the Soviet official policy as formulated by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956 was peaceful coexistence (Мирное сосуществование), the Soviet Union was explicitly not seeking a confrontation with the US, the US was however constantly threatening the Soviet Union. For example, the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s was triggered by the fact that the US had put medium range nuclear missiles in Turkey on the border with the Soviet Union.
In response to this obvious threat, the Soviets decided to do the same, and put medium range nuclear missiles on Cuba. As you probably know, the US reaction to the USSR doing what they had already done, was to escalate and threaten even more, rather than negotiate. Luckily cooler heads prevailed, but it was absurd that the USA was willing to risk global nuclear war, because someone did exactly what they had already done. The USSR did not threaten nuclear war when the USA placed nukes in Turkey.
Without a doubt, the Soviets were actively supporting regimes and groups friendly to the Soviet Union, however, they did so to a much lesser degree. While the USSR supported North Korea, they only ever send a few pilots and aircraft during the war, to prevent American bombers from annihilating the population around north west Korea, this became known as MiG alley. While the USA practically lead the entire war in Korea on behalf of the Korean government, who essentially became their puppet. Same in Viet Nam, the Soviet army was never deployed there, but hundreds of thousands of American troops were. In terms of aggressiveness and direct actions, there is no doubt that the Soviet Union through the cold war, put way fewer resources and operations into combating America and it’s allies than the other way around.
The American imperialists forced them to
Were the American imperialists also in Finland?
They know they can't answer this one....
Is that why the Soviets invaded Poland too?
Omg poor Nazis and Nazi collaborators how dare the Soviets invade them! Poor victims of communists.
Wait so Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia were also nazis? Didn’t know that…
Man, don't you know anything not communist, ahem, the right kind of communist, is a Nazi? /S
lol, "we're going to punish the Nazi collaborators by collaborating with the Nazis!!!"
Is that the logic we're descending to in order to desperately try to justify the USSR?
How Poles collaborated with Nazis before september 17th 1939? Poland as a country was never Germany ally. Read more, write less dumbass.
Was Invading Poland with Nazi Germany not collaboration itself? lol
I mean, if you're oblivious to the historical context that led up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, you can call it collaboration, but that would be ignorant and simply a result of years of propaganda.
Had the Soviets not occupied half of Poland, the Nazis would have simply taken the whole of it right from the start, Poland would be in an even worse position, and it would have placed the Soviets in a MUCH worse position, with the enemy at their borders.
The Soviets realised from the start that war with Germany is imminent, and that the "allies" were unwilling to stop Hitler. The invasion of Poland was a strategic necessity that bought the Soviets crucial time. Just look how close Moscow was to falling.
Does the historical context not matter for the Poles? Why does it only matter for the Soviets?
Kinda my entire point in calling them collaborators.
If working together for a common goal isn't collaboration then I don't think anything can be. Doesn't mean they ARE Nazis.
Had no pact been done, Hitler wouldn't invade Poland out of fear for the URSS
Ok, this is simpy untrue no matter from what angle you look at it. Germany would have invaded Poland in any case since it was central to the ideology of lebensraum. Just read about the Generalplan Ost.
Also, if they feared the USSR retaliating, why would they later launch Barbarossa in 1941? Where has the fear of the Soviets gone in those 2 years?
Basically yes. Regardless of the lebensraum ideology, Hitler knew he couldn't risk full out war in the begging of the conflict. His march east was planned since the start, which only started after he secured the west, and it only failed due to the shear grit of the Soviets.
Furthermore, it is much more likely that Germany would have used east Poland as a buffer state to impede Soviet retaliation
Ok, I understand what you mean by "Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland" - you meant to say he would have invaded in 1939. And I agree, he wouldn't risk giving Soviets a reason for entering the war so early. However, he would eventually still invade Poland, and then the USSR. The Soviets weren't mistaken in wanting a buffer zone.
We are in agreement except for the last part - or at least the execution of it. The poles weren't mere puppets. They were people, with legitimate expectations of peace. Regardless of the security reasons the Soviets had, occupation of a sovereign country is never justified, it is pure imperialism. If the Soviets wanted to contain the nazis in Poland they should have helped the poles, not invade them.
P.S.: when I mean wouldn't have invaded Poland I meant not on terms they did. Maybe later, maybe differently.
Eastern Poland bought the USSR 2-3 weeks, so essentially meaningless. Meanwhile it played a major part in fueling Germany's war machine (which would of course be turned against the Soviets) and torpedoed allied plans to exploit German resource shortages and being threatened on two fronts. One can have an interesting discussion about Soviet justifications for signing it. But in hindsight it was undoubtedly a massive strategic blunder.
Um, what? This is a severely flawed historical account of the pact.
Care to explain? Sure, I simplified it a lot, but the overarching narrative is correct, I believe.
