'39

45 replies [Last post]
3. September 2007 - 12:14
#11
[MR.]MIRCWAR
tyfon's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts:
SE Sweden
'39

Interesting post shady, I wasn't quite sure what Orph~ meant with his question. With no doubt whatsover the bolsheviks and nazis were eacothers antithesis, the pact stunned everybody. Most probably it was an effort for both sides to buy some time, remember Stalin had his hands full at the time. They invaded Poland on the 17th September, occupied the baltic states later on and then went on to invade Finland (after made up provocations, the same modus operandi as Germany on the 1st September!) on the 30th november.

After the versaille treaty Germany's military was severely cut back, therefore they had pretty extensive secret co-operation with the SU (training, developement etc). Although I can't say how this affected relations, interestingly enough Stalin seemed to have trusted Hitler with the pact, Stalin who otherwise was known as the most paranoid person to ever have ruled a country...ironic isn't it. Especially since Hitler wasn't hiding his ambitions, on the contrary Mein Kampf early spoke about it.

An article from yesterdays Chicgao Tribune which connects to the topic in a way:

Quote:
Steve Chapman
September 2, 2007

In most countries, the future is impossible to predict, but the past doesn't change. In Russia, it's just the opposite.

President Vladimir Putin, when he is not busy restoring autocracy to a country that has known little else, has taken on the task of refreshing Russian history with a novel perspective—his own. He is on record lamenting the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." It was worse, apparently, than World War I, worse than World War II—worse, even, than the creation of the Soviet Union.

Last year, the president informed a group of history teachers that Russia "has nothing to be ashamed of" and that it was their job to make students "proud of their motherland." His government has tried to help by commissioning guidelines and books that present a more balanced picture of Joseph Stalin, described in one approved volume as "the most successful Soviet leader ever."

That sentiment could be taken as ironic—on the order of praising a slag heap as the most picturesque of its genre. In fact, Putin really wants to commend a dictator who, if he was not the most savage and destructive criminal of the 20th Century, certainly ranks in the top three, with Hitler and Mao. The efforts at rehabilitation may be working. One poll found that 54 percent of young Russians think Stalin was "a wise leader."

To reach that conclusion, you have to excuse or forget the biggest events of Stalin's quarter-century rule, which left vast piles of corpses. His first notable "achievement" was trying to raise agricultural output by forcing millions of peasant farmers into collective farms—while wiping out supposedly prosperous farmers whom he condemned as vicious class enemies. In what a Marxist scholar later called "probably the most massive warlike operation ever conducted by a state against its own citizens," hordes of peasants were killed or sent to Siberia.

The new textbooks suggest that Stalin's methods, though harsh, served the important need of bringing about economic progress. But the collectivization drive brought on a famine that was one of the worst the world has ever seen.

In Ukraine, shortages were so severe that starving people were driven to cannibalism to survive—forcing authorities to post signs that said, "Eating dead children is barbarism." In combination with the mass executions and deaths in concentration camps, the famine cost more than 14 million people their lives.

But Stalin didn't attack only his class enemies. His allies were equally at risk. During the Great Terror of the 1930s, he launched a purge of close aides, officials as well as ordinary members of the Communist Party, secret police, diplomats and military commanders. This frenzy killed millions, many of them worked to death in the vast network of labor camps that became known as the Gulag Archipelago.

Putin's propaganda celebrates Stalin for winning World War II. But if not for his paranoia and gullibility, the war would have been far easier to win.

If Stalin's plans had worked out, the Soviet Union would not have stood against the Nazis. At the outset, he entered into an alliance with Hitler which allowed him to recover Russian land lost in World War I, annex various Baltic nations and swallow up a chunk of Poland.

His reward was to be double-crossed in 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Writes historian Paul Johnson, "Stalin, who trusted nobody else, appears to have been the last human being on Earth to trust Hitler's word." In the conflict that followed, there is no telling how many soldiers died because the Red Army had been purged of its best officers by Stalin.

The new texts compare Stalin to Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" who unified Germany in the 19th Century. But though Bismarck fought his neighbors on the battlefield, he didn't make war on his people. The latter habit is what distinguishes Stalin. If his record is grounds for pride, what could possibly be grounds for shame?

Putin's people deserve sympathy for the burdens the past has placed on them, but those don't justify his attempts to promote self-deception. Germans have proven it is possible to build a thriving nation without being blind to one's own history. Russians should respond to this campaign not with pride but with fear. If a government can justify what Stalin did, it can justify anything it wants to do.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0902chapmansep02,1,2250406.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

EDIT: I seemed to have messed up the link, should be working now.

