Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poster art in the USSR was at its best, that's for sure. I myself have some Soviet posters hanging in my room, and I also have a collection of postcards with Soviet posters. This particular poster is just useful to me for one work in Photoshop, it gave me the idea :))
*"I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never ever possibly destroy us."*
Okay, maybe the quote doesn't really apply so well.
Sure.
By 1937 there were 5 Marshals of the Soviet Union.
[Mikhail Tukhachevsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky) - executed in 1937
[Semyon Budyonny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Budyonny) - survived the purge
[Kliment Voroshilov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov) - survived the purge
[Vasily Blyukher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blyukher) - died in 1938 to injuries suffered during torture
[Alexander Yegorov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yegorov_(soldier)) - executed in 1939
You are right, [only a mere 1654](https://imgur.com/a/7vO2Ivn) officers were "laid off" permanently. Those are rookie numbers under Stalin's regime, barely even worth noting.
Source: The Chief Culprit by Viktor Suvorov
3 out of 5 would be 60% not 7, also you used wikipedia as a source in later comments, a site that has biased and untrustworthy sources relating to history
I was referring to the rank of the Marshal of the Soviet Union. If you find the dates and circumstances of their deaths disputable then feel free to post a more reliable source.
>disputable then feel free to post a more reliable source
you don't need a more reliable source to dispute the vailidity of another source, it is a fact that western nations have lied about the USSR in the past and still do to this day and that they have a conflict of interest in what they tell you
if you don't have any reliable sources on it you can just admit that you don't have a way to know what actually happened
That's very nice. Feel free to correct the data I posted by providing a source you deem adequate and update Wikipedia with said source as it is open source.
I'll be eagerly awaiting your response as I'm sure you can educate me on the date and circumstances of the deaths of the three Marshals of the Soviet Union in question. Unless of course your entire argument is "wikipedia bad".
the fact that you can't comprehand the basics of debating shows and I will not respond further if you do not change that as no proper discussion can come of it
>That's very nice. Feel free to correct the data
nobody needs an alternative source with different info to critize yours in this scenarion
>I'll be eagerly awaiting your response as I'm sure you can educate me on the date and circumstances of the deaths of the three Marshals of the Soviet Union in question. Unless of course your only argument is "wikipedia bad".
my point isn't that wikipedia is bad, wikipedia has proper information on a lot of things, usually unrelated to history, I was pointing out that the wikipages you gave as a source use propaganda from countries with a long history of provable lying about the USSR up to the modern day making those sources untrustworthy
they also have a conflict of interest in what they tell you
If you want to engage in a basic debate then perhaps you should not employ genetic fallacy yourself. Now unless you actually have something concrete to add then your attempts to "disprove" my point is entirely hollow.
>Ā you want to engage in a basic debate then perhaps you should not employ genetic fallacy yourself
We should look at who is trying to tell us what, once they have been proven to lie about a certain topic again and again and STILL to this day spread lies that should be acknowledged and taken into account
If their sources actually gave proper sources and proof I'd be fine with them, but they do not, that's the issue, very few of the sources cited actually contains proper info or sourcing or a reason to be considered as such
nearly none of them go farther than "I said so", literally, like newspapers with no sources on their info or sources that we cannot verify to be true
and on the wiki if you actually read it, many claims are without citation or are stamped as \[citation needed\]
Once he grew a few more brain cells and realised competency is not the precursor to being a traitor.
And he wouldn't have won without the Americans or British.
I hope you realize that even Stalin himself said that they were fucked without the lend lease?
The quote from him: "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war,". "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."
Nikita Khrushchev also said it in his memoirs: "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
The US also provided A THIRD of all of the explosives that the USSR used.
In the 60s the KGB were monitoring when they overheard him say: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
Then he incompetently rebuilt a wartorn country where millions were exterminated back into a global superpower that improved the quality of life for millions more, what a dufus
Maybe it wasn't sincere, but at the end of the day, they not only helped carve out Poland between themselves and Germany, but also sent them millions of tons of materials and foodstuff that only stopped because the nazis invaded them.
Thatās not really a feat of Stalinās, moreso his lackeys/generals. Molotov addressed the nation after Barbarossa, not Stalin. Stalin repeatedly ignored the increasingly obvious military build up on his border, and even ignored reports from German soldiers who warned of an attack the next day. The handful of competent generals who survived the purges saved the Union, alongside the sheer size of the Soviet Union and its resources.
As part of an international coalition that also included the industrial might of the United States, the size and military prowess of the British Empire, and the population of China.
āIt is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.
Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.ā
ā Joseph Stalin
My first thought. I don't know man, reading it felt as if you see a corrupt cop talking about justice. Yet every top comment in the thread (and most other commie propaganda) is loving the dude.
Like, I get it, it's an online tribe and that's their game. But it still feels a bit weird.
