Stalin's tomb in red flowers

And it failed miserably.

Communism goes against Human Nature and that is why it failed so badly.

AA

 

I keep bringing up the U.S. because me with you have begun dialogue about Stalin and Andrew Jackson
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=446951&page=20&p=1065958193#post1065958193

Many Russians also have forgiven Starlin for the bad things he's done.

 

Are you the one typing the English or are your posts so scrambled up because of the translation software you are using?

I can understand it if it is YOU posting the English but if it is the software you really need to use a different internet provider.

Your post say's..."I keep bringing up the U.S. because me with you have begun dialogue about Stalin and Andrew Jackson"...end quote Kiwi.

It should read...."I will keep bringing up what happened to the Indian's in the U.S. because you continue to discuss the differences between Stalin and Andrew Jackson."

Incidentally....I have not continued to bring up Andrew Jackson....you have.

Really dude....you need to use better translation software because I have to read your posts several times just to figure out what you are trying to say.

AA

 

Yes, Communism probably is possible only in Paradise...

 

Well it certainly failed miserably in reality so perhaps it works in Fantasy.

AA

 

I don't understand too what you try to tell now.

 

It hasn't failed. In the USSR there was no communism. Capitalists have destroyed it at an initial stage.

 

I will say it again.

Your translation software sucks!

Or....you need to brush up on your English if it's YOU who are making the mistakes.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

In the USSR there was a FALSE COMMUNISTIC STATE because Human Nature turned the USSR into a Dictatorship.

AA

 

The USSR was the fair state! Helped free of charge other poor countries. Human nature has also turned the US into the world Dictator.

 

Fair State??

Fair as far as what?

Allowing a the High Ranking Members of the Communist Party to party and enjoy life while the rest of Soviet Society lived in poverty?

The U.S. has it's issues but at least we have a LARGE MIDDLE CLASS.

More people own HOMES in the U.S. compared to any existing Nation and no Nation with a population of over 300 Million like the U.S. has such massive infrastructure, an average lifespan of 80 years old, large amounts of disposable income and such a high quality of life.

You had to wait in LINE just to get Coffee or for a while there...bread...back in the day's of Soviet Communism.

AA

 

I guess you missed the 80% of German forces part. It was only because of this were the Allies successfully in Taking Normandy. The Allies (Everyone not Just the US) gave it their all. America was running low on metals.

If Russia didn't occupy and and whipe out 80% of the German forces, an attack against Germany would have been unsuccessful. Germany would have finished developing their Atomic bomb. The world might have ended shortly after. Germany would have fueled it's war machine (it was running low) using virtually endless resources from Russia of course.

In addition, German jet fighters (yes, jet fighters) were many times superior than anything that anyone had. We destroyed most of them through bombing runs before they could take off. (THAT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE WEST WAS SUCCESSFUL IN TAKING BACK PARTS OF EUROPE)

So it took nearly everything that America had to fight the German 20%. They were exhausted and running low on metals. Yet here you are saying that America would havery still won fighting 5 times that number. Where are you getting your baseless fantasies from?

It took Everything that America had(combined with others mind you) to combat Germany's 20%.

 

I'll tell you a secret,sir : first bourgeois revolutions ended with the restoration,too,and as a result with ritual curses upon the Revolution , the "Corsican monster", with belief in the incompatibility of capitalism with human nature...So your argument is old as mammoth sh*t.

 

Would the commander of the group have the command authority to preemptively attack any approaching submarine or surface ship? It would not surprise me if you do not know or if that was "secret".

What are the odds that foreign intelligence agencies know exactly what the rules of engagement are for a carrier group? For instance the Chinese.

 

don't tell lies. Soviet peoples did not live in poverty. USSR was a well-off state. Communist party leaders were nowhere near enjoying life the Rockfellers anf Rothshields were.

 

more like you know nothing of history.

here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

 

In the USSR there was no poverty, you know it. All were middle class. The elite in providing and earnings, not strongly differed from middle class.

LINE to receive coffee, nonsense! LINE for bread were, but not because people lacked bread but because it was cost 20 ''kopeks'' - very cheap. At inhabitants in the village, at all families in the house was - one or two 100kg. bags with flour from which they baked bread, ''Pizza'', pies and other pastries from flour. When to the village came truck with bread, once a day. The line for cheap bread gathered. People bought this bread in a large number for themselves and for animals which almost all countrymen have.

I spoke already earlier... everything is learned in comparison - in the USSR in my time, for majority people -the life, wasn't worse than in the West.

 

lame attempts of yours to find refuge in guessing. Stalin won the war, and you now only can badmouth it.

don't make up stories. Patton would have taken Berlin if he could, Stalin demands or not, but he couldn't, and that's it.

bollocks! Stalin knew Hitler will attack, but the attack came before the expected date.

