Politics 20/20

[Sarex]

29 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

That is obvious we had different homework, or that I actually did mine. Stalin was preparing so much that he was sending unarmed soldiers to fight the Germans when Hitler attacked.

It also seems you've selectively done your homework. It's always nice to pick and chose what works for you.

13 minutes ago, Gorth said:

There is more to it... apparently nobody does their homework

Stalin knew war was coming with Germany, but he had some "house keeping" to do first before he was ready to start a war (hence he would do anything and sign anything to appease Hitler until he was ready. Mass execution of the senior officers and anyone who could possible threaten his position (I'll leave it to people to look up "The Great Purge" and it's effects) left The Red army completely shattered and without leadership in 1941. Even such small things as lessons learnt from fighting against the Germans in the Spanish Civil war was lost because the Soviets who had fought in that war were show-trialled and executed. If it hadn't been for the winter 1941-1942, they would probably have had Swastika on the spires of the Kremlin today.

It's about what he is implying. He is trying to paint the Soviets as Nazi collaborators, who only went to war with Germany because they were attacked.

[Malcador]

15 minutes ago, Gorth said:

If it hadn't been for the winter 1941-1942, they would probably have had Swastika on the spires of the Kremlin today.

Winter always stealing credit for Russia defeating invaders.   Reminds me to get Glantz's books on the Eastern Front -  Westerners think he's too pro-Soviet and Russians think he's anti-Russia so the guy must be accurate.

 

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Winter always stealing credit for Russia defeating invaders.   Reminds me to get Glantz's books on the Eastern Front -  Westerners think he's too pro-Soviet and Russians think he's anti-Russia so the guy must be accurate.

 

 

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Soviets would love to work in such a reality

 

 

a reality where individuals, as 'posed to the state, decide what is newsworthy and what isn't? a reality where the promotion o' propaganda and conspiracy theory is a matter o' choice as 'posed to having force o' law? 

...

doesn't sound at all like what soviets would want for themselves. the current US approach may be busted, and no doubt putin and xi ('mongst others) does indeed loves to work in this reality, but as much as our adversaries enjoy the chaos o' our approach, is doubtful they or the soviets would wanna use it as their domestic model.

so yeah, the soviets would love this reality, but only so long as it remained an American peculiarity and not soviet.

timely example:

Commentary: I won’t work in Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department any longer

"Unfortunately, over the last year, Barr’s resentment toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore, as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trump’s will in his selective meddling with the criminal justice system in the Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases. In each of these cases, Barr overruled career prosecutors in order to assist the president’s associates and/or friends, who potentially harbor incriminating information. This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy."

so not the kinda thing one would expect to see in pravda, да?

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 15, 2020 by Gromnir

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, Sarex said:

It's about what he is implying. He is trying to paint the Soviets as Nazi collaborators, who only went to war with Germany because they were attacked.

Because that's what happened. Painting Soviets as anything else is spitting on the graves of millions they murdered. 

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

Did he ( Barr) do something, which is considered unlawful? 

Does anyone censor the opinion? 

Bolshevism tends to have romance with left leaning indviduals, especially the thought and speech police parts of it. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Sarex]

10 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Because that's what happened. Painting Soviets as anything else is spitting on the graves of millions they murdered. 

Well at least it's clear now what agenda you are pushing.

[Skarpen]

9 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Well at least it's clear now what agenda you are pushing.

The truth, as always.

[Sarex]

Just now, Skarpen said:

The truth, as always.

Your truth.

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@Gromnir

Did he ( Barr) do something, which is considered unlawful? 

Does anyone censor the opinion? 

Bolshevism tends to have romance with left leaning indviduals, especially the thought and speech police parts of it. 

barr has done many things which is unlawful. did you read the link? the mueller report summary were technical illegal, which is why a judge chastised... twice. is illegal for an agent o' the government to purposeful misrepresent the contents o' a govt. document, for obvious reasons. is doj gonna prosecute? even if doj did prosecute, evidence is problematic and getting a conviction would prove difficult. sending troops to portland and authorizing them to make arrests under color o' law is clear illegal for reasons Gromnir and others has identified many times, but the problem is the practicality o' bringing charges 'gainst the ag particular as the ag is purposeful avoiding charging those persons detained by his agents. using fed troops to disperse crowds w/o proper warning, at the direction o' the ag, is also illegal. etc.

as to censoring, facebook deciding not to share giuliani's latest conspiracy theory is a choice. may be trump and trump campaign's opinion and story, but is facebook's service. don't like facebook, then use fox and breitbart to promote. choice.

is state censorship which is a wrong prohibited by the Constitution. individuals self-censor every day in almost every conversation. does the wife look fat in those jeans? is fox covering all trump and barr shenanigans? is not as if you will find mention o' phillip halpern at breitbart. you think they just ain't heard the news? 

facebook's service. facebook's choice. am not necessarily agreeing with facebook choices, but difference is they still have the right to make a choice. so complete different from soviet.

