Why did Hitler attack the USSR?
>>472525
www.google.com
>>472525
>communists
>Slavs
>Jews
Literally everything he hates
>>472525
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6o84NU9Ees
>>472525
1) Because communism was considered the greatest threat to European culture. Remember, Hitler viewed the Bolshevists as controlled by jews.
2) Because he wanted their land to settle Aryan colonists in. In Mein Kampf he writes that you could either colonize empty land, of which there was little left, or already inhabited land, in which case you'd need to remove the existing inhabitants. Goebbels later stated, without any hint of emotion, that he fully expected that tens of millions of people in the invaded territory would (and should) starve to death in the coming years.
>>472525
If only he had written some kind of book explaining his plans and what he intended to do.
For russia's oil as well as everthing mentioned by >>472539
>>472525
cozz he was mad and afraid of them (strike first so they don't double cross you)
>>472525
Easy. Because he was evil.
>>472525
muh lebensraum
Stalin would have invaded first. It's a shame he didn't invest more into bombers for the Luftwaffe. Perhaps they could have helped land the decisive blow at Moscow.
>>473130
>Killing commie bastards
>Evil
>>473541
everyone new war was inevitable between the two, it was all a matter of who struck first.
off yourself for jumping to the ""AAAEEE BACK2PO""
The USSR was always the target. Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France.
When France was beaten and the Atlantic Wall secured Hitler moved back to Plan A, invade to the East to acquire resources.
>>473562
>Never wanted a war with France and Britain
He didn't want a war with Britain. He was hoping to use The Battle of France as a way to dissuade the Brits from doing anything.
.........with regards to France, it was always Hitlers intention to redeem Germany for what they felt was an unjust end to a brutal war....
>>473562
>Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France.
Half true. Hitler hoped to cultivate peace with Britian, but he had a score to settle with France, and would have probably dedicated the entire war effort in that country alone had they put of a proper fight.
>>473603
His second Book also talks about the necessity of reducing France's territory so that it will never again be a threat to Germany.
>>473647
He was inspired by the size of the USA.
Would Germany have stopped after reattaining the land they lost due to WW1 had France and Britain not declared war?
>>473698
No. Hitler explicitly and publicly rejected status quo antebellum as an objective for German Nationalists.
That was THE issue in Hitler's struggle to control the German Far Right.
>>472525
He was ideologically bound to and he wanted territory. He attacked at the moment they were weakest. Had he waited their war machine would have been too much for him to handle.
>>472540
interesting. thanks anon.
>>473711
I wonder if France and Britain would have declared war on Germany for invading Poland had the leader of Germany made it clear he only wanted to reclaim the lands lost at the end of WW1.
>>472525
>Why did Hitler attack the USSR?
Because both Germany and Japan were poor countries with no oil. You need oil to fight a modern war. Keep in mind it wasnt Hitler vs Stalin, it was Germany and Japan against USSR, and both of those needed oil RIGHT THE FUCK NOW. Russia had oil near its borders with both these countries.
Basically Germany had its chance at world relevance and missed it, just as Otto von Bismarck said (of Prussia, at the time). The moment oil became an integral part of war is the moment Germany started getting weaker, by the day.
>>473270
Germany had more than enough land at this point, it was just war for oil, or if you want to give the Germans more credit than they deserve, it was a war of justified paranoia, knowing that they will eventually have to fight Russia, and preferring to do so before she industrializes.
Because he had intelligence on the soviet plans to invade europe after the axis and western allies fight each other to exhaustion and waiting for the soviet invasion to come would give stalin the initiative. Its called operation thunder.
>>473550
Learn English before attempting to discuss history.
And I'll make a wild speculation here, and say that there would probably be better opportunities to strike, rather than doing it while you are at war in all directions.
>>473516
>>473569
>the FACT that USSR would have invaded first
Do you know how the communist got into power? By saying they want peace. By saying that when they come into power, they will get peace on the same day, regardless of terms. And they did, they got peace on shit terms during WWI, despite being able to stall for better ones.