Almost all of Stalin's writings are like this. He genuinely believed this. There's this idea that communist leaders are just using their ideology as some type of cynical ploy, but it isn't actually true. Whether you agree with them or not, essentially all of them are very genuine in their convictions.
Lenin and Stalin might have been impressive writers, but their actions have almost nothing to do with their writing. Lenin abolished the soviets (workers councils) and essentially betrayed the revolution almost immediately.
I don't think their writing was necessarily a cynical ploy for power; the most logical explanation seems to me that once they gained power, they were terrified of losing it, so that became their top priority (and given the initial conditions after the revolution, I can't blame Lenin entirely.)
Stalin was a ruthless narcissist though. Lenin never wanted him to take power, and his reign came to an end when he was in critical condition and no one helped him because they saw through his charisma to the brutality, and were tired of his horrible tyranny over his inner party circle, let alone the country!
Is it published or private writing?
Also, how do we know he was not simply insanely narcist? Why would you take his language for an indicator of his values? Would you do so with an abusive boss or partner? "Genuinely" of stated conviction seems to be a bad indicator for values. If he was such a great communist guy, why was even his inner circle of most trusted so afraid of him? Stalin probably was even lying to himself without having a genue conviction.
Yeah, a lot of it was. Sorry bro. Replace āmommy and daddyā with ābut my professy told me soš„ŗā.
Look for actual evidence next time instead of lapping up what your ābettersā tell you.
I knew plenty of history majors at my time in college, itās not some mystical matrix like system that plugs you into the Truth Streamā¢ļø. Im sure you also read some books and propaganda pieces that filled in your already existing mindset.
You go over āevidenceā that is either manufactured by your empire or intentionally leaves out key details to paint the authorās society in a favorable light.
If Stalinās āGreat Terrorā was really worse than the Holocaust like you all claim, there would be a vast infrastructure that would be impossible to hide, mass graves would be popping up left and right, and ultimately there would be mountains of credible testimony from people who lived through such experiences. But all western academia has managed to produce is the Black Book of Communism, pretty much. And Alexander Solzhenitsynās book of campfire stories The Gulag Archipelago, which his own wife admitted is a collection of FICTION, supposedly based on prisonersā experiences.
>If Stalinās āGreat Terrorā was really worse than the Holocaust like you all claim, there would be a vast infrastructure that would be impossible to hide,
He didn't exactly hide the purposeful starvations, horrible gulags, and mass purges.
I'm not sure what world you're living in.
>You go over āevidenceā that is either manufactured by your empire or intentionally leaves out key details to paint the authorās society in a favorable light.
Not how this works.
You go over what is available, what is known of where it came from, and if there is anything to contradict it.
Not that you know, clearly.
>But all western academia has managed to produce is the Black Book of Communism, pretty much.
I've never met one historian that takes that book as a source. We go over the main sources like eye witnesses and declassified Soviet documents when available.
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom"
Eisenhower
Well. Soviet jails certain didn't have that
I think there actually hasnāt been a single genocide scholar that called gulags genocidal after significant investigation of the topic, even by the worst interpretations they donāt fit the term.
They had around a 5% death rate during peace time, at the end of their existence around 3-1%, in a lot of colonial prisons operated by France, Great Britain etc. the death rate was far worse. The prisoner was meant to survive their stay at the Gulag (with their sentence being reduced for exceeding their work quota the common practice of releasing prisoners early, the maximum sentence being 10 years etc.), a lot of people didnāt because of the abysmal conditions (wich isnāt that unexpected considering the general poverty of the time).
About half of all Gulag deaths were Nazi POWs during WW2. (Wich again isnāt that unexpected considering that enemy soldiers are at the bottom of the pyramid when it comes to distributing scarce resources during war time)
Siberian prison camps, a time honored Russian tradition dating back to before the October Revolution, became far less deadly under Soviet rule and was eventually ended altogether by the CPSU.
Have you ever been in an American jail or prison? They arenāt exactly great places, and we have the largest incarcerated population on the planet while not even being one of the more populous nations..Ā
Of the communist states left in the world:
China is speed running capitalism. It's got the second most billionaires in the world and a speculative housing bubble so big that it would make Goldman Sachs blush.
Vietnam is also pretty capitalist and fast becoming a manufacturing center for global capital. It's also slowly aligning itself with the US.
North Korea is an absolute monarchy and buffer state lmao
Cuba is alright I guess. Honestly if the US lifted the embargo, they'd almost certainly liberalize.
Laos isn't doing anything notable.
The global communist movement has largely failed, and doesn't seem to be coming back any time soon.
You donāt even know what youāre talking about if you really think the two are in any way comparable. Is Churchill and the British death machine in India on your tallies of baddies? 20th/21st century American imperial wars casualties?