I don't want to get into semantics about what collaboration exactly means, but the Soviets didn't form an alliance with the Nazis because they wanted a part of Poland. It was not an imperial land grab.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was both secret and an explicit agreement to divide eastern and Central Europe into spheres of influence. It was not an alliance, but it was a non-aggression pact.
The Soviet participation in the pact was a land grab. It is the case that Stalin did believe that Hitler would eventually invade, but there was no altruism behind the pact. The Soviets wanted more land, so they signed a deal with the devil.
You’re welcome to attempt to spin it as the Soviets protecting other countries, but that is simply not the case. It was a collaborative agreement to violate the sovereignty of other nations, something that, at the time, the Soviets were more famous for than the Nazis.
I will concede that I misspoke - I believe it wasn't JUST an imperial landgrab. Ofcourse, the aspect of gaining new territory was something that they ofcourse considered and saw the benefit in.
However, I believe it wasn't the primary motivator for the pact. Now, you could say the Soviets simply didn't have an excuse, but now you're just looking to justify the idea it WAS just a landgrab.
The fact is, the Soviets decided to negotiate dierctly with the Germans only AFTER it was clear that the tripartite negotiations with the French and English were not likely to lead to a security assurance. Why would they even bother with the tripartite negotiations if their goal wasn't safety against Hitler?
I don't believe altruism was a motivator, but pretending it was an opportunist alliance is dishonest, since the Soviets made several attempts to form an alliance against Hitler, all of which failed because the allies didn't want to risk war.
The tripartite negotiations prior to WWII aren’t what you seem to think they are. Tripartite refers to agreements between Germany, Italy, and Japan.
The Soviets were excluded from every major negotiation effort with the Nazis, including the Munich Agreement. The Soviets offered to come to the aid of the Czechs, but were refused access through Poland (not surprising since they fought a war in the 20’s) and Romania, who disliked Soviet revanchism surrounding Bessarabia.
To many of these countries, the Soviets were a bigger threat of invasion than Germany.
The Soviets certainly had incentive to curb aggressive expansion from Germany, but they had also spent the last 20 years doing their own aggressive expansion.
[removed]
Your post has been removed due to being deemed as misinformation or disingenuous in it's nature.
Those pesky American imperialists... So unthankful that Soviet Union accepted their useless Lend Lease supplies.
Oh boy, a whole bunch of supplies so the USSR can act as proxy to defeat the Nazis for the US without committing much manpower themselves, thereby weakening both and allowing the US to emerge from WWII dominant. How generous! I'm sure they're also supplying Ukraine and Israel with arms out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they see themselves as gaining from it.
It was generous, considering that Comrade Stalin was on the naughty Nazi collaborator list from August 1939 till June 1941. He joined Nazi Germany in attacking Poland and even had a cute victory parade with Nazis in Brest. Selling Nazis oil, grain, and strategic materials while the UK was trying to blockade Nazi supplies. Letting German Navy set up a secret navy base in the Northern Russia. Calling Western communists to sabotage Allies' war efforts... the list goes on and goes on.
The sad thing about bullshit is that it's much easier for peddlers of it such as yourself to churn it out than it is to explain it away with the context you're intentionally leaving out, and I say intentionally because I've seen you around enough on this sub debating people over these issues to know that you know better and yet you still cherrypick the facts not because of some fidelity to truth but what is almost certainly some personal vendetta against the Soviets.
So I'm not going to bother with that, because the important question is what is it in your mind that makes any of that relevant to the US' own ambitions in supplying the USSR? It's almost comedic how much of a non-sequitur that was. "Whataboutism," as liberals say.
What do I cherry pick? Stalin and Hitler was one hell of a team in 1939 and 1940. Slicing and dicing Europe to their liking.
Do you know that comrade Molotov went to Berlin in November 1940 to secretly DISCUSS CONDITIONS OF THE USSR JOINING THE AXIS?
The only reason Stalin had become a "good guy" and on the right side of history is Hitler's attack in June of 1941. I'm surprised Allies still decided to send so much help to the Soviet Union after being repeatedly stabbed in the back. And the Soviets still complained that American Lend-Lease wasn't enough. All that while Stalin was selling oil to the American enemy - Japan till 1945.
You're not stupid, so stop pretending you are.
Anyway, are you going to answer the question or just keep channeling all of your personal spite into a one-sided telling of history to distract from the fact that I called out your characterization of the US' "generosity" as the nonsense that it is and you have no rebuttal?
You know it’s been proved time after time and lend lease didn’t have much of an impact that western propaganda would have you believe.
Plus you know lend lease wasn’t … free, the USSR was paying for everything that it brought.
Everything that was destroyed during the war was free. That's how lend lease worked.
Sure, 600K military trucks and jeeps, 93% of trains and railroad supplies had hardly any impact on Red Army's ability to move troops and supplies.