Communists got and stayed in power by talking about peace, that was their whole gimmick before forcing them to mutate into the red army defending motherland thing.
USSR's plan was to help countries rebuild after the war, not to join the war. That was the point in time when commies were following the ideal of a country ran by scientists and engineers, of factories and communes. Nobody wanted war and nobody was planning it.
>>473711
>Adolf "I want to be remembered in history as the greatest roman emperor" Hitler
>knowing when to back down
Its like you dont know the man at all.
>>474492
Do you have a single fact to back those wild claims up?
>>474508
inb4
>muh suvoroooovvvvvvvv
>>474517
>suvorow
But that guy doesnt have a single fact to back his wild claims up. His book, which I have read, is just speculations and assumptions, with some of them making more sense than others, but neither being proven.
>>472525
>lebensraum
>oil
>fucking Bolsheviks
>fucking Jews
>preeminent strike
>raving superiority complex
All of the above
>>474542
>lebensraum
Germany already had enough land to be the most sparsely populated of the european powers.
>oil
This, and only this.
>fucking Bolsheviks
They were allies a moment ago, apparently they didnt hate them enough.
>fucking Jews
Same as above.
>preeminent strike
No proof that USSR was preparing an attack, no proof today and no proof back then.
>raving superiority complex
Studying history I cant accept that the german government and command was that incompetent.
It was war for oil. They needed oil, because they were running out. The war was going on for too long, the country wasnt prepared. USA refusing to trade oil to the germans and japanese was the last nail in the coffin.
>>474549
Hitler's experts had told him that Germany didn't have enough farm land yet to be completely self sufficient and that taking more land to the East was necessary.
>>474551
Can you link me to the extensive research they conducted to come to these conclusions, or is this just something you know because it was used as a further reason to justify attacking USSR after the fact?
>>472525
his whole thing was being anti-jew and anti-gommie + lebensraum + the commies would attack him anyway, and if so they'd get to Berlin in 4 months not 4 years
>>474549
Oh, and Hitler only invaded Poland alongside the USSR to obtain the land it lost in WW1 and to leave the USSR more open to a German offensive, not because they were forging a long lasting alliance.
>>474554
Nigger, I don't even know where I heard it. But if you know of a half way decent source that disagrees then I'll stop saying it.
>>474558
>germany only invaded poland so they can invade russia later
>but they only invaded russia as a defensive war in a preemptive strike
Do you comprehend what you are saying? Either its a defensive war and preemptive strike, or it was a planned invasion going back years earlier.
Besides, USSR helped Germany reorganize its industry and military after WWI, and later Germany helped USSR with the same when they got on their feet. There was cooperation.
>>474562
>i cant prove myself right, but you cant prove me wrong ;p
Post discarded.
>>474508
how the fact that the Soviet Union actually did invade Europe immediately after defeating the nazis?
>>474500
>hurt you don't speaking English properly so you must be wrong
Fuck off, cancer
>>474571
>after
that was kinda during senpai, not even the guy you're arguing with
>>474571
>you slapped me back after i slapped you
>thus you secretly always wanted to slap me and were looking for a chance to do so
>>474566
I never said it was a defensive war. I'm a different anon.
>>474592
Alright, I misunderstood you then. I still disagree, because at the time USSR and Germany were truly allies, exchanging specialists and planning together, and Hitler was a fan of von Bismarcks's idea that Germany can only be a power in Europe if Russia stays away from its ass. Germany also imported many raw resources from USSR, needed for the ever expanding railways network and war production.
However I am sure there was some plan to attack the USSR, as there was a USSR plan against Germany. At the time everyone had a plan to fight everyone, it was what the times were like. Mexico had plans to fight USA and USA had plans to fight Mexico and Canada. I'd be very worried if all those big military figures were getting paid without making and revising plans to attack every neighbor, thats what they are there for.
I just dont think that the invasion of Poland was made with further expansion east in mind. It was regaining lost land, working on the german national problem, and expanding the economy by taking land which would be easy to hold, since most people on it remember being germans not a few decades ago.