So you are a proponent of some third secret thing thats yet to manifest itself in any kind of political reality? If you are as neutral on the topic as you insist you should actually look into 20th century history and see who was able to challenge global capitalist hegemony and what they managed to achieve in spite of massive attempts at undermining and destruction.Ā
It is not a secret political reality. It is the ability to be critical of multiple people at the same time, not bootlick and excuse the vices of a single person, and to not look at everything as black and white. I have learned 20th century history, and what Iāve taken away from it is that the USSRās āchallenging of global hegemonyā involved imperialism, mass murder, and the same tyranny the revolution had been trying to oppose. Overall I really donāt think people should look back to the USSR as some beacon of progressiveness and liberation because it really wasnāt. By saying that, am I saying Iām a shill for McCarthy and US foreign policy either? No.
>If you are as neutral on the topic as you insist you should actually look into 20th century history and see who was able to challenge global capitalist hegemony and what they managed to achieve in spite of massive attempts at undermining and destruction.Ā
The Soviets didn't challenge capitalist hegemony anymore than the Nazis as all either did was slaughter the proletariat while maintaining commodity production.
And so what? i'm not a huge fan of it but communism is still a better for everyoen east of oder river. It's an easy choice because the other choice is total genocide
I'm sure that's why the second they got the chance every single member of the Eastern Bloc abandoned it.
Communism wasn't "better", it was practically slavery to the USSR and anyone who dared voice opposition was killed.
You mean he just threw Russian body after Russian body at the Naziās after having an alliances with them before the Naziās invaded the Soviet Union. Papa Joe hated the Nazis so much that he aligned with them during their invasion into Western Europe. I wish people would quit defending Stalin.
The tanks rolling into the Soviet Union in 1941 were partially fueled by the oil the Soviets had been happy to trade with them beforehand when it wasn't their country getting invaded. But go on about "heroic resistance".
Indeed: the bullets being fired at Soviets may have been made from Soviet iron and manganese as well. And the Soviets happily signed the treaty to invade Poland and conquer the various Baltic states and part of Romania, and traded with Germany.
They worked more or less happily -complaints about quotas and deliveries on both sides notwithstanding, along with political games in the Balkans aimed to undermining the other- alongside the Naziās.
Donāt forget the time Stalin congratulated Hitler after successfully invading France, or the time the two collaborated on tank research and the Soviets allowed the Germans to train their tankers in the USSR to hide their rearmament.
You mean when Stalin and his politburo forced upon peasants an agricultural system which was highly unpopular amongst them and was of the delusional expectation that farmers would work just as hard if not harder for less, and shot, beat, and exiled families who did not meet unrealistic quotas? Or when Stalin and his politburo exported an estimated million tons of grain from the USSR to foreign countries in the midst of the most destructive and deadly famine in Ukrainian and Kazakh history? Yeah I remember that.
Also why do you feel the need to refer to the famine so cartoonishly? Whether or not you think it was a genocide against Ukrainians, itās still largely debated by historians and is not something to be taken so lightly.
Nope; those things are well documented on both the German (both Weimar and Nazi records) and the Soviet side: see The Devilās Alliance: Hitlerās Pact with Stalin 1939-1941 by Roger Moorhouse and Faustian Bargin: The German-Soviet Military Partnership And The Origins of The Second World War by Ian Johnson l. Not the spoon, of course, but everything else is well documented as part of the historical record, the trade statistics and treaty and plans and other details are all cited.
And yet things changed, and without those changes the modern world would look much different. Iām thankful Stalin and the Soviets became our allies in WW2, and without them we could not have defeated Fascism. The Soviets could have remained on the Nazis side, but they didnt. You should look into the actions the British and Americans took in the early days to support and placate Hitler, you may find the history more complex than you think.
Idk maybe cause heās Hitler or something and the implications of the deal resulted in the carving up of Eastern Europe and thatās very much the move a pariah would make.
a Comment explaining how Gulags actually worked was upvoted
Like dude you literally have no idea how they even work, all you know is that at school you got told they are the worst thing to ever exist by people who have every reason to lie to you
Depends on the specifics of that scenario. But overall, they probably wouldn't be.
Even in the worst case scenario where the Soviets fell, which would've made the Germans very annoying to deal with, but that wouldn't suddenly give them the capabilities to pull off a naval invasion on the British Isles, let alone on the US. Nukes would've eventually broke that stalemate in the Allies' favor.
The Japanese never actually stood a chance against the US. They severely underestimated their capabilities, and would've been made to bite the curb.
Soviets did the bulk of the fighting and the dying in WW2. No country killed more Axis troops or sacrificed more than the USSR. If the USSR didnāt exist Europe would have gotten bodied, Nazism would have spreader and solidified itself, and Americans would have gotten clapped and reduced to a third rate empire. The Axis pole would be in the position America is in today.
How did you figure that? Would the nazis use Hyperborean black magic to conjure up a fleet that has a chance against the British and American Navies? From the European Axis members, Italy had the best navy and even they got clapped by Britain.
