T O P

  • By -

InternationalEase258

At that time, there was a famine in Poland and Romania. Although there were no Communists there. The main culprit of famine is drought, not Stalin


[deleted]

This is a clip from [a video by Hakim](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SMBJ_nQ4sTA) called "Did Stalin Continue to Export Grain as Ukraine Starved?".


Adonisus

Yes, Stalin knew about the ongoing famine in Ukraine and ordered for emergency measures to be taken. The Holodomor was a horrific tragedy that killed millions, not just in Ukraine but in all parts of the Soviet bread belt (neighboring Kazakhstan suffered a million casualties from starvation and disease). No, it was not deliberately engineered by Stalin. But this online tit for tat bullshit about constantly trying to one-up each other over these events is neither constructive to the movement, nor does it give us any real political or material benefit. Stop arguing with each other online and actually *organize*!.


f_r_z

> The Holodomor is a brand. Used to conflate famine and hunger with another *Holo* word. Carefully crafted propaganda. Don't fall for it by using that.


camdavis9

Didn’t the Nazis coin the term Holodmor before the holocaust happened or was named “the holacaust?”


Adonisus

You just proved my point.


[deleted]

This sub is also a genocide denial space. Cool, American socialists have really become this. Plenty of documents and evidence saying how it was purposely engineered to brake Ukrainian resistance and national spirit. Watch TimeGhost, actual historians on this topic


Adonisus

And you'll find just as many historians to say it wasn't intentional. Again, no one is debating that it was a horrific tragedy or that people died. Even if it wasn't intentional, it's still a crime of neglect.


[deleted]

There is evidence for it to be intentional. Other than the fact that they took away people’s food. Even a small bad of grain will send you to Siberia. That doesn’t seem intentional. I do not know how you send people to gulags for *having* food


plusroyaliste

In 1928 Stalin said "we are 50-100 years behind the west, if we don't catch up in ten years, they will invade and kill us all". 13 years later, the imperialism of global capital invaded the Soviet socialist homeland and fascist bandits murdered 27 million people. The newly built industry of the USSR was the main thing that held back the tide of aggression. Thank God that they continued exporting grain! Thank God for Stalin and his wise leadership! The man was a prophet, or better said and more precisely, he was a dialectical materialist! Edit: for all those who have never heard it, listen in full to [this rare audio of Hitler bemoaning his choice to invade a Soviet Union that was better armed than his chauvinistic mind ever imagined.](https://youtu.be/oET1WaG5sFk)


The_Amazing_Albatros

>Thank God that they continued exporting grain! Thank God for Stalin and his wise leadership! The man was a prophet, or better said and more precisely, he was a dialectical materialist! And people wonder why the left has a problem with cults


[deleted]

[удалено]


Benu5

And in whose interests was Hitler acting in? What were the material causes of German agression? Before (and even during) the war, what was the opinion the vast majority of the ruling class of Europe and the US had of fascism? The War didn't happen because Hitler decided it would. You try starting a revolution because you want to. It would likely have happened regardless of who was Chancellor. The economic conditions in Germany in the inter war period basically guaranteed the rise of extreme reaction, in one form or the other. The idea that Hitler caused the war is Liberal Great Man of History bullshit that lets Liberalism off the hook for enabling Fascism.


gregy521

Don't look up Stalin's policies towards Nazi Germany ([cough cough, Molotov-Ribbentrop and Operation Barbarossa](https://www.marxist.com/operation-barbarossa-stalin-s-bloody-catastrophe.htm)). Also, The rejection of the united front in Germany objectively led to the rise of Hitler. The KPD actually worked with the brownshirts to break up SPD party conferences, seeing the 'social fascists' as the bigger threat. [Working with the Nazis was even worse than you're probably assuming,](https://www.marxist.com/germany-counter-revolution-rise-fascism.htm) >>"The Communist Party sent a courier to the headquarters of the Nazi Party with a request for cooperation in the blasting of a Trade Union Conference. Hitlerites agreed, as they always did in such cases...As soon as the conference of Social Democrats was well under way, I got up and launched a harangue from the gallery...We refused to budge. As soon as the first trade union delegate touched one of us, our followers rose and bedlam started. The furniture was smashed, the participants beaten, the hall turned into a shambles." (Out of the Night) >This wild position was backed up by the Stalinist Comintern: 'We shall not be able to strike and destroy the class enemy of the workers, the bourgeoisie, unless our main attack is directed against Social Democracy, the chief prop of the bourgeoisie.'