>>474492
>operation thunder
>Igor Bunich (September 28, 1937 – June 15, 2000) was a Russian historian known for offering a number of revisionist interpretations of Russian history.
Not only did the USSR prop up Germany economically with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but they had signed the German-Soviet Border agreement in January of 1941, Stalin had even drafted a proposal for the USSR to join the Axis that Hitler ignored. Does any of that sound like the actions of a nation planning to invade?
In 1941 the Red Army was still reeling from the purges of 1938 and well behind on rearmament too. If anything the amount of success seen by Germany against the USSR in 1941 should serve as a huge indicator that a Soviet attack on Germany was a non-starter.
>>474500
The commies got in power because they got butthurt when they realized people weren't voting for them in the short lived russian republic so they took power themselves, their revolution was the polar opposite of peaceful.
>>474549
OIL FOR THE OIL GOD!
>>474604
>at the time USSR and Germany were truly allies
at *one* time this was true - in the late 30s, it was no longer true, and even the soviets themselves, the more trusting side in this timeframe so to speak, were aware of this and stalin himself expected germany to break whatever pacts and agreements there were between the two countries and invade the ussr - just later than sooner
![mt-stupid[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/DeoR6Bi.png "mt-stupid[1].png")
>>474661
The whites too promised to secure peace, thats why they got in a coalition with the reds. However they they got in charge they saw they can stall and get a good deal, because Germany was losing, and didnt immediately sue for peace. Thats when the revolution happened, and the reds were widely supported, because of their peace promise which they fulfilled.
Basically the russians voted for peace, promised by both reds and whites. Whites turned cloak and went back to fighting the war, which they felt they can win. This led to the revolution, and people fought for the reds, which still promised peace.
>>474604
>since most people on it remember being germans not a few decades ago.
The areas in present day Poland taken away from Germany after WW1 were majority Polish. In fact, most of the regions Germany had lost back then were ethnically majorly non-German.
>>474500
>the commies must want peace because they said so
Hitler siad he wanted peace
the Soviet said they wanted a workers paradise
none of the above came about
on a side note why did your peaceful commies invade Poland to go and invade the rest of europe?
Why did your peaceful commies invade neutral Finland?
Why did your peaceful commies invade the baltic, incomperate the Ukrane, take half of Poland and swing their dicks around in the far east?
Looks like a lot of invasions for a "peaceful" regime
>>474672
It is a historical fact that USSR was not at all prepared for war when the german invasion started. It was probably the least prepared country on the planet.
So we have two possibilities here, the way I see it.
1. All of the soviet command was terribly incompetent, and they were the worst leaders in the world, failing to prepare for a war they knew was coming.
2. They didnt know the war was coming, because they considered the germans allies.
As easy it is to dismiss the commies as comic book villains, a more detailed reading on history paints them as far from complete morons, and this is further proven by them being able to prepare a defense and late and offense in a short period of time. So I feel that explanation 2 is the more likely one.
>>474679
>i have zero knowledge of international politics or the concept of realpolitik, but i feel a great urge to post about it
>>474678
Them being ethnically polish doesnt mean they werent germans a few decades ago.
You dont need to be ethnically german to be a german citizen.
>>474688
>no argument
lol
Go ahead, tell him why the USSR invaded all those countries if all they wanted was "peace" it's like neo nazis who say the allies declared war on germany.
>>474688
>muh commies were really peaceful and chill guys, they just invaded 5 nations within 2 years but that's just realpolitik man, you don't understand muh Marxist philosophy.
>>474683
from how the early stages of OP Barbarosa played out
1. incompetent
looks like the most logical
outdated and poorly maintained weaponry, disorganised command, weak leadership and local counter attacks leading to massive losses
might have something to do whit the purges and sending most of the half and fuly competent officers to the far east
>>474683
you go from 'they didn't expect anything at all' to 'they expected but were stupid' while ignoring the vast area in between - that they considered germany breaking the pacts a distinct possibility in the upcoming years, but not in the timeframe of a few months/years... which was historically the case
not only was stalin aware of hitler's anti-russian rhetoric, but in fact, in late 1940, he literally tasked his generals with preparations against a german invasion that he thought would happen in about three years
>>474703
Early stages of Barbarosa played out the way they did because of the lack of preparation, not because of poor preparation.