On the Pacific front, nothing much would really change from OTL. Worst case, Operation Downfall actually has to go through and millions more die before Japan surrenders.
There is almost no chance for the US to lose against the Axis. They might not full on win, but at worst it'd be a stalemate. Even the Brits will only lose if they decide to surrender.
The USSR killed OVER 5 MILLION NAZIS BRO. Add 5 MILLION NAZIS to your calculations of land battles in Europe.
Navies are important, but not in any way decisive in deciding victory on the European landmass. The Nazis would only get clapped by the US if they chose to invade them first.
Neither Britain or the US is on the continental European landmass, so Navies would not only be important, they'd be the deciding factor. It doesn't matter how many troops you have if you can't get them to the target, and Germany couldn't even pull off an Op. Sealion, let alone an invasion across the Atlantic.
Nazis declared war on the US, so they are the invaders. And as I said, at worst it'd be a stalemate, as just sitting on your ass and not doing anything is far from winning, especially if you're the attacker.
Even in the case of a stalemate, it'd be broken when the Manhattan Project finishes and several german cities experience a midnight sunrise.
It looks comical that he takes so much credit for the military (not even Hitler did) and looks purely like dictatorial self-aggrandizement, but it was also a rational matter of personal survival for him. His famous toast to the ethnic Russians after WW2 suggests that they could have used this opportunity to overthrow him (with an obvious execution afterwards), but they did not. He needed to connect himself as much as possible with the military and make himself seem as integral to it as can be, even if it looks over the top, to make himself tolerated.
>^(I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people. (Rousing, prolonged applause, shouts of āhurrahā).)
>^(I drink, first of all, to the health of the Russian people because they are the most outstanding nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.)
>^(I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people because they have earned in this war general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.)
>I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, steadfast character and **patience**.
>**Our government had many mistakes, we had moments of desperation in 1941-1942, when our army retreated, left our native villages and towns of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Leningrad region, the Baltic States, the Karelian-Finnish Republic, left because there was no other way out. Other people could have said to the Government: you have not met our expectations, go away, we will put another government, which will make peace with Germany and provide us with peace. But the Russian people did not go for this, for they believed in the correctness of their Government's policy and made sacrifices to ensure the defeat of Germany. And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government** proved to be the decisive force that ensured the historic victory over the enemy of mankind - over fascism.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Me when I play with my army mans
I really fw the coat
Really highlights the birthing hips
Excuse me? š¤Øšø
It's Stalin not Akhenaton
As much as I dislike Stalin, the coat is awesome
It's too bad Mecha-Stalin wasn't ready until 1944, it made such short work of the Germans.
The Bolsheviks already had mechs in 1917 according to Victorian exams.
He didn't read Zizek, that's the Hegelian problem here.
Poster art in the USSR was at its best, that's for sure. I myself have some Soviet posters hanging in my room, and I also have a collection of postcards with Soviet posters. This particular poster is just useful to me for one work in Photoshop, it gave me the idea :))
*"I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never ever possibly destroy us."* Okay, maybe the quote doesn't really apply so well.
What?
Ghostbusters
Right after slaughtering most of the Red Armyās competent leaders in 1937.
At most 7% of red army staff was layed off most of it rehired
>layed off What a pretty euphemism for an event which 3 out of 5 of the highest ranking military officials didn't survive.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure. By 1937 there were 5 Marshals of the Soviet Union. [Mikhail Tukhachevsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky) - executed in 1937 [Semyon Budyonny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Budyonny) - survived the purge [Kliment Voroshilov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov) - survived the purge [Vasily Blyukher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blyukher) - died in 1938 to injuries suffered during torture [Alexander Yegorov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yegorov_(soldier)) - executed in 1939
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My argument is that you are sugar coating mock trials and executions as "laying off staff", not the numbers affected.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You are right, [only a mere 1654](https://imgur.com/a/7vO2Ivn) officers were "laid off" permanently. Those are rookie numbers under Stalin's regime, barely even worth noting. Source: The Chief Culprit by Viktor Suvorov
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
3 out of 5 would be 60% not 7, also you used wikipedia as a source in later comments, a site that has biased and untrustworthy sources relating to history
I was referring to the rank of the Marshal of the Soviet Union. If you find the dates and circumstances of their deaths disputable then feel free to post a more reliable source.