… err the Soviets were charged upfront and paid up front
No, they weren't, and no, they certainly did not. The Lend Lease debt was only finally paid off in 2006, long after the Soviet Union had collapsed.
[removed]
Lmao you can't be serious buddy
that's funny, imperialism does not mean conquest of land expansion. imperialism is a framework to analyse the relationships between states and nations based on material deprivation, coercion
Literally every serious text on imperialism says this first thing first, almost as if communism is when you read
All of the land in the US was expanded upon by the US, how about the Philippines? The war on “terror”? Countless invasions and CIA coups?
The US is 100% an imperialist nation, wake up.
[removed]
usa notoriously never invaded the majority of country on earth to put in charge puppets leaders and never actively tried to organized massacres, coups or genocides when it could be profitable for their top level capitalists. they notoriously never organized the deindustrialization of europe while pushing them to war against people that were not as cucked as you are lol
Russia defended his sphere of influence in ukraine, birthplace of russia lol, they aint the same, russia a million times better on all aspect including the most normie ones.
"sphere of influence"
So ukraine belongs to Russia?
Depend who's asking, if you have the US military actively roaming your country i will answer you "YES", if you are a neutral bro from a non-nato country without us military bases i will tell you the truth : ukraine belongs to ukrainians and they are actively being pushed to migration or death by NATO, so in the end, there wont be any ukrainians to own the land so it will be russia. Because of NATO.
So... Because of NATO, Ukraine is dying? But... Ukraine is in war with Russia...
NATO is the only thing allowing ukrainians to die in this useless wars for the sake of capitalism.
NATO Is defensive alliance
And because of NATO, Russia attacked Ukraine?
Does that make sense?
Your post has been removed due to being deemed as misinformation or disingenuous in it's nature.
Your post has been removed due to being deemed as misinformation or disingenuous in it's nature.
The US was an imperial expansion that turned into its own nation state whole cloth. It is nothing but imperial expansion.
Ultimately, the USSR’s existence threatened the West simply by implementing a socialist mode of production; workers seized the means and exercised far more direct democratic control over their workplaces (and therefore, the economy) than ever before. Capitalist democracies, by contrast, limit choice to leadership under politicians drawn from the owning class.
This is why the West never wanted to allow the USSR to breathe, and constantly escalated at every turn. The USSR proved a socialist mode of production could work.
The grand finale of the anti-Soviet escalation: Operation Provide Hope.
The operation was announced by Secretary of State James A. Baker, III on January 22–23, 1992 and the initial shipment of supplies was sent on February 10, 1992. Twelve US Air Force C-5 and C-141 was carrying an estimated 500 tons of bulk-food rations and medicines into Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kyiv, Minsk, and Chișinău from Germany and Yerevan, Almaty, Dushanbe, Ashkhabad, Baku, Tashkent, and Bishkek from Turkey. In total, for nearly two weeks sixty-five missions flew 2,363 short tons (2,144 t) of food and medical supplies to 24 locations in the Commonwealth of Independent States during the initial phase of operation.
https://preview.redd.it/18vn6bdad59g1.png?width=256&format=png&auto=webp&s=6023821dcd7db75e2c66a10f0194d76a4939d684
[removed]
"Totalitarian" doesnt mean anything.
[removed]
Could say the same about any western state.
If your word does not restrict in anyway what you are describing its effectivly meaningless.
I can vote for my government no? I can even run my own little socialist commune, have a union, have a worker coop, run my own business. Under any communist regime that has ever existed I could not vote for my government. I could not have my little capitalist political party, I could not run my own business and profit from it.
Under all of the biggest and most successful capitalist economies I am richer, more free, more happy and less starving than under any communist system EVER.
Let me run of some examples, June 4 1989, holodomor, the red rape, the multiple purges of political enemies under the USSR and Maoist china
Guess what, you could in the ussr and you can even in DPRK. Doesnt mean anything if the vote is rigged by propaganda, the election system, election fraud.
No. You cant lmao.
A CIA approved one or a dimenbered into uselesness one?
Maybe YOU can but 80% of people cant because they arent bourgeois.
You could. Based to not be able to promote exploitation and slavery. Based to not exploit and reduce to slavery.
Its litterally the opposite that happened, and it happened against all odds.
SU eradiacted famine and industrialized with 2digits gdp growth for 20 years while almost embargoed and coming out of 2 huge wars. Just compare US and SU gdp relative to their 1921 gdp and tell me who is more efficient.
And thanks to them being so insanely more efficient than any capitalist non planified economy could ever be, jews, romas and slavs are still a thing in Europe.
So yeah, SU has been more efficient than any capitalist system EVER.
China is communist now or not? If yes your whole previous argument is retarded as china is beating the west in everything.
The holodomor is a nazi myth, the 1933 famine is tragic and caused by the kulaks and bad weather. The red rape? Bro wtf are you talking about? But i guess that mean you support rape under capitalism.
