American intervention. The Brits repeatedly bombed the mammoth projects Hitler came up with in his delusions of grandeur (remember that huge cannon they started constructing in France, the one the Brits destroyed when French was liberated because they feared the French might use it against them?). American intervention helped, but Germany was already incapable of winning (without finally getting some brains, that is) when you guys came.

Soviet Union? Rrright. After several years of peace it was dissolved with a wrecked economy. Quite a victory -- especially so given the lack of military conflict at that point. It was a purely ideological one at that point.

Calling the Russian tanks at the time of WW2 "deathtraps" also only shows ignorance. The latest tanks they had developed by then were better than anything else available to any of the other powers. The problem was that they couldn't produce enough and relied heavily on foreign support (IIRC that included Allied tanks -- way to go to insult the quality of tanks you actually delivered to someone to help you win the war).

Sander:

Chopper actually disprove your argument that "millions were killed" in the Gulags. Don't just slip out of that by ignoring it.

Also, Hitler didn't think of his soldiers as more worthy than Stalin did of his -- he just had a lot LESS than Stalin did. The ruskies could afford sending half their troops into certain death -- it's the same thing Hitler did with his last order (which basically said that any and every German should fight till their death even though Germany was already de facto defeated and Hitler about to commit suicide).

 

[Brother None]

Chopper actually disprove your argument that "millions were killed" in the Gulags. Don't just slip out of that by ignoring it.

No he didn't. The point was Stalin sent millions to the gulags...*to die*. This isn't count as "sentenced to death" any more than running the gauntlet a thousand times wasn't counted as a death sentence either, even though that effectively only left a broken sack of meat and bones.

Also, Hitler didn't think of his soldiers as more worthy than Stalin did of his -- he just had a lot LESS than Stalin did. The ruskies could afford sending half their troops into certain death -- it's the same thing Hitler did with his last order (which basically said that any and every German should fight till their death even though Germany was already de facto defeated and Hitler about to commit suicide).

Very true.

But it sounds reasonable. To me at least. It would account for the rather remarkable failure of command economies after some initial growth.

No it doesn't.

You can't just calculate a roof GDP per capita like that. It doesn't take into account natural resources, trading partner, differences between controlled economies. Remember, French economy flourished during the time of dirigism, as much as you hate that fact.

Then why not pick on Rusty Chopper

Because you already did. Seemed a bit redundant.

Heh, no, I don't, thus pretty fucking dated. You obviously know quite a bit more about this then I do.

It's not dated, it was biased and inaccurate to begin with. "Dated" implies it doesn't fit current-day models anymore, which it obviously doesn't.

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

The social order of Russia would have changed after 1917, if the winners where Social Democrats, Octobrists and Kadets (OH FUCK YES) or even Reactionaries. None of them might have grown as fast initially, but all of them would not have expirianced such bizzare stagnation.

Possibly, but it wouldn't have made such progress without casualties either.

You cannot be serious here. People hated and feared the Bolsheviks all over the world. The Spartisicst revolution and a dozen other similar ones did not help.

People may not agree with me here, but Fascism and Nazism both needed the fertile ground of Bolshephobia to prosper.

True, but Europe has a long-standing tradition of trading with the enemy. It was American paranoia that threw up the wall, else we would've been fine living with them as our neighbours.

Yeah, so? Are you going to argue it was some kind of immoral imperialist war on the part of the United States or our greatest hour in which we managed to make money and save the fucking planet from three diffirent totalitarian nations within a decade?

No, was I arguing that?

Honestly, Russia would have been better off even IF WWII happened. Stalin's warmaking abilities where among the worst ever, his diplomatic foresight nigh on non existant and his basic ability for rational thought was always in question.

It's entirely likely that Russia might not be industrialized IF WWII starts, but it's also incredibly likely that the best Russian generals are not either in fucking Siberia or killed by that deranged monster.

Remember War and Peace! Generals are just generals, they do not make wars.

Though incompetent military leaders like Hitler, Stalin or, more recently, Bush don't help.