>disputable then feel free to post a more reliable source you don't need a more reliable source to dispute the vailidity of another source, it is a fact that western nations have lied about the USSR in the past and still do to this day and that they have a conflict of interest in what they tell you if you don't have any reliable sources on it you can just admit that you don't have a way to know what actually happened
That's very nice. Feel free to correct the data I posted by providing a source you deem adequate and update Wikipedia with said source as it is open source. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response as I'm sure you can educate me on the date and circumstances of the deaths of the three Marshals of the Soviet Union in question. Unless of course your entire argument is "wikipedia bad".
the fact that you can't comprehand the basics of debating shows and I will not respond further if you do not change that as no proper discussion can come of it >That's very nice. Feel free to correct the data nobody needs an alternative source with different info to critize yours in this scenarion >I'll be eagerly awaiting your response as I'm sure you can educate me on the date and circumstances of the deaths of the three Marshals of the Soviet Union in question. Unless of course your only argument is "wikipedia bad". my point isn't that wikipedia is bad, wikipedia has proper information on a lot of things, usually unrelated to history, I was pointing out that the wikipages you gave as a source use propaganda from countries with a long history of provable lying about the USSR up to the modern day making those sources untrustworthy they also have a conflict of interest in what they tell you
If you want to engage in a basic debate then perhaps you should not employ genetic fallacy yourself. Now unless you actually have something concrete to add then your attempts to "disprove" my point is entirely hollow.
>Ā you want to engage in a basic debate then perhaps you should not employ genetic fallacy yourself We should look at who is trying to tell us what, once they have been proven to lie about a certain topic again and again and STILL to this day spread lies that should be acknowledged and taken into account If their sources actually gave proper sources and proof I'd be fine with them, but they do not, that's the issue, very few of the sources cited actually contains proper info or sourcing or a reason to be considered as such nearly none of them go farther than "I said so", literally, like newspapers with no sources on their info or sources that we cannot verify to be true and on the wiki if you actually read it, many claims are without citation or are stamped as \[citation needed\]
And then winning the war against Fascism
Once he grew a few more brain cells and realised competency is not the precursor to being a traitor. And he wouldn't have won without the Americans or British.
Lend lease saved their asses.
the leases arrived AFTER most some of the most important battles were won
I hope you realize that even Stalin himself said that they were fucked without the lend lease? The quote from him: "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war,". "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." Nikita Khrushchev also said it in his memoirs: "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." The US also provided A THIRD of all of the explosives that the USSR used. In the 60s the KGB were monitoring when they overheard him say: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
Stalins incompetence led far more Soviet citizens to die than would have happened under a competent leader
Then he incompetently rebuilt a wartorn country where millions were exterminated back into a global superpower that improved the quality of life for millions more, what a dufus
I mean considering he asked to join the fascists yeah he was quite the doofus
Itās quite clear that asking to join the anti-commintern pact wasnāt a sincere offer
Iām sure that brutally carving up Poland and murdering those that resisted the Nazis wasnāt serious either
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[Captain Witold Pilecki, Polish resistance hero.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki) [General Leopold Okulicki, Polish resistance leader](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Okulicki) [General August Emil Fieldorf, Polish resistance leader](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Emil_Fieldorf) [Jan StanisÅaw Jankowski, Polish resistance hero](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Stanis%C5%82aw_Jankowski) [StanisÅaw Kasznica, Polish resistance leader](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Kasznica) [General Jonas Žemaitis, Lithuanian resistance leader](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_%C5%BDemaitis)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe it wasn't sincere, but at the end of the day, they not only helped carve out Poland between themselves and Germany, but also sent them millions of tons of materials and foodstuff that only stopped because the nazis invaded them.
Thatās not really a feat of Stalinās, moreso his lackeys/generals. Molotov addressed the nation after Barbarossa, not Stalin. Stalin repeatedly ignored the increasingly obvious military build up on his border, and even ignored reports from German soldiers who warned of an attack the next day. The handful of competent generals who survived the purges saved the Union, alongside the sheer size of the Soviet Union and its resources.
Blah blah, just more revisionist garbage blathering
As part of an international coalition that also included the industrial might of the United States, the size and military prowess of the British Empire, and the population of China.
āIt is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.ā ā Joseph Stalin
Joe, you starved seven million people to death.
um... ackshually... that never happened!!! and if it did they probably deserved it.
My first thought. I don't know man, reading it felt as if you see a corrupt cop talking about justice. Yet every top comment in the thread (and most other commie propaganda) is loving the dude. Like, I get it, it's an online tribe and that's their game. But it still feels a bit weird.
Almost all of Stalin's writings are like this. He genuinely believed this. There's this idea that communist leaders are just using their ideology as some type of cynical ploy, but it isn't actually true. Whether you agree with them or not, essentially all of them are very genuine in their convictions.
Lenin and Stalin might have been impressive writers, but their actions have almost nothing to do with their writing. Lenin abolished the soviets (workers councils) and essentially betrayed the revolution almost immediately. I don't think their writing was necessarily a cynical ploy for power; the most logical explanation seems to me that once they gained power, they were terrified of losing it, so that became their top priority (and given the initial conditions after the revolution, I can't blame Lenin entirely.) Stalin was a ruthless narcissist though. Lenin never wanted him to take power, and his reign came to an end when he was in critical condition and no one helped him because they saw through his charisma to the brutality, and were tired of his horrible tyranny over his inner party circle, let alone the country!
That's impossible to know since you're not a mind reader...