Purges are what made it possible to beat nazis. I take that you are a nazi and pro holocaust then.
The Soviet Famine of 1932-33/The Holodomor The famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Union AKA the Holodomor remains one of the most politicized and misunderstood events in 20th-century history. Much of the modern discourse frames the famine as a deliberate genocide uniquely targeted at Ukrainians. However, professional historians across multiple countries have not reached such a consensus. What’s known with certainty is that the famine affected multiple regions of the USSR, not only Ukraine, the Volga, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia all suffered food shortages. Kazakhstan actually experienced proportionally the highest mortality rate. The crisis emerged during the violent upheaval of collectivization, the breakdown of the grain procurement system, severe crop failures, and chaotic state policies struggling to industrialize a largely agrarian empire. Most mainstream historians including R. W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Michael Ellman emphasize that, - The famine was not restricted to Ukraine - There is no documentary evidence of a Kremlin plan to exterminate Ukrainians - The tragedy resulted from a combination of poor policy, bad harvests, peasant resistance, administrative chaos, and environmental factors similar to previous famines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
You’re mixing a few accurate points with a lot that don’t hold up historically. Yes, the USSR and DPRK technically held elections, but when every candidate is approved by the ruling party and no opposition is allowed, voting doesn’t function as a way to change power. That’s why political scientists classify those systems as one-party authoritarian, not democratic. Likewise, in capitalist systems you actually can start co-ops, communes, small businesses, and unions, millions of people already do. The issue is access to money or resources, not legal permission. Claiming “80% of people can’t because they aren’t bourgeois” isn’t backed by evidence, whereas in historical communist states private business and independent political parties were explicitly banned, which is exactly the point the original commenter made.
The USSR did industrialize rapidly, but it did not “eradicate famine”: the 1932–33 famine alone shows that, and later the Soviet Union relied heavily on imported grain to avoid further shortages. Saying the Holodomor is a “Nazi myth” just ignores the fact that millions died; historians debate whether it meets the legal definition of genocide, but not whether the famine itself was real or largely caused by state policy. The argument that Stalin’s purges made victory over Nazi Germany possible doesn’t line up with scholarship either, the purges wiped out experienced officers and left the Red Army weaker in 1941, not stronger.
And bringing up modern China doesn’t prove old-style communist economics worked, because contemporary China operates a mixed economy with large private sectors, market competition, and investment flows, basically state-supervised capitalism. So when you look at the historical record rather than slogans, capitalist democracies consistently allow multi-party politics, co-ops, private enterprise and unions, and they haven’t experienced politically induced famines, while the major communist states of the 20th century did ban political and economic alternatives and experienced devastating famines under centralized planning. You can defend communism on ideological grounds if you want, but a lot of the claims you made don’t match what historians and economists actually agree on
Guess what the law of every single capitalist countries say about illegal political parties.
Communes and unions. No you cant, that will literallyget you killed. Co ops and small business. No 80% of the people cant, you dont have capital to do so.
Yes it did, as there are no famine anymore. "No you didnt make a make as the cake wasnt done by 7pm, even it was done by 7pm30". Yes the genocide myth is a nazi myth.
I wasnt the one who brought up china. I feel like speaking to an IA who didnt understand what i wrote.
Finally economist are not scientist, they are no better than priest.
The Soviet Famine of 1932-33/The Holodomor The famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Union AKA the Holodomor remains one of the most politicized and misunderstood events in 20th-century history. Much of the modern discourse frames the famine as a deliberate genocide uniquely targeted at Ukrainians. However, professional historians across multiple countries have not reached such a consensus. What’s known with certainty is that the famine affected multiple regions of the USSR, not only Ukraine, the Volga, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia all suffered food shortages. Kazakhstan actually experienced proportionally the highest mortality rate. The crisis emerged during the violent upheaval of collectivization, the breakdown of the grain procurement system, severe crop failures, and chaotic state policies struggling to industrialize a largely agrarian empire. Most mainstream historians including R. W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Michael Ellman emphasize that, - The famine was not restricted to Ukraine - There is no documentary evidence of a Kremlin plan to exterminate Ukrainians - The tragedy resulted from a combination of poor policy, bad harvests, peasant resistance, administrative chaos, and environmental factors similar to previous famines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
You’re shifting the discussion away from what was actually claimed.
I said elections in the USSR and DPRK didn’t allow people to change their government. Your response was “capitalist countries have illegal political parties too,” but you didn’t name any that are illegal because they challenge the ruling party. Banning violent or fascist groups isn’t the same as banning all opposition. In multiparty democracies, you can legally form a party that wants to replace the government, and if enough people vote for it, it can. That has happened repeatedly. That’s the key difference.