 

I guess I did miss the 80% number. The Russians might have faced close to 80% of Germany's tanks, but no way did they face 80% of its men, aircraft, or navy. According to General Jodl (from Ropp, War in the Modern World, p.342), by November 1943, it is estimated that Germany had 3.9M troops facing the USSR, 177K in Finland, 486K in Norway and Denmark, 1.37M in France and Belgium, 612k in the Balkans, and 412k in Italy. That makes 58% of soldiers deployed against Russia (including the Finland garrison). And that was after the West had already defeated hundreds of thousands (maybe over 1M?) German and Italian troops in North Africa, and that 58% doesn't include the rest of the Italian army in Italy.

I think aircraft, on average, were deployed disproportionately against the West throughout the war (although I haven't found the source yet). The West faced almost all of the U-boats and other navy, including the Italian navy. Russia faced almost no Japanese forces until the end of the war (when they were making their territorial pushes before the peace).

Other factors that helped the USSR were the vast supplies sent from the West and the West's relentless bombing of German industry, rail, and armaments.

But even without the USSR, Germany lost the war when they lost the battle for air supremacy, and thus the ability to invade Britain. Germany needed a knockout blow, because there was no way it would win a prolonged struggle. Germany just couldn't keep up with Allied production. Even in 1940, before Germany invaded the USSR, Britain alone was producing more tanks and aircraft than Germany. Here is a table of armaments production from Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, p.355:

(in billions of 1944 dollars)
1940: Britain = 3.5 USSR = 5 US = 1.5 Germany = 6 Japan = 1 Italy = .75
1941: Britain = 6.5 USSR = 8.5 US = 4.5 Germany = 6 Japan = 2 Italy = 1
1943: Britain = 11.1 USSR = 13.9 US = 37.5 Germany = 13.8 Japan = 4.5 Italy = 0

There was no way Germany could compete with the US+Britain+Canada+Australia production in the long run. Yes Germany was producing jet aircraft by 1944, but they could not produce them in large numbers, while the Allies were pumping out massive amounts of their own advanced weapons (mustangs, superfortresses, light carriers), and other tech like radar and Enigma code breaking.

Again, the war was over when Hitler found he couldn't attack Britain, before the Soviets joined. It would have taken longer, but it was over.

 

Typing in the battle of Moscow into Wikipedia and linking it isn't knowing history. Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is a fairly respected historical work. Here is what he says on p.342: "...Stalin's inept deployment orders in the face of the impending attack allowed the Germans to kill or capture three million Russians in the first four months of fighting..."

 

That's what Stalin and Lenin said. But they tried to implement full communism a couple of times, and it didn't work. They couldn't get rid of the market. In their attempts to eliminate it, they had to create a police structure that was ruthless, and pried into every aspect of Soviet life. If they didn't use the police the way they did, people would continue to privately use the market, which was obviously antithetical to integral socialism.

 

Finally, someone speaks the truth in here. People who think that the USSR was some destitute hellhole universally know nothing but propaganda on the subject. Everyone I've spoken to that was in the USSR describes it as being a pretty nice place to live, with a lot of security and no alienation of labour.

 

Did you talk to any Hungarians who lived through 1956, or Czechs who lived through 1968? How about village dwellers, peasants, kulaks, Jews, Tatars, Soviet prisoners returning home, NEPmen, Trotskyites, or Ukrainians?

 

I regard the soviet actions against the Hungarian and Czech resistances as no morally different than the US actions against vietnam and korea.

The village dwellers, peasants, jews, and tatars all had things better.

The kulaks deserved it.

The imprisonment of dissidents was unjustified, but they made up only about 30k of a total 800k criminals arrested during the purges.

The NEPmen knew that they were deriving their wealth from a temporary program.

The Ukranians weren't deliberately targeted by any government action.


The USSR's worst was not nearly as bad as the USA's worst, and their good was better. That's not to say that their government wasn't responsible for some truly evil acts, that's just saying that evil was pretty standard for governments of that time.

Read a book called 'The Triumph of Evil' for more details.

 

here more truth in my old post ...http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=437274&page=30&p=1065746871#post1065746871

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=437274&page=30&p=1065746926#post1065746926

 

What exactly Hungarians and Czechs ? As if there were totally anti-Soviet Hungary and Czechoslovakia.Quite contrary, societies was split and Soviets supported pro-Soviet parts.And supressed counterrevolution,btw.

And btw,did you talk to any Greek in 1945?

What happened with them? My grandfathers were peasants.Humor me.

What Tatars? There are Kazan,Volga,Siberian,Crimean and other Tatars.

And what about American Japanese?

What happened with them?

Why should we feel pity for them?

Demagogy again.There was never totally anti-Soviet and anti-Russian Ukraine.And before you glorify anti-Soviet Ukranians remember their deeds,Volyn massacre,for example.

You want to say that American prisoners never returned home? This gem I like most of all.