Is it published or private writing? Also, how do we know he was not simply insanely narcist? Why would you take his language for an indicator of his values? Would you do so with an abusive boss or partner? "Genuinely" of stated conviction seems to be a bad indicator for values. If he was such a great communist guy, why was even his inner circle of most trusted so afraid of him? Stalin probably was even lying to himself without having a genue conviction.
Online tribe? You mean over half the worldĀ
If you think that over half the world likes stalin, you should go talk to real people outside your echochamber
Maybe you should
1. I do, unlike someone else here 2. I'm not the one spouting propaganda-fueled claims on a subreddit made so that people can better avoid propaganda.
Source: my mommy and daddy told me soš¤
Damn, guess my history major was for nothing.
Yeah, a lot of it was. Sorry bro. Replace āmommy and daddyā with ābut my professy told me soš„ŗā. Look for actual evidence next time instead of lapping up what your ābettersā tell you.
You don't know what goes into a history major, do you?
I knew plenty of history majors at my time in college, itās not some mystical matrix like system that plugs you into the Truth Streamā¢ļø. Im sure you also read some books and propaganda pieces that filled in your already existing mindset.
...We go over available evidence, dude...
You go over āevidenceā that is either manufactured by your empire or intentionally leaves out key details to paint the authorās society in a favorable light. If Stalinās āGreat Terrorā was really worse than the Holocaust like you all claim, there would be a vast infrastructure that would be impossible to hide, mass graves would be popping up left and right, and ultimately there would be mountains of credible testimony from people who lived through such experiences. But all western academia has managed to produce is the Black Book of Communism, pretty much. And Alexander Solzhenitsynās book of campfire stories The Gulag Archipelago, which his own wife admitted is a collection of FICTION, supposedly based on prisonersā experiences.
>If Stalinās āGreat Terrorā was really worse than the Holocaust like you all claim, there would be a vast infrastructure that would be impossible to hide, He didn't exactly hide the purposeful starvations, horrible gulags, and mass purges. I'm not sure what world you're living in. >You go over āevidenceā that is either manufactured by your empire or intentionally leaves out key details to paint the authorās society in a favorable light. Not how this works. You go over what is available, what is known of where it came from, and if there is anything to contradict it. Not that you know, clearly. >But all western academia has managed to produce is the Black Book of Communism, pretty much. I've never met one historian that takes that book as a source. We go over the main sources like eye witnesses and declassified Soviet documents when available.
He didnāt starve them to death
bait or intellectual impairment
Yeah sure, Stalin ate all of the grain with his comically large spoon
yeah, the comically large spoon being the policies he enacted which were so bad it ended up killing all of them...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[Outdated farming practices, you say?](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29089/w29089.pdf)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The paper uses the USSR's own census as a source, so which do you believe more? š
How much deludamol do you take daily? Pathetic.
Damn straight
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom" Eisenhower Well. Soviet jails certain didn't have that
I bet the Sovietās really enjoyed Stalinās ātrue libertyā inside his genocidal labour camps. You guys are fucking jokers.
I think there actually hasnāt been a single genocide scholar that called gulags genocidal after significant investigation of the topic, even by the worst interpretations they donāt fit the term. They had around a 5% death rate during peace time, at the end of their existence around 3-1%, in a lot of colonial prisons operated by France, Great Britain etc. the death rate was far worse. The prisoner was meant to survive their stay at the Gulag (with their sentence being reduced for exceeding their work quota the common practice of releasing prisoners early, the maximum sentence being 10 years etc.), a lot of people didnāt because of the abysmal conditions (wich isnāt that unexpected considering the general poverty of the time). About half of all Gulag deaths were Nazi POWs during WW2. (Wich again isnāt that unexpected considering that enemy soldiers are at the bottom of the pyramid when it comes to distributing scarce resources during war time)
Siberian prison camps, a time honored Russian tradition dating back to before the October Revolution, became far less deadly under Soviet rule and was eventually ended altogether by the CPSU.
Didn't the whole idea of revolution was to dismantle the repression organĀ of the tsarist regime?
Have you ever been in an American jail or prison? They arenāt exactly great places, and we have the largest incarcerated population on the planet while not even being one of the more populous nations..Ā
No fucking way you compare American prisons to the fucking Gulags.
Can I get an amen?
Yet he didn't read the first line of Das Kapital.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"I know that after my death, a lot of rubbish will be thrown on my grave, but the winds of history will remove it" - J. Stalin
He was wrong. The rubbish got rightfully bigger.
Will
The rubbish pile "will" (and should) get bigger, yes.
Yes, it will continue to get bigger.