Fascism also predates it's time in power, but in both the case of Communism and Fascism the results are the same, thus it is fair to say that as political systems the only known results are very close to being the same.

Fair? Yes. Still odd.

That's cause of 1983, Kharn, not much else.

Don't be a fool.

]Oh really. Maybe you’ve seen too many “Enemy At The Gates”-like movies? What I know for sure, you have no right to call my great-grandfathers “cannon fodder”. Anyways, American soldiers will be never called cannon fodder just because every time Germans attacked them, they fled. Remember the battle in the Ardennes. Joseph Dietrich did not have enough gas to refuel all his tanks, according to his own words, he believed it would be his last battle, but it turned out a great victory. And to prevent total defeat of the allies Stalin ordered marshal Konev to advance his 1st Ukrainian front. It drew significant German forces from their offence on the West front.

The Battle of the Ardennes is a significant historical event simply because the Americans always try to deny it. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a defeat in the face of the US and allies. It was *slowing them down*, it didn't defeat them.

You're talking about the greatest mobilized armed force turning full-steam on a weakened German army that had little left after fighting off the Soviets. If the USSR had given up and gone home right then and there, the war would've gone on for, say, a year more, and maybe an atomic bomb on Hamburg would've been necessary, but the States would still have won.

Same goes for the USSR if the States had withdrawn at that point, though.

No wonder you two feared each other.

]WHO OF US NEEDS REALITY CHECK?!

I think you do.

Here's a handy little resource

Notice Stalin's reigns deathcount is estimated at 20 million. And that's a low, moderate number. Norman Davies, a very respectable historian, estimates 50 million killed between 1924 and 1953, not counting war deaths.

The median high-number count is 51 million under Stalin, the median low-number count is 8.5 million during the 30s (not all of Stalin's reign)

(hitler's median by comparison is about 15 million)

These are all reasonable, well-founded, well-documented estimates. Do you not think it is sick to stand there and proclaim the greatness of a man who killed so many?

]Definitely, their huuuge economical rise. Soon China will be telling other countries what to do, not America (which is sure a lot worse).

His point was China is a kind of Reactionary-Capitalist country now. Not communist.

]Btw, my last name is Kulakov. Wanna ask me?

No, because you know nothing.

]We had a constitution, if you’re not aware.

You have a constitution now. Does it mean anything? Did it mean anything then?

I noticed you dropped the Day of the Constitution as a national holiday in favour of an anti-Polish celebration. Good going.

]You doubting Thomas. (: How many times I’ve heard these words! That kind of logic can be applied to anything you like.

It can be applied to anything, it's not always true. It is true here.

]“If the February Revolution had given land to the peasant, the October Revolution could not have happened.”
Leo Trotsky.

Typical for Trotsky. As if the revolution started thanks to the farmers.

Seriously, did you get fed propaganda form birth?

]War is hell. Or what d’you mean?

He means the quality of life in the SU was pretty low.

I'd tend to agree.

 

[Sander]

Wait. The US defeated three powers?

What'd that be?

Japan? Jeah. Except that you didn't simply defeat them, you massacred two cities worth of civilians after their de facto defeat. Yay, Democracy.
Not to mention that Japan overstretched itself by far.

The fact that Japan made tactical mistakes (like starting the war in the first place) does not mean the USA didn't defeat them. It just made it easier for them.

Germany? Hitler was pretty good at fucking up the war without American intervention. The Brits repeatedly bombed the mammoth projects Hitler came up with in his delusions of grandeur (remember that huge cannon they started constructing in France, the one the Brits destroyed when French was liberated because they feared the French might use it against them?). American intervention helped, but Germany was already incapable of winning (without finally getting some brains, that is) when you guys came.

True, the USA was waiting for Germany to fuck up the Soviet Union to get in, but when it started to look like the SU could get a lot of Europe out of it, the USA stepped in and stopped the SU from actually claiming all of Europe.

Sander:

Chopper actually disprove your argument that "millions were killed" in the Gulags. Don't just slip out of that by ignoring it.

