|
GalacticAcid posted:What should Stalin have done to "support the Workers revolution." provided arms to the political factions that were actually fighting the fascists and not merely to the forces loyal to the soviets, not slagged the anarchists/revolution in communist papers and propaganda by lying and saying the Spaniards were fighting in the name of bourgeoisie democracy Not assaulting and seizing key industries under command of the workers unions would have probably been a solid start too. Honestly the purges and gulags almost make logical sense from a socialist/class warfare perspective. Assaulting workers and attacking revolutionaries however is to me the most inexcusable action the Soviets could make if they wanted to actually expose and exemplify Marxist ideals do most people in this thread support Socialism in One Country? I guess this is the communist thread and not the Trotskyite thread so I shouldn't be surprised
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
I'm a trot i think based on some political quiz website thing from a few months ago 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:do most people in this thread support Socialism in One Country? anyone who wishes is free to argue for the time-honored trostskyist alternative, Socialism in No Country
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:I'm a trot i think based on some political quiz website thing from a few months ago american leftism in a nutshell
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:I'm a trot i think based on some political quiz website thing from a few months ago  
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:anyone who wishes is free to argue for the time-honored trostskyist alternative, Socialism in No Country it's funny how the former led to the latter
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
 Haha I shat on Karl Marx in the quiz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:
Urge to Kronstadt rising
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Urge to Kronstadt rising 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
*takes your battleships* *sails around in circles* U can't catch me haha
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFQows7kcs&t=112s
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:What should Stalin have done to "support the Workers revolution." deployed the baltic fleet to spain and destroyed italy's navy
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:deployed the baltic fleet to spain and destroyed italy's navy How were they gonna get there, though? Some comrade is doing a series directly addressing those dumbass Prager University videos on why capitalism is the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkYZV9HSzEU
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:How were they gonna get there, though? You do know how boats work, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:You do know how boats work, right? They'd have to recoal or refuel along the way, and the Mediterranean was full of powers that were hostile to the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Stalin should have helped the workers of the world by starting the meatgrinder of WW2 a few years early
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Stalin should have helped the workers of the world by starting the meatgrinder of WW2 a few years early Yeah, clearly the correct course of action was waiting for the Nazis to go balls deep into Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Yeah, clearly the correct course of action was waiting for the Nazis to go balls deep into Russia. Well, iit did work lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They'd have to recoal or refuel along the way, and the Mediterranean was full of powers that were hostile to the Soviet Union. they could reach tangiers before refuelling 30 years earlier, and i'm sure the great soviet peoples understood how oilers work 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Well, iit did work lol It really didn't. Like with Hillary, the Nazis lost because of their own ineptitude and hubris, the Russians didn't do anything to change the results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:It really didn't. Like with Hillary, the Nazis lost because of their own ineptitude and hubris, the Russians didn't do anything to change the results. This is insanely reductive and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This is insanely reductive and stupid. turn your monitor on
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
The Eastern Front was actually an elaborate version of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and the Wehrmacht drove itself into a river because some country bumpkin told them to
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
if the soviets had directly intervened im p sure the brits would have sunk their navy or something. seriously doubt theyd let the Red Bolsheviks who they were actively invading like a decade earlier gently caress around directly in western europe like that
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
safely sodomized posted:if the soviets had directly intervened im p sure the brits would have sunk their navy or something. seriously doubt theyd let the Red Bolsheviks who they were actively invading like a decade earlier gently caress around directly in western europe like that do you think britain sold ethiopia, austria, czechoslovakia and spain down the river because 1. they loved fascism or 2. they didn't actually want to go to war
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:do you think britain sold ethiopia, austria, czechoslovakia and spain down the river because 1. they loved fascism or 2. they didn't actually want to go to war A naval war with the Soviet Union was one the British could have easily won, and the Soviets wouldn't have any real ability to project naval power against Britain in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:It really didn't. Like with Hillary, the Nazis lost because of their own ineptitude and hubris, the Russians didn't do anything to change the results. the 8,000,000-11,000,000+ dead Russian soldiers would like to tell you where to put your asinine grade school history takes