There was a lack of preparation because the invasion wasnt expected.
>>474708
>the soviet party came into power promising peace
>sign peace
>immediately start one of the deadliest civil wars in the world
yeah guys hitler promised to fix all germany's problems by killing the jews and he did
>>474690
So them being Poles in their own Polish state, and suddenly being thrown back into a state that was not their own nation state, would somehow make the area "easier to hold"?
>>474716
The peace came after the revolution, and as a result of the revolution.
The civil war was between the faction which wanted to continue the war and win it, and the faction that wanted a peace no matter the terms.
Please stop talking about things you dont understand.
>>474688
so how was the invasion of the USSR no realpolitik?
we have a far larger neighbour that will in time come to overshadow us due to raw manpower, resources and industry. Might be a good iedae to sort them out now then to wait for a decade.
And to secure our rear we need to first take out france and the untrustworthy elements in the motherland (ie: the juce)
congratulations you've just made the argument by proxy for Hitler being a locical peaceful nice guy
your 88 dub confirmes this
>>474713
the soviet had very good intel about the invasion
the top brass simply ignored it becaue they where retarded incompetent fuckwits likeing the shit from Stalins ass
and Stalin thought they had more time/no attack would come just jet
>>474713
see state defense plan dp-41
see stalin's military planning meeting in december 1940
see books by berton or waller
they literally expected war to happen - not as soon as it had in real life, but to an extent that removes any credibility from the 'they thought they were good buddies and didn't believe there would be war at all!' viewpoint
>>474736
Military planning was done for all possible situations. There were plans to invade Canada, USA, China, Japan, everything. Thats just what the military guys on top did. It was their job to shit out such plans.
That doesnt mean that any preparations were made, or that anyone thought such events would unfold. Most of the plans were unrealistic as fuck and only there just in case, without anyone thinking they'd ever need to use them.
>>474720
yeah man hitler just wanted peace by killing all those jews man the allies declared war first hitler was the gandhi of his day he had to fight WWII for peace
>>474747
>can plan for a war
>can't see one comming
>never mind all the intel of the germans moving their armor in mass to our western border
sounds pretty damn incompetent to me
>>474754
>4747 confirms it
>/pol/ was right all along
>hitler the second coming of christ killed by the christ killers
>>474752
Do you really assume that this low quality shitposting is proving your point?
The only thing it does is force me out of the thread, because I'd rather not have to deal with children.
>>474762
he's making fun of how retared you are
and doing a great job at it to
>>474767
Responding to arguments with insults only makes fun of the person posting insults. Anyway, by all means stick to this thread, and dont taint the rest of the board with your stupidity.
>>474774
yea sure you respond with insults and no arguments
asking proof from others while providing no for your own claims
keep at it for a bit and others will just mimick you for shits and giggles
just look at how buthurt and angry you've become because you've faild at fanboying for stalin and the commies.
>>474473
The Caucasus is near neither border the Siviets had with Germany's sphere of influence or with Manchuria.
>>474549
>Germany already had enough land to be the most sparsely populated of the european powers.
What is propaganda?
>They were allies a moment ago, apparently they didnt hate them enough.
Yeah they were the bestest of friends. Who knew a mad dictator would ever betray an ally?
>Same as above.
Sorry, the Jews were allies? Are we not talking about NAZI Germany?
>No proof that USSR was preparing an attack, no proof today and no proof back then
Who needs proof. All you need is the fear or conviction that they are, or soon will be capable of such an attack. Would you have trusted Stalin? Didn’t think so.
>Studying history I cant accept that the german government and command was that incompetent.
Than you need so study some more. Might I suggest that you focus one the one they called Fuhrer?
