/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:


Daft Punk - Human After All by The Weekly Album Stream

Online player

M3U - XSPF


File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 21800
132 kB, 546 × 670
512 kB, 1946 × 960
192 kB, 657 × 800
164 kB, 960 × 960
I dont know where to put this and I guess history thread is on systemkontra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ56MYa9W8M
Video is about Russia getting smaller. But my question is, do you think Russia's collapse in early 90s would not have happened if they didn't lose a massive amount of their population? Do you think it was ultimately generational population shocks that killed USSR?
>>
No. 21810 Kontra
>>21800
>systemkontra
Are you shure? I think it's not bumped for long time just
>video
I already know from what channel it is. It's very dumb channel for hypernormies who tells facts like "sun is hot" and often incorrect thing
>actual topic
This is politics, not a history. Everything disscution about post-ussr russia will 100% end in heavy politics territory. And current crisis of russia as country is main political theme today inside of russia.
>>
No. 21812
>generational population shocks that killed USSR
The vid barely said anything about loses in building the communism since 1920s. So it makes the point above irrelavant given the union had already undergone significant shrinking before.
Anyways, the speaker preaches about demographics based upon the stats from wikipedia with this oh-my-gosh voice. I am hesitant to make a full sense of it as it's quite arguable to denote china's population as enormous as they officially do. Same applies to the others in the list.
It also didn't mention ukranian wwII casualties, which would be fun to know.
Apart from that, he managed to stretch a two-sentence point whose essence is Russia's suffering due to the war aftertaste for ten minutes.
Felt like reading up on the topic by means of the pulp. Not much use.
>>
No. 21814
>>21800
A lot of factors that weren't mentioned: extreme high rates of abortion, extreme corruption inequality and poverty, resource based economy to this day, low life expectancy because of widespread alcoholism, 3rd world tier AIDS rates...

>My question is, do you think Russia's collapse in early 90s would not have happened if they didn't lose a massive amount of their population?

No, I don't think that. USSR wasn't the only country with massive population losses during
WWII. It simply collapsed (among other reasons) because socialist command economy doesn't work.
>>
No. 21815
>>21814
>It simply collapsed (among other reasons) because socialist command economy doesn't work.
Saying something like this is video from op-post tier tbh. Collapse of ussr really very complex problem.
>>
No. 21855
110 kB, 600 × 800
Redpill me on good unbiased literature regarding european paganism

Thank you
>>
No. 21861
>>21855
Unless you're talking about explicitly neopagan or Christian texts, it's all going to be unbiased if it's the kind of thing you'd read today.
>>
No. 21882
https://www.britishpathe.com/video/world-troubles-1914-1934/query/Moscow+Peace+Treaty
A newsreel from the archives of the British Pathé, recapping what happened between 1914 and 1934, ending with a warning, that bad times are ahead, and war is coming.
>>
No. 21888
>>21855
>regarding european paganism
That's kind of a broad topic. They didn't all have the same religion you know, although my understanding is a lot of them were fertility cults of one form or another (as was most of Sumeria at one time or another). Probably an interesting place to start would be looking at the differences in folklore, and the kinds of basic societal assumptions and abject lessons in them to get a feel for the genuine religious beliefs of the time as opposed to listening to some modern revisionist many of whom are probably viewing it through the lens either of Christianity or some equally erroneous vision based on romanticism of their primitive European past.

Honestly I never got this fascination with the time. On the one hand, yeah there is something to be said for where one's people come from, but on the other, we spent a lot of time living like savages.
>>
No. 21911
>>21888
I have not heard of any fertility cultism in celtic societies. Note that "celtic" is as meaningless as it goes since that term was coined by greek historians around 400 BC and used by romans at the time of Juluis Cesar to differentiate between those on their side of the river Rhine (Gallico) and those to the other side. But that othre side was everything nort and east of todays france, all the way to the caucasus.

Unfortunately we barely have any sources on them since they never used Runes to write down any form of history, except some gothic tribe way in the east, if you cound the gothic alphabet, but the only thing I know of that was found in terms of writing was the gothic bible. It's not any expertise of mine, though, I just find those times fascinating.
>>
No. 22040
>>21911
I've been researching into galician and celtiberian paganism. Like you said, it's hard to find sources since they didn't have any kind of writting. Most of what we know about them are from greek and roman reports on those people... also archeological evidences and the respective paralelism with other celtic people's
>>
No. 22363
335 kB, 2000 × 2829
Tell me more about Antifaschistische Aktion (or Antifa), both its historic and contemporary movements. What were their greatest successes? Were they known for community service or any sort of civic duty beyond political action? Have there ever been any notable non-leftists, non-socialists, non-communists or non-left-anarchists who publicly supported Antifa or are they inherently left-wing and left-wing exclusively?

Genuinely interested.
>>
No. 22365
>>22363
Most people on the left genuinely dont give a shit about antifa. Ironically the main people who ever did was poltards otherwise I always thought they were pretty fringe. Hell even Black Bloc struck me as more relevant. I could be wrong and maybe things have changed but when I was younger it was simply irrelevant and mainly only brought up by poltards the same way they whine about Soros or whatever else is their boogeyman of the moment to spread lies about as a threat to bind together and control large groups of idiots. Of course Black Bloc was notoriously retarded to the point it often just looked like a cover for police to start fires and break windows so they could close protests down like at the WTO in Seattle.
>>
No. 22369
>>22363
I mean, if Antifa couldn't prevent Hitler from gaining power (Though that was a higher decision on the part of von Papen and von Hindenburg, they had jack to do about Chaplin getting into power), then I'd say it wasn't that successful.
>>
No. 22370
108 kB, 800 × 600
>>22365
>Most people genuinely dont give a shit about antifa

Fixed that for you.

I honestly feel most Antifa's legacy is just mythologizing and self-congratulatory hogwash from nostalgic partisans or edgy teens who feel compelled to project their idealized personas into historical events they never lived through. Their actual accomplishments are few and far between, and most people want nothing to do with them.

Black Bloc anarchists used to be very active in anti-capitalist movements throughout the late 1980s up until the mid-2000s when the political climate from the War on Terror effectively stamped out all resistance. Black Bloc anarchists would regularly fight police and square off publicly whenever the G-8 would hold a meeting. Lots of leftists naively assumed Obama would reverse Bush-era terror policies. Time would eventually reveal they bet on the wrong horse (not that McCain would've done any different, but you get the idea). After Obama got into office, most radical leftists switched causes towards continuing the legacy of the Civil Rights movement. Keep in mind most anarchists were fiercely anti-racist and would routinely get into streetfights with skinheads, but greater political concerns put radical anti-racism on hold.

The American analog to Antifa was originally called Anti-Racist Action (ARA) as opposed to the UK-based Anti-Fascist Action. They now rebranded as the TORCH Network following a disastrous confrontation at the Ashford House restaurant in Tinley Park, IL where members associated with the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (a branch of ARA) assaulted attendees. HARM apparently received a tip the white nationalist group Illinois European Heritage Association would be holding a meeting there, so anti-racist partisans went and trashed the place and assaulted patrons, some of who were not even affiliated with the WNs supposedly in attendance. It was only because an off-duty police officer was having lunch that the anti-racists were stopped. HARM caused up to $20k in property damage and injured 10 people in the process.

Re: Soros and Antifa. Unless you're referring to a very specific deed that had measurable consequences, blaming Soros for "funding" anything just reeks of baseless paranoia. From everything I've seen, Antifa is as decentralized as your average cell of the Animal Liberation Front (unsurprisingly, those two movements strongly overlap), so the burden of proof is on whoever claims that Soros funds something or someone that played an instrumental role carrying out whatever. The Antifa group in question would have to be very large and influential to mean jackshit, so I doubt Soros would waste valuable resources throwing some student anarcho-communist fuckups some money.

But forgiving all that, Antifa's biggest problem is the very people it attracts to its cause. A huge swath of Antifa (I say the howling majority) are all deeply embedded into Alternative music, especially Punk, which speaks volumes for the quality of life you're bringing into the movement. It seems improbable that a person with high self-esteem, talent, and good prospects in life would choose Antifa activism as a lifestyle or as the most meaningful way to improve the world. These young activists seem to have concluded early that their prospects in life were minimal, and that political violence was the only way to give their lives meaning. They find significance in lashing out.

On a completely different note, there's a good article written by a former anarchist about his comrades while in the movement:
https://quillette.com/2018/12/11/sad-radicals/
>>
No. 22372
Just wanna note that the Antifa is perhaps not a homogenous mass or organization. It's just a short for Antifascists.
>>
No. 22373 Kontra
>>22372
Indeed, hence the original inquiry into its historical and contemporary movements. I also made note of the fact that Antifa activists are all highly decentralized like the ALF.
>>
No. 22374
>>22370
My point being that so far as I could figure it's another of the millions of stupid shit strawmen poltards use to try and quash any dissent, and when what they're really bitching about is an ARA group but they're too dumb to understand there's anything but "the left" which is why they use all these terms interchangeably. To them there's no difference which is why they randomly throw around terms like Marxist and liberal as if it meant the same thing. Antifa itself probably has more clout in say Europe, so to me bitching about antifa among American poltards makes as much sense as bitching about the Pirate Partei.

>These young activists seem to have concluded early that their prospects in life were minimal, and that political violence was the only way to give their lives meaning.
You're confusing multiple issues here including that of disenfranchisement. Like of fucking course the disenfranchised would be more attracted to political activism to begin with because no milquetoast liberal wants to rock the boat and no Capitalist oligarch is going to give any shits about activism except to fool a bunch of troglodytes into defending their power base and coopting themsuch as say poltards while quashing any dissent. People who assume they have the best prospects for the future tend not to care about politics and activism so much which is also why there tends not to be as much of it in any meaningful sense in a roaring economy with healthy middle class whereas there's tons of often violent activism when the economy is shit and class mobility has locked up with stark contrasts between rich and poor with an unhealthy middle class, hence why times and places like say Weimar Germany was filled with violent street clashes.

Also ALF actually does cool if at times misguided things while being a small practically entirely irrelevant group, at least as much as the ELF. It also speaks volumes that groups like the KKK are not considered terrorist groups while the ALF and ELF are officially designated terrorist groups despite the fact they only do property damage whereas the KKK has a history of actively using legit terrorism against innocent civilians including murder and assassination. This is because contrary to what any whiny retard will tell you groups like the Proud Boys and KKK are backed by the establishment and groups like Black Bloc, ELF, and ALF among others are not.
>>
No. 22377
>>22374
>It also speaks volumes that groups like the KKK are not considered terrorist groups while the ALF and ELF are officially designated terrorist groups despite the fact they only do property damage whereas the KKK has a history of actively using legit terrorism against innocent civilians including murder and assassination. This is because contrary to what any whiny retard will tell you groups like the Proud Boys and KKK are backed by the establishment and groups like Black Bloc, ELF, and ALF among others are not.

Placing the Proud Boys and the Klan in the same sentence is intensely distasteful, but I'll humor this part. While the violent acts of the Klan deserve every bit of condemnation and punishment to the fullest letter of the law, we cannot ignore that the group's connections with the Democratic Party establishment ran deep in the early 20th century. There were few Southern politicians who could get elected without them. It's also hard to designate them as terrorists when they had 4.5 million members at the Second Wave's peak in the 1920s. While it doesn't give them carte blanche to be violent bydlo, the Klan supports the Constitution and other American values. In contrast, the Black Bloc, ELF, ALF and other anarchist activists openly draw from people who oppose the very concept of nations, especially the United States. When these people are effectively a fifth column, they're going to be designated as terrorists.

Re: Proud Boys. That organization runs on Gavin McInnes's money alone. If he goes broke, the Proud Boys die tomorrow:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/fbi-now-classifies-far-right-proud-boys-as-extremist-group-documents-say.50116/

I personally don't like the word "terrorist" because it carries so many gross political connotations. It's an inherently loaded and deceptive concept that obfuscates so much of the context behind political violence (be it from faith, left or right politics), so to me, it refers to little more than militant action from actors who can't afford nukes, tanks and jets. We're also addressing individual actors as opposed to group action. Plenty of anarchists flying the black flag just want to protest the government and be edgy, and aren't trying to stab and maim random people. Likewise, plenty of Klansmen and Nazi skinheads just want to listen to RAC and complain about government and miscegenation.

We're going to derail this thread if we get too stuck on this, but this'll be my last word on the subject. If anyone else has anything interesting to tell me about Antifa, be my guest.
>>
No. 22390
>>22374
>there's anything but "the left" which is why they use all these terms interchangeably. To them there's no difference which is why they randomly throw around terms like Marxist and liberal as if it meant the same thing. 
See part of the reason why this phenomenon arose is the circumstance that a lot of self-proclaimed antifascists and marxists of the post WWII period crassly exaggerated the term of fascism. For many of those, capitalism itself was already a form of fascism, US-american imperialism was called fascism as well, soon every authoritarian government was seen as fascist. Hell, the GDR ideologues even saw their wall as a defense against western german fascism. That was the point where the antifascists' endeavors became laughable and meaningless, when they're actualy enemy - the national socialist, the fascist as he was existant in the 30s and 40s faded out more and more to finally become irrelevant. At least here in Germany the less actual fascists existed, the more prone antifascists became to call others out as such. Finally antifascist fever visions got to a new high in 21st century when the AfD arose, a party that is merely constituted of conservativist values and economical liberalism but already seen as fascist. Well, there are those parts of the party around Björn Höcke which do go in the direction of NatSoc. But antifascists already called the AfD fascist in its early neo-liberalist days (here we go again with the neo-liberalism is fascism equation) when the party still was led by Bernd Lucke. I guess this was where their actions started to backfire and the AfD's radicalization began. Being called a fascist and nazi the very first moment they stepped out into political business pretty much laid the ground for the further developments that we're acquainted with. It's a simple psychological phenomenon playing out on the scale of politics, sort of like gaslighting: if you call someone mentally ill for the most time im his life he will at some point believe it and positively attribute his condition. Sorry for the slight derailing but it's a prime example of what I'm talking about.
>>
No. 22398
>>22390
Concerning the AFD you have to keep in mind German history and the tendency of this party to be a pool for people with national or racist wordviews. The German history proved quite well were it could lead you. That's a reason for the antifacist hysteria around the AFD. They are called facists because they are seen as a foreboding of the repetition of a shaming history in humankind. Ofc they are far away but those leftists have a Spidermans spider senses, you know.
I'd probably call myself leftist in the sense that I want a postcapitalist society and that I don't hold anything on feeling better over people who have a different skin color. My division goes along the line of stupidity and power which is the fate of every race and thus structural to a certain degree.
The left is divided. Anti-capitalism is its common denominator. So called liberals are perhaps against racism and for social justice but they are not necessarily against the capitalist mode of production.
>>
No. 22400
>>22390
>>22398
The only way we're going to have a productive discussion about Fascism and Antifascism is if we can first come to a commonly agreed definition of Fascism itself. A Sisyphean task to be sure.

If you ask me, Fascism can only be studied by the regimes that championed its ideals. Keep in mind Fascist movements and Fascist regimes differed greatly in both professed beliefs and public policies once they assumed leadership. Ergo, we should exclude Fascist movements that never reached power such as Mosley's British Union of Fascists or Codreanu's Iron Guard. Likewise, reactionary or monarchistic regimes like Francoist Spain or Imperial Japan do not count as Fascist regimes because Fascism is inherently modernist and thus opposed to monarchs (hello, Primo de Rivera). Furthermore, neither regime adopted the term nor the sufficient criteria of public policies that would define them as Fascists.

This leaves us with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Both regimes had these points in common that distinguished them from other Nationalist movements:
  • Demoskepticism or opposition to democracy: Both saw democracy as corrupt, weak and morally degenerate. Unlike other dictatorships that pay lip service to democracy, Fascists openly oppose it on principle. Hitler and Mussolini planned to severely curtail, if not outright abolish, democracy once they assumed power. Of course, Fascist parties see the utility in democratic elections while holding contempt for the institution, but that's neither here nor there.
  • Spiritually rooted theories on racial purity couched in atavistic myths: Both regimes saw their ancestors as the Aryan and Roman supermen of a mythological past. They believed actively purifying their respective bloodlines would lead to their naturally dominant roles, establishing global hegemony.
  • Violence as virtue: Both regimes believed war shaped and built a man's character. Fascists believed that men (and only men) could be shaped by war. Without continuous struggle, man eventually stagnates and falls into a state of degeneracy. Violence was not merely a means to an end; it was an end in and of itself. Fascists believe, much like India's Thuggee cult, that violence and killing strengthens the soul on a spiritual level. Perpetual state of war strengthens and purifies man's soul and the body politic. The book "In Stahlgewittern" (translated: "Storm of Steel") by Ernst Jünger has many of these themes. Ironically, he was privately opposed to Hitler and was peripherally connected to some men who planned on assassinating Der Führer.
  • Collectivist Statism: The "Socialism" in National Socialism rejects the conventional notions of wealth redistribution and instead has much more in common with Oswald Spengler's idea of Prussian socialism. Keep in mind Spengler harshly criticized Hitler, but that's another story. NS dictates that the state and its people are one single entity. All people, not just the armed forces, but workers, women, children, are all part of the dominant and pure machine of the people-state. Individual identity is supplanted with the State identity. Everyone is the state, the state is everyone, the people move with one purpose.
  • Economic subservience to the military. Both regimes' respective economies were in constant states of flux. By and large, the existing large engineering companies that existed in those countries became arms of the state. When those arrangements failed to produce enough armaments, they used slave labor to the point the German economy was almost dependent on it towards the end of the war. Both Mussolini and Hitler dropped their much-trumpeted welfare programs when they started diverting too much money from the military.
  • Imperialism and Expansionism. Whilst it's contested if Hitler had globalist intentions, he certainly wanted "Lebensraum" for the German people. It doesn't take a genius to surmise that Hitler would've greatly expanded Germany had he been successful. Meanwhile, Mussolini's Pre-WWII military adventures in Ethiopia and Libya were motivated less by an economic need than by a belief that Italy should have an empire because they were a superior race. Underscoring this is the simple fact that Ethiopia possessed no economic resources for Italy to exploit. Whilst many other regimes, Left and Right, have been imperialist and expansionist, this is worth noting because many contemporary Nationalist and far-right movements are very isolationist in wanting to expel foreigners but not expand their borders. Of course, this could change if they're in power and at at the mercy of global politics, but again, that remains to be seen.

If there's anything I missed, please tell me.
>>
No. 22402
>>22390
Except as you yourself stated the AfD actually had ties to or sympathized with genuinely fascist groups. It reminds me of the alt right retards whining about being called Nazis while they openly embrace it. AfD wasn't just about being conservative and actually did deserve to be called fascist sympathizers since that was literally their main appeal.
>>
No. 22406
>>22402
Bavaria is right, Schiz. This inability for many self-described leftists* to see the nuances that distinguish many right-wing movements damaged their credibility for impartial observers. I can't personally comment on AfD, but I don't trust MSM's representation of the political party. I would need sources close to German politics to properly inform me about that subject, preferably non-partisan Germans.