What? No he didn't. He showed that millions upon millions of people were imprisoned in the Gulags, but he didn't say anything about their deaths. Most people in the Gulags didn't die because of executions but because of exhaustion. Hell, according to the Wikipedia article about Gulags death rate was at 80% during the first months in many camps.

According to this more reputable source some 1,005,000 inmates died during the war (page 51). Another mention of deaths is on page 48/49, where it is noted that some 700,000 people were executed between August 1937 and November 1938, as part of Stalin's Great Terror.
Also, the number of people in the Gulags mentioned on that same page differs from Rusty's numbers, so I'd like to know his source too.
Furthermore, the amount of soldiers killed should also be taken into account, as many Gulag prisoners were turned over to the army.

Also, Hitler didn't think of his soldiers as more worthy than Stalin did of his -- he just had a lot LESS than Stalin did. The ruskies could afford sending half their troops into certain death -- it's the same thing Hitler did with his last order (which basically said that any and every German should fight till their death even though Germany was already de facto defeated and Hitler about to commit suicide).

True, I phrased it poorly. Basically, Stalin could afford not to care too much about death tolls because he had many more anyway.



EDIT: On that 'Communism and Fascism are the same' remark of yours, John (that I didn't see until now), while your hatred of Communism is rather well-known, saying that the systems are the same is rather ridiculous. Mainly because Communism is built upon a principle of equality (in theory, mind you, not in practice), while the foundations of Fascism lie in the inequality of men. While the end result until now has always been a dictator and many deaths, to say that the underlying system as described in theory is the same is rather odd.

 

[John Uskglass]

“If the February Revolution had given land to the peasant, the October Revolution could not have happened.”
Leo Trotsky.

Leo Tolstoy died in 1910, fuckmook.

Because you already did. Seemed a bit redundant.

You, welsh, Sander and Ozrat did not feel that way about me in the old days.

Remember, French economy flourished during the time of dirigism, as much as you hate that fact.

And much as it may hate me, I also admit that there is a difference between dirigism (I don't even have any idea how to pronounce that) and Soviet command economies.

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Meh. Fair enough. I kind of agree with Levin's views on the importance of Russian agriculture in his context, though.

Possibly, but it wouldn't have made such progress without casualties either.

50 million? I seriously doubt that. Not even the Reactionary Monarchists would do that, let alone my beloved Octobrists and Kadets.

No, was I arguing that?

Unless you are arguing that, the fact that the US benefitted economically from WWII seems like a non sequitur.

Remember War and Peace! Generals are just generals, they do not make wars.

They have a tenancy to save lives and win individual battles, though.

Fair? Yes. Still odd.

I don't think so. The biggest political push in the last decade of the 20th and into the 21st Century is the merging of basically all stupid ideologies into one massive, moronic whole. I'd personally say this started all the way back with the Fascist combination of Socialist hatred of individualism with Liberal notion of the Nation and Conservative imagery and more traditional Authoritarianism.

Don't be a fool.

The UK was flirting with Socialism back then. Don't get that wrong.

No wonder you two feared each other.

I don't mean to sound like Fascist, but I don't think our tanks should have stopped at Berlin. Stalinism was as great an evil as Nazism (and because it was allowed to do more it's effect was worse), and with the 1946 harvest and the A-Bomb coming up I seriously doubt the USSR would have been able to put up with an enemy who was not evil like the Nazis. It's really too bad that Roosevelt had such romantic delusions of the USSR.

His point was China is a kind of Reactionary-Capitalist country now. Not communist.

Damn right. The EU is further to the left then they are. Much further, if the PRC where to be honest.

What the fuck? Those Soviet tanks kicked ass...

Not in 1941 they did not. Again:Finland.

 

[Montez]

What a country! In America, threads about South America get derailed into debates about the merits of communisim! In Soviet Russia, threads about the merits of communism get you derailed into a gulag!

 

[John Uskglass]

What a country! In America, threads about South America get derailed into debates about the merits of communisim! In Soviet Russia, threads about the merits of communism get you derailed into a gulag!

In Soviet Russia, debate South Americas YOU!