Yes, oil was the most urgent and immediate military motivation. But it sure as hell wasn’t the only reason.
>>472525
LEBENSRAUM
>>474500
>USSR peaceful
>Stalin peaceful
Wew lad
>>474747
By your logic no one has ever *really* planned to invade anyone. Because plans to invade other countries exist.
>>472525
He wanted to recreate the American tale of driving the native americans out, and taking the land. Except he wanted it done with slavs.
>>473623
Only because they overestimated its military might
Hitler really hated France
>>472525
Opiums a hell of a drug
>>475900
>tfw you will never be a cowboy on the old east, shooting corrupt Reichskommisars and defending qt German women from tribal Slav raids.
>>472525
to get to the other side
>>472542
>Goebbels later stated, without any hint of emotion, that he fully expected that tens of millions of people in the invaded territory would (and should) starve to death in the coming years.
Stalin was ahead of him.
By 10 years.
>>474640
It sounds like the actions of an evil genius. WWII was a Soviet plot for world domination. It was called "Operation: Icebreaker". The plan was to get all of his enemies in Europe to destroy one another, thus giving him all of Europe unopposed. It was Stalin who talked Hitler into invading Poland, knowing full well it would instigate a war with Britain and France. When Hitler invaded the East, the Soviets were preparing for offensive operations, not defensive ones. Its one of the reasons that the Germans were able to blow through Stalin's defenses initially. Materials from the KGB archvies heavily suggests this to be the case.
>>478772
>tens of millions
You look like the birth of the industrial revolution, because you're spinning lies and making things out of whole cloth.
>>475974
I don't think they overestimated France's military might. What did France in was Belgium not playing ball with the construction of the Maginot Line and the bombing of Warsaw scaring the ever loving shit out of Parisians. The front quickly progressed to Paris and instead of risking the destruction Paris the French gave up.
>>479297
>tens of million
not the same guy, but you look like an asshole who jumps at a buzz word without comprehending the full post. I.e. you're dump as fuck
>>479382
>tens of millions [of Soviet citizens were starved by Stalin]
A whole variety of historians will be interested in your paper if it could make it past peer review.
>>479382
>dump
>>473730
Well, wasn't it anyway in the end?
>>474500
>Do you know how the communist got into power? By saying they want peace. By saying that when they come into power, they will get peace on the same day, regardless of terms. And they did, they got peace on shit terms during WWI, despite being able to stall for better ones.
In 1917.
>hated groups just waiting to get persecuted
>oil
>land that would cement the reach as a global power
>lots of men
>>472540
More people should see this as a primary source. Sure, it's discussable how reliable it is, but it is form the perspective of Hitler, which he presents to the German people.
>>472525
The conversation between Hitler and Mannerheim should answer your question
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVqxoA52kjI
>>479386
Found the Tankie
>>482229
Hey, if they said "millions" I'd agree. "Tens of millions" starved isn't agreed.
>>482237
Ok, so somewhere between 2-7 million starved and quite a few million more killed in Ukraine and other countries(Poland/ The Balts, etc). Is that fair?
>>482252
More or less. Though by focusing on death you're avoiding peoples' ability to control their own lives. Which I'd seat more centrally.
>>482275
>by focusing on death you're avoiding peoples' ability to control their own lives.
>Controlling your own life
>In a Totalitarian dictatorship
Shiggy diggy. Also, no reason to use a name friendo, it's obvious who I am speaking to.
>>482284
>totalitarian
…
>dictatorship
…
You're missing a lot of the complexity of the Soviet Union.
>>482290
Do you know what a "Tankie" is? You might save me a whole lot of time here if you'd just answer this one question.
>>482298
A tankie is a supporter of the Brezhnev line in the Soviet Union over Dubček and the Czechoslovak party's decision to more Czechoslovak economics and society towards a workers control model of socialism under the guidance of a dominant soviet-aligned party.
In general it refers to the decision of the Soviet party and similar parties to use non-political force in resolving matters with fraternal socialist states and non-fraternal states. In this sense "tankie" is often, but not exclusively, a synonym for Stalinist.