*as I've said in another thread, I find the left/right political spectrum to be woefully outmoded by the current political landscape, but for brevity's sake, the metric can be helpful to refer to a broad range of people with common assumptions. I personally believe the split in left/right politics concerns both the questions of equality and hierarchy: right-wingers reject equality and generally favor properly stratified societies (though not always) whereas leftists are proponents of egalitarianism and typically prefer flat hierarchies (though not always). Ergo, I use leftism as an umbrella to include Marxists, democratic socialists, communists, anarchists, left-syndicalists, et cetera. Social liberals, social democrats and progressives tend to fall closer to the center despite being left-leaning, so the term leftist isn't appropriate for them. The fact that leftists openly despise these people roughly as harshly as they do Fascists speaks volumes.
>>
No. 22407
>>22406
What is schiz? And I was agreeing with Bavaria saying
>Well, there are those parts of the party around Björn Höcke which do go in the direction of NatSoc.
AfD is specifically a rejection of actual Conservative German politics so far as I could tell. Why not vote for CSU or FDP then? Because it isn't primarily concerned with Conservativism or market liberalism. Although in particular trying to say shit like this
> I guess this was where their actions started to backfire and the AfD's radicalization began. Being called a fascist and nazi the very first moment they stepped out into political business pretty much laid the ground for the further developments that we're acquainted with
Always irritates me. As if getting called out on your tendencies makes it the fault of whoever called you out on that. It's not just stupid it's fucking childish and reminds me of this "well, I wasn't so much into terrorism before just creating a caliphate by any means necessary, but now that you call me an Islamic terrorist I guess I might as well go bombing some shopping malls this is all your fault nyah" kind of crap.
>>
No. 22412
Oh, we again turned into full 4chan /pol in history thread.
>>
No. 22413 Kontra
>>22412
How? There's been no shitflinging going on. Just heated disagreement here and there, but nothing in bad faith.
>>
No. 22423 Kontra
>>22407
>>22402
AfD at the start was mostly economic oriented and EU-skeptic. Notably supported by many German economics. The wedge where nationalism got in was the Anti-EU rhetoric of not ceding any more national power to the EU.
That the nationalist elements eventually gained more power due to everyone calling AfD fascist/Nazi is a fair point. Even though they are still not fascist.
>>
No. 22433
>>22407
Aren't you the one known as schizenu?

How did you get that name anyway? What's the "enu" a reference to?
>>
No. 22436
>>22433
? You mean the vierkanal meme that a bunch of Americans got called on KC? How the fuck should I know?

>>22423
I don't understand the deeper inner workings of German politics but you still haven't explained why they wouldn't vote CSU or FDP instead then since CSU is more Conservative and FDP is the economic liberal party. AfD so far as I could tell was just a far right nationalist party pretending outwardly to be something else, similarly to how LePen's party was still known as just code for the same far right nationalist sort of platform that's affiliated with those sorts of fascist elements.
>>
No. 22440
>>22436
First and foremost the CSU is only electable in Bavaria. Actually many conservatives and AfD sympathizers wished for a national version of the CSU but that's a quite unrealistic development. The thing with the mother party CDU is that it went through a significant shift from being a conservative party to a liberal one over the course of the decades. If you listen to a speech of Franz-Josef Strauss and one of Merkel you will understand what I'm talking about. Merkel herself went as far as to be afraid to call the german people germans, instead just called them "people who live here longer". This development might very well be cpnnected to the leftist march on the institutions that happened since the 70s. Oh and while the FDP is economically liberal, it's culturally liberal as well. Especially their youths regard themselves as progressive afaik.

Comparing the AfD with the RN is leading nowhere. Even though both parties follow a very similiar agenda nowadays their roots are heavily different. Thinking about it, they're even contrasting each other. While Marine broke with her fathers old-school fascist thought (including the antisemitism) and effectively de-radicalized her party, the AfD went through a process of radicalization throughout the years. If you want to know more about it, just read up on zhe parties' history.
By the way I don't think that the radicalization will continue, what I'm expecting to happen is a sort of right wing 68'. To really change something as a political movement you need radicals such as Höcke, you need the avantgarde to break through before you can get to the core of your enemies army. In the 60s and 70s you had a lots of western german students planning the communist revolution, literally overthrowing the political system. They may not have reached their goals but they definitely reached a cultural dominance of leftist thought in Germany (concerning arts and media at least) by pushing the boundaries. The AfD and identitarians don't do anything else, they push the boundaries to have a small but important change at the end of the day, concerning problems of migration, national identity and independence as well as family values. Their biggest problem though is that their conservative views lack the authentic religious foundation. Houellebecq turned out as a visionary once again when describing the same problem with the future version of the RN in Soumission. Still it's the cactual conservative's only choice these days. Also a lot of AfD voters are proud democrats, I think this is what actually fears the establishment the most and that's why they coined the term of populism. There is a handful of actual, real nazis in germany but no-one is really afraid of them.
>>
No. 22441
>>22398
I do keep in mind the german history all the time, don't worry about that one. What you're describing is pretty much what the right calls Schuldkult. Sure, the nazis deeds were barbaric and should not be forgotten but taking this particular point in germany history as a reference point to discredit any kind of arising nationalism as the first step to a repetition of what happened is, you call it, plain and simply a form of hysteria ("Der Schoß ist fruchtbar noch" has become a dogma). The turkish government is nationalistic to the brim and still they don't massacre Armenians again.

>I'd probably call myself leftist in the sense that I want a postcapitalist society and that I don't hold anything on feeling better over people who have a different skin color. 
Postcapitalist society in terms of communism? I mean, if you'd be a marxist that's what you would be talking about but I know that the contemporary left is enthusiastically searching for other solutions.
The second point is interesting, do you think wanting a somewhat ethnically homogenous society (even if it's only european, as it's the case within the european right) equals feeling better than other races?
Wanting to have people of your own or at least your similiar kind around has nothing to do with racism in my opinion. Maybe if you see it as discriminating to stop people from migrating into yout country but then there is no common ground for a debate.
>>
No. 22451
>>22441
>The turkish government is nationalistic to the brim and still they don't massacre Armenians again

Right, but der Schoß ist fruchtbar noch is not wrong but this is true for every person on this planet to a certain degree. I'm not saying Germany is on the brink of a 4th Reich but saying nothing will ever happen again because Hitler Germany was so outstanding is fooling yourself. Ofc a similar situation is unimagineable now and even in the near future but hatred and death wishes against ethnics that is followed by action is not unimaginable and a step.
There are enough ethnic conflicts based on the same logic but in Africa or SEA they don't have camps to gas people in an industrial fashion.

>Postcapitalist society in terms of communism? I mean, if you'd be a marxist that's what you would be talking about but I know that the contemporary left is enthusiastically searching for other solutions.

I'm for different solutions, the is no point in trying to copy the SU. Communism can be a source tho. It's an idea of a postcapitalistic society after all.

For the other point: Well, I have certain values I hold high and they are not shared by Africans and white Germans or Europeans alike. Hence I'm not living between people that are like myself. An African could be more similar to me than a German, the skin color would make us differ, ofc, but not our image on how to interact with each other. It's not like Europeans don't have fantasies about archaic things just like some Muslims are supposed to have it.

Europe can't take all migrants from Africa for years to come, that's why there must be solutions that go beyond closing down borders, that's just dealing with symptoms. I know Realpolitik always deals with symptoms but that's why there is also a need to think different and perhaps intervene somehow. Very hard to imagine on a world that cannot imagine alternatives anymore.
>>
No. 22453 Kontra
Maybe we can rename this thread in "4chan politics" and if people want to talk about history, not 4TH REICH ALTERNATIVE FOR GERMANY JEWS CONSPIRACY and other degeneracy, they can have actual history thread, that also not contain shitty memes in OP post?
>>
No. 22454 Kontra
>>22453
Either bring up something worth discussing or shut the fuck up. People like you who whine when there's an actual discussion taking place are the worst.

Yes, you will get tangeants that are not entirely on topic, but it's the inevitability whenever history is being discussed.
>>
No. 22456
>>22454
>>22453

I have to agree with the American here. Discussions cannot be kept strict on an imageboard. I don't see that our discussion, at least my post about the AFD I never talked about the jews was rather reasonable I think. We came from the history of the Antifa to this, but I don't see it drifting away into shitposting territory. Nobody is making short and witty or :DDD remarks on a political position. I haven't read it all
>>
No. 22460
94 kB, 1000 × 1500
How do you read academic texts about history?
Recently, I went back to reading a book that I haven't read since University.
Even then I only read a few passages, and not the entire book, as I took courses about Greek History only as personal interest and not as requirements for a major.
I generally have no problem reading the Illiad or other translated Greek works, but it's taking a long time to read this book.
The book tries to separate translations into different sections and categories, but it still ends up being fragmentary (especially when some of the translated works are very fragmentary themselves). Also, all footnotes are located at the end of the passage and not at the bottom of the page. This is fine for short passages, but for longer ones you have keep flipping pages to read the footnotes which sometimes are not very helpful at all. Example:
  1. Thuc. II 65.9: See 209
  2. See 137
  3. See 141 with n.4. 313.
  4. See 141.
  5. Compare 25.
Is this this just not the kind of book that you can read from cover to cover?
>>
No. 22461
>>22454
>>22456
We could go back to talking about why Russia collapsed :-DDDD
>>
No. 22462
>>22460
I also feel that I'm not thoroughly understanding all the translated works.
The book tends to only give single paragraphs introductions for a particular passage, and then immediately moves on to the next passage. Many times the passage in question will bring up things that are never talked about again in the book. The translations also tend to use Greek words (either because they are important or because they are untranslatable). This is fine for commonly used Greek words (and words that exist in english) such as polis, agora, apoikia, archon, astu, boule, chora, nomos, stele, stasis, ephoros, demos, barbaros, etc. The glossary is unhelpful as it only gives definitions for words that are commonly used (and so I already know them). The index gives passages for all Greek words used, but many times these words can only be understood through context and are not given definitions by the author.
>>
No. 22463
>>22460
You get a graphite pencil and a few post-it notes. Then as you read, you underline PARTS of sentences you deem critical. If something seems especially critical, then you should mark it with a post-it note.
Then you write down your own, condensed version into a notebook.

These books were made to be "studied", rather than to be "read" in a traditional sense.
>>
No. 22464
>>22460
>>22462
It depends on the book/text ofc. Like the Hungarian said, you mark important sentences, sections.
Might be helpful to know how such books work. A question of structure in academic texts. Maybe write an abstract about every chapter/whole book/ main thesis and arguments

Since I have no interest in ancient history these problems you have were never one of mine. I only had to write one small paper on Aristotle and I used the German translation.
Maybe your book is just a bad one but I remember now why history books on ancient greece, especially greek orginials + their translations are such bitches to read.

>Also, all footnotes are located at the end of the passage and not at the bottom of the page.

These people who decided it should be shot, similar for footnotes at the end of the book, this flipping is the worst shit ever. I also hate in-text citation like (Millman, Rosko 2009 p.165). Footnotes at the bottom of the page, everything else is crap.
>>
No. 22472
>>22460
It's a reader, not reading. I've got a similar book for translated Roman sources lying around here. It's laid out 'poorly' because it's not meant to be read, it's meant to be consulted. There are quite a few books in the historical wheelhouse that behave like that too, so it shouldn't be a new thing if you did any at a tertiary level.
>>
No. 22484 Kontra
>>22456
From all themes I see - over and over modern german politics.
>>
No. 22491
>>22436
>? You mean the vierkanal meme that a bunch of Americans got called on KC? How the fuck should I know?

It's not a vierkanker mene. The term is a portmanteau of Schizophrenic and Xenu, the Alien God in Scientology lore. A user christened you with the name following a very long, turgid and presumably incendiary post about Scientology allegedly authored by you. Since you like to talk about conspiracy theories, /pol/ users and Christianity, you became such an identifiable poster that the term stuck.

Unfortunately, most users on KC 2017 were unable to distinguish you from other Americans with anti-pol / anti-right-wing talking points, so other users were misidentified as you.
>>
No. 22495 Kontra
>>22491
The fuck? I never talked about Scientology.

> A user christened you with the
Somehow I suspect that poster is you.

>conspiracy theories, /pol/ users and Christianity,
I generally don't and that's a pretty broad number of topics, probably spread by shitposters from vierkanal themselves whenever anyone bitched about them shitting up the board.

>Unfortunately, most users on KC 2017 were unable to distinguish you from other Americans with anti-pol / anti-right-wing talking points, so other users were misidentified as you.
Which is what you are doing right now. There aren't even that many of us on here and you still are confusing me with other people. nb because Russia is right the history thread is turning into KC2017.

>>22463
Even with a pencil I feel like that's just vandalizing a book. I guess it depends if it's a college textbook or not.
>>
No. 22500 Kontra
>>22495
I cannot take credit for that. The guy invented that term and it has since stuck, but since it's a grave misnomer, I will abandon it.

This thread doesn't have to degenerate into KC 2017. And again, this is merely a minor tangent.

To bring things back to where they were from my end, does anyone care to address these posts?
>>22363
>>22400
>>
No. 22504
>>22363

Modern (European) Antifa was basically born during and shortly after the time of German reunification, mostly as a self-defense organisation of the post 1968 radical left youth movements like squatters and Autonomous groups.
>>
No. 22510
>>22500
>>22495
>>22491
The hell? Why is there cabbage shit in my history thread? I talk about conspiracies but I'm not the guy who mentioned Xenu in the conspiracy thread. If you're referring to me calling Tr*mp a fat conman like Hubbard I'd say it was apt. It's also obvious that even with the like 4 Americans on EC you apparently still call random Americans this dumb buzzword. Wasn't that RAC?

>>22440
Religion in Western Europe confuses me. Like France is supposed to be a Catholic country but they're turbo secular. Germany has two parties that call themselves Christian but I can't even see much Christian influence on politics beyond a couple things about Mutti.

>>22406
Probably as close as you can get to a left/right split. Personally I think they're kind of useless and outdated terms though.

>>22377
It's a loaded term but not a hard one to understand: specifically using violence against civilians. That's pretty much it. If you suicide bomb a military compound, it isn't terrorism. If you firebomb a ski resort because muh pristine forest, it isn't terrorism. If you specifically wage a campaign of violence to intimdate and frighten civilians including mass murder or random acts of violence, then it is terrorism, and that fits the KKK to a T. And like I said, it speaks volumes that the KKK is still not officially a terrorist organization, even though it certainly is, and yet groups like ALF and ELF are officially designated terrorists even though AFAIK they never actually hurt anybody. It's also why I think the right wing is full of crying pussies because they never had the kind of systematic persecution on an official level that leftists have had throughout US history. You won't get shit for charges by being a dues paying KKK member, but you absolutely will get nailed on as a terrorist for supporting ELF, ALF, or any of numerous leftist groups.

Also it's only a loaded term because it's abused. You currently have this retard calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "terrorists" despite the fact they are an official military organ of the Iranian state, and calling different Kurdish groups "terrorists" because of Turkey's butthurt and Turkey only gets tolerated because of being a strategically important NATO member. Obviously the Kurds additionally get shit on because despite being one of America's only useful allies in the region (the rest are absolutely fucking useless shitheads including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) and who were useful against both Saddam Hussein as well as ISIS they've now been abandoned https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/679813573/we-will-curse-them-as-traitors-syrian-kurds-react-to-u-s-troop-withdrawal-plan
Which really makes me wonder why anyone even pretends the US is a reliable partner in fucking anything. The last two decades have proven beyond shadow of a doubt that our country simply does not have the capacity or repute to be a world leader or reliable partner in just about anything.

But getting back to the point, the problem isn't even that "terrorism" is a useless term, but that the assholes who like using it the most do so in the most abusive manner possible thus stripping the word of any meaning because what they really mean is "enemy of the neocon oligarch establishment" and nothing more. Obviously, groups like the KKK are ultimately not that, except for the fact they as well as a lot of the far right wingers are fundamentally opposed to aspects of the Capitalist world order, but are just too f'ing stupid to realize it isn't "Socialism" that's doing the shit they hate, it's Capitalism, and all that world system cares about is making a small group of people a lot more money. You can't make as much money with KKK types, but at least the KKK isn't fundamentally opposed to things like say their exploitation of third world labor (only their importation of it) whereas groups like ALF, ELF, Black Bloc, and so on in addition to Socialists of all stripes are fundamentally opposed to them and their system in a way the KKK isn't and never was.
>>
No. 22514
>>22510
>Wasn't that RAC?
Who else would this be?

>Probably as close as you can get to a left/right split. Personally I think they're kind of useless and outdated terms though.

As before, we agree. Previously brought this up in the conspiracy thread, but to reiterate, I think left/right is more of a social/philosophical question than a economic position, but that's neither here nor there.

Since I'm going to be away from my desktop for awhile, it's too difficult to correspond properly and succinctly address the rest of your post. Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy some quality time with my mother in the Adirondacks.

A good evening to you.
>>
No. 22568
The more things change, the more they stay the same:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/splits.htm

Even in the late 19th Century, European Marxists couldn't stand American ones.
>>
No. 22569
5,7 MB, 480 × 272, 1:41
>>22568
This kind of stuff has been true since forever. There's of course the Euros turning their noses up at us in general, but it's also just true of leftism in general which is what makes it so hilariously misinformed when certain people try talking about "leftists" as if it even resembles any kind of unified front.
>>
No. 22579
171 kB, 1200 × 806
Since tread occupied by 4cancer poltards, it is better to post there or make new thread?

I think in anglo world people know much more about this theme, so I interested in literature on theme of involvement of native american tribes in Anglo-American war of 1812. How much they was involved in war, if there was clashes of different tribes from both sides on front, and how was life of tribes that lived in territories where was ongoing war, but was not part of the conflict?
additionaly, I'd be interested in reading different historican opinions authors how much this war affected Napoleonic Wars in Europe?
>>
No. 22603
>>22579
Nobody cares about the War of 1812, even in the Anglo world. We fought to a draw, the Brits burned down Washington, and we kicked their asses at New Orleans and got a sick song out of it. That's the most anybody ever learns about it.

I'd look for a general history of the war, or of American history during the period. If there was any Indian involvement of note then, well, it'll be noted.

>>22460
>How do you read academic texts about history?
With great pain and annoyance. Unless you're looking for really obscure shit like an analysis of yearly taxes in early Mughal Punjab, you can find what you're looking for on almost any subject in a non-academic (read: well-written) book.

It pisses me off how most academics write. The point of their profession is to produce, preserve, and propagate knowledge, but it's like they're philosophically opposed to the idea of easily parseable information. I have a book on early Chinese history that I'm working through, but it's such a miserable thing to read that I've finished 2 other books before finishing the part on the Shang dynasty.

If you have to use highlighters and post-it notes to mine usable information from a book, it's a poorly written book.

>>22472
>It's laid out 'poorly' because it's not meant to be read, it's meant to be consulted.
But the book is just a "selection", not a comprehensive selection, and not narrowly themed selection. How the fuck is it supposed to serve as a useful reference work?
>>
No. 22607
>>22603
It is for tertiary study primarily. A comprehensive collection is the CIL and things like it and typically you know your field well enough to know roughly where to go for what you want anyway. For example if I want a source on the California Column, it is easier to just go to the back third or so of Vol. IX of the ORs than it is to find it in a 'comprehensive' collection.
>>
No. 22617 Kontra
>>22607
http://www.bbaw.de/en/research/ig

Also, here's proofs that a comprehensive collection is not what you want either. The equivalent for Greek inscriptions alone has over 50 volumes to the effect of in the ballpark of 150,000 entries. That doesn't include surviving words that aren't inscriptions.

Also, the reason actual academic-level books are dense and dry is because they're not made for someone interested in a topic, they're made for someone heavily invested in a topic, usually professionally so. That's also why a lot of them have bad explanations of things that aren't the key point. There's typically a lot of assumed knowledge if you are going into books of that level. A similar case is art for artists which, if you can persuade the brick to explain it again, is actually an interesting subject. It's pretty damn impenetrable to the layman, but it isn't running counter to its field's purpose, it just operates on a different level.
>>
No. 22633
>>22510
>It's also why I think the right wing is full of crying pussies because they never had the kind of systematic persecution on an official level that leftists have had throughout US history.