Top
3. September 2007 - 13:25
#12
.aNk/xXxp4l/:bR.Shady'XYN!
ShadyAK's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts:
GB United Kingdom
'39

The russian views on stalin are mixed and there are confusing points. Like the GULAG frenzy of 1933-1940's (peaking in 1937) was a fucking autrocity and is almost as large as the Nazist death-camp shit. The only difference is that the 3rd Reich's motives were racial and involved actually killing people and instruments of death and so on, and everybody could go in...children, the elderly and so on, and the soviet union's was political and involved putting so-called "enemies of the state" in some fucked up conditions in the middle of nowhere in Siberia. Still a lot of people died Confused. Problem is, in a newly reformed huge country with a history of people trying to get on top, things can go crazy. We as a nation are a hot-blooded people with a tendency towards self-destruction and strength of character anyways. So there are potential explosive situations.

You are a newly reformed country... the biggest in the world at that point, (at least geographically-wise)actually. You have a lot of potential. But the potential hasn't been filled yet. a 300-year old monarchy dynasty has just been got rid of. Bastille-style Confused. The masses are finally free and eager to strive for perfection. Especially with the so-called elite either migrating the fuck out, or not being "elite" anymore. Then Lenin (father of revolution and the bolsheviks dies) and a certain group with their own ideals grabs power.

There were 2 major communist groups with their own ideals:
Stalin who wanted to utilise russia and make it powerful again.

and

Trotsky who wanted to strive for global communism (working other oppressed places such as africa, china and so on ti get rid of thier evil regimes or colonisation). and all people uniting and striving for world perfection. In theory at least.

Stalin's ideals won on top and he was the one replacing Lenin.

Trotsky fled to Brazil, and was mysteriously stapped 3 times in the skull with an ice pick. :roll: (not jumping to conclusions, but the USA were much better off without him and his ideas than the soviet union, although aparently there was an assasination attempt by a russian dude in mexico in like 1940).

Anyhoo... in a country full of reforms and new ideals, a lot of people strive to be on top. That was the source of stalin's paranoia, and i guess it is unedrstandable that when you assume the position of king of the hill, you try to kepp yourself in that state. It's not a Russian thing... like Oliver Cromwell siezing power in the 17th century England, or the French revolution shows that everywhere cases like that turn into bloodshed and retardation. \o7

So ermm... where as i? Tongue

Oh yeah, we had the ЧК (Ch-K - pronounced che-ka... basically KGB before it renamed to KGB) had some wicked ideas of keeping that power... you know the rest Confused

As someone from that country, i liketo acknowledge this part of my history and im not pround of that fact, but i see it as something unavoidable for that time. Any new regimes end up in retardation, look at how some African countries handle independence :/// We live in a fucked up world basically.

Having said that... my grandad (ok... so he was 17 when he Joseph stalin died, but :roll:) is a legend (went from Kazakhstan to moscow for university and got into the TOP university in the USSR at that moment staright away, on the most favourite course at that time - Geology (it was the 50's Tongue) when it was impossible enough to get into ANY university... got to travel abroad when very few people did cos of the iron curtain, and only retired last year :!Happy says that the whole Stalin regime made people tough and he's proud of being from the Soviet Union.

I can actually say exactly the same thing, and possibly imagine that without the whole "get yourself together" shit... the USSR wouldn't be able to oppose germany's invasion, and we'd all sing "Deutsche Soldaten" atm cos the only other country opposing the 3rd reich and that wasnt invaded in a 1-month period wasn't doing much. and i guess would have been fucked if not for the english channel... based on how fast the British regiments were chased away from France in 1939. And let's face it, d-day happened in 1944 when Soviet troops were moving into east germany.

And even though i am not proud of what the soviet union turned itself (or its buffer states) to be and neither does the "kill the free will" vibe... this prospect of it just excites me, like we were this Super-Power in the 1960's to the 1980's... just looking at some universities or even seeing some giant factories makes me go "OOOOHHHH" as does seeing Russian airplanes, and military technology. IT's from where I am, its what *I* am and even though i dont live there anymore, im a still aptriotic enough to love it.

p.s. having seen the amount of Imigrants being successful abroad, i can say that it the Soviet UNion has made the smart people stronger. Retards will remain retards though no matter where they're from, where they are or what flag they are flying Tongue

- essay over Laughing

[+]

(*WASP*SH▲DOWKNIGHT) wrote:
nonsense repellent declamatory

Top
3. September 2007 - 16:43
#13
kek
Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts:
'39

Oh boy how me as a romanian loves this freekin pact...