Tankie can be contrasted with "eurocommunist" and the "new times." It can also be contrasted with the M-Ls.
>>482318
>In this sense "tankie" is often, but not exclusively, a synonym for Stalinist.
Right. So, what "complexity" existed in the USSR in the general time period that this thread is discussing? Please, I'm all ears.
>>482323
As Fitzpatrick shows, the society wasn't totalised. While political competition as in the West didn't exist, underground SR and Trotskyist organisations existed, and competing lines at a local level, and through institutions existed everywhere. Society wasn't "total." Rather Stalinism relied on a fragmented governance at local levels around broad agreed directions.
Secondly, in relation to democracy, on non-line issues Stalin was amenable to Politbureau democracy, even to the point of whinging at the Pb in 1932 (IIRC) to his deputy that the Pb ought to just decide shit instead of writing to him on holiday.
Correspondingly, when the Ural-Siberian method (independently developed) was demanded spontaneously by workers and lower level party figures in the capitals, Stalin *tailended* the ultra-left movement. While democracy didn't "exist," nor was this a dictatorship. Petitioning through the party could eliminate policies and position holders.
Similarly, the attack on the "kulaks" was designed to strip the autonomous network of grey food markets of its power to dictate social policy to the state ("the scissors crises") by reducing peasant incomes to pre-revolutionary levels and cementing party control over the countryside. While this was achieved through productivity loss rather than movement of surplus from peasant to party, castrating the small traders on the grey market was more important than gross output.
Never mind that most workers experienced the 1930s as a period of growth of incomes, largely due to skill inflation and reduced exertion and hours.
>>482290
Not that guy, while I'm sure there was more to it than that, it was undeniably both of those. Totalitarian states are defined both by being very authoritarian and considering no aspect of a person's private life to be outside of the state's concern.
>>482352
>it was undeniably both of those
How much do you know about US humanities and social science scholarship in the 1950s? Because you're using loaded theoretical terms while ignorant of their genealogy.
>>482369
I don't? I was just saying the USSR was both Totalitarian and a dictatorship. Sure some power was decentralized and democratic, but it still came back to a single figure who had absolute veto and decision making power should he choose to take it and was a state where every element of its citizen's private life was considered a matter of state interest to safeguard against counter-revolutionary or reactionary sentiments.
>>482375
>Totalitarian states are defined both by being very authoritarian and considering no aspect of a person's private life to be outside of the state's concern.
And "authoritarian" is just a way of differentiating totalitarian states that were US allies.
Vacuous in theory.
>but it still came back to a single figure who had absolute veto and decision making power should he choose to take it
As the Ural-Siberian method's adoption shows, you are wrong in fact.
>a state where every element of its citizen's private life was considered a matter of state interest
Except it wasn't. Few proles got shopped for politics and much of the NKVD's surveillance was extra-legal and therefore rare and dedicated.
By your definitions, as of 1989 with the 5-eyes / echelon system the following states were totalitarian and authoritarian:
The United States of America
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Canada
New Zealand / Aotearoa
the Commonwealth of Australia
>>472525
Russia would probably have attacked anyway. By the 40's it was so overwhelmingly powerful that nothing could really stop it.
>>472525
Because the Russians would have eventually attacked him anyway. The Polish border was too close to Berlin, pushing Stalin back was a good move. Continuing to push to Stalingrad was not.
>>482397
>And "authoritarian" is just a way of differentiating totalitarian states that were US allies.
No. All totalitarian states are authoritarian, not all authoritarian states are totalitarian. The defining feature of totalitarianism is that the totalitarian state considers all matters of society to be the purview of the state, whereas one that is simply authoritarian will demand its due and not care if you don't fuck with it.
>As the Ural-Siberian method's adoption shows, you are wrong in fact.
How so?
>Except it wasn't. Few proles got shopped for politics and much of the NKVD's surveillance was extra-legal and therefore rare and dedicated.