This is going to lead into a conversation about power dynamics, but to keep things brief, right-wingers operate under hard tyranny whereas leftists prefer soft tyranny. The deplatforming right-wingers are facing today have historical precedents in the 1930s. No one need look further than the case of Father Charles Coughlin for evidence.

To address your above point, it was sheer dumb luck on account of government incompetence and the death of a judge that American Fascists escaped persecution. George W. Christians of the Crusader White Shirts wasn't so lucky. Neither was William Dudley Pelley of the Silver Legion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Dennis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dudley_Pelley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

>In 1944, [Lawrence Dennis] was indicted in a group that ranged from genuine progressives to pro-Nazi agitators, in a sedition prosecution under the Smith Act. The case ended in a mistrial after the judge died of a heart attack. Dennis co-authored with Maximilian John St. George (1885-1959) an account of the trial, which appeared in 1946 as A Trial on Trial: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944.
>Thirty prominent individuals were indicted in Washington, D.C., in July 1942, accused of violations of the Smith Act. After delays while the government amended the charges and struggled to construct its case, the trial, expanded to 33 defendants, began on April 17, 1944. The defendants were a heterogeneous group that held either isolationist or pro-fascist views. In the case of U.S. v. McWilliams, the prosecutor, O. John Rogge, hoped to prove they were Nazi propaganda agents by demonstrating the similarity between their statements and enemy propaganda. The weakness of the government's case, combined with the trial's slow progress in the face of disruption by the defendants, led the press to lose interest. A mistrial was declared on November 29, 1944, following the death of the trial judge, Edward C. Eicher. Defendant Lawrence Dennis mocked the affair by subtitling his account of the trial The Great Sedition Trial of 1944.
>>
No. 22638
42 kB, 618 × 518
974 kB
636 kB, 22 pages
>>22579
>literature on theme of involvement of native american tribes in Anglo-American war of 1812
Most historical material is focused on the native leader Tecumseh, and Canadians rate him much higher than we Americans do. Here's an article that summarizes his role in the conflict:

https://www.americanindianmagazine.org/story/tecumsehs-war-road-1812

>The bicentennial of the War of 1812 will be widely commemorated in Canada, but not so much in the United States. A good part of the credit, or blame, for this disparity, depending on your side of the border, belongs to the great Shawnee war leader Tecumseh.
>>
No. 22646
>>22633
lol not really.
>The deplatforming right-wingers are facing today have historical precedents in the 1930s. No one need look further than the case of Father Charles Coughlin for evidence.
The biggest difference is historical context. FFS over a hundred thousand innocent American citizens get shipped off to prison camps merely for being ethnically Japanese by ancestry. This in addition to the fact as you well know there was the Business Plot shortly before this time which was an attempted fascist overthrow of the government. In context, particularly at a time of not just any war but WWII of all things, it isn't entirely unreasonable to detain or at least inquire into the activities of those actively advocating the overthrow of the US government.

Re: Father Coughlin in particular
>Some members of the Catholic hierarchy may not have approved of Coughlin. The Vatican, the Apostolic Nunciature to the United States, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati all wanted him silenced. They recognized that only Coughlin's superior, Bishop Michael Gallagher of Detroit, had the canonical authority to curb him, but Gallagher supported the "Radio Priest".[54] Owing to Gallagher's autonomy, and the prospect of the Coughlin problem leading to a schism, the Roman Catholic leadership took no action.[55]
It seems the Vatican itself wasn't pleased with him either. You will notice that he was tolerated right up until the point he was using his radio broadcasts to basically support America's enemies specifically Germany, Italy, and Japan.

The closest parallel is radio being a new medium, and the greatest irony about deplatforming being that this was only really enabled by largely right wing economic positions regarding not treating the internet as a public utility, including things like cancellation of Net Neutrality.

Note: leftists have always been fucked with directly by the government. In the case of deplatforming the government has absolutely fuckall to do with that and is pretty much entirely within the realm of private business owners including FB and Google kicking them out, not the government. Given that things have escalated to right wing terrorist attacks becoming routine and shit like the NZ shooter using places like FB to directly stream a terrorist attack, or people sharing and praising videos of him, can you actually blame them?

Like I said, it's a group of people who've been treated with kids gloves crying like pussies who've never really even experienced hardship or persecution in their lives. The double irony is said people not being routinely attacked by say the federal government (with your only exceptions shown here being a couple instances of wartime agitators for the enemy) and outright calling for persecution of others being made into national policy, who are themselves practically backed by the police (most of whom are themselves right wing), then trying to cry like bitches about how terribly persecuted they all are. They're not. They're backed at the institutional level by and large. The idea of institutional anti-right wing persecution is a complete myth and I find it interesting your main example is in WWII people acting in the interests of enemy nations essentially and you not including the group convicted of espionage and executed for it.
>>
No. 22655
>>22646
I'm not going to pretend that right-wingers any parallels to the likes of Sacco and Vanzetti, but to claim that they have faced no persecution is simply not true. Yes, they were agitating during a time of war, but so were the student movements in the '60s, the Weathermen and Symbionese Liberation Army.

>FFS over a hundred thousand innocent American citizens get shipped off to prison camps merely for being ethnically Japanese by ancestry.

The internment of the Japanese was a shameful and unnecessary affair, but entirely peripheral to this discussion.

>The closest parallel is radio being a new medium, and the greatest irony about deplatforming being that this was only really enabled by largely right wing economic positions regarding not treating the internet as a public utility, including things like cancellation of Net Neutrality.

No shit. The dissident right always gets fucked over by the mainstream right. This isn't new.

>who are themselves practically backed by the police (most of whom are themselves right wing), then trying to cry like bitches about how terribly persecuted they all are. They're not. They're backed at the institutional level by and large. The idea of institutional anti-right wing persecution is a complete myth

Citation needed. Show me a single Fascist group (must be Fascist or National Socialist) of any size either historical or contemporary that has billion dollar fortunes or any means of institutional support. Can you show me any police unit that has systemically aided and abetted Fascist groups? No, the actions of individual street officers with Fascist sympathies don't count. Aside from the Second Wave Klan, what other largely Fascist group was supported by the government?

>I find it interesting your main example is in WWII people acting in the interests of enemy nations essentially and you not including the group convicted of espionage and executed for it.

We're talking about people whose only crime was their words. There's a huge difference between people like Lawrence Dennis or Father Coughlin and people like the Rosenbergs.
>>
No. 22673
I never said "non" I specifically said
> it's a group of people who've been treated with kids gloves crying like pussies who've never really even experienced hardship or persecution in their lives.
And that is completely true. Like the Klan still has some actual political power and sympathizers for example. Most on the hard right are ultimately sympathetic to some of the worst impulses of government as well as policing agencies pretty much all of which are at minimum right leaning. The only times the extreme right gets in deep shit is when they're hoarding weapons and actively planning on violence, otherwise usually all of their resistance is coming from the public rather than at an institutional level. When I said "kids' gloves" I thought I was being clear that I meant some on the far right sometimes do get fucked with but even then they're handled way more softly than anyone else including leftists, such as discussed earlier the ALF and ELF being officially designated terrorist groups despite only engaging in property damage, not violence against people, unlike the Klan.

>Yes, they were agitating during a time of war, but so were the student movements in the '60s, the Weathermen and Symbionese Liberation Army.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. The Weathermen were building bombs, for one thing, so it's a poor example. Secondly if you meant the Cold War, the argument could possibly be made (though really dubiously and it'd be a pretty Orwellian one to make), whereas I hope you didn't mean Vietnam, which was a tiny ass Southeeast Asian country with absolutely zero power projection capability that was simply having its own civil war at the time the US meddled in.

See the difference? Massive, global, worst war in human history with a known threat and agitator like Nazi Germany with spies and provocatuers everywhere, trying to get the Mexicans to wage war on us, with their ally Japan outright attacking us and killing Americans, vs...Vietnam.
>Citation needed. Show me a single Fascist group (must be Fascist or National Socialist)
lol Italian fascists and the Nazis aren't the only two hard right groups, and certainly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due
which also had rumored ties to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre
since for some strange reason right wingers really seem to like false flag terrorist attacks or outright terrorist attacks to further their agendas for some reason come to think of it I'm not even aware of a single leftist false flag attack but I'm aware of tons of right wing ones, and dozens of other terrorist acts. Note the sheer amount of institutional support there.

I'd also like to point out you clearly probably meant a Western or even US-centric view of things though it should be noted how much this has been true of other countries as well often with support of US groups and interests (since we seem to specifically be discussing US treatment).

So that right there between Klan and P2 is millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in possibly financing and political support. The far left has...zilch. Possibly depending on your definition of "far" you might be able to count on a few Hollywood celebrities and possibly others generally offering support to groups like idk PETA or something (which isn't even a far left group itself). And in some cases, the fascist groups literally are the government itself, and only have failed to totally centralize power in the US due largely to how our government is structured itself, so they typically try to work through NGOs and think tanks as more moderate fronts.

>We're talking about people whose only crime was their words. There's a huge difference between people like Lawrence Dennis or Father Coughlin and people like the Rosenbergs.
The Rosenbergs aren't leftist activists, they were fucking traitors who committed out of all possible crimes of treason quite possibly the worst one in history. I'm not sure how I feel about executing people for treason rather than up to life in prison, but if anyone deserved it, it was them for passing on the hydrogen bomb to one of our rivals, which is similar to some of how I'm so utterly pissed with Israel (not just bombing our ships but selling our mil tech to China we should have cut ties to that fucking regime entirely).

Again, do you see? Rosenbergs committed actual treason and passed on the highest of top military secrets to the enemy/belligerent rival, and were executed for it. Coughlin was sent to prison for agitating for the enemy during a time of war, and he was never sent to prison
>Meanwhile, Biddle was also exploring the possibility of bringing an indictment against Coughlin for sedition as a possible "last resort".[62] Hoping to avoid such a potentially sensational and divisive sedition trial, Biddle arranged to end the publication of Social Justice itself. First Biddle had a meeting with banker Leo Crowley, another Roosevelt political appointee and friend of Bishop Edward Aloysius Mooney of Detroit, Bishop Gallagher's successor. Crowley relayed Biddle's message to Mooney that the government was willing to "deal with Coughlin in a restrained manner if he [Mooney] would order Coughlin to cease his public activities."[63] Consequently, on May 1, Bishop Mooney ordered Coughlin to stop his political activities and to confine himself to his duties as a parish priest, warning of potentially removing his priestly faculties if he refused. Coughlin complied and was allowed to remain the pastor of the Shrine of the Little Flower. The pending hearing before the Postmaster General, which had been scheduled to take place three days later, was cancelled as it was no longer necessary. Although forced to end his public career, Coughlin served as parish pastor until retiring in 1966.
Like I said, kids' gloves. All that happened in the case of Coughlin was he was told to knock it the hell off while we were fighting a war and to not openly use the airways to broadcast what could be construed as enemy propaganda, if he would please. He was not sent to prison, and was simply forced to cancel his program.

It should also be pointed out
>Having gained a reputation as an outspoken anti-communist, in July 1930 Coughlin was given star billing as a witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee.[12]
That is, again, at the institutional level.

Another great example of kids' gloves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
If any leftist ever even thought about pulling that shit they'd get gunned down immediatelynot that I am fundamentally opposed to the American public using armed resistance if necessary against police and the federal government...

So yeah. It's not even comparable. The one has actual sympathies from numerous people and groups in the United States and has for quite awhile, which as I mentioned before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Just imagine what would have happened if say a Socialist had proposed a thing like that. Rather than no prosecutions they'd have been hanged.

The whole thing with the left in this country in particular to begin with is coming from a place of vast disenfranchisement. Obviously, if you've got a group who either wants to maintain the status quo or outright disenfranchise them even more than they're currently allowed it tells you something about the actual political soul behind the two groups and the amount of persecution they actually represent, so yeah, I find the whole premise of your argument ridiculous. And so far as the more tepid Republicans are concerned, it basically boils down to "don't call them niggers or rant about Jews publicly in polite company." That is to say, don't embarrass us with how we really think while we're trying to make money and put on a big show for the public, regardless of how much they agree with you behind closed doors.
>>
No. 22679
>>22673
The Klan has multimillions? A highly fragmented organization with perhaps no more than 4000 identified members, several of who are informants? PROOFS?
https://www.thesocialcontract.com/answering_our_critics/art2000nov.html

Not that guy, but even I find that hard to believe.
>>
No. 22681
>>22673
>I'd also like to point out you clearly probably meant a Western or even US-centric view of things though it should be noted how much this has been true of other countries as well often with support of US groups and interests (since we seem to specifically be discussing US treatment).

Indeed, we are discussing the United States. Italy didn't undergo the intense denazification period Germany did, so it's no surprise Fascism still has some currency over there. Neither here nor there. We are speaking to each other as Americans.

I will say the situation for the American far-right is much better than the far-right for other Western nations especially those in the Anglosphere. Conversely, it's much less forgiving to leftists here than other Western nations. That much we agree, but still far from ideal for both if you ask me. Casual hostility towards Communism is endemic among Boomers of all stripes, but I argue that could easily change in a few years especially as the culture continues to embrace casual hostility towards whiteness and heteronormativity in the name of equality, a value shared by leftists of all stripes. If radical leftism can be co-opted and mass marketed as something edgy and fashionable by woke capitalism, it will.

You've previously mentioned you're from somewhere in the Southwest. Perhaps Texas, New Mexico or Arizona. I can only assume your deeply entrenched hatred for right-wing politics came from exposure to its worst elements in the cultural climate favoring policies you believe to be destructive and/or casual acceptance of such political realities. I have no idea the circumstances with which you grew up, but only recollections from posts I believe to be yours. If you would like to elaborate on this, be my guest. You are uniquely qualified to discuss your own experiences.

>Possibly depending on your definition of "far" you might be able to count on a few Hollywood celebrities and possibly others generally offering support to groups like idk PETA or something (which isn't even a far left group itself).

Hollyweird attracts a whole gamut of loons from all walks of life, but by and large, they're bourgeois liberals in practice if not in theory. Sure, there are those interested in radical leftists, but they aren't giving up their life of luxury for the people. Money is just one of many ways to support left-wing causes. Several prominent celebrities were involved in Occupy Wall Street. Of course, that whole thing imploded dramatically and pretty soon you had just about everyone claiming to be part of Occupy, but that's neither here nor there.

PeTA is adjacent to many radical leftists like Rod Coronado, but isn't inherently a leftist organization. You could interpret them as a leftist organization since they wish to apply egalitarianism to non-humans, but that's another discussion entirely.

Don't forget a huge number of celebrities openly promote the Human Rights Campaign. Of course, that organization was deeply divided against itself and had serious internal issues during the 2016 election following HRC leaders' collective endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Again, another discussion.

You also have crass garbage like FCKH8 which I believe Jane Lynch of Glee fame endorsed, but still need to check.

If I can be arsed to go through more of the various movements and causes celebrities support, I will, but for now, I'm just going to come up with what I know immediately. Entirely peripheral to this discussion. No one is going to invest in the revolutionary left because woke capitalism has proven to be a much more promising return on investment for social change and people monetarily committed to such causes.

>If any leftist ever even thought about pulling that shit they'd get gunned down immediately

Surprised you bring up the Bundy Ranch standoff, but not Ruby Ridge. You're probably old enough to remember that case.

For a more overt example of a radical right-winger singlehandedly taking on the government, you can also look at Gordon Kahl. In that case, a tax resister and sovereign citizen lunatic got into two shootouts with law enforcement.

>And so far as the more tepid Republicans are concerned, it basically boils down to "don't call them niggers or rant about Jews publicly in polite company." That is to say, don't embarrass us with how we really think while we're trying to make money and put on a big show for the public, regardless of how much they agree with you behind closed doors.

Are you seriously telling me the Republican Party is secretly as racist as the alt-right? That's not remotely true. The Beltway Right is deathly afraid of being even in the same room as someone who's been accused of racism. Ronald Reagan expressly repudiated the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke. People like Jeb go out of their way to signal how "not racist" they are and bristle at anyone with opinions that could even be interpreted as unkind to non-whites. Then you have shitbags from Conservatism Inc. like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Dinesh D'Souza who spout dumb memes like DR3 (Democrats R da REAL RACISTZ). Of course, they love to shit on Muslims and have been given the greenlight to do so from people in the ADL or AIPAC, but that's neither here nor there. Look at how they elevate kooks like Ben Carson or grifters like Candace Owens just because they're black. The few decent people like Thomas Sowell who put in the intellectual work to support Libertarian and Republican causes are championed by practically everyone mainstream right-winger. Sure, the Beltway Right supports policies that ultimately end up denying welfare to poor blacks, but it's out of a sincere belief they're helping them. You probably already know this, but for everyone else, you have to understand Neoconservatism to understand the current Republican Party:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJNJx56rh2k

As to Father Coughlin, he was neutered politically after his radio show was shutdown and forced into retirement. Certainly a better fate than imprisonment or death seeing that he could practice his faith and tend to his local flock, but he was effectively removed from politics. Isn't that disenfranchisement in its own right? He also wasn't a major player in the House Un-American Activities when it started to effectively exercise its weight in Hollywood.

As to the so-called "Business Plot", nothing ever came of it.
>>
No. 22844
822 kB, 800 × 1066
300 kB, 1367 × 623
How common is FAS in CIS countries?
>>
No. 22851
>>22844
Less common than imageboard users will tell you. Although it's not rare and more widespread than anywhere else. In cis countries common opinion is that swallows, fat finns, problems with nose, skin and anything visible is fetal alcohol syndrome. Because it's offensive
>>
No. 22857
>>22844
Very historical question.
>>
No. 23452
58 kB, 780 × 373
2,6 MB, 1307 × 875
43 kB, 800 × 450
84 kB, 680 × 1019
Facial reconstuction of the "Dead of Niederpöring".

2015 during escavations near the today Bavarian village Niederpöring the skeleton of a woman who lived 7000 years ago was found. She wore a bonnet decorated with over 400 snail shells. Her age a the time of death could be determined as about 50 years old. The woman was a member of the neolithic Western Linear Pottery culture, the first European farming people , and she is considered as belonging to a privileged stratum of this society.

DNA-analysis of tooth material showed that she was a very close relative to people living in Anatolia at the same time but not to
modern Europeans. Skin color and eye color could also be determinded by DNA analysis. Strontium isotope analysis proves that she grew up and lived all her life in the region where she was buried, her people migrated over the Balkans and lived in the region for hundreds of years without mixing with the native hunter gatherers.

Reconstruction:

The skull was 3D-CT scanned, and the digitalized data was used to 3D print a 1:1 replica of the skull. This replica was then used for a facial reconstruction according to modern methods known from criminology. Muscles and other tissue were applied in layers with clay according to the proposed age of the person and the given bone structure. The completed medell was then casted in silicone rubber. The skin colour was applied with Airbrush and real human hair was implanted into the rubber-skin. The hair dress was made by a profdessional hairstylist according
to the utensils that were found on her skull (bonnet & combs)

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/kuenzing-museum-quintana-steinzeit-archaeologie-1.4461047

https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article194016917/Jungsteinzeit-So-sah-eine-privilegierte-Frau-vor-7000-Jahren-aus.html

https://www.landkreis-deggendorf.de/aktuelles/aus-dem-landkreis/die-tote-von-niederpoering/
>>
No. 23453
275 kB, 1920 × 1079
87 kB, 773 × 1024
>>
No. 23617
>>23452
she was probably a hottie during her youth.
>>
No. 23636
139 kB, 780 × 1351
>>23617

Stonehenge man from about the same timeline would have been a suitable husband for the younger version of her, I guess.
>>
No. 23648
>>22374
>bitching about antifa among American poltards makes as much sense as bitching about the Pirate Partei.