On communes, co-ops and unions, these exist legally in capitalist countries right now. There are thousands of registered worker co-ops in Europe and the US, legally recognized communes, and unions that negotiate contracts with major employers. One example of this in my country the netherlands, we have about 4 different unions for military personnel that have directly influenced the pay raise for soldiers for 5 years straight. You can dislike how capitalism works, but saying “that will literally get you killed” just isn’t true, if it were, Mondragon in Spain (70,000+ worker/owners) wouldn’t exist, nor would the many co-ops in Italy, France, the US, or the UK. Whether most people can afford to start one is a separate issue from whether the state allows it. Under the USSR and Maoist China, they were not allowed at all outside state control, which was the original point.
On famine: saying the USSR “eradicated famine” after the worst man-made famine in its own history just proves my point. Millions died in 1932/33 and again from wartime starvation in the 1940s, and the USSR later relied on imports to stabilize grain supply. Food shortages didn’t disappear, they just stopped reaching the scale of mass death. No modern democratic capitalist country has had a famine of that kind. Calling the famine “a Nazi myth” ignores that the famine itself is documented in Soviet archives and Soviet censuses, whether it was genocide is debated, but the event itself is not a myth.
As for China: you brought up that "china is beating the west in everything.” (Except birth rates) My reply was that modern China is not structured like the USSR economically. It uses markets, private ownership and foreign investment, which are capitalist mechanisms. If someone uses China as proof communism works, pointing out that China doesn’t use classic communist economics is extremely relevant and necessary.
And finally, saying economists aren’t scientists doesn’t change the fact that economic history is based on measurable outcomes: production, growth, famine mortality, imports, exports, etc. You can reject their interpretations if you want, but the data itself still exists.
The Soviet Famine of 1932-33/The Holodomor The famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Union AKA the Holodomor remains one of the most politicized and misunderstood events in 20th-century history. Much of the modern discourse frames the famine as a deliberate genocide uniquely targeted at Ukrainians. However, professional historians across multiple countries have not reached such a consensus. What’s known with certainty is that the famine affected multiple regions of the USSR, not only Ukraine, the Volga, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia all suffered food shortages. Kazakhstan actually experienced proportionally the highest mortality rate. The crisis emerged during the violent upheaval of collectivization, the breakdown of the grain procurement system, severe crop failures, and chaotic state policies struggling to industrialize a largely agrarian empire. Most mainstream historians including R. W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Michael Ellman emphasize that, - The famine was not restricted to Ukraine - There is no documentary evidence of a Kremlin plan to exterminate Ukrainians - The tragedy resulted from a combination of poor policy, bad harvests, peasant resistance, administrative chaos, and environmental factors similar to previous famines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Except the Irish famine which has pretty much the same properties as the Ukrainian famine.
what the fuck are you even talking about only being able to start a business if you’re part of the bourgeois? Actually one of the most idiotic takes I’ve ever heard genuinely. My parents started a business here while they were dirt poor and had nothing I honestly don’t even understand how you could possibly come to this conclusion. Also why did you ignore the Red Rape part? It’s well documented what the Russians did to all women aged 5-90 in Berlin go look it up, and look up the Molotov Ribbentrop pact before you throw that nazi term around dipshit
No they werent. Lol.
Ho. So "red rape" refer to the rapes that happened during the liberation of germany. Ok so from now i will refer to rape under capitalism as " fascist liberal capitalist rape". Fr you should consider that not everyone speaks the CIA newspeak
Go look up who traded more with the nazi ( France UK and US) before bringing up Molotov Ribbentrop. We all know who is on the side of the nazis my little bro.
I view this subreddit to see it from your POV AND what you guys could possibly have to argue and 9 times out of ten it is whataboutism or playing down what the Soviet Union did or just lying. HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE WHAT YOURE SAYING IF YOU ARE LYING. WHY WOULD I TAKE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE HOLODOMOR AT FACE VALUE WHEN YOURE ALREADFY LYING, HAVE AN AGENDA AND WERENT THERE
The Soviet Famine of 1932-33/The Holodomor The famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Union AKA the Holodomor remains one of the most politicized and misunderstood events in 20th-century history. Much of the modern discourse frames the famine as a deliberate genocide uniquely targeted at Ukrainians. However, professional historians across multiple countries have not reached such a consensus. What’s known with certainty is that the famine affected multiple regions of the USSR, not only Ukraine, the Volga, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia all suffered food shortages. Kazakhstan actually experienced proportionally the highest mortality rate. The crisis emerged during the violent upheaval of collectivization, the breakdown of the grain procurement system, severe crop failures, and chaotic state policies struggling to industrialize a largely agrarian empire. Most mainstream historians including R. W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Michael Ellman emphasize that, - The famine was not restricted to Ukraine - There is no documentary evidence of a Kremlin plan to exterminate Ukrainians - The tragedy resulted from a combination of poor policy, bad harvests, peasant resistance, administrative chaos, and environmental factors similar to previous famines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Where is the whataboutism? Where did I lie?