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

6 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Your truth.

There is only one truth. It saddens me that there are people who were either seriously misled or are deliberately lying to whitewash a murderous regime led by psychopath. Out of curiosity where are you from that Soviet propaganda still runs so strong?

Edited October 15, 2020 by Skarpen

[Sarex]

Nowhere did I say that Stalin was a good leader and that he didn't do terrible things, but a Nazi collaborator he wasn't. I'm from Serbia.

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

At which point that type of lrivate censorship would be a breach in rulea against discrimination of beliefs, religion, political views, etc. 

Wouldn't it be illegal, if facebook would start banning lgtb activists as they would not like the fact that the msg covers lgbt messaging? Same with religious abd ethnic activists? 

[Skarpen]

16 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Nowhere did I say that Stalin was a good leader and that he didn't do terrible things, but a Nazi collaborator he wasn't. I'm from Serbia.

Oh, that explains indoctrination and defending USSR completely. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Skarpen

[Gromnir]

35 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@Gromnir

At which point that type of lrivate censorship would be a breach in rulea against discrimination of beliefs, religion, political views, etc. 

Wouldn't it be illegal, if facebook would start banning lgtb activists as they would not like the fact that the msg covers lgbt messaging? Same with religious abd ethnic activists? 

thought we were talking censorship by a private individual? even if your observation were accurate, suggestion o' unlawful class-based discrimination (not comrade master notions o' class, but rather equal protection and con law classes) takes out o' realm o' censorship by facebook and other similar actors.

your confusion is dubious. am having difficulty taking as genuine. can't prevent a catholic from working at walmart because they is catholic. however, walmart can fire a catholic employee 'cause they insist on selling pro life message along with bad produce, motor oil, inflatable pools, questionable meat and oversized boxes/bags o' breakfast cereal.

based on comments thus far, you would, if intellectual honest, see a problem with obsidian declaring abortion discussions verboten? why on earth should obsidian need be forced to publish content just 'cause is religious in nature?

HA! Good Fun!

ps

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Elerond said:

There was no war when Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was made and both parties were aggressors in war that followed said agreement.

Also western nations made pacts with USSR and they even sold them lots of the weapons that they used in their invasion.  And US for example traded lot with Soviet union after 1933, which made it possible that USSR was able to build it industries.

Also still in beginning of 1939 France and UK were seeking military alliance with USSR after Germany took over the Sudetenland, but those ended in May when Molotov become the foreign minister as Molotov was skeptic towards France and UK and saw better opportunities in dealing with Germany

Aggressors vs Poland, sure, though from the soviet perspective the choice was all of Poland under Nazi occupation or half of it. Expecting them to fight for a country that was rabidly anti soviet and had conquered a big chunk of Byelorussia not even two decades before was a pipe dream.

OTOH that was exactly what the western powers hoped for. Much as the M-R pact was appeasement by the Soviets Munich was appeasement by the western allies, and it was that which convinced Stalin that the allies would not be reliable. The Soviet strategy was to delay fighting Germany as long as possible- but that was also the western allies' strategy too with both sides trying appeasement. The Soviets were just more successful.

The Soviets had also been trying to get some sort of unified response to Nazism for ages. Sure, it's understandable that the western allies weren't enthusiastic about much to do with the soviets, but they also did almost nothing at all independently against the Nazis. Their response to the Spanish Civil War was supine, jelly like; pathetic hand wringing that made the response to the Rwandan Genocide look robust. At least the Soviets actually did do something.

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

There is more to it... apparently nobody does their homework

 

Stalin knew war was coming with Germany, but he had some "house keeping" to do first before he was ready to start a war (hence he would do anything and sign anything to appease Hitler until he was ready. Mass execution of the senior officers and anyone who could possible threaten his position (I'll leave it to people to look up "The Great Purge" and it's effects) left The Red army completely shattered and without leadership in 1941. Even such small things as lessons learnt from fighting against the Germans in the Spanish Civil war was lost because the Soviets who had fought in that war were show-trialled and executed. If it hadn't been for the winter 1941-1942, they would probably have had Swastika on the spires of the Kremlin today.

I'm always slightly amused by "if it weren't for the winter.." because basically nobody ever says the equally logical corollary- "if it weren't for summer existing the Germans wouldn't have got near Moscow". Both seasons are, after all, inevitable and if you go into Russia not expecting it to be cold it doesn't speak well for your competence*. IIRC much like Napoleon's winter in 1912-3 the Winter of 41-2 even started out mild, and it was the equally inevitable autumn Rasputitsa which did the vast majority of the damage in terms of stalling momentum.