If you're into alternative or extreme music (which RAC Bernd clearly is), then Antifa are a huge problem. It makes sense why he would complain about them.
>>
No. 23649
>>23648
They aren't though. It's largely a boogeyman that doesnt even exist in reality and RAC can listen to his atrociously bad music without being bothered by anybody. The only reason to bring it up is people with a huge victim complex needing even more excuses to feel like a victim.
>>
No. 23652
>>23649
If you mean in the privacy of RAC Bernd's own home, then yes, he is free to post and discuss such music. He's also free to buy such music without anyone giving him grief. That wasn't the point.

You obviously don't care about extreme music (after all, you are a Christian, I wouldn't expect anything less from you), but to bring you up to speed, Antifa have been a menace in getting Black Metal shows canceled. Just look at the wave of Black Metal shows that got cancelled between 2016 to today as well as the rampant deplatforming they've spearheaded:
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/antifa-attack-police-and-shutdown-messe-des-morts/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/montreal-police-condone-antifa-attack/
http://www.deathmetal.org/article/antifa-chases-nsbm-tinged-band-horna-across-the-united-states/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/antifa-shuts-down-taake-the-human-troll-band/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/metalsucks-whines-about-hells-headbangers/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/iron-bonehead-triggers-witchhunt-by-portland-maoists/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/usbm-cornerstone-elegy-records-closes-its-doors/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/paypal-no-platforms-moribund-records-for-satanic-beliefs/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/metalgate-nyogthaeblisz-excluded-from-maryland-show-for-racism/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/metalgate-spotify-proscribes-politically-incorrect-metal-bands/
http://www.deathmetal.org/news/singapore-gets-in-on-the-hate-crime-crusade-against-heavy-metal/

From all the posts I've seen between you and him, I get the feeling you are still firmly committed to radical leftist causes which explains why your anti-right-wing partisanship has clouded your judgement. You seem disappointed that most western left-wing movements have been coopted by woke capital which frustrates you because they'll no longer be revolutionary. As much as I don't expect sympathy from you, stop acting like Antifa aren't a huge pain in the ass.
>>
No. 23654 Kontra
>>23652
Perhaps such things and terms are REALLY a thing on the americas. But if not...gosh, are you guys retarded, I must say.
>>
No. 23658
>>23652
Why are you talking about yourself in third person?
>>
No. 23692
>>23652
>Said Montreal police constable Benoît Boisselle about the Communist antifascist terrorists who attacked the the police protecting the Messe des Morts festival where Graveland was scheduled to play. The Antifa thugs were clearly supported not only by the communist Industrial Workers of the World union but by the local Montreal city government too. Three of the perpetrators identities are known: recidivist junkie and anti-Semite Katie Nelson, Éric Sédition (a card-carrying member of the IWW), and Alexandre Bouleric (member of the Canadian federal parliament from a district in Montreal). All walk free to terrorize again.

>The Canadian government of social justice warrior Justin Trudeau and the German government of General Secretary Merkel clandestinely supports the leftist attempts
Yeah I'm done I'm not reading any more of this bullshit. How about actually giving us some unbiased sources on this? The idea that antifa are both a "real menace" and not just an imaginary one, and that the cops of all people are on their side, is exactly the kind of crazy bullshit I meant. It's even harder for me to take a bunch of middle class white kids crying like pussies about their victim complex because theres allegedly a few hooligans. Know what we used to call that? A fucking mosh pit.
>you're a Christian
>you dont listen to extreme music
And whatever this other garbage is supposed to mean although I'm unsure what you even mean by "extreme" music. You mean like metal extreme? Or do you mean as in extremists, like Prussian Blue? In which case you're right idgaf if they get the shit beat out of them. Talk shit, get hit. If you mean extremists crying like bitches yeah it makes me respect them so much less because again, metal concerts at least back in the day had mosh pits. People actually getting injured moshing was a thing. The way you are complaining reminds me of these $200 pre torn jeans faggots I absolutely can't stand. Obviously a lot of this is from being a lower class white guy so I have little patience for this type of crap.

As for "extreme" if you meant like, shock rock, I listened to Marilyn Manson while he was still being protested dude. Part of why I also respect Brian Warner so much to begin with is his ability to be very eloquent and generally well spoken about his views. I also really doubt antifa which isnt even a real big thing to begin with has any kind of institutional backing Manson's opponents had although to be fair that's probably the sort of thing that gave him such an edgy appeal to begin with.

>>23654
It's actually not. If you listen to a bunch of hysterics and lies from poltards they will tell you Soros is singlehandedly destroying white people and antifa is some big monolithic organization and anyone who thought Trump was a Zionist neocon moron must be paid by CTR and on and on. This is because they are mentally incapable of organizing themselves by providing anything like a coherent argument as opposed to shitposting meaningless buzzwords at you and accusing anyone who disagrees of being part of one monolithic conspiracy or another. Antifa merely fulfils that same functional role to them. The bigger irony is these guys swallow this bs despite having no experience of anything and just taking roleplaying shitposts online at face value yet somehow seeming to believe all these are real things. It's the same mentality as this guy who brought his AR to Comet's Pizza. What was perhaps the funniest thing about all that is most of their "clues" were literally just things they themselves were guilty of by being part of vierkanal, like the focus on "cheese pizza" to begin with. Somehow this irony was lost on them. Meanwhile the guy was surprised to find no children locked in cages in a basement that didn't exist and the moment he said how retarded it was they immediately started accusing him of being a crisis actor with equally flimsy evidence as every other retarded bullshit they swindle teenage boys with.

That is the same case with antifa. I have literally never seen or met any "antifa" people. I have met a few who'd sympathize with such a thing because they're part of the broader "sjw" idpol bullshit, and they're neither common nor remotely organized. There is no such thing as any central committee of antifa, they have no funding, and they largely have no support, not even among that many leftists, being more like a bunch of punk rock kids and hooligans flipping over trash cans. We have a bigger problem with sports fans rioting after their team wins or loses than antifa I shit you not.
>>
No. 37372
Just bumping this up to endorse this video course on modern history:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/modern-world/

Most of the stuff you probably already know if you have some interest in history, but it's really well presented and for me it filled in some blind spots that I only vaguely knew I had before, e.g. the larger historical context of the Russo-Japanese & Sino-Japanese wars.
>>
No. 39330
Bringing this motherfucker bad from the dead

Is it perhaps too early to discuss Mikhail Gorbachev and his work? In reading Russian news related to this man, the sheer unbridled hatred that this man conjures in some titans of the intellectual battleground known as the commentary section of Russian news, is simply astonishing. The accusations seem to circle around Gorbachev either being a helpless stooge who got played by the perfidious west, or an active CIA asset hellbent on destroying the Soviet Union.

I suppose there is some credit to the idea that Gorbachev "got played" by the West, given that he believed that by being the man between the Politburo or whatever liberal politician would rise in opposition to said Politburo Yeltsin in our timeline, he would be secure in his position as the President of the Soviet Union. In practice, the "West" - who would really be more accurately described as George Bush and his government, decided to play things safely and simply await what would happen in the chaotic events of 1991 without compromising future relations with the Soviet Union by backing Gorbachev too much. Understandably, they had some worries that a hardliner putsch would occur and Gorbachev would be ousted. In this case, if the "West" went all in on supporting Gorbachev, they'd risk a very aggressive and militant group of hardliners threatening another cold war.

However, none of this really tells us much about Gorbachev. He relied on the West, for he had to rely on the West. In this case, the "West" he relied on, does certainly include Germany, France and Britain. Notably Helmut Kohl, the West German chancellor who oversaw the unification of his country after Gorbachev's honest desire for the self determination of the people living on the red side of the iron curtain.

I have taken some effort in attempting to understand what really drove Gorbachev to so openly say that Moscow would not use force to subjugate a wayward socialist state that decided to leave. It is possible that my analysis is insufficient given I am just an autist amateur sovietologist.

The first point in understanding Gorbachev is to realize just how opposed he was to the use of violence to maintain political control. Detractors would accuse of him being cowardly, and unwilling to commit to sacrifices for the greater good. However, the events of '91 coup seem to show that Gorbachev certainly was not willing to bend principles for his personal safety. More so, a man who after rising to power in '85 was at times so openly defiant to a lot of his support base cannot be called 'cowardly', in my view. It would be cowardly to refuse to reform the system, lest one faces a hardliner putsch or simply out of a feeling of not wanting to rock the boat.

It becomes clear that the goals of Gorbachev were not the same as his predecessors (possibly sharing similiraties with Yuri Andropov, but I suppose we will never know). So what were Gorbachev's goals? What did he want to accomplish? What were his guiding principles?

1) Economic Reform
First and foremost, Gorbachev wanted to reform the Soviet system. Note that this is not the same as ending the Soviet system. In the late 80s, the system itself had morphed into such a chaotic, kafkaesque mess of red tape, inefficiency, petty boyarism and just pure inefficiency that it was obvious for anyone that reform would be necessary if the Soviet Union wanted to live to see the 21st century. Criticisms that are laid at his feet range from "too little, too late" and "too much, too soon". In my view, by not backing the 500 days program Or by not starting more deep reform of the economy earlier he would ensure the collapse would occur. It is worth nothing that no leader is an island, and Gorby had to play a very careful balancing act of mediating between hardliners and liberals (read: primarily, Yeltsin)

2) Ending the Cold War
This joins two aspects of Gorbachev's beliefs. The first was that the Soviet Union would simply not be capable of keeping up with an arms race with the United States. This wasn't an opinion exclusively held by him, which serves to explain that despite Gorbachev's incredible willingness to unilaterally end Soviet weapons programs, the hardliners at the military-industrial complex didn't put up much beyond token opposition. At least not until, the situation became catastrophic. The other of Gorby's beliefs that ties into how much of a diehard defend of denuclearization he was, is that he believed that the greatest threat mankind faced was annihilation via nuclear strike. In his view, the cold war could be done away with, the Soviet Union and the US co-existing as they have - but with more real diplomatic ties between each other.

3) Democratization
Despite being very good at backroom political dealings and being downright terrible at operating in a democratic system, Gorbachev believed that a steady opening up of Soviet society would grant him popular support (it did initially, eventually the liberals grew to believe he was unwilling to really "change" the system). Being a "man of the 60s" (Шестидесятники), Gorbachev believed that the Soviet Union had gone "wrong" with Stalin's rule and that a more liberal Soviet Union could be constructed. In his mind, he would recreate a new Prague Spring in the late 80s, and see the rise of a social democratic Soviet Union.

These set of beliefs were what lead him to honestly think that liberal communists like himself would be elected were the warsaw pact nations to hold free elections, and that he could turn back the clock to '68. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations would enjoy a real free socialist system of brotherly union and all that jazz.

I realize I wrote a gigantic wall of text, and despite barely having scratched the surface of our beloved Pizza Hut rep, I'll conclude it by saying that above all else, Gorbachev's greatest legacy comes from the Soviet Union collapsing peacefully. It is ironic that he came into power with the set goal of preventing this exact collapse.
>>
No. 39331
>>39330
I've recently watched a documentary about/with Gorbachev by Werner Herzog. Typical for Herzog, I felt like knowing the man privately afterwards; which prohibits me from being objective if I'm honest.

Nonetheless, I find it quite shocking that so many people in russia have such strong opinions about him. The guy seems to me like one of the very few "real" communists, compared to all of the aparatschiks that opposed him because he was limiting their potential for corruption.

But honestly, I would not feel comfortable at all discussing this with our russian posters. It feels like invading some sort of privacy.
>>
No. 39351
67 kB, 600 × 430
19 kB, 360 × 203
9 kB, 295 × 171
>>39330
With Gorbachev it's such figure that of cource for many people debatable, and main thing why it's so because political problems connected to them unresolved to this day, making him political hot potato for years to come, untill current regime falls.
He is interesting case of man of belive in things that not deserve to be belived, prehaps reasos for his actions is because he was born in soviet union already and lived whole life in country, and at time when he become adult man it was past world war II, basicly in modern world. I can imagine that for him economical and goverment system which has developed after Stalin's death was not slow dying of defunct authoritarism, but actual stability - and he maintained his actions mostly from idea that chances of total collapse of this system not that high, and made his reforms like he is in actual stable country that just needed some fixes, not super radical actions.
And soviet union at time when it was picked up by Gorbachov most probably passed point of not return - and this point and economical shit was created by Breznev and afterwords economical stagnation, where looks like glorious leaders not really caed about far future and their intent was to keep everything as is. But it was obvious that with this system in core it can't be such way forever.
And I think main fail is that for this reforms was needed not Gorbachov. Not some more young person from Politburo who had bright ideas, belived that ideaology and goverment itself is okay and that it only should be fixed a bit to remover corruption and add more democracy and everything will work because it should be. No, not that he had no such power in reality, since Politburo was like mirror universe from star trek where everyone hate each other, not that system which "core" idea was "to rot a bit longer" can be fixed that way.

Additionally Grovachov's view on politics was that he and USA president had enough power to resolve all world global problems, just not USSR not USA goverment used this power in this direction. And that if he starting using it for good firt - it be chain reaction to peace and prosperity and new level of globalisation and peace, where military and weapons become obsolete concept. Well, same as inside his country it was viewed outside as weakness. Sincle all power of USSR (and well, USA for the msot part) was on agressive military presentse around world, aggresive politics where "no step back to the enemy", in cold war where it was basicly viewed as war of survival between superpower, it was viewed as weakness. And it was viewed as oppotunity for people and countried who was tired from post-stalin politics compleatly. People in east europe did not wanted hear Gorbachov promesis, leaders of this countries often didn't wanted hear gorbachov himself, being same as iternal opposition.

In result power in post-USSR in majority was taken buy other people from Politburo or people who keeped this system or was connected to this because they didn't had other choise. Thus from where come mostly antagonistic view of modern post-USSR CIS ideology against gorbachov. Current goverments, which I may represent as some ghost, or corpse worm from post-stalin USSR goverment body, blame him for basicly surrender of past goverment. They wanted them be same corrupted powerfull bureaucrat who's work was to keep current system and country in iron authoritoric hands, supporting cold war status quo.

How much USSR continue if it was another Breznev-Andropov-Chernenko, not Gorbachov? One of questions that will never be answered, same as how much was possible to continue World War I in theory. But same as WWI, Soviet union was a disaster, and it'd ended one way or another. Looking that it's not compleatly ended and we like suffering dying old man, with same parasites inside probably it ended not best way. Could Gorbachov done better? Nah, he was wrong person, with wrong assumptions in wrong time. Is Gorbachov bad? No, I think if he was President of truley democratic, or really stable country he'd be fine leader. Currently he obviosly old man and don't know about modern politics much more than regular grandpa.
>>
No. 39352
>>39331
Gorbachov have this "good person" vibe. Sadly, it's not valid at all for current russian society that grow on "powerfull glorious leaders". And I find it interesting that it probably only leader of Russia in it's istory that known and same tinme viewed positively in western countries.
>>
No. 39353
>>37372
Looking at size of videos probably too short to be in-deapth analisys of specific situations, but I guess it's good source for anyone who need basic knowlege of industrialisation events and how empired formed and evolved prior to WWI.
>>
No. 39363
>>39352
>Gorbachov have this "good person" vibe.
yeah he was probably a good person, but very naive with regards to his opponents bush senior, thatcher and kohl. he got played by them, leading to the defeat of the ussr/russia in the cold war without even putting up a fight. your choice of photos illustrates it rather well, i think. on the first image gorbi looks open and friendly towards rr while reagan sports a crooked fake smile. thatcher makes an arrogant, triumphant expression ("deal with it lol") while gorbi looks somewhat unsure. in the situation with merkel (she looks delighted) gorbi lost his former "good person vibe" entirely. there he looks like a bitter old man who is asking himself "why am i here". gorbi is probably the most tragic political person of the 20th century.
>>
No. 39394
24 kB, 804 × 336
140 kB, 1200 × 592
63 kB, 800 × 556
14 kB, 198 × 238
Was it too late for Gorbachev? Well, I don't think a Gorbachev could have come sooner. I think that if anything, the Soviet Union was very lucky to have a group of 60ers in the Party which seemed to be created from within the Soviet Union and as if it was brewed by the very system to become its gravediggers. When you tell me that Gorbachev's own blindness to the level of crisis in the Soviet Union when he came to power, and how his idealism ended up making him seem too much a starry eyed yokel didn't set him up to be someone who could save the system from collapse.
As you say, the politburo was not helping him and it wasn't like he had full control of the party apparatus without having to at times cede to more hardliner politicians. I'd even add that at several times, they fed him misinformation on purpose. And even past the desire of a great portion of the party to sabotage him, there was genuine misinformation that people thought was real. Numbers on the Soviet Economy were extremely speculative, after years of corruption in economic data reporting. The system had reached breaking point by '85, and it had reached breaking point after years and years of corruption, cronyism and all sorts of absurdities building up in the very cogs of the Soviet economy. The system was fucked, and I understand why it's important to drive this point home.
I also have some compassion for yokel Russians who hate Gorbachev, since I can see why someone who had lived through the Soviet collapse would hate Gorbachev. After all, for the average Russian (economically) things just got worse and worse the more time Gorbachev spent in power. I can't blame semi-literate 58 year old Vladislav from bumfuck nowhere to just see Gorbachev as the pizza hut clown who oversaw his pension disappear and ruined the (nostalgia tinted) sovok empire for nothing.

I guess there is a lot to be said on Perestroika being seen as yet another of Gorbachev's weakness that just added to the levels of humiliation patriotic Russians were feeling. Historically Russians have been far more capable of withstanding privation and suffering if it seemed like their "Tsar" was fighting Russia's enemies. To see a Gorbachev to wanted peace and cooperation with the west, and how the west did screw him over must be very painful.

It's true that the Soviet collapse was hijacked by more liberal figures and that Gorby's plans were ultimately just too little, far too late and Russians were so eager for something else that Yeltsin became the face of this movement of Russians emboldened by Perestroika to demand things that were unthinkable very shortly before. It's worth nothing that when you say "People in east Europe did not wanted hear Gorbachov's promises", this really only applies to within the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was a genuine rockstar in Warsaw Pact countries, especially Eastern Germany. It was simple really, the people loved Gorbachev for providing them with the opening for an alternative in which they didn't have to deal with their local hardliners. Initally, they were somewhat skeptic of Gorby but soon it became clear that his speeches for self-determination and downright stating that Moscow wouldn't mobilize its armies to keep a Communist government in place, well, he became their hero.

Were there alternatives to Gorbachev?
Well yes, Yeltsin was an alternative to Gorbachev really. A transitional figure that really belonged to the same class as Gorbachev, enthusiastic liberal young In apparatchik years reformers who realized the necessity of changing the system. Yeltsin was backing the 500 day program when it came out, he rallied and delivered brave speeches at party meetings - ultimately causing him to become an outcast before re-establishing his appeal via going directly to Russians. It could be possible that Gorbachev would have allied himself directly with Yeltsin, and maybe even left the party. In his defense, this is an ideal situation which I doubt could actually happen.