You dont have to trust me, try yourself to find what stalin ordered when faced with the 1933 famine situation. Hint: he didnt say we should kill more ukrainian, he said to divert grain intended for export to ukraine to save lives.
“Soviet union has been more efficient than any capitalist system”
Dude are you even reading what your are saying, How efficient was the system if it failed?
This is what I mean by you lie, you make blanket statments with no proof or sources.
And then downplay the pact that SU had with the nazis, do you not see it as the least bit ironic when you call people Nazis when actually the Soviet Union was allied with them and fought with them. Edited cause I went on a rant about Russia but that doesn’t even matter here
You are not a serious person
You vote for a party that was already bought by oligarchs, the colour doesn't really matter. Union busting is an official policy of most Western and capitalist countries, let alone how companies will treat you when you do so. The US government sent fucking policemen to piss on food that was to be given to children for free. You don't have the freedom to not be a capitalist.
What about those capitalist economies who aren't? Most of the countries in the world are capitalist, the difference is that a few of them pillage the majority so they could afford to pacify their own working classes while leaving out millions, if not billion of people worldwide to rot. The average Soviet citizen literally had the same calorie and nutrition intake as the average American post ww2. And tell how free, happy and rich the single mother working 3 jobs is to her face to see how she'll react.
Tianamen square is a CIA operation, holodomor is far from what the Western propaganda has told you it is, I am not even sure if you seriously believe that wartime rape has something to do with ideology, purges were also more nuanced, not some cartoony villains slaughtering only innocent people. Do you want to talk about capitalist atrocities now?
Now do you want to talk about all the coups against democratically elected leaders the West orchestrated so they could install fascist dictators who protected their corporations' profits? Or the more 20 million victims of Leopold in Congo? Or the Indian famine, which response to from Churchil was "famine or not, those Indians reproduce like rabbits". Another around 3 in the bag for Britian! Shall we talk about the slave trade? Or corporations? Nestle, Tesla?
The Soviet Famine of 1932-33/The Holodomor The famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Union AKA the Holodomor remains one of the most politicized and misunderstood events in 20th-century history. Much of the modern discourse frames the famine as a deliberate genocide uniquely targeted at Ukrainians. However, professional historians across multiple countries have not reached such a consensus. What’s known with certainty is that the famine affected multiple regions of the USSR, not only Ukraine, the Volga, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia all suffered food shortages. Kazakhstan actually experienced proportionally the highest mortality rate. The crisis emerged during the violent upheaval of collectivization, the breakdown of the grain procurement system, severe crop failures, and chaotic state policies struggling to industrialize a largely agrarian empire. Most mainstream historians including R. W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Michael Ellman emphasize that, - The famine was not restricted to Ukraine - There is no documentary evidence of a Kremlin plan to exterminate Ukrainians - The tragedy resulted from a combination of poor policy, bad harvests, peasant resistance, administrative chaos, and environmental factors similar to previous famines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The Soviet Famine of 1932-33/The Holodomor The famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Union AKA the Holodomor remains one of the most politicized and misunderstood events in 20th-century history. Much of the modern discourse frames the famine as a deliberate genocide uniquely targeted at Ukrainians. However, professional historians across multiple countries have not reached such a consensus. What’s known with certainty is that the famine affected multiple regions of the USSR, not only Ukraine, the Volga, the North Caucasus, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia all suffered food shortages. Kazakhstan actually experienced proportionally the highest mortality rate. The crisis emerged during the violent upheaval of collectivization, the breakdown of the grain procurement system, severe crop failures, and chaotic state policies struggling to industrialize a largely agrarian empire. Most mainstream historians including R. W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Michael Ellman emphasize that, - The famine was not restricted to Ukraine - There is no documentary evidence of a Kremlin plan to exterminate Ukrainians - The tragedy resulted from a combination of poor policy, bad harvests, peasant resistance, administrative chaos, and environmental factors similar to previous famines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Your post has been removed due to being deemed as misinformation or disingenuous in it's nature.
Your post has been removed due to being deemed as misinformation or disingenuous in it's nature.
Or that it couldn’t work…
[removed]
The totalitarian dictatorship are the western fascist states. Capitalism killed 10 billion people. Yet you are supporting capitalism.
Eastern fascism: 😍 Western fascism: 😡 *edit: Define "fascist", and tell me how/where exactly did I "support capitalism"?
Saving billion from poverty and bringing good working conditions and living standards across the world :😡
Killing commies and genociding brown peoples :😍
Fascists are animals.
You support capitalism, its blatant
Damn, you managed to fit every logical fallacy into a single comment. This should be in textbooks 🤣
This should be in the text book because im right on every single point.
Define totalitarian.
Dude, there are more argumental flaws in your comment than sentences, get a grip. I'll define "totalitarian" right after you define "fascism", which I asked you to do multiple comments ago.