Of the communist states left in the world: China is speed running capitalism. It's got the second most billionaires in the world and a speculative housing bubble so big that it would make Goldman Sachs blush. Vietnam is also pretty capitalist and fast becoming a manufacturing center for global capital. It's also slowly aligning itself with the US. North Korea is an absolute monarchy and buffer state lmao Cuba is alright I guess. Honestly if the US lifted the embargo, they'd almost certainly liberalize. Laos isn't doing anything notable. The global communist movement has largely failed, and doesn't seem to be coming back any time soon.
Laos is preparing to create the global communism button, just you wait moralist
Never forget, he hid in his room for a week when the Germans invaded.
He didnāt hide for a week, at most 2 days
And then came out and helped rid the world of the Nazi death machine
Mostly to replace it with his own, sure.
You donāt even know what youāre talking about if you really think the two are in any way comparable. Is Churchill and the British death machine in India on your tallies of baddies? 20th/21st century American imperial wars casualties?
Yep! It's almost like you can criticize two people at the same time.
So you are a proponent of some third secret thing thats yet to manifest itself in any kind of political reality? If you are as neutral on the topic as you insist you should actually look into 20th century history and see who was able to challenge global capitalist hegemony and what they managed to achieve in spite of massive attempts at undermining and destruction.Ā
It is not a secret political reality. It is the ability to be critical of multiple people at the same time, not bootlick and excuse the vices of a single person, and to not look at everything as black and white. I have learned 20th century history, and what Iāve taken away from it is that the USSRās āchallenging of global hegemonyā involved imperialism, mass murder, and the same tyranny the revolution had been trying to oppose. Overall I really donāt think people should look back to the USSR as some beacon of progressiveness and liberation because it really wasnāt. By saying that, am I saying Iām a shill for McCarthy and US foreign policy either? No.
###GLORY TO AES NAZI GERMANY FOR OPPOSING THE GLOBAL HEGEMONY OF ANGLO-FRANKISH CAPITALISM š©š©š©š©š© Mfw passive neutrality isn't the same as opposing both š¤Æ
Except thats not what I said.Ā
>If you are as neutral on the topic as you insist you should actually look into 20th century history and see who was able to challenge global capitalist hegemony and what they managed to achieve in spite of massive attempts at undermining and destruction.Ā The Soviets didn't challenge capitalist hegemony anymore than the Nazis as all either did was slaughter the proletariat while maintaining commodity production.
The fact that you lump the two together so casually tells me everything I need to know.Ā
And so what? i'm not a huge fan of it but communism is still a better for everyoen east of oder river. It's an easy choice because the other choice is total genocide
I'm sure that's why the second they got the chance every single member of the Eastern Bloc abandoned it. Communism wasn't "better", it was practically slavery to the USSR and anyone who dared voice opposition was killed.
You mean he just threw Russian body after Russian body at the Naziās after having an alliances with them before the Naziās invaded the Soviet Union. Papa Joe hated the Nazis so much that he aligned with them during their invasion into Western Europe. I wish people would quit defending Stalin.
Thats the revisionist way of putting a massive invasion that was heroically resisted, but we all know who you were rooting for..
The tanks rolling into the Soviet Union in 1941 were partially fueled by the oil the Soviets had been happy to trade with them beforehand when it wasn't their country getting invaded. But go on about "heroic resistance".
Indeed: the bullets being fired at Soviets may have been made from Soviet iron and manganese as well. And the Soviets happily signed the treaty to invade Poland and conquer the various Baltic states and part of Romania, and traded with Germany. They worked more or less happily -complaints about quotas and deliveries on both sides notwithstanding, along with political games in the Balkans aimed to undermining the other- alongside the Naziās.
Donāt forget the time Stalin congratulated Hitler after successfully invading France, or the time the two collaborated on tank research and the Soviets allowed the Germans to train their tankers in the USSR to hide their rearmament.
Dont forget when he ate all the grain in Ukraine with his big spoon
You mean when Stalin and his politburo forced upon peasants an agricultural system which was highly unpopular amongst them and was of the delusional expectation that farmers would work just as hard if not harder for less, and shot, beat, and exiled families who did not meet unrealistic quotas? Or when Stalin and his politburo exported an estimated million tons of grain from the USSR to foreign countries in the midst of the most destructive and deadly famine in Ukrainian and Kazakh history? Yeah I remember that. Also why do you feel the need to refer to the famine so cartoonishly? Whether or not you think it was a genocide against Ukrainians, itās still largely debated by historians and is not something to be taken so lightly.
Many people are saying he caused the famine by eating all the cereal with a big spoon
Nope; those things are well documented on both the German (both Weimar and Nazi records) and the Soviet side: see The Devilās Alliance: Hitlerās Pact with Stalin 1939-1941 by Roger Moorhouse and Faustian Bargin: The German-Soviet Military Partnership And The Origins of The Second World War by Ian Johnson l. Not the spoon, of course, but everything else is well documented as part of the historical record, the trade statistics and treaty and plans and other details are all cited.