"Mother Russia" (the communist one) took a big part of romanian territory when WW2 ended (this was all set up in that BS Ribbentrop - Molotov pact). This territory was called Basarabia - known as The Republic of Moldova nowadays.

These were the territorial losses of Romania after WW2, territories that we never got back Sad. Not to mention the "nice" gift russians gave us...50 fkn years of class A shit communism...

One other lovely thing the russians did for us was taking into "safe keeping" a HUGE part of our national gold reserves at the beginning of WW1, our "thesaurus". There were made official documents indicating this safe-keeping agreement, with a return policy as soon as the threat dissipates. (Around 1916, there was a general concern amongst the romanian Government that our country could be invaded by the germans, austrians or turks at any moment so they decided to make this agreement with Russia).

Up to this day they haven't given it back and any negotiation attempts were unsuccessful....there is a word for this...STEALING.

Just to get an idea what i'm talking about:

93,36 TONS of gold worth an estimate of 1.2 BILLION dollars in 1990 - just imagine it's current value after 17 years...

OUR gold represents 1/3 of the TOTAL russian gold reserves, so no wonder they are reluctant to return it to us.

What's the morale here? NEVER trust the russians! (politics wise)

My country took some pretty big hits throughout its history but we are still standing strong, heads up and i'm proud of that!

---------------------------------------------

But on a side-note i got nothing against russian ppl, just their politicians/historic decisions. I get along fine with many russians even here in E+ so pls don't take my post as a personal attack guys, i'm just stating facts about your country's dark history...

Top
3. September 2007 - 16:43
#14
*A*C|_ASS*???2JR
nic4evercool's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts:
'39

omfg Shock too many words ... maybe i'll read it later no comments XD!....peace...



*A*C|_ASS*???2JR wrote:
Sex is a sensation caused by temptation of a guy sticking his location into a girl's destination to increase the population of the next generation. Do you understand my explanation or do you need a demonstration? Big grin ...peace...

Top
3. September 2007 - 18:35
#15
+l#+l#+z#+z#+u#+u#+p#+p#
moonshield's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts:
'39

Communism is at least trying. It's not a case of rich vs poor like everything else.

Excessive Plus Configuration Files

Top
3. September 2007 - 19:05
#16
kek
Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts:
'39

The REAL communist idea (Marx & Engels) is utopic...utopias will never exist...

Top
3. September 2007 - 19:32
#17
+l#+l#+z#+z#+u#+u#+p#+p#
moonshield's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts:
'39
kek wrote:

The REAL communist idea (Marx & Engels) is utopic...utopias will never exist...

Marxism can suck my balls, it's communism and it's not utopic. That's the point people are always saying it won't work, it would work if there even was one good try in some country.

Excessive Plus Configuration Files

Top
3. September 2007 - 19:55
#18
2!S*Wicked(pl)
Wicked666's picture
Offline
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts:
'39
+l#+l#+z#+z#+u#+u#+p#+p# wrote:

kek wrote:
The REAL communist idea (Marx & Engels) is utopic...utopias will never exist...

Marxism can suck my balls, it's communism and it's not utopic. That's the point people are always saying it won't work, it would work if there even was one good try in some country.

Unless there is noone forcing others to live like they want it's a good idea, but since in none country it worked out it can be called utopia. Why? Cause you can't find so much ppl willing to live along this rules.

Top
3. September 2007 - 20:14
#19
orphy with the wind
Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts:
'39

How much tax are you ready to pay, The Death?
Dunno if you work yet or what. But how much would you be ready to give the state 20%, 30% maybe 40?

If you earn a living as some of us do, those figures will make you cringe.

So would you gove the state everything you earn and own,?

No way in hell I or 90% of people would unless forced to do so.

Or am I all wrong?

Top
3. September 2007 - 21:00
#20
+l#+l#+z#+z#+u#+u#+p#+p#
moonshield's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts:
'39
orphy with the wind wrote:

How much tax are you ready to pay, The Death?
Dunno if you work yet or what. But how much would you be ready to give the state 20%, 30% maybe 40?

If you earn a living as some of us do, those figures will make you cringe.

So would you gove the state everything you earn and own,?

No way in hell I or 90% of people would unless forced to do so.

Or am I all wrong?

That depends on the country. You sure that 20%-40% is gonna happen in Finland?

Excessive Plus Configuration Files

Top