There are some things I think the first and last President of the Soviet Union could have done better, he certainly was by no means a great visionary. I mean, he really believed Warsaw Pact nations would elect reformer party members like himself and remain allied to Russia. He blundered the settling of the Cold War, going so far as to dismantle the Soviet Empire without any collateral, finding himself asking for help from the Americans which they only partially accepted - citing financial constraints. This man did something that in '85 the western world would have given its right kidney for, and didn't really manage to get much out of it. He did believe in that idealistic formulation of foreign policy that was some characteristic of him.

But there is a lot to be celebrated in Gorbachev. He dreamed of Perestroika bearing some societal change to the Soviet Union and bringing it to a new golden age in which people would be free in real brotherly socialism with freedom of expression and a system that served them. We know this noble goal ended in the Soviet collapse, the Russian 90s and ultimately Putin. However, were if it wasn't for Perestroika, would have Russians come out en force to the streets to rebuff the August 91 putsch? How have Russians genuinely thought they could have told the weak hardliner apparatchiki to go fuck themselves? Would have they dared to do such a thing in 1985?

In the end, the Soviet Union collapsed without blood loss. When faced with the prospect of forced retirement and having the state of emergency declared without his permission, while he vacationed in his Crimean palace - Gorby told them to go fuck themselves and refused to surrender, barricading himself with his bodyguards and family.

One of the most soulful things I have read about how Gorbachev, who previously (and immediately after) loathed Yeltsin with such a passion that Boris' face must have haunted his subconscious, called him up after gaining phone communications to the Dacha and was ecstatic to know he was alive and well.
>>
No. 39395 Kontra
>>39394
In reply to:
>>39363
and
>>39351
>>
No. 39397
>>39394
Would it have really been a bad thing if Andropov came to power and stayed in power? Or was it all inevitable because the Soviet leadership had become so decimated and insular over time that there was simply no one left to replace him?
>>
No. 39436
9 kB, 178 × 264
>>39397
Yuri Andropov? He was in power, or do you mean if he didn't die so soon? He was a man whose greatest achievements were grandfathering a new cadre of reformers into the upper party echelons, Gorbachev included. I suppose that if he lived on a couple more years, Chernenko wouldn't have taken the driver's seat and wouldn't have been asleep at the wheel during a time in which the Soviet Union was in a better position to reform itself than by the time Gorbachev gained enough political capital to do it. Additionally, as former head of the KGB, Andropov carried more sway with the intelligence services and the soviet military-industrial complex.

Interestingly, while vacationing in Stavropol (Gorby's home district and where he had risen to the top of local party ranks) with Gorbachev, Andropov got drunk and played and sang some edgy cossack songs that were forbidden at the time. In a way, this was an eye opening moment for a young aspiring apparatchik like Gorbachev, seeing the head of the KGB doing such a thing.

Andropov wasn't such a bad guy, he groomed Gorbachev for leadership since he realized that the country needed young reformers. His only noteworthy actual policy was criminalizing unemployment, which was as much of a bad idea as you can imagine.
>>
No. 39530
>>39394
>Was it too late for Gorbachev?
In mine personal opinion this question itself may be not 100% accurate. What we should ask - is there was even any options? I think whole situation is one of the best examples why single-part system is something that leeds initially to just diktatorship and than to goverment capitalist-like monopoly with separate "elete" closed class, and class of "pesants". Which pretty comfort for averege Russian, who since developing of some kind of states on this territory live in kind of this condition, but in modern world very counter-productive. You basicly destroying any political forces in country, making it impossible for any competitor from outside come to power. Russian nation itself will be silent, so only one place is competition inside party itself. And this competition had it's rules - who more powerfull and can control more, have more friends and "allies" - get this powers. And unlike Monarchy or previous similar systems, ideology of this party is counter-productive to economy and to country in many ways. It's like rule of "mad crazy king" but it's now constant since it used as instrument.
And now, after some time you got people who was raised up in this system, and seriously beliving in all this propoganda bullshit that after stalin dont even remotly had connection to reality, and tried to act like if propoganda was reality. It's don't as we in russia say. So only leed to system collapse. And this """liberal""" people like Yeltsin was just rats in sinking ship. They moves was not to reform russia, but looking at overall collapse, that become more fast because Gorabachov actions, but was inevitable anyway, they create idea how to remain their ploitburo-class in power and with money and keep at least shadow of the current system and chance to remain in power. So they collapsed country into smaller pseudo-democaratic oligarh states that rot to this very day.

And well, if you ask...
>Were there alternatives to Gorbachev?
Who was alternative for russia? Remember that majority of USSR population was too weak to make something themselfs. Ghosts of White Guard together with ancient Knyazes liberating United and Indivisible riding winged Pegasai horses from havens? Well, since we live in reality without magic, there was no alternative to КПСС and their system, that comprises only old farts who need main power in their closed club, like skeksis from Dark Crystall, or delusional people like Gorbachov who belived in cloud castles that never existed exept deep imagination of enthusisats of XIX-earlyXX centuary who disappointed in their belifs pretty fast when it comes to physical reality.

>There are some things I think the first and last President of the Soviet Union could have done better, he certainly was by no means a great visionary. I mean, he really believed Warsaw Pact nations would elect reformer party members like himself and remain allied to Russia
It's interesting how soviet propoganda in minds of people merged with general russian mentality into this dellusion that trouble minds of many russians to this day. This mentality is simple:
-any place in world that was russian even for 1 second 1000 years ago is "rightfully ours and should be back to"
-If people here willing to join us (or we told so) so they are our "Братушки"
-If people here don't want to join they are traitors and should be shown that they mistaken in they ways and dumb westernies/hohols/elves who should be teached, that they in "reality" russian friends.

So Gorbachov basicly assumed, at least at one point, that most of soviet block countries will remain same or closed. That they was not conqured countries keeped by force, but friends and allies that love russia just because we cool and everybody loves us by default and who don't like us is a.stupid b.evil, so of cource, since ""We"" capital and our idiology is "absolute eternal good", and when - he thinked - I turned it from corruption to real follow of ideology, of cource everyone will follow this idea.

Reality will show how "real" this mentality is. This why most russians still today consider all this countries "traitors" "butthurt belts" etc. So here also, Gorbachov not that far from averege russian. And well, USSR collapsed but it's system not. Existance of Putin, Nazarbaev, Lukashenko etc. show that basic idea stayed same and Yeltsin only get rid of ideology that after Gorbachov not served as good propoganda anymore.
>>
No. 39596
>>39436
>>39530
Do you guys think that there was anything at all which couldve saved the Soviet Union by the end, or was it pretty much totally destined to fail in every timeline beginning in the 1980s or late 1970s?
>>
No. 39604
66 kB, 1278 × 531
57 kB, 900 × 750
3,3 MB, 901 × 1248
66 kB, 512 × 346
>>39530
I agree that a nation ran by a single party who holds complete control of every key institution that can bring about change will lead to a greater division between the nation itself - e.g. the Russian who didn't have party membership, and the ruling class. However, it is worth noting that you are especially right in the following:
>And this competition had it's rules - who more powerfull and can control more, have more friends and "allies" - get this powers.

>And now, after some time you got people who was raised up in this system, and seriously beliving in all this propoganda bullshit that after stalin dont even remotly had connection to reality, and tried to act like if propoganda was reality.

Well, the idea of Gorbachev being overly optimistic and idealistic is correct. The Soviet experience and Soviet education naturally took its effect on the political perceptions of every man, woman and child of the Soviet Union, creating a post-Soviet society that is something that morphed out of a failed social experiment. All nations change based on their history, but all СНГ countries show that the Soviet collapse is still a very defining event in their present political configuration. It's easy to understand how a man who rose up the party ranks via the Komsomol would have some degree of loyalty to the system imprinted him, and be unable to throw away the entirety of the Bolshevik revolution as a way of cleansing it from sins he saw present in this megalith.

On the idea however of Gorbachev being a "true believer" of the soviet line is doubtful. It is hard to pin his political beliefs exactly in during the last years of the Soviet Union, particularly between 1889 to 1991. Note that during his leadership Gorbachev went from being a man who genuinely believed the Prague Spring should have been avoided and that was when socialism went afoul to seemingly denying the entire canon of Marxism-Leninism and seeing it as an unnecessary burden on the people of the Soviet Union.

>or delusional people like Gorbachov who belived in cloud castles that never existed exept deep imagination of enthusisats of XIX-earlyXX centuary who disappointed in their belifs pretty fast when it comes to physical reality.

Well, consider that Gorbachev used to be a Stalinist combine operator who despite having his grandparents suffer through Stalin's kulak purges genuinely believed he had Stalin to thank for his happy childhood. In 1983, Gorbachev was at the helm of the Soviet Agriculture and when in Canada to meet the Canadian minister agriculture of Agriculture, Gorby had to wait because the Canadian Minister was late. Alongside with Yakovlev (the Soviet ambassador to Canada) who had gone with him, they went for a walk and decided to talk about their thoughts on the present state of the Soviet regime. Somehow, these two apparatchiki were entirely honest with each other in regards to how the system was rotten and what genuinely needed to be done to fix. Gorbachev enjoyed speaking to this man and would later appoint him as a key advisor in Perestroika (before letting him resign at the behest of hardliners in his attempts to prevent a putsch).
A man who served under Brezhnev and had to talk to a man that was practically senile about building a canal in Stavropol knew the realities of the Soviet System. However, he believed (as did most of the enlightened apparatchiki) that they had more than 6 years to transform the Soviet Union.

On Yeltsin's motives and creation, well... Let's say he lacks the historical perspective.

>Reality will show how "real" this mentality is. This why most russians still today consider all this countries "traitors" "butthurt belts" etc. So here also, Gorbachov not that far from averege russian. And well, USSR collapsed but it's system not. Existance of Putin, Nazarbaev, Lukashenko etc. show that basic idea stayed same and Yeltsin only get rid of ideology that after Gorbachov not served as good propoganda anymore.

I do think you underestimate Gorbachev, possibly due to how almost senile his political beliefs of today are. In regards to the relationship with the Warsaw Pact, I think that Gorbachev believed that given how supportive people in the Warsaw Pact were of his policies, this would mean that they'd elect reformers, even those that want independence because they wouldn't want to rock the boat and would prefer a slow approach to things. Gorby thought that he could trust the Germans into allowing for a slow and methodically letting go of East Germany.
Given how '89 was such a revolutionary year, it's obvious to see how wrong he was. But I think it's closer to Gorbachev believing that these nations would stick together in those trying times, as opposed to letting go of the collapsing Soviet bloc like it's an infected limb that needs amputation.

>>>39596
>Do you guys think that there was anything at all which couldve saved the Soviet Union by the end, or was it pretty much totally destined to fail in every timeline beginning in the 1980s or late 1970s?

Understandably, the closer the Soviet Union approached its peculiar end, the harder it became to reform it. From the '70s, it was becoming clearer that without a doing away of several key aspects of Soviet society, the system would continue bleeding from its inefficiencies. The most notable of these sectors was the agricultural one that was spiraling out of control into пиздец a chaotic bloated mess that grew less efficient by the year.
The late Brezhnev years (especially '78-82) are the apotheosis of Soviet stagnation. Yet things would continue getting worse and worse, even as attempts to reform the system that were stifled by infighting and cronyism were being forced into place. For reference, in '89, only the most foolish of die hard loyalists genuinely thought the collapse could have been reverted by returning to the pre-Gorbachev course.
Why the Soviet Union collapsed is a very complicated question, one in which I must remind you that despite my pseudo-intellectual ramblings, I am woefully unprepared to answer.
I'll say this though, the system found it so difficult to reform itself based on things that were very much a design flaw, as opposed to an execution flaw. Alexander Yakovlev, the Canada guy I mentioned earlier, seems to have had an extremely insightful view of the events as they were happening, and was the most accurate of Gorby's advisors. He seemed certain that in '85, the regime had less than a decade of life at best. Which was a very impressive prediction, especially when compared to even what the US Department of State believed. The generally held consensus was that the Soviet Union would live on and that if Gorby pulls his reform program - great, but maybe he wont and things will go back to what they were. I'm not aware of any secretary of state who correctly predicted to the Soviet collapse in '85 let alone how it would play out.
Yakovlev posits that the only way the system could have been reformed in '85 was by a near-Stalinist threat to use Politburo purges to enforce the perestroika policy. Obviously, Gorbachev would have never done this - and neither would anyone rational open their first year as head apparatchik with a brutal purge Not after the Khrushchev thaw at least).

Perhaps if Brezhnev croaked far, far earlier [spoiler]Ideally not even coming to power
maybe the Soviet Union would still wave its flag over the Kremlin. It is worth pondering about that a SU that survived to the 21st century would have looked like. For all we know, they could have kept the same party structure and liberalized the economy like the Chinese did.
I suppose the Soviet Union could have bought itself a few more decades with hardliners going through with their putsch and holding every nationality in the SU at gunpoint, but I don't think that would be in the interest of anyone - What Russia would look like today after this would make the 90's look peaceful and optimistic.
>>
No. 39660
31 kB, 280 × 260
>>39436
Thing is, Andropov always was around. Not like he appeared out of nowhere after Breznev's coffin was dropped in grave. As head of KGB and high ranked member of politbyro he did hell lot of stuff over cource of his life. I should remind that it was he "ambassador" of soviet union during Hungarian Uprising, and it was his actions and advices that resulted in Soviet Union army invasion. After it, he used this for his career. Before KGB and during it he did a lot as "advicer for foreign politics" in ЦК.

There was assumptions from Breznev that Andropov may want take over his place one day - this was one of reasons why he was placed as KGB leader, more as political place where he will have very high rank and same time can be easely observed and controlled by Breznev. There he both in typical manner make KGB even more powerfull - hate for direct curruption was merged in him with "goods for ours", making KGB more powerfull with more strong connection between its' members, when KGB starting to have more privileges than Army and other Ministeries in many way
cough cough Schutzstaffel cough cough
So whole this western memes about soviet KGB often come fron reformed Adropov's department. And ye, all things around it, same as all soviet movies and TV series about "good secret service agent" was of cource part of it's politics of making look of KGB agents as powerfull smart but invisible heroes etc. etc.

Interestingly, he was placed at different dury right before Breznev's death, so he was basicly choosen as sucsessor before Breznev's death. What can be said about him? Nah, he was more dicktator-y type of person himself in many ways. OF cource you see people like Franco and and Pinochet and of cource he was not even near same level as he was, but generaly something like this was in his views, actions. He was clearly more to this side than even breznev. If Chrushow was known for "Оттепель", Breznev for "Застой", Andropov remembered for "Закручивание гаек"...
>>
No. 39661
64 kB, 512 × 369
51 kB, 335 × 165
50 kB, 627 × 472
88 kB, 595 × 387
>>39660
>different dury
*different duty

fix. I'm shure my grammar and spelling terrible, sorry for that.

>>39604
>However, it is worth noting that you are especially right in the following:
It's not like communist party created this divsion between "Ruling class" and "pesant class". Thing is that they not changed something that become absoluetly normal way of life since rise of Vladimir-Suzdal. Idea is that
1).basicly soviet union was capitalist oligarhy with absolute monopoly and more work as some sort of "boyar veche" than some sort of modern republic and all this socialist stuff was more or less as cover for typical for country already form of rule, just with different faces. It's like joke that if Russia will have Gay parade, it be in strict uniform, marching with orchestra on red square - flags and slogans changing - mentality of people and state not really.
2).System inside was like Jungle law in many ways: in order to earn here rule, you need be specific type of person who doing specific nasty things. You can't be "I'm go into party, earn rank and start do good thing". I think that from this perspective even idea that Gorbachov earned some place and started doing things was first sign of death of the system itself.

>On the idea however of Gorbachev being a "true believer" of the soviet line is doubtful. It is hard to pin his political beliefs exactly in during the last years of the Soviet Union, particularly between 1889 to 1991. Note that during his leadership Gorbachev went from being a man who genuinely believed the Prague Spring should have been avoided and that was when socialism went afoul to seemingly denying the entire canon of Marxism-Leninism and seeing it as an unnecessary burden on the people of the Soviet Union.

With collapse of soviet system collapsed belifs of Gorbachov himself in some ways, but this thing, that system itself, some general ideas are natural for territory, and all this communism stuff was more or less for foreign policy only and some propoganda stuff, it's easy to see why you can remove red flags and lenin, bring back tricolor and 2-head bird, but everything stays the same. All of it is symbols that probably dosen't meant anything at this point of russian history.

>Somehow, these two apparatchiki were entirely honest with each other
It's easy to talk honestely when you are far from The Rodina :---DDDDD

>But I think it's closer to Gorbachev believing that these nations would stick together in those trying times, as opposed to letting go of the collapsing Soviet bloc like it's an infected limb that needs amputation.
I think most natural reaction of gorby's reforms from people who has no slave mentality is that it's chance to escape "prison of nations". But well, I want to remember one interesting thing, that also connected to question of americon poster above: when Russian Republic fall under communists, it started great opposition and devastating civil war for years. When SU and it's block collapsed, how many soldiers, generals, goverment people, party members etc. who many times given public oath "Защищать Завоевания Октября" did something similar? Not many, and ones who did was crealy pathetic even compare to agony of dying empire in 1917. 99.9% of population of USSR+friends was more than okay that all it's gone as some sort of nightmare.

>I do think you underestimate Gorbachev, possibly due to how almost senile his political beliefs of today are.
I in general sceptical of Soviet Union as concept, and living here I of cource biased. But I just don't think that he was some sort of phenomenon - nor negative, nor positive. His rise was natural sighn of death of system. As result country collapsed, system again did rebranding and exist still today, waiting and hoping for another miracle when it won and "russia stronk" again to comple it's cycle once more.

>>39596
Sorry for probably joke-tier answer, but it's still exists today. right out of my window. Same as was said by both me and Portugal poster - it had a design flaw. Remove things that had biggest design flaws = you got regular Russia. Only thing that after economical collapse it's power weakend. When Russia had some money again - you seen what Pootin goverment immideatly did in 2008 and then in 2014.
>>
No. 39786
2,4 MB, 1845 × 2076
>>39660
I am aware that Andropov held considerable власть over the upper party echelons, more so out of being at the helm of the state behind the state.
However, politically he was always blocked by Brezhnevites and their desire to cling onto a disturbingly corrupt system. I realize Andropov was no Gorby, especially in terms of foreign policy. In American terms, Andropov would be a war hawk but I don't think this takes too much away from a man who was at least perceptive enough to realize the old system needs a reform and knowing that the best he could do was become the godfather of an entire cadre of reformers. If he had his way, Gorby would have taken the wheel after him, two years earlier than he did. Time that would be crucial if the Soviet Union was to be kept alive.

> You can't be "I'm go into party, earn rank and start do good thing". I think that from this perspective even idea that Gorbachov earned some place and started doing things was first sign of death of the system itself.
This is a very insightful post, and I believe you are right.

>1).basicly soviet union was capitalist oligarhy with absolute monopoly and more work as some sort of "boyar veche" than some sort of modern republic and all this socialist stuff was more or less as cover for typical for country already form of rule, just with different faces. It's like joke that if Russia will have Gay parade, it be in strict uniform, marching with orchestra on red square - flags and slogans changing - mentality of people and state not really.
I see you have a perception that the Soviet Union was something like a rebranded Russia, with a change of paint but nothing substantial. I'll say that the very internal change that the Soviet project left imprinted on this people is a key component of former Soviet nations, particularly the east slavic trio. For this, I don't believe in the swapped colors theory and communism being only a foreign propaganda question.

>I in general sceptical of Soviet Union as concept, and living here I of cource biased. But I just don't think that he was some sort of phenomenon - nor negative, nor positive. His rise was natural sighn of death of system. As result country collapsed, system again did rebranding and exist still today, waiting and hoping for another miracle when it won and "russia stronk" again to comple it's cycle once more.
I think I see Gorbachev as being a liberating figure of Soviet history, in a similar way to Khrushchev was for Stalinism. In this route however, more of modern history is brought on and I respect your choice not to bring up the can of words known as modern Russia.

