not a tankie, personally think stalins rule was atrocious, and that he was a fucking idiot who ruled out of fear and selfishness rather than for the good of his people. but the west did see him as valuable to fight the nazis, and the second the war was over churchill gave his iron curtain speech and deemed russia an enemy. and this was mainly based on the fact that russia had decided not to honour the debts accrued by the tsar to the west, post revolution. and so the west isolated russia through sanctions and funded the white army counter revolution in russia for years afterwards. which obviously did not help the famine situation, and just because it doesnt put a neat little bow on why these things happened, it doesnt mean we should ignore it. history is history. theres obviously a lot more minutia to this situation.
stalin is/was a monster, but the west was obviously more concerned with regaining capital post ww2 and destroying socialism/communism than they were for the wellbeing of russians/people in general. so really, the russian people were getting it from both angles for centuries and the decades that followed the formation of the soviet union.
fact is, stalin ruled under state capitalist authoritarianism, rather than full fledged socialism or the as of yet ever to be achieved communist ideal.
so its arguable from a semantics/technical point of view that communism hasnt killed anyone, as it has never existed.
but who am i to say that? im just some bitch, straight up on the toilert right now and my legs are falling asleep.
and the second the war was over churchill gave his iron curtain speech and deemed russia an enemy. and this was mainly based on the fact that russia had decided not to honour the debts accrued by the tsar to the west, post revolution. and so the west isolated russia through sanctions and funded the white army counter revolution in russia for years afterwards. which obviously did not help the famine situation, and just because it doesnt put a neat little bow on why these things happened, it doesnt mean we should ignore it. history is history. theres obviously a lot more minutia to this situation.
That’s not even close to true. Churchill was a lifelong anti-Communist, but the mood after WW2 was initially hopeful about reconciliation with the Sovs; the Iron Curtain speech was delivered in the context of the USSR making territorial demands and occupying countries that had agreed to be liberated, in addition to refusing to hold the democratic elections it agreed to in non-Soviet Eastern European countries. The issue of the Russian Empire’s debts was not even on the negotiating table; the Sovet Union refused to honor debts it itself had taken out during WW2; despite this, ‘sanctions’ were not levied on the Soviet Union after WW2, and for that matter, unconditional aid was offered under the Marshall Plan, which the USSR refused, and mandated all Warsaw Pact countries refuse. The White Army was only active in the Russian Civil War which ended ~25 years years before. The wartime famine under Lenin in 1921 could be argued to be due to bad circumstances, but the 1933 famine under Stalin was nothing less than grotesque mismanagement, coupled with targeted retribution against Ukraine for ‘resisting’ Stalin’s ‘glorious’ vision for the USSR.
thats another view of history and i appreciate your input. but you rewrote what i alluded to, parts of what you said are parts i didnt mention because i was offering a general summary. we can argue semantics and specifics if youd like but the fact of the matter is the west has done everything in its power to undermine communist and socialist countries since their inception.
specifically russia, which stood as an example for communist revolutionaries the world over, specifically within the confines of what they were able to do financially during the great depression, and then with increasing and varied amplitudes afterwards. trade embargos, denial of credit, tariffs, etc.
the white army/loyalists who were formerlly part of that army were still very much active after the fall of the tsarist regime, even decades later, obviously less militant and more so waging an ideological/political battle . this is part of what lead to the birth of gullags under lenin. and the slaughters under stalin, they didnt vanish overnight, and they 100% recieved support from the west after the revolution for a multitude of purposes that undermined russia with various degrees of aggression and differing tactics. and part of it not only was occupied land disputes, but unpaid debt, ideology, and economic reasons as well.
and yes it was gross mismanagment, but pretending like the west wasnt actively attempting to undermine or foster the flames of a counter revolution in russia post lenin, all the way up to the modern day is an example of western teachings on the subject. the truth, as they say, is always somewhere in the middle.
western influence in russia has been an issue since well before lenin could read or write, and long after stalin breathed his last.
im not saying what you said isnt true, nor do i disagree with your statements, its all part of the larger issues at the time, and we can sparse it out if you like. i got the time right now, im just making some seafood soup at the moment. perhaps you can allude to something i havent read yet. and perhaps direct me to some interesting sources i havent seen. im a fan of these interactions, and how propaganda works from both ends. im just basing my sources off of (some of) churchills letters/diaries/speeches, stalins diaries/letters/speeches (the maisky diaries specifically) as well as lenins and trotskys pamphlets and writings before, during, and after the october revolution up until their deaths, and a number of documentaries ive watched over the years on the subject. i will admit im less aquainted with churchills works and rhetoric besides “the hits”. so if thats a point of contention that you are better informed with, and you are willing to dissect, im all for it. id love to hear your takes.
thats another view of history and i appreciate your input. but you rewrote what i alluded to, parts of what you said are parts i didnt mention because i was offering a general summary.