Yet i managed to be right on everything i said.
You used this nonsensical word first, you have to define it.
"Saving billion from poverty and bringing good working conditions and living standards across the world :😡" False, communism pushed billions into poverty, and communist countries have way lower living standards than capitalist countries.
"Killing commies and genociding brown peoples :😍" I never said I support nazism. Communists killed more communists than anyone else. Also, communist prosecute people for their religion, political views and simple opinions, and have commited many genocides throughout history (multiple against "brown people").
"Fascists are animals." Again, define "fascist". From your mouth, this means 'Everyone who disagrees with me is an animal'.
"You support capitalism, its blatant" No I don't, and I never said/implied that I did. Every ideology has it's flaws, criticizing communism doesn't make me a capitalist.
"Yet I managed to be right on everything I said" You acknowledged that your argument is invalid, and then proceeded to say you're still right? Are you rage baiting me?
Totalitarianism: "A form of government that prohibits opposing political parties and ideologies while controlling all aspects of the public and private lives of the people.
Communism isn't fascism. It is its direct opposite. Fascism was, before all, created as a an authoritarian mechanism to defend the capitalist mode of production in time of crisis. It also utilizes some idealistical myth of a great state as to bring the classes in a supposed collaboration while the nature of classes is to be opposite. Fascism is an ideology based in idealism. Communism is entirely materialistic. Communism calls for a class struggle in which the working class should get rid of its own chains. Fascism has proven to protect oligarchs interests as much as capitalism does. The billionaires are so scared of communism that they spent billions to propgandize against it. There is a reason why the largest uniting factor of nazis especially is that they are anti-communism. And communism is not only anti-nationalist and internationalist-it is anti-nation, anti-state.
Why bother with direct control of the economy when you can vote for a millionaire every four years and hope they remember what a grocery bill looks like?
It's not hard to understand why a socialist mode of production is better for the working class, but this is also why it's in direct opposition to capitalist interests. Hence managers and the ruling class will defend capitalism to the ends of the earth.
You think the people had "direct control of the economy" in the USSR? 🤣
Your post has been removed for being off-topic or lacking sufficient quality to contribute to the discussion. Please ensure your posts are relevant, thoughtful, and add value to the conversation.
Oh look, I am so smart, I used totalitarian! Don't be mistaken, however, when google sells your data to third parties, our government works with Israeli technology for better surveillance, the Church has more say than the people, billionaires buy out our politicians and we have to pray every 4 years for the wrong candidate not to be elected so women could decide what they do with their OWN bodies isn't totalitarian!1!!!1
"This is why the West never wanted to allow the USSR to breathe,"
The Western Allies gave the Soviets, Lend Lease that helped them survive their most perilous time in its history. That wasn't exactly strangling the socialist baby in the crib.
Someone’s never heard of different policy. The USSR became a strategic ally to take on an bigger foe at the time: Nazi Germany. Many war planner wanted to continue on eastward.
Did the US and the West continue or settled for some sort of peaceful/Cold War co existence as did the USSR?
The quote was “This is why the West never wanted to allow the USSR to breathe”. The West sent as much aid as possible in many shape and form during the Second World War, from Spam to P-63 Aircobras. It wasn’t out of the kindness of Roosevelt, Churchill and MacKenzie King’s hearts, it was a cynical ploy, to keep the Soviet Union in the war, and saved Western Allies Soldiers’ lives, given the German suffered 75% of their casualties in the Second World War on the Eastern Front.
The Radar that the US sent to Soviet Union during the Second World War, was the foundation of Soviet Union’s radar development in the Cold War, which the US basically followed like a road map, given they gave them the radar the Soviets built on, and the US could follow and know how to defeat for example.
The Soviet Union didn’t need to be Allies with the Capitalist West during the Second World War. The Soviets are the only nation that made serious deals with all the belligerents during the Second World War, (Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet Japanese Non Aggression Pact of 1941, the three major Allied Conferences that set up the post 1945 world, hell the Soviets made agreements with their bitter enemy, the Polish Government in Exile, and invited De Gaulle Provisional Government to Moscow.
Look up "Operation Unthinkable".
They assisted the USSR because the West couldn't face the Germans alone.
Remember that after France and the UK declared war on Germany, Germany occupied France in like 6 weeks and the Brits took a good beating from like 10% of German military.
Right after the war Churchill wanted Americans to attack the USSR. Americans declined because it would be WW3 that they can't win so they told Winston to stfu.
Read Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. It wasn't about "beating the US." It was about establishing socialism everywhere on the planet. Proletarians of the world, unite!
I believe it's because the soviet union was an existential threat to the American business owners and western capital more broadly. soviet union has seen unprecedented success in industrialisation, urbanisation, shrinkage of poverty and an immense elevation of soviet people's quality of life. something that could inspire the proletariat of the west so it had to be destroyed to protect the interest of those in charge
Except the Soviet Union literally collapsed under its own weight.