I apologize for turning this into Russia general, but history kicks come and go in seasons. Years ago I would be ranting about a different historically topic, but it is Russia that has my full attention.
>>
No. 39788
Currently watching a course about the early middle ages from Yale and it's absolutely terrific. Don't get distracted by the name, it is rather a detailled discussion about what happened between 200-1000 AD that could have been the cause for the collapse of both roman empires as well as the rise of the Christian church and Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL77A337915A76F660
>>
No. 39790
101 kB, 800 × 736
39 kB, 800 × 490
>>39786
>I apologize for turning this into Russia general, but history kicks come and go in seasons. Years ago I would be ranting about a different historically topic, but it is Russia that has my full attention.
I think it's essential for understanding of history and disscutions when you able to concentrate on specific topic, and not study eberything on simple basic level. Most of historians dedicate whole their life for research in specific topics and nowdays it's the only way to understand all this massive of information.

>I see you have a perception that the Soviet Union was something like a rebranded Russia, with a change of paint but nothing substantial. I'll say that the very internal change that the Soviet project left imprinted on this people is a key component of former Soviet nations, particularly the east slavic trio. For this, I don't believe in the swapped colors theory and communism being only a foreign propaganda question.

No, I don't saying it was absoluetly nothing. I just saying to look at all this events like you may hear from, for example, Chienise history. Where it's constantly inserting of something new from outside, but everything transformed by chienise mentality and almost nothing old gone - like philosophies, ideas about goverment, ideas about society - they all remain in one form or another for thousands of years, mixing with each other. And we also seen cycles of chienise society when dynasties started and ends - ages of stable empires, ages of pesant uprisings, ages of mix of unstable states etc. which in some form changed one another. Here was something similar - original revolutionary ideas was eaten by local mentality pretty fast.

Original communist ideas is pretty known - equality, no money, freedom of moral and life in unified society. Some communist theoretics said that russia because still have a lot of pesants can "bypass" capitalism as whole, others think of russia as resource to conquer more advanced european countries that "ready for communism". How it ended in reality? Early XX centuary russia was clearly not ready in any way to create utopia socetiy of XXIII centuary. And weakend by WWI, revolution, civil war it was clearly unable to conquer anything, so communists with thier ideas of "destroying old world" remained as goverment on smoking ruins of agrarian empire. And what they doing? At the end Lenin inserting НЭП, kind of "we are not ready for communism, let's make it typical modern capitalist republic just with more authoritarian goverment". But even this western stuff was too advanced concept - so using party as instrument of power, rised new "Tzar" - Stalin.

You can see transition from Monarchy to Stalin as change of level of idiology. Kind of same when changing long time ago from pagany to christianity: original pagan gods was kind of foggy mess, christianity become specific and powerfull, concentrating ideology and state. Same happen there kind of - there was Tzars who had no really specific ideas exept "well, russia exists..." - and now nre "Tzar" that have new, specific ideology-religion. Very twisted from original views, like again, chienese Daoism vs Religious Dao, but still something more clear than just existance. And then after stalin we had period of trying to "conserve" this system of "Tzardom with ideology" one way or another, then we seen fall of this "red empire" and now we in period of "separated weakend states" waiting for new Dynasty X--DDDD

It's all of cource just my thoughts and observations based on facts, and it's not something that need be wived as truth, more like one of logical conclusions for anyone who search answer on why russia is like what it is right now.

>This is a very insightful post, and I believe you are right.
I may be not right, I have history education, but I'm not expert or science person who researched it for years or really using it's knowlege. Just saying "funny facts".

Like interesting fact: Second Moscow knyaz' name litteralty translates as "Johnny Cash" :---DDDDD
>>
No. 39791
>>39788
I'll save playlist for later, thanks.
I can recommend This guy for anyone know russian - good person, clearly with historian education who also looks like work as lecturer, and doing this internet streams on different history topics.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ButKorn/videos
>>
No. 39799
You know, and sorry to say this if it appears very bydlo and superficial, but I can't help but wonder that most of the things people tend to be critical about with Communism are really ultimately just things worth being critical about with China or Russia. Like this whole "Communism with Chinese characteristics" or with Russian characteristics, so which makes me then question: what would Communism with American characteristics look like? Because the more I look at these things the more convinced I am that it is at least actually capable of working here and probably more along the lines of what all the old Communists predicted anyway, which would likely be because all the other revolutions happened in agrarian serf countries rather than an industrialized one like our own. It just feels like a missed moment in history, if only it could add some kind of liberation theology or a lack of hardline atheism to it(which let's be frank if this ever happened in Ameriga then Communism with American characteristics would probably have marching parades of Jesus liberating the proletariat or somesuch equally absurd seeming nonsense to Euros that would immediately be taken for granted as factual reality by Americans).

Actually you know what come to think of it the more I dwell on this the more it increasingly seems likely to me that not only an American version of Communism would theoretically work but that it would and can only work by the intermarriage of Christian faith with something like Marxism. Sadly, we would still probably be bombing lots of countries and stealing their resources regardless of which social system we have, with probably not a lot of difference in a new economic system although frankly the entire military industrial complex deserves to be abolished and if we cannot murder the MIC in its sleep then we're never going to be a free and peaceful country. But really, I'm not entirely sure what would happen geopolitically.

Also why wasn't Russia always so tightly allied with Communist China? Was this whole Brotherhood of nations thing also kind of a crock of shit? Excuse the ignorance but I've never quite understood why it is that Russia always had rather chilly relations with the CCP.
>>
No. 39801
>>39799
Communism having any sort of national "flavor" is absurd. Communism is supposed to be international by design, or rather it probably cannot happen at all if it's not international. If by "communism" you mean the sorts of "socialism" the countries of Warsaw pact had, then you can just look at any authoritarian and/or strongly bureaucratic country and you'll get the general idea how would USA look under the Soviet rule. Rich lobbyists would just become members of nomenklatura and nothing would change much; maybe their grasp on power would only become stronger.

>Also why wasn't Russia always so tightly allied with Communist China?
They fell out after the death of Stalin. Mao kept pushing hardline Stalinism with Big Leaps and Cultural Revolutions, while Khrushchyov went for calmer and chiller compromising politics, and because of that he was blamed for being "revisionist" by Mao.
>>
No. 39805
69 kB, 960 × 563
>>39801
>Communism having any sort of national "flavor" is absurd.
But there's something endearing about how utterly retarded things like national Bolshevism are.
>>
No. 39812
>>39805
It's what he basicly belarus posted described as authoritorian govermental pseudo-socialism right in his post. And about USA he was right - if USA want imagine his country "communist" - Imagine current 2 parties merged in one, no elections and congress merged with other govement institutes "eletct" senators and president itself, and same time they have full direct controll over all buisness in country with planned goverment regulations.
>>
No. 39813
>>39812
Also "real communism" is typical "theory of ohilosophical ideas how in ideal we should live". If I already touched china - read about original ideas of Dao/legalism/Confucianism and how they ended in reality and how was twisted by ruling class in regular people over time when applyed to reality
>>
No. 39815
>>39799
>Actually you know what come to think of it the more I dwell on this the more it increasingly seems likely to me that not only an American version of Communism would theoretically work but that it would and can only work by the intermarriage of Christian faith with something like Marxism. Sadly, we would still probably be bombing lots of countries and stealing their resources regardless of which social system we have, with probably not a lot of difference in a new economic system although frankly the entire military industrial complex deserves to be abolished and if we cannot murder the MIC in its sleep then we're never going to be a free and peaceful country. But really, I'm not entirely sure what would happen geopolitically.

Wishful thinking there. I won't bother getting into the economics because I wouldn't know what to tell you, but I can discuss the social aspects of your vision.

The vast majority of radical leftists are either indifferent or outright hostile towards religion, especially Christianity. Some will be bold enough to make token criticisms towards Judaism or Islam, but Jesus bears the brunt of their wrath. Exactly how do you plan on winning hearts and minds with this idea? You might have some success (emphasis on some) in United States, but what about secular societies across the Commonwealth and Europe? More than half the population of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Czechia and Belgium all respectively think religion is unimportant.
>>
No. 39839
>>39812
It sounds like basically exactly what we have now only with more of the plotting done behind closed doors and less public theatrics. It would probably be more efficient but in this case that's probably a bad thing

>>39815
>but what about secular societies across the Commonwealth and Europe?
I was specifically talking about our country actually. I know exactly how it would go more or less in approximately half of Europe because they've pretty much been there albeit with a highly abusive benefactor, and much of the rest of Europe has tried out some social policies more or less. British healthcare and the entire country of Sweden come to mind.

>The vast majority of radical leftists are either indifferent or outright hostile towards religion, especially Christianity. Some will be bold enough to make token criticisms towards Judaism or Islam, but Jesus bears the brunt of their wrath
I've never managed to fully comprehend this. Well, anyone being dickish about Jesus in general, I mean, who the hell does Jesus even offend? Rich people? Liars? Hypocritical priesthoods? But what's always baffled me and probably partly out of a general feeling of disconnect from the shitshow that is American society is this remarkably odd distinction between for example the Freak Power movements of the 60s, many of whom were anti-religion, and the squares and general establishment, who were ostensibly religious. Why so odd? Because the people who looked like Jesus and talked about love and peace and drugs and fornicating were being attacked by a bunch of bald, shaven old men who were constantly conspiring in the shadows like CIA, or military heads, or massively pro-war politicians, and all of whom were fiercely pro-greed-is-good.

I'm guess this is largely due to my vast underestimation of the degree to which other humans bother with emotions clouding and overwriting all their other thinking processes and can only imagine that such blatant internal contradictions never seem to bother them because their emotions are not in dissonance. This is largely what I have concluded after studying people. They are no less stupid and alien for it. Maintaining a lack of internal coherence, I have no idea how that doesn't bug the shit out of people.
>>
No. 39848
131 kB, 599 × 851
>>39839
Much of this hostility goes back to Nietzsche, but even a Founding Father no less important than Thomas Jefferson claimed Christianity is a religion that has made half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. Your buddy Bakunin also had a bone to pick with Jesus. We could go through the long length of critiques of Christianity authored by different thinkers from the 19th century onward just to underscore the simple fact that Jesus just ain't popular with leftists.

Since we're talking about American society, the rise of the Evangelicals under Reagan and then both Papa and Baby Bush fueled the American left's hatred for Jesus freaks as braindead Republican rubes. I don't think I need to bore you with the details, but I'll let this thinkpiece from the man-on-the-street perspective explain it for anyone else interested. Yes, this was originally written as one solid wall of text. I've decided to break it up into paragraphs for sanity's sake:

>One of my main sources of stressful reading is the Christian onslaught into every facet of life in our society. I have never seen such a hateful and intolerant movement infiltrate every aspect of our lives as the current Christian movement in America has. And I think what angers me the most about this is that despite all of their bigotry and self-righteousness they still enjoy the characterization of being a credible movement, a compassionate movement, and a moral movement. Most people as well as the media never seem to call their actions into question. Are people really too self-consumed to challenge the current oppressive agenda of these Christian extremists or has the values of these extremists actually become accepted as the norm? The second option being the scarier one in my book. I am totally appalled by the efforts of these bigoted Christian extremists to impose their bigoted views on all of us. It’s bad enough that they are determined to force these bigoted views on all of us but the fact that they do it with such arrogance and self-righteousness that they actually claim to be the moral voice of society is truly despicable. I’m amazed that the very same people that discount evolution, scientific and medical facts for ignorant superstition consider themselves to be the intelligent, enlightened elite of our society. They’ve convinced themselves that they are the morally superior members of society and that the rest of us make up the immoral pitfall. The mainstream Christian movement in this country has become the most judgmental and self-righteousness movement I have ever seen. I have no tolerance left for these Christian extremists. I don’t think I’m alone with these feelings either. A lot of people I’ve been talking to share my feelings of depleted tolerance for these Christian extremists. It’s bound to happen when a group has positioned itself as a restrictor of personal freedoms, a bully that tramples on the human rights of the people that need protecting the most; the minorities and the down and out- and this is exactly what the Christian movement has become.
>And there’s no shortage of right-wing politicians trying to capitalize on this twisted religious frenzy. Republican Senator from Indiana, Patricia Miller, was recently trying to push legislation through the Indiana legislature that was written to prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical science to assist them in having a child. Passage of the bill would prohibit doctors from assisting in a pregnancy by means of intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo or sperm injection unless a woman was able to satisfy a number of determining factors. Under the bill women seeking treatment would have to provide a certificate of satisfactory completion of a required assessment. What are the required determining factors this bill would insist women provide? First, that the woman be married to a person of the opposite sex. The assessment also contains a description of the family lifestyle that automatically excludes lesbians. And most disturbing is the requirement that women would also have to provide proof that they have participated in faith-based or church activities. As an added precaution against "activist" judges, the bill would restrict the courts from being able to establish parentage of a child born through assisted reproduction without the assessment certificate and a separate certificate from the physician involved. The fact that this bill was written and being pushed to become a law is absolutely mind-boggling. This is a new low in the Christian effort to legislate women’ s bodies and to make homosexuals second-class citizens. This is a really blood-chilling intrusion by government into a person's private life. Cold, dehumanizing legislation like this also has the frightening similarities to Nazi laws requiring the sterilization of Jewish women. How is it that in a society that even has the illusion of personal freedom that this lightly veiled attempt of religious persecution has not erupted into a national outcry? Not only does this legislation attempt to deny lesbians or single women from having a child, ultimately having control of their own bodies, but it even goes as far as to restrict all women that don’t go to church as well. Since when is it a requirement in this country to be involved with the church in order to be a mother? This is a really sickening and perverse abuse of political power that legislation like this ever saw the light of day.
>It’s this kind of influential abuse that has totally diminished my tolerance for Christianity in general. I don’t think any group can be generalized or condemned entirely but
I also believe that it’s up to the members^ a group to dissent when the groups leaders have become so abusive and corrupt. But l don’t see any dissension from within the Christian movement. I don’t see Christians speaking out
against these types of bigoted policies. What I do see is Christians willfully going along with the abusive, bigoted policies of their leaders. To me this makes them just as responsible for the oppression that they have wrought on our society. Are Christians so blinded now with the political power they have gained with the most supportive administration they’ve ever had in office that they have forgotten their own supposed values? Or did they never exist to begin with?
>I am at the end of any sort of tolerance for the Christian movement because it has become the most oppressive movement in our country; it embraces ignorance and obedience and when you combine that with such an extreme sense of self- righteousness you have the biggest threat to our personal freedoms and out self preservation that we face today. My only hope is that with their overly oppressive tactics they’re creating more resentment and more opposition to their oppressive agenda. It is a lesson learned many times over in history that the more oppressive a group becomes the more dissension grows. The Christian movement in this country has set the tone for such resentment and in doing so is setting themselves up for a huge backlash. I only hope see I see this movement fall in my lifetime.
>>
No. 39871
62 kB, 599 × 358
>>39799
Fuck that shit with a capital F, Rev. Jim Jones.
>>
No. 39879
92 kB, 640 × 455
Ye, Portugal poster was right that this thematics will attract "political enthusiasts". Better disscus something more early, I don't know, Era of palatial upheavals, or, centuary of uprisings, something that will not attract this "communism good/bad" baby stuff.
>>
No. 39913
6,1 MB, 5325 × 3550
303 kB, 1200 × 1718
>>39790
I don't know, this raises a bunch of questions:

- Did the Soviet experience leave unique characteristics in the former Soviet states?
- What other directions could have the Soviet Union taken in it's development?
- Was the 1917 revolution inevitable?

I think that it's possible that Russia could have taken a different route, continuing liberalizing since 1905 and taking steam from the socialist revolutionary movements.

On the Soviet Union itself, I suppose that all things considered, it could have gone significantly worse. Especially with its breakup, the end of the SU could have been a far more violent event if it wasn't for Gorbachev being Gorby.

And finally, I would say that the Soviet Union did create changes in Russian society that are present to this day. If for no other reason than how significant the 90s experience was for the development of modern Russian politics.

I don't think your deterministic approach of a Russia of boyars and peasants is that airtight and Russia could certainly be an entirely different monster today. If I had to bet, I'd say it would still be unique and very Russian because you are right that Russia does taint everything that comes in contact with it. In an interesting way, though.

I don't know enough about China to comment on similarities. I have a couple of books on China I am meant to pick up, but I've been stuck on Russia.

>>39879
Well, interesting topics are a can of worms. Another really interesting topic that is basically a room full of gasoline is the rise of Ukrainian national identity in the 20th century and how different events affected it. But 2014 KC still gives me PTSD, so maybe it's better to stay away from it.

1825-1917 is an interesting period in Russian history too. I like that Russian revolutionary groups seemed to have contributed more to reactionary clampdowns than any reactionary minister.
The murder of the Liberator haha ebin :DD Tsar is probably one of the more tragic events of Russian history.
>>
No. 39958
111 kB, 755 × 585
88 kB, 768 × 540
73 kB, 512 × 346
>>39913
>- Did the Soviet experience leave unique characteristics in the former Soviet states?
Well of cource it's did. It's almost impossible to make something "out of nowhere" like initial plan was, but of cource powrefull leadrship can choose directions and move society where it need to move. Imagine it like "evolution" when some organs can become rudimentary and other increase in size and make from Rat something that looks like gigantic monster Fish but still staying mammal.
Other may say that even this may be logical path and result of late Serfdom that affect masses and become ideal ground for shaping such regmine and society making russia just example of lagging behind nation that always affected by modern world around and all this Russia west-vs-east-vs-"it's own thing" philosophies. And question about is russia moving anywhere or fall into constant stagnation is more something on modern politics side if we going into such psyhology.
So it's basicly "fight" between 2 basic concepts - "Things that happen is result of current state of society" vs. "Thing than happen affecting direction where society evolve"

I think truth somewhere in middle ground. Is soviet union affected direction of evolution of countries it's left after it? Yes. Was soviet system result of state of society it was based on together with outside factors? Also yes.

>- What other directions could have the Soviet Union taken in it's development?
I'd say that the direction it taked not count outside random factors was most... simple one? like country just "go with the flow" instead of attemting changing something radically probably since stalin. There was paths there and there but not something really radical different. And here, together with outer question
>- Was the 1917 revolution inevitable?
we starting to speculate of random unpredictable factors. Becuse history is always logical cource of actions+some random thing nobody expected to happen. Like from history science perspective - is Austro-Hungary and Germany tried to find way to soon or later try to start wars in order to increase power/stabilise thmeselfs from inside destructive movments? Yes, WW1 was something that may be prediced since Franco-Prussian War and slow change from Russia-Britain "big game" world war scenario towards "new big player on map want become even bigger". But how exeacly it started, what personalities do, their specific actions, it's always impossible to predict and impossible to really think about "what would happen".

How history turned itself if Franz Ferdinand not died? What happened if there was no that mistrious grenade that killed Kornilov? Nobody can predict, I think.

Sorry for boring answers

>I don't think your deterministic approach of a Russia of boyars and peasants is that airtight and Russia could certainly be an entirely different monster today.
Well, Russia already different one. Question is, will it form over time western civil society, or it'll stuck in post-selfdom forever? Is modern russian society more developed or over time of soviet union we even more degradated than from 1905-1917 times? All this very debatable questions.