I literally only addressed issues that I directly quoted you on above.
the white army/loyalists who were formerlly part of that army were still very much active after the fall of the tsarist regime, even decades later.
No. They really weren’t. The Whites were spent as a force within Russia by '23. The only Whites who remained active were emigres in other countries who spent most of their time moping and begging from their hosts.
this is part of what lead to the birth of gullags under lenin. and the slaughters under stalin,
Neither of those claims are true. The birth of the GULAG system arguably has its roots in the Tsarist regime, but its most infamous incarnation under Lenin was applied to political prisoners in general; and under Stalin simply whoever caught their neighbor’s ire at a given point in time.
, they didnt vanish overnight,
No, they vanished over the course of 5 years of civil war. And they weren’t that powerful to begin with; the Bolsheviks killed as many anarchists and dissident socialists as Whites during the civil war.
and they 100% recieved support from the west after the revolution for a multitude of purposes that undermined russia.
Only until the Russian Civil War was over. Fuck, man, most of Stalin’s industrial reforms were enabled by Western material and technical assistance in the 1930s.
and yes it was gross mismanagment, but pretending like the west wasnt actively attempting to undermine or foster the flames of a counter revolution in russia post lenin, all the way up to the modern day is an example of western teachings on the subject.
Again, the post-WW2 situation was outright hopeful in the West until it was clear to even the most naive that Stalin had no intention of keeping any of the promises he made.
the truth, as they say, is always somewhere in the middle.
The Golden Mean Fallacy is just that. The truth between Alex Jones claiming 10,000 water-breathing human hybrids in vats created by the UN and sane people claiming 0 is not 5,000. The truth is the truth, regardless of the range between claimants; and claimants can be completely correct or completely incorrect.
thats a great expansion on the subject, i appreciate your passion and input. it reads as a bit aggressive, but i respect your willingness to disagree with an agreeable statement. and to be honest i am not a fan of hostile debate, and am more of a casual conversationalist more than anything. that being said ill address some of what you said between mouthfuls of soup, and ill try to keep it as accurate as i can considering the inherent biases and interpretations that are inherent in this hotly debated subject.
No. They really weren’t. The Whites were spent as a force within Russia by '23. The only Whites who remained active were emigres in other countries who spent most of their time moping and begging from their hosts.
you can argue that the whites and former white army members, loyalists, anarchists, bolsheviks, and general opposition to stalin didnt attempt to undermine him consistently through his reign, even out of fear of death, but they did. even after they were seemingly “wiped out” you cant argue that there was no opposition, they simply no longer advertised their prior loyalties (at least not as openly). thats like saying every single german was a nazi during world war 2, and that there was no ideological resistance or simple sabotage. was it rare to find open opposition? absolutely, open opposition was a death/prison sentence in most cases, but underground movements and western funding for those movements in addition to their own domestic abilities were still happening periodically through the existence of the USSR.
Neither of those claims are true. The birth of the GULAG system arguably has its roots in the Tsarist regime, but its most infamous incarnation under Lenin was applied to political prisoners in general; and under Stalin simply whoever caught their neighbor’s ire at a given point in time
this felt like disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. so i wont spend much time on this one. you even mention it was arguable yourself, so i can assume you know what i meant and move on. blue dress, gold dress. if you want ill say EXPANDED and ravamped GULAGS. if thats a more agreeable statement for you.
Only until the Russian Civil War was over. Fuck, man, most of Stalin’s industrial reforms were enabled by Western material and technical assistance in the 1930s.
when i say after the revolution, im speaking about everything after the revolution. not just the 1930s. but the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and so on. should have been more clear on that, i guess. also its a known fact that stalin disliked the western influence that differed from his ideals of strict central planning during this period you mentioned, and he was correct in thinking that it wasnt just a simple exchange of goods and services, western trade unions, workers rights, cultural exchanges of foreign workers, etc, and he generally viewed any kind of investment, loans, or technical aid as capitalist penetration. and there was recorded intent for that as well from the west. so he wasnt wrong to question it from his standpoint. there was a mixture of cultural influence, political influence, and technological influence that he did not find agreeable to his standards. these “micro” aggressions were some of the many reasons that lead to further aggression from both sides that lead tonthe cold war.