The Soviet Union was an imperialist power to enforce its will on those behind the iron curtain. This wasn't communistic, it was the continuation of Tsarist Russia imperial ambitions
No no no, according to this sub, the USSR collapsed because no one who came after Stalin was communistic enough.
I don't understand the historical revisionism in this sub. It doesn't even match the writings or statements of Soviet leaders.
[removed]
Your post has been removed for violating our policy on hate speech. This includes any form of racism, bigotry, slurs, or discriminatory language.
Because America was the only other superpower to compete for world dominance with.
[removed]
Your post has been removed for violating our policy on hate speech. This includes any form of racism, bigotry, slurs, or discriminatory language.
Because saying something and the intentions are two different things.
[removed]
Your post has been removed for violating our policy on hate speech. This includes any form of racism, bigotry, slurs, or discriminatory language.
They twisted historical facts as they always do. They dropped two nukes on civilian population already negotiating surrender to them, so its the Soviets (and the entire world) was scared of the imperial maniacs and not the other way around.
Edit: Same old Hamas didn't want to surrender so we leveled Gaza replies... Same energy from westerners...
The civilian leadership of Japan was negotiating, not the military. Half of the supreme war council was willing to surrender the other half weren't.
With even some more hawkish members of the Japanese government plotting to coup the emperor as he wanted to surrender.
Japan was nowhere near negotiating a peace
Japan was not in negotiations with the US before the dropping of the Atomic Bomb at Hiroshima. The combination of the Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, which was Japan’s last hope for a negotiated peace with the Soviet Union as a mediator, showed most of the Japanese Government the gig was up.
The main obstacle for negotiations between the US and Japan, was the Japanese Army Leaders. The secondary group that was blocking negotiations with Japan, was James Byrnes and part of the US Government who wanted a very strict unconditional surrender agreement with Japan. Japan on Aug. 15, 1945, agreed to the Potsdam Declaration by the Western Allies, after some key meetings and crucial votes within the Japanese War Council, with the Emperor giving the crucial vote.
The western usurers can't afford regime in russia which won't be giving away Russia's resources for free
Both the US and the Soviet Union wanted to increase their sphere of influences. Both wanted bigger buffers and PR success stories, to both increase their hegemony and to make the other side to lose face/lose prestige.
In the scheme of short term PR, the Soviet Union did quite well post 1945. They appeared to build a monolithic bloc. They drained the US Treasury by supplying the North Vietnamese at the fraction of the cost in an ordeal that was tearing the US apart, (The Vietnam War) The Soviet Union increased their influence in the post colonial world in Asia and Africa, and even got an ally in Cuba.
In the long term post 1945, the Soviet Union was paving their way to their own self destruction. Their economy never worked properly, they allocated a huge amount of their GDP to Defense spending and built a huge military industrial complex with a smaller GDP than the US. Those Soviet Allies in Asia and Africa was a drain of Soviet resources that they couldn't really got much in return.
The US did a petty two can play that game, by supporting unrest in Afghanistan before the Soviet Intervention in Dec. 1979, that like the US in the Vietnam War, drain Soviet resources they could ill afford to do at the time.
The monolithic Communist Power showed huge cracks with the Sino Soviet rift from the late 1950s onward, that it took the US until 1971 to figure out.
The US was paranoid of the "Domino Theory" where if one country like South Vietnam fell to communism, other countries in SE Asia would fall. Ironically what happened, the "Domino Theory" came about in Eastern and Central Europe in 1989-1990, with the simultaneous collapsed of Soviet Allies in Europe, with the biggest domino, East Germany collapsing by Dec. 1989.
Both Superpowers from 1945-1991, were no victims and no innocent lambs. They played power politics that would was something out of Florentine Renaissance and the Medicis. Khrushchev trim the sails of the Stalinist Secret Police State, but kept most of the Soviet Apparatus in place, so the layer of Stalinist Bureaucracy remain in place. So Copy machines, that one could use at a public library for a couple coins in the 1970s-1990s in the West, had a huge layer of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, where the KGB controlled any copying at the Soviet Workplace, for example.
Because the USA restricted their expansion into Europe. Take a look at a pre and post war map of Europe.
Read "the Long Telegram".
Only one country can dominate the world
It's Russian culture. It's engrained in them to their very core that if you're not number 1, you get told what's what and they want to be the one to tell everyone else what's what. It's really this simple. A very medieval and primitive mindset, but they seem to like it that way to the point they would rather burn the world down than be in what they see as 2nd place.
Imperialism inherited from Russia. You can’t change people mindset instantly.
they were drinking that hate-o-rade
The Soviets did a lot more than just send a few migs. They occupied North Korea and installed Kim Il Sung, and then provided a huge amount of equipment, planning and expertise.
Tgery were in imperialist competition.
And having an external enemy makes internal control easier.