Ferrinus posted:

yeah the thing about the "purges" is that they were, specifically, purges of the communist party, rather than just a particularly memorable and scary word used to describe an insane and pointless terror campaign against the general public

Larry Parrish posted:

https://youtu.be/V9O94UTDAJQ

Yossarian-22 posted:

I mean it was also described as "Yezhovschina" by some because it was the era when the secret police under Yezhov went completely ham on anyone perceived to be a political opponent, including kulaks, some minorities with national aspirations, etc. I'm for a purge of our current leadership as much as anyone but the height of the "Great Purge" is usually associated with that poo poo as well. (Granted, some of those atrocities have been exaggerated, and land collectivization was a real necessity vis-a-vis kulaks)

Also worth pointing out that almost the entire revolutionary Bolshevik leadership from 1917 were killed in the purge

Raskolnikov38 posted:

if you don’t purge you get liberals

Ferrinus posted:

first, i'm pretty sure it was like half

second, though, you're right - the great purge went too far and notably gave saboteurs the opportunity to expel, imprison, or even kill good communists to deliberately hamstring the party. stalin himself said as much. the very fact that this happened, though, is a demonstration in itself that many people were in the rolls who shouldn't be. one way or another the party had the reckon with the growing pains of having won the revolution and suddenly being the optimal career path for every feckless opportunist and outright reactionary

splifyphus posted:

i totally forget the source on this but iirc there's stalin orders that are specifically trying to set a quantitative limit on the purges, and liberals translate them as setting quotas.

dude was just trying to stop the bleeding re: siege paranoia.

Yossarian-22 posted:

pretty sure it was more that stalin feared the old guard of the bolsheviks would take advantage of the social upheaval caused by collectivization to seize power, and then he used that legitimate fear to consolidate power entirely around himself, for better or worse. but it wasn't entirely the upper echelons of society that were targeted during that period, so it's disingenuous to just portray it as a purge of corrupt opportunists when lower segments of society were also effected by the ramping up of secret police activity

but yeah my bad, should have said *remaining* old bolsheviks rather than all of them (many had already died of natural causes by the late 30s), although bukharin/trotsky/etc. are pretty notable.

quote:

Interestingly enough, [Philippine Senator Lorenzo] Sumulong and Krushchev initially found themselves on the same side of the fence following the latter’s call at the UN Assembly for the Western powers to grant their colonies independence.

Noticing the irony of Krushchev’s statement since several Eastern European states were also practically under the control of the Soviet Union, Sumulong took to the podium and said while he was all for de-colonization, the Soviet leader should also back up his words by setting the Soviet satellite states free.

Hearing Sumulong’s statement, an angry Krushchev demanded his turn at the podium. Meeting his Filipino opponent face-to-face, the Soviet leader wildly gesticulated for him to step aside before beginning a long rant which consisted of calling Sumulong a stooge and a lackey of the imperialists.

When Assembly President Frederick Boland allowed Sumulong to come up to the podium to speak again on his case, Krushchev became even more irate and gestured for Boland to recognize him on a point of order. Due to the Filipino’s earlier remarks and Boland’s failure to acknowledge him, Krushchev was said to have taken out his shoe in anger and banged it on his desk—an event that would be known as the infamous “Shoe-banging Incident.”

gradenko_2000 posted:

I just learned today that the "shoe-banging incident" with Khrushchev was fake news

from Politico of all places

quote:

While addressing the Western Bloc at the embassy on November 18, 1956, in the presence of communist Polish statesman Władysław Gomułka, First Secretary Khrushchev said: "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!"[5] The speech prompted the envoys from twelve NATO nations and Israel to leave the room.[5]

During Khrushchev's visit to the United States in 1959, the Los Angeles mayor Norris Poulson in his address to Khrushchev stated: "We do not agree with your widely quoted phrase 'We shall bury you.' You shall not bury us and we shall not bury you. We are happy with our way of life. We recognize its shortcomings and are always trying to improve it. But if challenged, we shall fight to the death to preserve it".[6] Many Americans meanwhile interpreted Khrushchev's quote as a nuclear threat.[7]

In another public speech Khrushchev declared: "We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can".[8] In a 1961 speech at the Institute of Marxism–Leninism in Moscow, Khrushchev said that "peaceful coexistence" for the Soviet Union means "intense, economic, political and ideological struggle between the proletariat and the aggressive forces of imperialism in the world arena".[9] Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you,"[10] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism" (in the Russian translation of Marx, the word "undertaker" is translated as a "grave digger," Russian: могильщик,) based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". In his memoirs, Khrushchev stated that "enemy propaganda picked up the slogan and blew it all out of proportion".[11]

Some authors suggest that an alternative translation is "We shall be present at your funeral" or "We shall outlive you".[12][13][14] Authors have suggested the phrase, in conjunction with Khrushchev's overhead hand clasp gesture meant that Russia would take care of the funeral arrangements for capitalism after its demise.[15] In an article in The New York Times in 2018, translator Mark Polizzotti suggested that the phrase was mistranslated at the time and should properly have been translated as "We will outlast you," which gives a different sense to Khrushchev's statement.[16]

lumpentroll posted:

knowing you're poor(big asses) but thinking you'll be rich(small breasts)

Fortaleza posted:

That’s a really good book, I remember enjoying it a bunch like 11 years ago.

really queer Christmas posted:

Beevors Spanish Civil War is fantastic. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to learn more about the whole situation.

For a right winger, he also does a lot of "yeah the communists were the clear good guys here, and the western liberals utterly failed them."

Just don't read anything about the eastern front from him.

paul_soccer12 posted:

god what id give to be a fly on the wall for their self crit stuggle sessions

japanese red army speed run lets gooo

ToxicAcne posted:

What's the Leftist case for being against the Falklands being part of the UK?

Malleum posted:

albion delenda est

gradenko_2000 posted:

nothing should be part of the UK

Malleum posted:

albion delenda est

gradenko_2000 posted:

nothing should be part of the UK

mila kunis posted:

someone alert d&d before its too late

https://twitter.com/Hezbolsonaro/status/1390474154369945600

mila kunis posted:

someone alert d&d before its too late

https://twitter.com/Hezbolsonaro/status/1390474154369945600

mila kunis posted:

someone alert d&d before its too late

https://twitter.com/Hezbolsonaro/status/1390474154369945600

Dreylad posted:

the best part about this is the overreaction from all the insane ukranian banderites

gradenko_2000 posted:

nothing should be part of the UK

comedyblissoption posted:

Dreylad posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

nothing should be part of the UK