Totalitarian doesn't necessarily mean they effectively enforce or survey.
>By your definitions, as of 1989 with the 5-eyes / echelon system the following states were totalitarian and authoritarian:
No. They do not consider every matter of society, down to the private lives of their citizenry to be matters of state concern.
>>482472
>The defining feature of totalitarianism is
Some idealist bullshit you're parroting off a hawk democrat from 1952.
Your definitions are worthless, they refer only to themselves (via their norms).
The urban proletariat demanded the ural-siberian method and Stalin tail-ended them. If you don't know what tail-ending is you really shouldn't talk about the Soviet Union.
>Totalitarian doesn't necessarily mean they effectively enforce or survey.
I'm glad to see that you've just proved yourself a cunt about defacto dejure.
>They do not consider every matter of society
The official consideration of the Soviet Union was the 1936 constitution.
>>482502
>Some idealist bullshit you're parroting off a hawk democrat from 1952.
Are you a Marxist-Leninist? I need to know before I consider whether this conversation is worth continuing.
>your definitions are worthless
How so? They define distinct modes of society.
>The urban prolitariat demanded
Stalin gave them what they wanted. He could have denied them, had them shot, and the whole thing forgotten. He was a dictator.
>The official consideration of the Soviet Union was the 1936 constitution.
And the Soviet Union spent a lot of time imprisoning and executing people for counter-revolutionary actions and ideals. A country in which you can think "wrongly" in an official capacity is unabashedly totalitarian, flat out.
I'm not sure why you're so hostile to this definition, if you favour totalitarianism, you favour totalitarianism, own it.
>>482537
Damn, meant to post this. Anyway, he's obviously some pseudo-intellectual who masturbates to his own idealized version of Communism and he needs to go back to /lit/ or /trash/, whichever is quicker honestly.
>>482515
>Are you a Marxist-Leninist? I need to know before I consider whether this conversation is worth continuing.
God no. I'm a libcom.
>How so? They define distinct modes of society.
I can define the two germanies based on banana consumption, this doesn't make the definition significant, useful, or meaningful.
>Stalin gave them what they wanted. He could have denied them, had them shot, and the whole thing forgotten. He was a dictator.
No, he couldn't have. He was facing a new Kronstadt in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
>A country in which you can think "wrongly" in an official capacity is unabashedly totalitarian, flat out.
Wrongful thought was protected under the 1936 constitution.
You flip between dejure defences of the Western democracies and defacto attacks on Soviet capitalism. It is hypocritical.
>if you favour totalitarianism, you favour totalitarianism, own it.
If you favour banana eating, you favour banana eating, own it.
Random "definitions" are spurious.
>>482549
>I'm a libcom.
Well you sure spend a lot of time parroting the tankie line.
What are you, some form of epistemological nihilist? These are distinct definitions that define the political climate of these regions, as socialism and capitalism define nations.
>No, he couldn't have. He was facing a new Kronstadt in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
He could have dealt with it the same fucking way Trotsky dealt with Kronstadt, the same way the USSR dealt with every other popular uprising.
>You flip between dejure defences of the Western democracies and defacto attacks on Soviet capitalism. It is hypocritical.
I'm not defending or attacking either. One meets the definition of one term, the other does not meet that definition.
Also I fucking love bananas and don't you forget it.
>>482565
>Well you sure spend a lot of time parroting the tankie line.
There's been a great deal of revision amongst the left about the split between tankie membership and leadership, largely based on the increased attention to praxis over intellectual theories held by leaderships.
>What are you, some form of epistemological nihilist?
No, I'm just someone who demands that theoretical categories be substantiable in fact and elucidate problems in society. Like the example I gave with DDR banana eating: the difference between the DDR and the BRD is not summed up in banana consumption per head.
>>482565
>He could have dealt with it the same fucking way Trotsky dealt with Kronstadt, the same way the USSR dealt with every other popular uprising.
Stalin could have dealt with a three capitals rising with the peasants off side, the red army weak, and the party riddled with leftists and rightists.