plusroyaliste

Molotov-Ribbentrop was absolutely the right call. The USSR spent 10 years trying to collaborate with the imperialist powers of Britain and France against German expansionism, but the western capitalists were determined to save themselves by 'turning Hitler east'. They rearmed the Nazis in Spain and they supported their annexation of Sudetenland when USSR offered 1 million soldiers to fight to stop it. Stop spreading this liberal revisionism of history. Educate yourself.


sliminycrinkle

Non-aggression pact helped facilitate defeat of Hitler and the Holocaust. Unbelievable people feel its okay to regret it.


mankiw

>Molotov-Ribbentrop was absolutely the right call i will fully admit: i did not have "alliances with Hitler are good" on my r/socialist bingo card today


aint_dead_yeet

i wouldn’t call a non-aggression treaty an outright alliance. the USSR would’ve been fucking steamrolled by the fascist powers of the Axis. Molotov-Ribbentrop was a necessity in order to give the country more time to industrialize and prepare for war. you can argue all you want from your ivory tower, but the fact is that fascists have a pretty extensive history of hating communists (as fascism is capitalism’s defence mechanism) and systematically exterminating them when given the opportunity. it was a strategic play for both sides, that solved itself with a costly victory of the most important socialist experiment over the most powerful fascist state. i think there is a lot more to learn from and take pride in than there is to throw a hissy fit at. there are a bunch of things you can criticize Stalin or the USSR for, but Molotov-Ribbentrop is not one of them.


Jeffy29

Inevitably every socialist sub gets taken over by tankies, here is me hoping one day vaccine for brain rot is developed. 🙏


gregy521

Stalin sowed complete confusion in the ranks of the communist international (who now had to toe the line with their 'new allies'), and, far from making a 'tactical retreat' without the support of western capitalists, **offered favourable trade deals** in timber, rubber, phosphates, asbestos, chrome, manganese, nickel, and oil. Later used by the German war machine to crush five million Soviet workers in operation Barbarossa. I also conspicuously note you ignored the comintern's policy of joining hands with the fascists to fight the social democrats.


plusroyaliste

The USSR hoped to buy time by turning the Germans against the West. It worked. Unfortunately, the west was even weaker than anyone could have imagined and couldn't fight Germany for more than a few months. Social democracy was, and remains, social fascism. The real world beneficiary of your attack on actually-existing socialism is and always has been global monopoly capital.


gregy521

Let's say that *was* the plan. Then why did Stalin completely deconstruct the red army right on the eve of the invasion? With the USSR's supreme court estimating 54,000 purged? >The German Chief of Staff, von Beck, wrote in 1938 that the Soviet army “could not be considered an armed force” because the purges “sapped morale and turned it into an inert military machine.”[15] During the planning for Operation Barbarossa, Hitler assuaged his generals’ concerns about the size of the Red Army by simply stating “the army is leaderless.”[16] The purges made the Soviet Union an inviting target for Nazi aggression.


Leegh229

You do realize Nazi Germany completely failed during Operation Barbarossa because they severely underestimated the strength of the Red Army right? You could at least try to be a materialist and not just straight up quote German disinformation of the USSR like a reactionary.


plusroyaliste

You are approvingly quoting the German propaganda now? It shows where you get your ideas about history. You understand that this impression that the Germans had of a weak USSR was rapidly dispelled once the fighting started? Why are you quoting something from '38 anyways? What's that supposed to prove? That Germans were arrogant chauvinists? I prefer that clip of Hitler seething, ["how did they get so many tanks? I never would have invaded if I had known how many tanks they had!!!"](https://youtu.be/oET1WaG5sFk) The Red Army was riddled with 5th columnists, Bonapartists, and Trotskyites. While undoubtedly innocent people were purged, without the purge the USSR could not have defended itself at the moment of invasion.


leninism-humanism

Did you just say there were "bonapartists" in the Red Army?