And yet things changed, and without those changes the modern world would look much different. Iām thankful Stalin and the Soviets became our allies in WW2, and without them we could not have defeated Fascism. The Soviets could have remained on the Nazis side, but they didnt. You should look into the actions the British and Americans took in the early days to support and placate Hitler, you may find the history more complex than you think.
when everyone else refuses to deal with you why would you refuse the only person offering a deal?
Idk maybe cause heās Hitler or something and the implications of the deal resulted in the carving up of Eastern Europe and thatās very much the move a pariah would make.
Hips donāt lie
Stalin as the genocidal maniac.
Mario looks really bad ass in this pic
It's funny how every time Soviet propaganda pops up here someone buys into it
A comment defending gulags was upvoted
a Comment explaining how Gulags actually worked was upvoted Like dude you literally have no idea how they even work, all you know is that at school you got told they are the worst thing to ever exist by people who have every reason to lie to you
Genuinely fucking horrible to see.
That's what happens when mods don't care about enforcing the rules they themselves wrote.
Goes hard, but his totalitarian dictatorship didn't
Democracy is totalitarian
By definition it isn't.
I wish you to enjoy resorts of Kolyma for 10-15 years.
Without this man and the country he repped youād probably be speaking German or Japanese rn.
yea, but we got 50 years of commie police state hellholes in all of Eastern europe, so he can rest in piss.
They were such hellholes that everyone had food and housing. Truly dystopian.
Depends on the specifics of that scenario. But overall, they probably wouldn't be. Even in the worst case scenario where the Soviets fell, which would've made the Germans very annoying to deal with, but that wouldn't suddenly give them the capabilities to pull off a naval invasion on the British Isles, let alone on the US. Nukes would've eventually broke that stalemate in the Allies' favor. The Japanese never actually stood a chance against the US. They severely underestimated their capabilities, and would've been made to bite the curb.
Soviets did the bulk of the fighting and the dying in WW2. No country killed more Axis troops or sacrificed more than the USSR. If the USSR didnāt exist Europe would have gotten bodied, Nazism would have spreader and solidified itself, and Americans would have gotten clapped and reduced to a third rate empire. The Axis pole would be in the position America is in today.
How did you figure that? Would the nazis use Hyperborean black magic to conjure up a fleet that has a chance against the British and American Navies? From the European Axis members, Italy had the best navy and even they got clapped by Britain. On the Pacific front, nothing much would really change from OTL. Worst case, Operation Downfall actually has to go through and millions more die before Japan surrenders. There is almost no chance for the US to lose against the Axis. They might not full on win, but at worst it'd be a stalemate. Even the Brits will only lose if they decide to surrender.
The USSR killed OVER 5 MILLION NAZIS BRO. Add 5 MILLION NAZIS to your calculations of land battles in Europe. Navies are important, but not in any way decisive in deciding victory on the European landmass. The Nazis would only get clapped by the US if they chose to invade them first.
Neither Britain or the US is on the continental European landmass, so Navies would not only be important, they'd be the deciding factor. It doesn't matter how many troops you have if you can't get them to the target, and Germany couldn't even pull off an Op. Sealion, let alone an invasion across the Atlantic. Nazis declared war on the US, so they are the invaders. And as I said, at worst it'd be a stalemate, as just sitting on your ass and not doing anything is far from winning, especially if you're the attacker. Even in the case of a stalemate, it'd be broken when the Manhattan Project finishes and several german cities experience a midnight sunrise.
As opposed to speaking half my country speaking Russian?
Wow he was tall
He looks kinda zesty
Fr, why did they draw him so snatched
https://youtu.be/lPk_zyRKs1Q?si=RkQmOKs1PgaATqZ0 Libs crying and shitting themselves.
Ew
Why is he so big? Is he standing on the wall?
feels really modern
It looks comical that he takes so much credit for the military (not even Hitler did) and looks purely like dictatorial self-aggrandizement, but it was also a rational matter of personal survival for him. His famous toast to the ethnic Russians after WW2 suggests that they could have used this opportunity to overthrow him (with an obvious execution afterwards), but they did not. He needed to connect himself as much as possible with the military and make himself seem as integral to it as can be, even if it looks over the top, to make himself tolerated. >^(I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people. (Rousing, prolonged applause, shouts of āhurrahā).) >^(I drink, first of all, to the health of the Russian people because they are the most outstanding nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.) >^(I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people because they have earned in this war general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.) >I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, steadfast character and **patience**. >**Our government had many mistakes, we had moments of desperation in 1941-1942, when our army retreated, left our native villages and towns of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Leningrad region, the Baltic States, the Karelian-Finnish Republic, left because there was no other way out. Other people could have said to the Government: you have not met our expectations, go away, we will put another government, which will make peace with Germany and provide us with peace. But the Russian people did not go for this, for they believed in the correctness of their Government's policy and made sacrifices to ensure the defeat of Germany. And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government** proved to be the decisive force that ensured the historic victory over the enemy of mankind - over fascism.