>Another really interesting topic that is basically a room full of gasoline is the rise of Ukrainian national identity in the 20th century and how different events affected it.
Problem with ukraine from general russians side outside of modern politics is absolute lack of knowlege about fate of different principaties after mongol invasion. Generally 99% learn history like that:
1.Learning all principaties
2.Mongol invasion
3.Learning only north-eastern principaties and how they fight each other for become dominant and how moscow won over tver.
So whole theme of how Nvogorod formed as different state and almost as different nation, how Lithuania and western-rus language start form, what is "microrussia" thing, how lithuania and poland united - all this events was left outside of history and then there. Averege russian meet southern rus land when it's border wars between moscow tsardom/empire and Rzeczpospolita.
From here comes not understanding "why ukraine thinks it's different nation?"

>1825-1917 is an interesting period in Russian history too. I like that Russian revolutionary groups seemed to have contributed more to reactionary clampdowns than any reactionary minister
It's interesting time of combination of attempt to divide world with british empire on outside combined with crisis of selfdom and outdated imperial institutes inside, also combined with rise of new radial economical and philosophical ideas all over the world, yes.
And ye, I'm not big fan of Alexander III. Wrong person in wrong times - Russia needed more reforms probably in this age, to avoide all this dumpster fire after.
>>
No. 40484
Hey Ernst, can you recommend (or do you know) any text books, based documentaries or even well-grounded historical fiction about the wandering monks that converted people in the country-side of central europe (east of the Rhine) in the era from 750-950 with the support of the papacy and the Carolingians?

I've gotten a few tid-bits about them during a course on the early middle ages and am fascinated. They seem to have lived a rather dangerous, even adventerous life trying to convert either pagans or arian christians to the canon of the roman church (that would later become the Catholic church). Wandering the broken down roads initially laid by the romans 500 years earlier but now in an almost post-apocalyptic state of decay, visiting towns that must have been in a strange stage between awareness of christianity and living in tribal ethos and trying to convert them without getting murdered for any of a hundred reasons.

This seems such an interesting topic, inspiring even, that I assume there has been lots of research and probably even fictional works. And I've realised that all my knowledge starts at least 200 years later where the path has already been built and monks can travel from Scotland to Italy without leaving christian territories (see for example "The Name of the Rose" for popular history fiction of that setting).
>>
No. 42245
144 kB, 800 × 418
122 kB, 800 × 511
23 kB, 334 × 499
414 kB, 2048 × 1150
I finished Kotkin's Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization and now I figured I should come here and write my 89iq understanding of this 10/10 book. A book about the building of Magnitogorsk - The grand industrial city (literally a factory and its surrounding city) in a steppe that had for all intents and purposesnothing prior to it.

>Stretching from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean, Russia's steppe frontier through the centuries beckoned the afflicted and the adventurous alike. For some a land of last resort, for others one of promise, the steppe was above all a symbol of the seemingly boundless space of the country and a persistent reminder of the impotence of human beings in the face of the power of nature. But for the Bolsheviks, supreme champions of humankind's ability to bend nature to its will, the steppe was fortress to be taken. And take it they did,

I can't stress just how fun and interesting this book is to read, it goes from the foundations of Magnitogorsk and stops short of the outbreak of WW2. In this time frame it portrays the story of the city's very unique construction process, the ideals for this new revolutionary city, how common people experienced the building of socialism - and how they felt about it. It culminates in the Great Purge and how different people living in Magnitogorsk saw the events unfolding.

The book tries to answer several questions, the ones I enjoyed the most being how people experienced "building socialism" which had an extensive attempt at answering what exactly is meant by this. In practice, the meaning of this was that socialism would be defined as the anti-capitalism. Whatever capitalism was, socialism wasn't and that this new society would come into being via the Bolsheviks' guiding hand and the struggle of the soviet people.

Despite the suffering and hardship in creating this project and it isn't far-fetched to say that people living in Magnitogorsk didn't have the cynical eyes of modern men and genuinely believed they were bringing about a new society. Even during the Great Purge there seems to be a genuine feeling among the people that socialism must be defended from the outside world and that their new way of living or what they were going to achieve (even after socialism was proclaimed to have been reached in Moscow) as something that they cherished and above all else, they felt that they were really part of the process of building a new and better society. This isn't to say dissidents and people who saw through "soviet ideals" didn't exist, in fact it's clear that even a true believer in the grand project the people of Magnitogorsk were forced (and often glad) to embark on didn't see the fault lines and failures in the city they lived in. There was a disconnect between what they wanted to achieve and the reality of living in sweet Magnita.

There is a lot to be said about how different power structures and overlapping authorities tried to make sense of what was asked by them from Moscow and how they attempted to implement the decrees hailing from the central committee. The grand mass movement of workers starts arriving shortly before the first 5 year plan and the book goes to great lengths to show how those in charge of the city had to manage and secure the presence of the mass of workers that were sent there to build what was to be a world leading steel factory and a great symbol of socialism's achievements. The book tries to give insight into who the people sent there were, where they came from, and they wanted to achieve and how they felt about this Magnitogorsk project and the new era they were entering into. This includes idealist Komsomol, full fledged party members, Kazakhs, random people from the Urals seeking a better life and even later on kulaks sent there as a convict labor force.

Being tasked with creating this city from nothing was a grand challenge in itself, a challenge that was to be overcome with "socialist labor practices" and a "revolutionary spirit". They had such lofty ideals and a genuinely urge to create a new city. The first truly socialist city, from the ground to the top of the steel plant - everything would be designed with this spirit. A city that must act a birthing ground for this new society that the Bolsheviks wanted to conjure.

>"Magnitogorsk will become the future center of Sovietization of the southern Urals" - Propaganda poster

The original plans for the city had extensive communal dining halls, for that is how the future society would be as citizens would all be joined together in revolutionary spirit. These beliefs did play a role into the final form of what Magnitogorsk resembles today and through the process of how it came into being. From Stakhanovite working practices, to the insistence of cultural indoctrination of people into becoming these new humans and culminating in the nights of the great purge, as people heard the rumbling of NKVD van motors drive through the city at night and wonder at what door they will stop tonight.

This really is all just scratching the surface of this 10/10 book, there is just so much more.
>>
No. 42265
>>42245
>>frontier through the centuries beckoned the afflicted and the adventurous alike. For some a land of last resort, for others one of promise, the steppe was above all a symbol of the seemingly boundless space of the country and a persistent remind
What you just described here, that is literally the exact definition of the American experience and our frontier and most particularly California even up to just about this very present with the sole exception of "bend nature to our will." I don't believe such a thing is apt, so much as our existence in brutal defiance against nature. That is part of the reason why we build our cardboard homes on flood zones, fault lines, in forest fire regions, on the coasts of hurricanes and inland amidst the tornadoes, and why in our endearing defiance against nature we'll just build them right back again when that get torn down.

So that is a major part of why I have such an enduring intrigue and fascination with Russia, because I think that truly they are like our alien brothers in a way that I don't think any European can quite understand in such a same manner, and I think that even to this very day our hijinks against each other and unceasing suspicion is as rooted in our consternation and alienation from the Other as it is a deeper suspicion of ourselves, and I think that that is also part of why conspiracism culture is so rampant among the Russians and the Americans in a way that probably causes eye rolling among you continentals and Brits/Irish. Of course you people can probably also sympathize with the problem of having a large mass of Germans sitting inland occupying the interior of your continent with a bunch of snooty Anglos/French/Irish/SpanishMexicans/others looking down their noses on such people.
>>
No. 42268
132 kB, 800 × 610
106 kB, 800 × 604
283 kB, 1280 × 960
344 kB, 1024 × 310
>>42245
Actually, most of the cities in modern post-USSR was built like that. Even ones that existed before. For example, Cherepovets - sity that existed back in imerial days in soviet times was expanded x10 times, with giant metal producing facilities towards horisont was built and giant districts of early Chrushowkas for people who will work here.

My city, even being founded during world war I by Imperial goverment, of cource was built in soviet times and there like.. not a single pre-WW2 building left? (thanks, gormany! :-----DDDD). And all cities in my region was built around some factory, power plant and things like that and ones that existed before - rebuilt into ones.

Even villages. Most of "russian" villages your see - post-collectivisation ones. It's not most times villages how they was made by pesants before revolution, it's soviet towns built by soviet rules for kolhoses. 95% of cities, towns, villages you see in post-USSR is soviet ones, created or shaped for one purpose or another. This is main reason you may see why so many cities and villages after USSR collapsed become abadoned and loosing population - it was artificially created places for whatever purpose that nobody needs anymore.
>>
No. 42269
>>42245
Also
>Magnitogorsk
Can not resist to post :---DDD
https://youtu.be/QR4Fnw7I8nE
>>
No. 42272
>>42268
In sweet Magnita they began the process of building residential areas via temporary barrack housing (which was fairly permanent :DD) and eventually khrushovkas were built. There was a small American looking area built for some American engineers they invited over and soon these houses were seized by apparatchiki :DD

Russia really is so shaped by the aftermath of the October revolution, not so long ago I thought CCCP was this period that detracted from a natural growth of Russian society but now I realize that this international proletarian revolution is so extremely Russian. What an interesting nation, full of interesting places and interesting peoples. Russophillia is not a crime
>>
No. 42275
124 kB, 800 × 515
>>42272
>via temporary barrack housing (which was fairly permanent :DD)
It was in every city. Well a lot cities still have them even mine. My mom and did both initially lived in such things, both families get apartment in breznevkas around 70s. And this barracks continued to be built untill 1960s. Before there was people who lived in fucking dugouts
There was shit that "all barracks will be removed untill 100 years anniversity of city in 2016. Whell, they still exist. Not much but there a bunch of them and there still live people. And even more in region outside city.

>was this period
That this country probably never recover from, sovok is ethernal now.

>Russophillia is not a crime
I'd also be Russophil
If I lived in Portuglal :D
>>
No. 42297
22 kB, 500 × 334
>Before there was people who lived in fucking dugouts
The book does say this was also the case in Magnitogorsk and that the local authorities tried rooting out these mud huts, but that they were used out of necessity due to the barracks being beyond overcrowded.

>[this period] That this country probably never recover from, sovok is ethernal now.
Yeah, the Soviet experience really seems to have shaped Russian heda permanently in interesting and horrible ways - but also in a way that can also seem laudable, like some sort of adapted survival mechanism ingrained in society.
>>
No. 42298 Kontra
>>42297
Oh also, apparently some people who lived in communal housing did decide to just leave their residence and go live in mud huts so they could live a more normal life. Especially when they wanted to start a family.
>>
No. 42398
>>42297
>The book does say this was also the case in Magnitogorsk and that the local authorities tried rooting out these mud huts, but that they were used out of necessity due to the barracks being beyond overcrowded.
It's interesting example of whole soviet system, one of main sins was shemes like:
1.Party ordering plan how something SHOULD be. This orders might be anything from pointless and delusional to really logical but unrealistic.
2.Goverment people on places not even trying to implement it directly, more like shaping something to kind of look similar from outside to what was planned. In process already not really good orders like "move some pesants into empty land in nowhere and force them to do X" becomeing even more total hall with ideas "if we remove half of pesants, we can make X for other half".
3.Reporting back about success, there everybody understand but don't really care. they can say on other party meeting about success anyway.
In time, it slowely shifted from being really dangeround for people itself towards more economical manipulation if this can be called economy lol. You can read more about this here:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%87%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE

So, all people should live in barraсks? Well, remove mud huts! There not enough place in barracks? Well, allow mudhuts even if it's forbidden before. And then mudhuts may stay untill 1975, we will just not count them in papers, so party which working only with papers can raport that all live in barracks and not in mudhuts.

>survival mechanism
More of survival mechanism for leaders, not nation itself. You can see how successfull country was at surviving :--DDDDD
>>
No. 42401
2,5 MB, 1914 × 2714
2,5 MB, 3039 × 1931
2,2 MB, 2492 × 1838
1,9 MB, 1724 × 2417
>>42398

>So, all people should live in barraсks? Well, remove mud huts! There not enough place in barracks? Well, allow mudhuts even if it's forbidden before. And then mudhuts may stay untill 1975, we will just not count them in papers, so party which working only with papers can raport that all live in barracks and not in mudhuts.
So many other activities seemed to share a similar fate, based on a similar tug of war between what seems to be the larger whims of this newly formed Soviet populace and their basic demands (mostly housing, some degree of consumer goods and above all else bread and revolution circus*) up against the desires for a new society from the Bolsheviks who saw themselves as a professional revolutionary elite.

This happened for the Magnitogorsk market, authorities despite being against its existence and increasingly restricting these "capitalist displays" but being faced with the fact that it served a necessary function to keep society running. Like with the mud huts, with the authorities seeing them as a backwards symbol of a feudal Russia that had be removed and replaced with glorious scientific management but also as a necessity since the housing blocks weren't building built anywhere close enough to match the housing plan. It's wild that even up to '39, the yearly housing plan was almost permanently stuck at <40% completion reaching lows of 12% completion. It's also telling that even though this would seem bad, for all of its defects it was kept. The горком and the раиком and the обком and the party itself and the factory itself that also ran a lot of the housing of the city - were engaged in a strange form of governmental turf war. It was a clusterfuck пиздец of differently governmental bodies fighting over responsibilities and perks from one another and shifting blame like a hot potato when something failed to reach planned goals. As a western whose family didn't suffer in a sovok nightmare, it's really interesting to see these different organizations try to take the steers of actually building socialism and all these neo-feudal between different groups being granted the control charters from Moscow.

>More of survival mechanism for leaders, not nation itself. You can see how successful country was at surviving :--DDDDD 

It was out of this survival mechanism that Russians and assorted other nationalities, but especially Russians - managed to bring down this system. The people living under Soviet rule managed to build families and try to bring meaning to their lives even after being personally deeply affected by the revolution. Ultimately these people survived, attempted to bring a semblance of normality into their lives and adapted to the system imposed to them and all of this entirely new restrictions and codes of conduct. They adopted new forms of speaking, of behaving and of thinking. This allowed them to survive, in many cases even prosper. I used to have troubles understanding how willingly the Russians seemed to embark on such a wildly revolutionary crusade and the revolutionary period lasting so long. In this social experiment, how did some people make sense of what they were living to? How did they see their role in this task of building socialism? Was it all a population of cynics or how many people truly believed in this grand crusade? This book really was most in-depth and cooler one about personal beliefs of average Soviet citizens, portrayed in a steel factory built in a steppe. It's interesting to see how these events shape a population and the survival mechanisms it instills in people, in a similar and parallel way that suffering in general does.

Also, these pictures are in Kotkin's Magnetic Mountain and I figured I'd share them here because I think they're really cool. They seem fugged in the preview but they work if you open in a different tab.
>>
No. 43418
153 kB, 448 × 599
136 kB, 900 × 592
53 kB, 1333 × 740
570 kB, 2212 × 2929
Today I found out Lazar Kaganovich died in the fateful year of 1991 and that when Stalin mentioned to him that he had heard about his brother Mikhail Kaganovich "associating with the right wing.", Kaganovich arranged for his brother's death. He did give him a courtesy call warning him about his incoming death and thus giving him time to kill himself.

I knew he was a Stalin die-hard loyalist but I had no idea he was this fanatic. He was already proselytizing rigid anti-kulak action before the 1928 war scare and proclaimed that he would sign off on any of Stalin's orders in 1922(!), which really was a bold early game move and it led him being a special figure that was beyond loyal to Stalin and oversaw the most macabre period of Soviet history in all manners of responsibilities. Wikipedia has nice apparatchik hall of achievement on his page listing his achievements and beautiful bolshevik job titles. Heavy Industry positions were the gold medal for an up and coming party official during Stalin's time. He also led the Ukraine during interesting periods and it should be noted that following his act, the young and energetic Khrushchev took the reigns of the Ukraine. He continued Kaganovich's work thus going forward in the sovietization process and as Ukraine is the poster child for the glorious process of building socialism via Kolkhoz.
This earned Khrushchev the compliments of the Ukrainian NKVD Uspensky who said "It was only after the faithful Stalinist Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev arrived in Ukraine [that] the smashing of enemies of the people began in earnest".

Khrushchev ended up assigning Kaganovich to a potassium factory in bumfuck nowhere urals after a power struggle since the Iron Lazar tried to coup the Corn Tsar after opposing his de-Stalinization campaign.
>>
No. 43559
54 kB, 550 × 830
I finished Khrushchev's 3 000 pages long memoirs a couple of months ago and translated the juiciest bits into English for my friends but forgot to post it
Krushchev did not go into a detail about Holodomor and he dedicated no more than a couple of sentences to it, saying that trains full of corpses were arriving to Moscow from Kyiv, the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. But he does recount a very curious and horrifying story concerning the Soviet famine that happened in 1946, not many foreigners know that there was an after-war famine in the USSR:
We didn't receive any messages from Moscow. The famine started, signals began to arrive that people were dying. In some places there was cannibalism. I was informed, for example, that they had found a head and human feet under the bridge near Vasilkov (town near Kyiv). That means corpse was eaten. Then such stories became more frequent. Kirichenko (he was then the first secretary of Odessa regional party committee) said that when he arrived at some collective farm to check how the people live at winter, they told him to visit particular woman. He entered the house: "I saw a terrible picture. I saw that this woman has cut the corpse of her own child, I couldn't recognize if it was a boy or a girl, and she said: "We ate Manechka (girl), and now we will pickle Vanechka (boy). That should be enough for some time [to survive]"
This woman went mad from hunger and and killed her children, Can you imagine it? The same situation was in Moldova, Stalin sent Kosygin to the republic.
Kosygin was a minister of trade back then and dealt with issues of food stamps. Kosygin returned, he reported that the people are starving and suffering dystrophy. Stalin went mad and shouted at him, and then each time meeting Kosygin until his death he often jokingly said: "Here is my dystrophic brother." Kosygin was very skinny, so some people called him like that trying to imitate Stalin. I reported about the famine to Stalin, but in response I got only anger: "Spinelessness! You are being deceived, the people are purposely reporting that to make you feel pity and force to use the reserves"

There is a rather curious appendix in the end, I am not sure that it was translated into English: stenography of Khrushchev’s interrogation by senior Soviet officials on the publication of his memoirs in the West. Around 12 days before their publication by TIMES they asked him to explain how the West got its hands on his memoirs which could damage the Soviet image in the world
I am not going to translate it all but I will mention three details that you could find entertaining: 1) Krushchev asks the Soviets how did they manage to fuck up Egypt so badly, I think he talks about one of the lost wars against Israel 2) He complains about gerontocracy in the USSR (which crippled the Brezhnev's term as we know), says that officials should give up their posts when they are 65, or even 60 3) He is disturbed by low quality of living and shortages, complains about lack of funding going into basic consumer goods, tells a famous Soviet joke: "Is it possible for a camel to reach Moscow by foot if he started his journey from the Far East? No, it's not. The people will eat him". The official asks a rhetoric question: "Weren't these jokes popular during your term as well?"

Gerontocracy aka rule of the old people was a very hot topic in the USSR in the 80s, it's actually surprising that Krushchev openly bitches about that in the interrogation, it's always fun whenever I read some texts predating a major crisis that highlight the roots of problems. For example, I once was reading a 1902 year (!!!) Russian book on livehood of Russian peasants in the Russian Empire and there was a story with a peasant who propagated communist idea in his village. This story could appear of little relevance to the writer but we armed with benefit of hindsight can laugh at that knowing about the 1905 and 1917 revolutions
In the 80s Gorbachev attacked and removed a lot of the Brezhnev's old conservatives from their posts on the base of need for "rejuvenation of the party" (literal translation)
Shortages of consumer goods persisted til the fall of the USSR as well
>>
No. 43563
>>42245
I did get Magnetic Mountain but haven't gotten around to it yet, largely because I'd read another book about Magnitogorsk - John Scott back then decided to stop being a useless piece of shit leftie journalist in America, learned how to be a welder, and went there to work. His memoirs are most fascinating, especially because he can contrast what sticks out from his amerifat experience.