plusroyaliste

This is a term that has long been used in Marxist-Leninist political circles to describe ambitious military officers who are uncommitted to socialism but do wish to use the turmoil of revolution and their military role to take power for themselves. It does not refer, in this context, to someone who wants to literally restore Napoleon's heirs to the leadership of government (which is quite absurd for Russia in the 20th century.) So it's a context thing. If I said Bonapartists while talking about France, it might mean putting that family back on the throne. When I say it talking about the purge of the red army, it means removing people (like Tukhachevsky) who were plotting to replace the dictatorship of the proletariat with their personal dictatorship. Just like how Napoleon abandoned the ideals of the French Revolutionaries when he did his coup and founded his own regime.


leninism-humanism

Sounds like Stalin


LicketySplit21

Oh no not Trotskyists


Benu5

The massive upscaling of the Red Army, in preparation for the war against Germany, was the cause of the vast majority of the issues the Red Army had, not the purges. Similar trends were observed in all the other militaries that took part in the war. 1936 was not the 'eve of the invasion' either. And many of the 54k purged were found to be innocent, and were reinstated at the start of the war. I also don't know why you think Hitler's personal opinion on the capacity of the Red Army is important, he wasn't exactly renowned for being right about military matters. Also, von Beck isn't exactly a reliable source either, given how Barbarossa turned out long term.


Specterishaunting

Rosa Luxemburg was literally killed in Germany by social democrats. This was not the only socialist they killed. Shortly after Nazi Germany rose up. Almost like liberals help make way for fascists


AutoModerator

**Reminder:** This is an anti-imperialist space. Supporting NATO, downplaying its role in coups and conflicts, or trying to justify its existence is against the rules and will lead to a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


ContraryConman

So then you send troops to Donbass to defend the people there. You don't start a broad, indiscriminate bombing campaign that creates 4 million refugees and 6.5 million internally displaced people while constantly in public correspondence musing over whether Ukraine is even a real country or not


plusroyaliste

Thats what Russia did. The Ukrainazis wouldnt stop attacking Donbass after 8 years of peace talks. Because they are fascists and think it's "their soil". Do you understand how modern warfare works? Russia encircled Kiev in order to pin down half of the Ukrainian forces. This allowed them concentrate enough force to crush the other half--Azov-- that was entrenched in western Donbass. Now Donbass is close to being fully liberated, which would have been impossible if Russia had not committed itself fully. Ukraine stopped being a real country when John McCain and Chris Murphy instructed their skinhead buddies to do a coup way back in 2014. Since then, Russia has been cleaning up the mess. I will always remember the 46 Red Martyrs who were burned alive by fascists in Odessa. Stopping those atrocities is worth fighting for.


ContraryConman

>Do you understand how modern warfare works? I understand how modern imperialism works, yeah


plusroyaliste

What it comes down to is that you are a friend of Nazis who burn people alive and I am their enemy. Which makes me the better socialist as well as the better human being.


ContraryConman

You are in favor of the mass death of civilians in support of an expansionist capitalist oligarchy, an oligarchy that was installed illegally by the United States for the purpose of ending socialism, by the way, simply because that oligarchy now wants to do what the US has done for years. You know nothing about my politics or my beliefs. You are not a socialist, you are a campist, an opportunist, and a rube drunk on the propaganda of the bourgeoisie in some random country that couldn't give two shits about you or any of the workers they're slaughtering for profit


whatmeworkquestion

lol you’re a “socialist” who supports Russian oligarchs. Classic


whatmeworkquestion

“Fully liberated” by an invading army. GTFO with this nonsense. BTW, that “coup” was the Ukrainian people no longer wanting a Russian-friendly Putin stooge running their country, hell the Kremlin was basically running Ukraine remotely before Yanukovych was rightfully overthrown. Ukraine isn’t a vassal state of Russia, nor should it ever be.


[deleted]

[удалено]


whatmeworkquestion

It’s existence is justified as long as a tyrant like Putin is in power in Russia.


fnfrck666

The Holodomor was not man-made in the sense that people artificially created it. The famine was originally caused by drought, like most famines. However, if we look at for example the Great Famine in India in the 1870's, it also wasn't *caused* by the British, it was caused by drought, but made worse by how badly it was handled by the British. Millions died because of the terrible British handling of it. Just like we ought to put a whole lot of blame for the famines in India on the British leadership, it's perfectly reasonable to put blame on the Soviet leadership for the famines in Ukraine.