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:A naval war with the Soviet Union was one the British could have easily won, and the Soviets wouldn't have any real ability to project naval power against Britain in the first place. the same is true of germany in 1938 though
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:the same is true of germany in 1938 though War with Germany would mean the British would have to engage in a land war on the continent, because Germany's designs were on territorial expansion. War with the Soviet Union would mean the British could just sink their navy and attempt blockades, because in this hypothetical scenario all the Soviets are trying to do is directly intervene on behalf of the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:War with Germany would mean the British would have to engage in a land war on the continent, because Germany's designs were on territorial expansion. War with the Soviet Union would mean the British could just sink their navy and attempt blockades, because in this hypothetical scenario all the Soviets are trying to do is directly intervene on behalf of the Republicans. they could have blockaded either power, but they didn't want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:they could have blockaded either power, but they didn't want to. You're just shifting the goalposts now. The British didn't want a war with Germany because they didn't want a continental land war, but that rationale doesn't apply to any war with the Soviet Union - which would have been standoffish since the British could reach the Soviets with their navy but not the other way around. If the British wanted to violently prevent any Soviet naval presence in the western Mediterranean, they could have - and there was little practical reason for them not to. In any case, the British did attempt a naval blockade of Germany once WW2 was actually in full swing, but it didn't work because the Germans controlled almost all the productive forces of continental Europe, and could import goods through Spain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:do you think britain sold ethiopia, austria, czechoslovakia and spain down the river because 1. they loved fascism or 2. they didn't actually want to go to war they didnt want a war with germany but they could have easily whipped the soviet navy in like 5 minutes and soviets wouldnt be able to do poo poo about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
The rearmament of Germany was only tolerated because reactionaries in the west thought it could be used as a bulwark against the soviet union. You guys seem to be forgetting that Chruchill praised the Italian Blackshirts, not least because the inbred tory scum thought they had found a 'visreal' enough force to oppose the worker revolution. Direct engagement in Spain would have lead to to at least the UK joining in on the sides of the Nazis, and would have effectively started ww2 earlier, with a greater advantage to the fascists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You're just shifting the goalposts now. The British didn't want a war with Germany because they didn't want a continental land war, but that rationale doesn't apply to any war with the Soviet Union - which would have been standoffish since the British could reach the Soviets with their navy but not the other way around. If the British wanted to violently prevent any Soviet naval presence in the western Mediterranean, they could have - and there was little practical reason for them not to. britain could have blockaded germany in response to the annexation of austria and czechoslovakia. they didn't because they didn't want a war at all. that was the whole point of the munich agreement. safely sodomized posted:they didnt want a war with germany but they could have easily whipped the soviet navy in like 5 minutes and soviets wouldnt be able to do poo poo about it and they also didn't want a war with anyone else, including the soviets
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The rearmament of Germany was only tolerated because reactionaries in the west thought it could be used as a bulwark against the soviet union. You guys seem to be forgetting that Chruchill praised the Italian Blackshirts, not least because thrme inbred tory scum thought they had found a 'visreal' enough force to oppose the worker revolution. it was tolerated because ww1 had completely shattered any desire for more war
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:britain could have blockaded germany in response to the annexation of austria and czechoslovakia. they didn't because they didn't want a war at all. that was the whole point of the munich agreement. I dunno how many times we have to say "continental land war" before you get the difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I dunno how many times we have to say "continental land war" before you get the difference. land wars are a subset of all wars and britain didn't want any war at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:land wars are a subset of all wars and britain didn't want any war at all. So you think that in a hypothetical scenario where the Royal Navy sinks the Black Sea Fleet to keep them out of the Mediterranean, that they would somehow be compelled to also invade the Soviet Union? Any "land war" would only go as far as seizing enough islands in the Baltic to guarantee a blockade of Leningrad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:So you think that in a hypothetical scenario where the Royal Navy sinks the Black Sea Fleet to keep them out of the Mediterranean, that they would somehow be compelled to also invade the Soviet Union? no. where did you get this idea
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 09:11
|
|