Again, the post-WW2 situation was outright hopeful in the West until it was clear to even the most naive that Stalin had no intention of keeping any of the promises he made.
you said it yourself, it was clear, hence why they undermined russia in the coming decades whenever they could get away with it. everything from denying credit, trade embargos, tariffs, distribution of propaganda, even rebel radio networks. it wasnt always direct aggression. it had far more nuance than you are letting on.
The Golden Mean Fallacy is just that. The truth between Alex Jones claiming 10,000 water-breathing human hybrids in vats created by the UN and sane people claiming 0 is not 5,000. The truth is the truth, regardless of the range between claimants; and claimants can be completely correct or completely incorrect.
thats an entirely different argument and id argue in this case a false equivilence. history is written by the victors and dead men tell no tales. we can only surmise based off of available historical evidence and the words of historians who base their arguments on said evidence. and the evidence dictates that there was western influence in the USSR during lenin, stalin, and so on, with the express intent to simultaniously uplift profitable aspects, and undermine other less profitable aspects. and the various forms that takes to achieve it.
im not disagreeing with anything you are saying, in fact i understand everything you are saying, im just arguing that there is more nuance to what you are putting out there. its not as cut and dry or absolute as you are saying.
not a tankie, personally think stalins rule was atrocious, and that he was a fucking idiot who ruled out of fear and selfishness rather than for the good of his people. but the west did see him as valuable to fight the nazis, and the second the war was over churchill gave his iron curtain speech and deemed russia an enemy. and this was mainly based on the fact that russia had decided not to honour the debts accrued by the tsar to the west, post revolution. and so the west isolated russia through sanctions and funded the white army counter revolution in russia for years afterwards. which obviously did not help the famine situation, and just because it doesnt put a neat little bow on why these things happened, it doesnt mean we should ignore it. history is history. theres obviously a lot more minutia to this situation.
stalin is/was a monster, but the west was obviously more concerned with regaining capital post ww2 and destroying socialism/communism than they were for the wellbeing of russians/people in general. so really, the russian people were getting it from both angles for centuries and the decades that followed the formation of the soviet union.
fact is, stalin ruled under state capitalist authoritarianism, rather than full fledged socialism or the as of yet ever to be achieved communist ideal.
so its arguable from a semantics/technical point of view that communism hasnt killed anyone, as it has never existed.
but who am i to say that? im just some bitch, straight up on the toilert right now and my legs are falling asleep.
That’s not even close to true. Churchill was a lifelong anti-Communist, but the mood after WW2 was initially hopeful about reconciliation with the Sovs; the Iron Curtain speech was delivered in the context of the USSR making territorial demands and occupying countries that had agreed to be liberated, in addition to refusing to hold the democratic elections it agreed to in non-Soviet Eastern European countries. The issue of the Russian Empire’s debts was not even on the negotiating table; the Sovet Union refused to honor debts it itself had taken out during WW2; despite this, ‘sanctions’ were not levied on the Soviet Union after WW2, and for that matter, unconditional aid was offered under the Marshall Plan, which the USSR refused, and mandated all Warsaw Pact countries refuse. The White Army was only active in the Russian Civil War which ended ~25 years years before. The wartime famine under Lenin in 1921 could be argued to be due to bad circumstances, but the 1933 famine under Stalin was nothing less than grotesque mismanagement, coupled with targeted retribution against Ukraine for ‘resisting’ Stalin’s ‘glorious’ vision for the USSR.
thats another view of history and i appreciate your input. but you rewrote what i alluded to, parts of what you said are parts i didnt mention because i was offering a general summary. we can argue semantics and specifics if youd like but the fact of the matter is the west has done everything in its power to undermine communist and socialist countries since their inception. specifically russia, which stood as an example for communist revolutionaries the world over, specifically within the confines of what they were able to do financially during the great depression, and then with increasing and varied amplitudes afterwards. trade embargos, denial of credit, tariffs, etc.
the white army/loyalists who were formerlly part of that army were still very much active after the fall of the tsarist regime, even decades later, obviously less militant and more so waging an ideological/political battle . this is part of what lead to the birth of gullags under lenin. and the slaughters under stalin, they didnt vanish overnight, and they 100% recieved support from the west after the revolution for a multitude of purposes that undermined russia with various degrees of aggression and differing tactics. and part of it not only was occupied land disputes, but unpaid debt, ideology, and economic reasons as well.
and yes it was gross mismanagment, but pretending like the west wasnt actively attempting to undermine or foster the flames of a counter revolution in russia post lenin, all the way up to the modern day is an example of western teachings on the subject. the truth, as they say, is always somewhere in the middle.
western influence in russia has been an issue since well before lenin could read or write, and long after stalin breathed his last.
im not saying what you said isnt true, nor do i disagree with your statements, its all part of the larger issues at the time, and we can sparse it out if you like. i got the time right now, im just making some seafood soup at the moment. perhaps you can allude to something i havent read yet. and perhaps direct me to some interesting sources i havent seen. im a fan of these interactions, and how propaganda works from both ends. im just basing my sources off of (some of) churchills letters/diaries/speeches, stalins diaries/letters/speeches (the maisky diaries specifically) as well as lenins and trotskys pamphlets and writings before, during, and after the october revolution up until their deaths, and a number of documentaries ive watched over the years on the subject. i will admit im less aquainted with churchills works and rhetoric besides “the hits”. so if thats a point of contention that you are better informed with, and you are willing to dissect, im all for it. id love to hear your takes.