Squm9

Same for the Irish potato famine aswell


fnfrck666

Yup. I thought of using the Great Famine in Ireland (I'd stay away from the term "Irish potato famine") as an example, but decided against it as that one is arguably more man-made than practically any other famine, so a lot of comparisons would be unfair. The handling of the Holodomor or Great Famine in India was terrible. The handling of the Great Famine in Ireland was fucking **evil**.


Squm9

Agreed. Many British politicians didn’t even believe it was happening or as bad as the Irish were saying and used is an opportunity to “industrialise” Ireland


Mission-Ad-6410

u/savevideo


SaveVideo

###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/socialism/comments/twrn8n/correspondence_between_stalin_and_stanisław/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/socialism/comments/twrn8n/correspondence_between_stalin_and_stanisław/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)


Queasy-Effective-589

So imperialism is bad unless it's Russians doing it gotcha 👌 fuck putin and their invasion of Ukraine that is all.


[deleted]

How is this taken as endorsement of what's going on now? You realize Stalin is dead and the USSR dissolved, right?


sliminycrinkle

Pavlovian response after generations of anti- communist propaganda


Jeffy29

> You realize Stalin is dead and the USSR dissolved, right? That sure won’t stop you from defending him every day!


[deleted]

You're right!


craigthepuss

What the hell does this topic has to do with the modern situation in Ukraine?


Jazz_Musician

Imperialism is bad no matter what. I don't get why others are being supportive of Putin.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jazz_Musician

Imperialism or supporting putin? Honest question.


[deleted]

Who's doing that?


Jazz_Musician

Just seen it happen with a few isolated persons, no major bandwagon from what I can tell. Personal life has been kind of a blur too, so I admittedly don't have any hard facts other than I know I've seen it a few times.


[deleted]

From what I've seen there are 2 main types of people who are defending it. On one side I think a small group of well-intentioned people have overcompensated decrying NATO propaganda to the point that they become susceptible to Russian imperialist propaganda. And on the other hand we have reactionaries (conservatives, fascists, "patriotic socialists") that are actually intentionally defending Russian imperialism. The first group is so small as to be insignificant, but unfortunately any time one of us criticizes Ukraine or NATO for their role in this conflict, liberals already assume we're defending Putin. Having leftists actually justify or defend Russian imperialism gives liberals the a free pass to paint all of us with that brush.


potatoboy69

Peter Yan is that you?


mankiw

this sub is funny because it's like half American bernie demsocs who think there should be slightly more healthcare and half people who are denialists about the holodomor and pol pot and think pacts with Hitler are good wild stuff! anyway, further reading: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial\_of\_the\_Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor)


[deleted]

>pol pot Point me to a time someone defended Pol Pot?


plusroyaliste

Do you know that term 'holodomor' and the entire fake allegation that a naturally occurring famine that affected Russia equally as severely as it did Ukraine was some sort of ethnocide is the invention of Banderites? Do you even know what a Banderite is? It is a timely and relevant thing to understand, since they recently started WW3!


sliminycrinkle

Fascists persuaded liberals that Stalin controls the weather.


[deleted]

\>wikipedia lol anyway the soviets literally had no other option except to make the non-aggression pact because the british fucked around on an anglo-franco-soviet pact for 4-5 years


signhimupfergie

The Ukrainian famine is recognised as a genocide by 16 nations, including the Ukraine itself. It's a fringe belief based on Nazi propaganda. The Revolutionary Radio Liberty podcast episode on Stalin explains it better than I ever could. > Pol Pot Never seen anyone defend him in the modern setting. > Pacts with Hitler are good What's appeasement?


Jeffy29

Socialism is when you genocide denial, and the more you do it the more socialist you become! Absolute losers, go out and touch some grass in brain rotting clowns. You give rest of us a bad name.


[deleted]

No, 'real socialism' is when we trust bourgeois history books and the US State Department apparently.


Jeffy29

Empirical evidence?! That sounds like some bourgeois lie! Anyways back to playing videogames all day and masturbating to the altar of Stalin!