Stalin's expectations really depended on the times. Initially he was expecting the allies and nazis to fight each other to a bloody standstill and then sweep in to mop up the leftovers. Ironically, that was what the allies expected before M-R, just with the obvious substitution of the soviets for the allies. After June 1940 it became a matter of deferring the nazi attack for as long as possible, but if things had gone to expectations an attack on a Germany bogged down fighting France and Britain in 1941 was certainly plausible. As it was Soviet deployments in 1941 were made for attack rather than defence, with almost all troops distributed along the border itself which lead to the massive encirclements they suffered (and perhaps more pertinently, the massive losses in equipment since almost their entire air force was shot up in days by the same German airforce that had difficulty bombing the far more geographically limited Britain).

Having said that, even at their most successful stretch in the first 6 weeks of Barabarossa the Germans suffered more casualties than the previous 21 months of war combined.

*ok, it was ultimately a choice between transporting ammunition/ war supplies or winter supplies on a very tenuous- and how they must have wished it were literal- logistical train that relied mostly on horses and they decided on the ammunition but still, same mistake Napoleon made despite the example having been set and studied ad nauseum.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

I admit, I've drifted away mid sentence, but it was not in any bad faith. 

At certain point, I've started to wonder, if a different treatment in regards to political messaging cannot be pulled into realms of discrimination of protected characteristics. I. E. Removing something based on not liking a protected characteristic, while endorsing another political characteristic. 

I'm not familiar with US legislation to that extent. 

I know, that locally, one of employees of a big corp, started to confront publically a political meesaging of the corp, and claimed he feels opressed and discriminated and quoted paragraphs from a bible. The company in question decides to remove him, and his messages. Later on, the company got prosecuted, lost and had to pay fines, fees in damages and reinstate the employee to his previously occupied position. 

[Sarex]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Oh, that explains indoctrination and defending USSR completely. 

Sure it does...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

You can become my personal wage slave, once my corporation will fully own the narratives of all communication. 

Make sure to stop by the nearest re-education center for your new chip and set of medicines. 

Otherwise your contract will be terminated and your flesh will be used for nutrition, as we need to comply with the rules on animal meat consumption, yet other working citizens still need more of the single wage affortable nutrition. 

I thought wageslaves were a myth and anyone can start their own business?

Kinda funny how you guys think getting banned from a social media website is Bolshevik cyberpunk anarcho-capitalism but unmarked police disappearing folks is good.

[Darkpriest]

3 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

I thought wageslaves were a myth and anyone can start their own business?

Kinda funny how you guys think getting banned from a social media website is Bolshevik cyberpunk anarcho-capitalism but unmarked police disappearing folks is good.

Unmarked police? Or unmarked vehicles with police officers that were wearing insignia? Disappearing? Or interogating suspects of criminal activities and releasing? Did anyone not return or was tortured? 

I'd say unmarked police and disappearing people are more of Bolsheviks expertise. See communist regimes.

 

Funny that there were more communist/socialist regimes than purely right wing authoritarian (not elected) with focus on cultural identity and cohesion, history and free market with free speech. 

Only socialists and communists seem to know what is best that you should think and talk about. 

[Darkpriest]

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/rabobank-facebook-and-twitter-are-suppressing-biden-news-while-allowing-slew-other

Read the other isle as well, follow the dollar and confront two sides critically. 

There are things on every side, which a merit based technocrat supporting social freedoms would facepalm at. 

 

[Malcador]

22 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Only socialists and communists seem to know what is best that you should think and talk about. 

A lot of examples where this is not the case in history, but oh well.

[Darkpriest]

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/barrett-rule-how-democratic-members-are-creating-new-and-dangerous-standard-confirmations

@Gromnir

I'd be curious, what is your view and perception on the process and the hearings as they progress. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

25 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Unmarked police? Or unmarked vehicles with police officers that were wearing insignia? Disappearing? Or interogating suspects of criminal activities and releasing? Did anyone not return or was tortured? 

I'd say unmarked police and disappearing people are more of Bolsheviks expertise. See communist regimes.

 

Funny that there were more communist/socialist regimes than purely right wing authoritarian (not elected) with focus on cultural identity and cohesion, history and free market with free speech. 

Only socialists and communists seem to know what is best that you should think and talk about. 

You could have just said "I think it's ok when we do it" instead of trying those mental gymnastics lmao.

[Darkpriest]

14 minutes ago, Malcador said:

A lot of examples where this is not the case in history, but oh well.

Sure, there are, but they usually get twisted in time and become such. Best case scenario they lead to economic stagnation. 

On the other hand, I cannot find a non-socialist, non-monarchy, conservative/traditionalists goverment supporting free market and free speech doing something bad, other than economic growth being divided disproportionally towards the asset owners. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Darkpriest