Yuzzy

4y

Nah thread derailed fr

WRU

4y

this is a bad page # we gotta get out as soon as we can

Scratchin Mamba

4y

I'm not even denying that he mistreated jews, or that he was a russian chauvinist, just that "jewish conspiracy" undermining everything wasn't part of his ideology and that his actions were politically motivated, which is still a serious crime

You just have an agenda and are doing historical revisionism to find evidence for a meme theory of political ideologies, no serious academic historians, even western ones, like j arch getty hold your views

Plankton

4y

Yes, they do. Mine is the consensus view.

Plankton

4y

You keeping finding excuses for Stalin when it’s well known his regime mistreated Jews is sus, almost like far left and far right are exactly the same

Plankton

4y

Yes, they do. Mine is the consensus view.

MyBallsAndMyWord

4y

Crypto fascists writing bullshit like the Gulag Archipelago is not a consensus lol

Plankton

4y

Neither are tankies on the internet

MyBallsAndMyWord

4y

Crypto fascists writing bullshit like the Gulag Archipelago is not a consensus lol

Plankton

4y

You keeping finding excuses for Stalin when it’s well known his regime mistreated Jews is sus, almost like far left and far right are exactly the same

Yuzzy

4y

Lol what is your evidence for that claim about Solzhenitysn

Scratchin Mamba

4y

People who think you can just draw a straight line from the Russian empire, the USSR and Putin in terms of Russian chauvinism really don't know what they're talking about tbh. This is one of Lenin's final letters to the Communist party about national self-determination before he passed, compare that to Putin's speech where he said Lenin "created" Ukraine, and you can see why a Russian chauvinist like Putin has always had such disdain for Lenin:

"I suppose I have been very remiss with respect to the workers of Russia for not having intervened energetically and decisively enough in the notorious question of autonomisation, which, it appears, is officially called the question of the Soviet socialist republics.

When this question arose last summer, I was ill; and then in autumn I relied too much on my recovery and on the October and December plenary meetings giving me an opportunity of intervening in this question. However, I did not manage to attend the October Plenary Meeting (when this question came up) or the one in December, and so the question passed me by almost completely.

I have only had time for a talk with Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who came form the Caucasus and told me how this matter stood in Georgia. I have also managed to exchange a few words with Comrade Zinoviev and express my apprehensions on this matter. From what I was told by Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who was at the head of the commission sent by the C.C. to "investigate" the Georgian incident, I could only draw the greatest apprehensions. If matters had come to such a pass that Orjonikidze could go to the extreme of applying physical violence, as Comrade Dzerzhinsky informed me, we can imagine what a mess we have got ourselves into. Obviously the whole business of "autonomisation" was radically wrong and badly timed.

It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?

There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine.

It is quite natural that in such circumstances the "freedom to secede from the union" by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.

It is said in defence of this measure that the People's Commissariats directly concerned with national psychology and national education were set up as separate bodies. But there the question arises: can these People's Commissariats be made quite independent? and secondly: were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.

I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia, played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.

I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists", distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze's "manhandling". I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it.

For all the citizens in the Caucasus Orjonikidze was the authority. Orjonikidze had no right to display that irritability to which he and Dzerzhinsky referred. On the contrary, Orjonikidze should have behaved with a restraint which cannot be demanded of any ordinary citizen, still less of a man accused of a "political" crime. And, to tell the truth, those nationalist-socialists were citizens who were accused of a political crime, and the terms of the accusation were such that it could not be described otherwise.

Here we have an important question of principle: how is internationalism to be understood?"

Scratchin Mamba

4y

He wrote a whole book pretty much blaming jews for everything bad that happened in the USSR lol

Yuzzy

4y

Cringe but don't see what that has to do with calling him a fascist

Yuzzy

4y

Cringe but don't see what that has to do with calling him a fascist

Scratchin Mamba

4y

That's not "cringe" that's antisemitic as f*** "these people are in control of the global media"

He was a far right russian ultranationalist, he would probably want putin to invade ukraine harder if he was alive today, it's just convenient for anticommunists to whitewash his beliefs bc he was so against the USSR, they have to leave out that his opposition was partly motivated out of antisemitism

Where did i hear before that the Bolsheviks were just a bunch of jews hmmm

Scratchin Mamba

4y

J arch getty is

Wheatcroft is

Kotkin

Davies

All bourgeois academic well respected historians in their institutions that don't follow your line on things like the holodomor, the USSR as a totalitarian state or that any targeting of minority groups was motivated out of racial hatred instead of political control

Nobody takes robert conquest seriously anymore

leif erikson

4y

holodomor is a genocide and ukrainians suffered the most. and if you try to deny kuban, you're an idiot

ussr was totalitarian, what exactly are you trying to imply with that? we got it, you have weird obsession for marxism–leninism and your relatives saw the dusk of soviets, but everything you do is just picking non-substancial fragments fitting your own views and call it expertise. if you're really interested what happened with minorities and oppressed people, read what they told

americana

4y

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014

This is insanity

krishna bound

4y

i mean, not that it's much better, but isn't this just an open admission of using blatant propaganda and intelligence using the media as its communications arm? This is essentially what the US has always done, it's just that they're openly admitting it this time, no?

Scratchin Mamba

4y

I'm not gonna debate the legitimacy of the mainstream academic historiography with somebody who is so obviously biased, enjoy talking to yourself from here on out

americana

4y

Yes. It’s just that people will still turn a blind eye to such admission

leif erikson

4y

first time at information war?