Sure.
Kronstadt being restricted to one all-party soviet in one suburb helped.
>One meets the definition of one term, the other does not meet that definition.
The soviet union ONLY meets the definition defacto. Dejure it was a democracy with freedom of speech. The echelon members ONLY avoid the definition dejure. Defacto they meet the definition of totalitarianism.
Move on from some wasted out 1950s piece of US ideology in your picture of the Soviet union. Detest it for what it was, not for what some vacuous theory claims it was.
>>482579
>Detest it for what it was
Totalitarian. That may trigger you, but that's what it was.
>>482587
>My definitions because of my definitions.
I could tell you ate bananas. You goddamn peeler.
>>482601
It's a useful definition that it fits. What exactly is your problem with it? Should we stop calling societies anything now?
Also I already told you, I fucking love bananas. I'm deeply upset that you forgot that.
>>482611
My problem is that it reduces the actuality of the Soviet Union to nothing, it disregards internal tensions, it is a great man theory which is belied by the history of Stalin's interactions. It is fabulous, it is fabricationist. It plays a political role for US Democrat hawks, and as an analytical term it is degraded by that. It privileges "dejure" conceptions but relies on defacto analyses. It avoids completely proletarian freedom and disfreedom in the soviet union in favour of a rights narrative that only the bourgeoisie benefit from in the west.
It is weak, piss weak, and useless.
>>482617
But it doesn't do any of those. Saying that a society is one thing doesn't deny the complexities of a society. It's no more denying of the complexities of the Stalinist society to call it totalitarian than it is to call England a parliamentary monarchy.
>>482625
You've exceeded my willingness to play this game. Your reductivism isn't acceptable anywhere except in the most ossified political history courses. And thankfully I'm not liable to educate you.
>>482651
It's not reductivism. It's not saying that this thing is solely that thing. It's saying that this mode of society is one of many modes of society present within that society.
To go back to my previous example, how is it different from saying that England is a parliamentary monarchy?
>>482680
>parliamentary monarchy
It is a completely vacuous descriptive category of no value in producing further fruitful ideas and trivially falsified?
For pop culture indicators: Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister, a Very British Coup
For actual indicators: Mountbatten's execution avoided the pedophile themes which were institutionally covered up and the news story was D-noted
Preemptive strike to kill commies. Western Europe should thank their lucky stars he did, otherwise they've had been under the iron curtain too.
>>474473
>if you want to give the Germans more credit than they deserve, it was a war of justified paranoia, knowing that they will eventually have to fight Russia, and preferring to do so before she industrializes.
Why not just tone down the other ideological eggshells and focus on anti-Communism, then? He could have allied with the liberal democracies and Japan and destroyed the rooskies forever.
>>472525
Hubris
>>482852
And we're all luckily that Molotov's/Stalin's hubris is what played a big part in the Soviets not joining the Axis' powers.
>>474452
France had no chance since Hitler wanted to fuck them up no matter what
>>474558
>Oh, and Hitler only invaded Poland alongside the USSR to obtain the land it lost in WW1
Thats fucking wrong
He did it only because he wanted safe border in case war with france. His army didnt even have any war plans for war with poland untill 1939
>>472525
Because the USSR was literally lining up tanks on the border. Anyone who pretends the Soviets were better than the Nazis is a retard. They were both crazy murderous states.
Hitler's only mistake was letting those Faggot Englishmen from the expeditionary force live. He should have captured them and then lined them up every last one of them and shot them into a ditch.
>>472540
Based source
Well he had already conquered the West and was on a morale high, therefore he looked east to gain more soldiers, oil reserves, and of course other resources such as food (lebensraum). This and his hatred for the communist ideology and slavs in general led to the invasion of the Soviet Union. It is debatable whether or not Hitler was aware that the American's would attack so strongly but certainly this could also have been a factor and as a result he needed supplies to prepare and make sure the invasion could only come from one side, the west.
It was inevitable that Stalin would eventually make a move too, so why not hit first.