I literally only addressed issues that I directly quoted you on above.
No. They really weren’t. The Whites were spent as a force within Russia by '23. The only Whites who remained active were emigres in other countries who spent most of their time moping and begging from their hosts.
Neither of those claims are true. The birth of the GULAG system arguably has its roots in the Tsarist regime, but its most infamous incarnation under Lenin was applied to political prisoners in general; and under Stalin simply whoever caught their neighbor’s ire at a given point in time.
No, they vanished over the course of 5 years of civil war. And they weren’t that powerful to begin with; the Bolsheviks killed as many anarchists and dissident socialists as Whites during the civil war.
Only until the Russian Civil War was over. Fuck, man, most of Stalin’s industrial reforms were enabled by Western material and technical assistance in the 1930s.
Again, the post-WW2 situation was outright hopeful in the West until it was clear to even the most naive that Stalin had no intention of keeping any of the promises he made.
The Golden Mean Fallacy is just that. The truth between Alex Jones claiming 10,000 water-breathing human hybrids in vats created by the UN and sane people claiming 0 is not 5,000. The truth is the truth, regardless of the range between claimants; and claimants can be completely correct or completely incorrect.
thats a great expansion on the subject, i appreciate your passion and input. it reads as a bit aggressive, but i respect your willingness to disagree with an agreeable statement. and to be honest i am not a fan of hostile debate, and am more of a casual conversationalist more than anything. that being said ill address some of what you said between mouthfuls of soup, and ill try to keep it as accurate as i can considering the inherent biases and interpretations that are inherent in this hotly debated subject.
you can argue that the whites and former white army members, loyalists, anarchists, bolsheviks, and general opposition to stalin didnt attempt to undermine him consistently through his reign, even out of fear of death, but they did. even after they were seemingly “wiped out” you cant argue that there was no opposition, they simply no longer advertised their prior loyalties (at least not as openly). thats like saying every single german was a nazi during world war 2, and that there was no ideological resistance or simple sabotage. was it rare to find open opposition? absolutely, open opposition was a death/prison sentence in most cases, but underground movements and western funding for those movements in addition to their own domestic abilities were still happening periodically through the existence of the USSR.
this felt like disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. so i wont spend much time on this one. you even mention it was arguable yourself, so i can assume you know what i meant and move on. blue dress, gold dress. if you want ill say EXPANDED and ravamped GULAGS. if thats a more agreeable statement for you.
when i say after the revolution, im speaking about everything after the revolution. not just the 1930s. but the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and so on. should have been more clear on that, i guess. also its a known fact that stalin disliked the western influence that differed from his ideals of strict central planning during this period you mentioned, and he was correct in thinking that it wasnt just a simple exchange of goods and services, western trade unions, workers rights, cultural exchanges of foreign workers, etc, and he generally viewed any kind of investment, loans, or technical aid as capitalist penetration. and there was recorded intent for that as well from the west. so he wasnt wrong to question it from his standpoint. there was a mixture of cultural influence, political influence, and technological influence that he did not find agreeable to his standards. these “micro” aggressions were some of the many reasons that lead to further aggression from both sides that lead tonthe cold war.
you said it yourself, it was clear, hence why they undermined russia in the coming decades whenever they could get away with it. everything from denying credit, trade embargos, tariffs, distribution of propaganda, even rebel radio networks. it wasnt always direct aggression. it had far more nuance than you are letting on.
thats an entirely different argument and id argue in this case a false equivilence. history is written by the victors and dead men tell no tales. we can only surmise based off of available historical evidence and the words of historians who base their arguments on said evidence. and the evidence dictates that there was western influence in the USSR during lenin, stalin, and so on, with the express intent to simultaniously uplift profitable aspects, and undermine other less profitable aspects. and the various forms that takes to achieve it.
im not disagreeing with anything you are saying, in fact i understand everything you are saying, im just arguing that there is more nuance to what you are putting out there. its not as cut and dry or absolute as you are saying.