I'd actually written a summary of it in Northpole but I don't think I've saved it anywhere else. Though I do remember Scott whining about how they started suspecting him for being a foreigner and how it's terrible prejudice, followed by him openly saying he kept reporting everything he saw to the American Embassy
>>
No. 43566
76 kB, 608 × 409
>>43559
They sound really fun, the book I'm reading now quotes extensively from them, with warnings about Khrushchev bullshitting in some parts.
At some point it specifically talks about the same silence from Nikita about the holodomor as you mentioned and a few other cases in which Nikita lessens his own role in purges or claims he didn't know about things that he did.
>For example, I once was reading a 1902 year (!!!) Russian book on livehood of Russian peasants in the Russian Empire and there was a story with a peasant who propagated communist idea in his village. This story could appear of little relevance to the writer
At the time he probably just saw it as a neo-narodnik type thing that will just fade into the past.

>>43563
Magnetic Mountain does reference his writings too, makes it seem like a very interesting life experience as it appears to be someone who did have some utopian hope would be conjured from the bowels of a steel processing plant. John Scott seems like a guy who had a pretty wild life story.
>>
No. 44092
>>44049
I googled him and found that he worked in the OSS became a journalist and then vice president of RFE. An interesting life, presumably far more than the life I am destined to live in the coming decades If they do come

Kotkin began showing up in more second-rate podcasts, I don't really care much for what he says even though I ostensibly agree with him. His lectures on Russian history, especially the Stalin ones are great.
https://youtu.be/rcE3jaMuuy8
I especially like his accent :DD
>>
No. 45605
Small analysis of Lukashenko's two first years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmb5ZMBItrE
>>
No. 45649
535 kB, 963 × 747
460 kB, 964 × 701
525 kB, 966 × 702
551 kB, 955 × 692
>>45605
This documentary is pretty cool, not only is it nice for its extensive historical footage but the story of the Belorussians picking a people's anti-corruption hero and it descending into some Andropovian parasitism fighting while Lukashenko cultivates the image of a vozhd out of his previous ordinary man image was nice. Very cool, but it does really highlight how little I know about Belarus - Even searching the English internet for Kebich I can't see to find much about him. Was he just some inconsequential generic apparatchik? From the documentary alone he appeared like some sort of Shestidecyatniki.
Very cool though and Might have shed some light on my previous question of why Lukashenko didn't just let go of the wheel in the past weeks :DD
>>
No. 45686
54 kB, 435 × 480
This is a photo of Engelbert Dolfuß, Benito Mussolini and Gyula Gömbös meeting in Rome.
Gömbös was the prime minister of Hungary who tried to copy Mussolini's fascism. The press often called him Gömbölini because of that.

I think Dolfuß gives the photo a very whacky aura, and I wanted to share it mainly because of that.
Look at the smiling little gnome :D
>>
No. 45687
>>45686
ayy look at that millimetternich
>>
No. 45689
>>45649
First 15 minutes is good, the rest is too tedious with poor signal to noise ratio
>>
No. 46777
19 kB, 360 × 360
18 kB, 408 × 286
>A 5-part series, behind the scenes look at Gorbachev’s reforms and the ensuing collapse of the USSR. Winner of the Dupont Gold Baton for Best Documentary Series and called ‘the best BBC series of the decade’ by the London Independent. The films trace Gorbachev’s rise and fall from the first experiments with the policies of Glasnost and Perestroika through the collapse of Communism, the ascent of Boris Yeltsin and the end of the Soviet Union. Produced for Brian Lapping Prods.

I finished watching this, and it was breddy gud. You can find the whole series on youtube (in horrible quality and with audio only one side):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRHpwGC77ig&list=PL3HEryBztOrohRgs_-KrHq-Xz-0iXYG3_
It's nice, it goes from the very late years of Brezhnev to 1991. The documentary itself was made in 1991 and it features extensive interviews with key players of the events discussed in the film. It presents contrasting views and paints a good picture of what the mindset of the upper soviet government characters was and what their personal motivation was to bring about what the documentary calls "The Second Russian Revolution".
I liked it, now sadly I need to find a new series to watch.
>>
No. 47491
46 kB, 500 × 500
202 kB, 1280 × 774
60 kB, 1024 × 643
46 kB, 460 × 345
I read "A People's Tragedy" by Figes Orlando, an extremely interesting and insightful work on the Russian civil war. The book is fairly popular and often cited in the circles of people interested in the revolution, for example the Khrushchev's memoirs I read had less than 50 ratings on goodreads.com, Archipelag Gulag has there 6000 votes, "Ivan's life" (an obscure imperial book on the livehood of Russian peasants published in 1902) had 137, and "A People's Tragedy" got 3600.
I am pleasad that the author focuses not only on center stage personalities like Nicholas, Witte, Stolypin, Lenin, Rasputin, Trotsky, Kerensky, Lvov or Stalin, but also on smaller individuals without a wiki page, the author likes to tell the story through the lenses of a small peasant progressive and other fairly obscure personalities of whom not even Russians have heard but who are neccessary to represent those who experienced revolution's brute force firsthand.

The civil war was a giant clusterfuck but the author dedicates only around 300 pages to it, the other 700 are dedicated to political struggle between parties and personalities. This is one of the few times when I read a long book and say that I want MORE, apparently the author often skips the details and I often found things in Wikipedia that were not listed in the book. I can't say it's useless or flawed, or spends too much time on uesless things but rather it's too short despite being a huge 1000 pages long Bible. For example, Orlando doesn't touch at all the rumor (it's disputed) that Stalin drowned thousand of former trasirst military officers in Volga after being appointed a commissar in Tsaritsyn (the city whose future name will be known to every human with slight interest in WW2, Stalingrad). The book often quotes seemingly obscure information and I am deeply happy to see Orlando quoting people's diaries, mentioning not only the famous Witte's memoirs or Durnovo's letter that I showed to you, the man who profetically warned Nicholas 2 about the consequenses of the future world war, but also quoting diaries of obscure people whose names are not grand enough to deserve a wiki page. I wonder if he read Bukharin's and Khrushchev's memoirs, or were they too obscure even for a professional historian? I am sure, for example, that only a part of the Bukharin's prison writings were translated into English. I will quote my favorite disjointed paragraphs that should hook you up if you can't decide whether you are willing to spend your time reading such a gargantuan book:

Count Witte, Russian minister of finance, suggested Alexander that the time had to instruct the heir to the throne in the affairs of the state. Alexander seemed surprised. 'Tell me,' he asked the Minister, 'have you ever spoken to his Imperial Highness, the Grand Duke Tsarevish (Nicholas 2)'? Witte admitted that he had. 'Then don't tell me you never noticed that the Grand Duke is a dunce!'

The most famous scandal took place at the Yar, a well-known gipsy restaurant, in March 1915. Rasputin had gone there with two journalists and three prostitutes (what a promising beginning!). He became drunk, tried to grab the gypse girls, and began to boast loudly of his sexual exploits with the Empress. "See this belt?" he bellowed. "It's her majesty's own work, I can make her do anything. Yes, I Grishka Rasputin. I could make the old girl dance like this if I wished" - and he made a gesture of the sexual act. By now, everyone was looking at Rasputin and several people asked if he was really the famous holy man. Rasputin dropped his pants and waved his penis at spectators. The British agent, Bruce Lockhart, who was in the restraurant downstairs, heard "wild striecks of women, broken glass and banging doors". The waiters rushed about, the police were called, but no one dared evict the holy man. Telephone calls to increasingly high officials finally reached the Chief of the Corps of Gendarmes, who ordered Rasputin's arrenst. He was led away and imprisoned for the night. But the next morning orders came down from the Tsar for his release.

By 1920 the left wingers had got their way: money was being printed at such a furious rate that it was pointless to defend it any longer. The Mint was emplyoing 13 000 workers and, quite absurdly, using up a large amount of Russia's gold reserves to import the dyes and paper needed to print money. It was costing more to print the rouble than the rouble was actually worth. Public services, such as the post and telegraph, transport and eletricity, had to be made free because the state was losing money by printing and charging rouble notes for them

The economist Preobrazhensky dedicated one of his books: "To the printing presses of the Commissariat of Finance - that machine-gun which shot the bourgeois regime in its arse, the monetary system"

I highly recommend to play AGEOD game "The Revolution Under Siege" after reading that book. It is a very deep strategy that enhances experience of the civil war and allows multiplе alternate history scenarios. Very fun.
Here's some good atmospheric old Russian music about the Civil War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SzrtszwCOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydjBg8oErHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmmQP8E1dXQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkaqxO2BczQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5CpT4EwmYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im71Kez2E_0
>>
No. 47536
763 kB, 1900 × 1270
>>47491
Looks very good, added to my reading list. Interesting that
>The book chronicles Russian history from the famine of 1891-1892, the response to which Figes argues to have severely weakened the Russian Empire, to the death of Lenin in 1924, when "the basic elements of the Stalinist regime - the one-party state, the system of terror and the cult of the personality - were all in place".
Fitzgerald's the Russian Revolution instead takes it from 1917 to the great purge, with solid arguments for it. I suppose I should read it because after reading that book and while reading Kotkin's Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, one really takes away that 1924 really wasn't a significant shift in party policy - something more like the solidification of certain maxims and ideas.
All this increasingly makes me think that perhaps there is some book out there that takes the Russian civil war and localizes it more, as readings about the overall period - which all seem to emphasize that the war and this revolutionary period were like hundreds of localized societal conflicts - possibly lack the insight one would get from just reading about the national picture. I have no doubt that the experiences of say, Tambov were vastly different from Irkutsk but I lack any real insight as to how so other than SR/green army activity in former.

>Orlando doesn't touch at all the rumor (it's disputed) that Stalin drowned thousand of former trasirst military officers in Volga after being appointed a commissar in Tsaritsyn
Kotkin has a subchapter on the barge prisons in Tsaritsyn and their role in Stalin's attempt to fight against military specialists as a means of weakening Trotsky's power - with some detail on the horrid conditions they were kept in with the cynical scapegoating and executions, but does not mention mass drownings.
>>
No. 47725
2,0 MB, 1557 × 2265
When Ludwig Loewe, Paul Mauser, Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz, and Hubert teamed up to promote on Ottoman trials Mauser's 1887 model - upgrade from 1871/84, still a black powder magazine rifle, they in the correspondence they sent each other started to "code" names and places. So they called Sultan Abdul Hamid II an "Ernst".
>>
No. 47781
Is this kind of stuff in any way accurate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRB9p2isVe0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui11x8vLQFI
I thought that modern Russians hated the Soviet Union and that the youth just plain doesn't care
>>
No. 47796
>>47781
I think you don't know about Russia anything, sorry.
>>
No. 47797
>>47781
Why would they hate it? They had a big independent country, with its own industry, with its own "moral values" and what they got after it was total degradation, banditry, destruction of economy, unironic seven jewish bankers running the country, moral decay and so on. They don't care about formal western 'freedom's as you do, or liberal democracy, they are extremely cynical homo soveticus-- no real freedom, no real democracy it's all bullshit and so on. So they had an ok deal by their own standards, then they got shit, then they got normalization after Putin.
>>
No. 47802
>>47797
What is it about Russians that make you all subservient cattle? Why is the character of your society so sheepish and passive?
>>
No. 47816
>>47802
The same thing could be asked about us honestly
>>
No. 47817 Kontra
120 kB, 1280 × 720
121 kB, 1280 × 720
This is actually a really profoundly and depressingly accurate commentary on neoliberalism tbh
>>
No. 47818
>>47802
We are not "subservient", we are living in the freest country according to our own standards, not your gay ones. Any normal russian upon visit to the US quickly discovers that it is a fascist police state without any "freedoms", this is how it looks for us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9la2-vEyY
>>
No. 47820
>>47818
That's definitely how certain Republicans think it is here, and while true we sometimes could use Tort reform and it becomes another aspect of dystopian society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esyMFOu8ZFE
That is a much better depiction of life here from the police state nofreedumz perspective.

In fact I don't mind lawyers at all in that nobody below upper middle class would ever even get sued. The people complaining about it are all large business owners and oligarchs because lawsuits are the singular power we have left to keep them in check which drives dirtbags like Mitch McConnell up the wall. It's right now a part of what's holding up our gibes round 2 because the Dems weren't budging on certain things which idk if they dropped it from the aid package yet but for months one big sticking point was senate Republicans refused to sign anything that didn't absolve all schools and businesses of any legal responsibilities whatsoever.

Like in my case personally when I was directly told by multiple people including managers not to wear a mask at work--and decided to tolerate only because I knew shitdowns were imminent anyway and me walking off the job could fuck me from collecting unemployment (which I wouldn't qualify for had I quit, so I thought then, and likewise wasn't even aware of the $600 bonus at the time)--when CDC finally said they recommended it and I had that backing (because OSHA also wouldn't back people then) I point blank told them give me the company policy in writing until then I'm wearing it. This is because I knew full well they were maintaining plausible deniability and I could sue their asses if they gave it in writing so because it was not in writing and no "official" policy officially existed they couldn't do shit to me when I started wearing one and I have lawyerism to thank for that.

The only people who think that's what makes America dystopian are the very scumbag corporations that make it so dystopian for everybody else in the first place.
>>
No. 49143
24 kB, 266 × 400
140 kB, 1160 × 754
>A popular study of the KGB and its post-Soviet incarnation by the courageous and opinionated Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats, who was among the first to report on the organization in the post-Soviet Russian press. Based on extensive personal interviews with current and former agents and on material from the KGB archives, The State Within a State makes a compelling argument that the new incarnation of the KGB has grown not only in size but in influence since the fall of the Soviet Union, making it perhaps the most powerful political force in contemporary Russia.

I finished this book and really my main complaint is that it ends in 1994. It answered several questions I had about the role of the KGB as a political force within the Soviet Union and it's transformation through 1991. It gave me insight into how these Chekists see themselves, what their relationship with the center was and how the VChK morphed into arguably the most powerful force in Russian society by 1990. The book talks about the Yeltsin's inability or unwillingness to get rid of a secret agency whose only oversight lays in hands of the Executive.

In some sense this book caused to only have more questions about the KGB, something that is closer to a testament to how good the book is rather than how incomplete it is. I still want to know more about the specifics of KGB's role in Perestroika and the 1991 failed coup - despite both being awarded a chapter each. I also really, really want to know more about the period of 1994-2000 which the book doesn't touch.

There's a chapter in which Albats goes and interviews a former NVKD "investigator", which was probably the best - it paints a very clear picture of the motivation and mindset of these unrepentant Chekists. Said chapter does go into the specifics of at least half a dozen cases involving lives being ruined in some cases and brutally ended in others and how the people behind it see themselves and their actions. When cutting wood, chips fly.
>>
No. 49145
>>47817
This is how i feel looking at the 90s and the decades prior. God i hate this soulless internet influenced age and all the shitty memes with it.
>>
No. 50133
>>47781
My grandpa used to ride to Moscow for food, but now he only remembers good stuff, and how he was young and healthy. So it's mostly nostalgia. Also he approves such a thing as "work by distribution". It's when after getting education you are forced to work in a place specified by government (probably in another town). He says it's good you don't have to search job for yourself. He just doesn't understand it's no problem to find ANY job (no matter with what salary or location).
Also people compare USSR to modern Russia (not any other capitalist country). My dad dislikes USSR, but he says it was nice in comparison to current Northern Nigeria.
>>
No. 50164
112 kB, 1128 × 647
27 kB, 400 × 278
2,8 MB, 478 × 350, 0:04
I did not know about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#Economic_reforms
Jesus fucking Christ. I was aware that somehow they were doing something that didn't involve being a petrol station for foreigners and that they were trying to move off the petroldillar and trying to avoid foreign banking with higher than normal for Africa GDP but I had no clue it was to this degree. They actually once had better PPP than us. You can literally see the
>before revolution
>after
>after Capitalist influence
>after Capitalist victory
It's to such an extent I end up questioning even the propaganda I'm fed about North Korea. Libya wasn't an impoverished dictatorial third world shithole, but boy they are now. My understanding is it's effectively a non-state atm. Yeah they had his children executed too by the way.
>>
No. 50166
>>50164
> Libya
You will now realize that most wars in Africa and Middle East involving the USA is related to leaving the petrodollar. Iran wouldn't be so evil if they just accepted their lord and savior his holiness the almighty petrodollar.
>>
No. 50193
217 kB, 521 × 576
>>50164
>Gaddafi's agents were active in the UK, where many Libyans had sought asylum. After Libyan diplomats shot at 15 anti-Gaddafi protesters from inside the Libyan embassy's first floor and killed a British policewoman, the UK broke off relations with Gaddafi's government as a result of the incident.

How can the USSR even compete? We weren't this metal
>>
No. 50198 Kontra
>>50164
They may have had money, but they were a shithole. Don't fall into the retarded dichotomy of USA Bad/Lierally everyone in opposition to them Good.

The man probably got whacked for the economics, but he also kind of had it coming with the kind of bullshit he got up to as a not-so-benevolent dictator.
>>
No. 50200
>>50164
How exactly did they try to "end the petrodollar"
>>
No. 50203
473 kB, 1554 × 819
18 kB, 800 × 600, 0:00
14 kB, 400 × 300, 0:00
119 kB, 387 × 302
>>50164
It really has nothing to do with some 'lol capitalism' reason. You might wish to pin Libya's economic growth to Qaddafi's self serving
cosplay as a leftist theoretician battling the imperalist interests of the western capitalist zionist cabbal, but there really is a far more straight forward answer.

>>50166
>Iran wouldn't be so evil if they just accepted their lord and savior his holiness the almighty petrodollar.
But they did, they even dropped their proposals to seek alternative currency for oil exchanges. Still a sworn enemy of the United States.

>>50200
The conspiracy theory goes that Libya posed a threat by presenting itself as capable of creating an alternative regional sphere that wouldn't be subservient to American interests. In setting aside the yoke of 'petrodollars', Qaddafi gave his people wealth as opposed to having it siphoned off to the pockets of western Jewish imperialists. America feared the threat of teachings of the enlightened Colonel would cause the world to rise up against it, Libya would lead the people of Africa and unify the continent in pan-African oil money fever dreams. Amerikkkan capitalists feared this so they had him killed.
This theory does fly in the face of Qaddafi's actions, who really was nothing more than a self serving tyrant whose theories weren't even applied to the nation he ruled. His rhetoric in no way matched his actions.

>>50193
Saved the pic :DD Finally, recipe for communism.
>>
No. 50204
>>50200
They along with many other MENA countries and other places the US plutocracy goes to great lengths to destroy like Venezuala all had been pushing to move off the petrodollar and that now includes (successfully iirc) Iran, Venezuala, Russia, and China, which I'm surprised hadn't destabilized our economy yet.

Truth be told the good ol USA is actually bankrupt and it has been for many many years now. Our debt vastly outstrips our entire GDP. The whole country's economy has essentially been floated on the fact that our dollar actually has backing beyond some shitty promisory note regardless what people bitching about going back to the gold standard say, and that thing is oil. Other countries trade in our currency for oil basically. This means our useless meme notes have real commodity backing in a sense and that is all protected by the global US military presence.

Libya like numerous other oil countries had been agitating to get off it.
Holy shit dude this is spooky
https://www.bing.com/search?q=saddam+hussein+sells+euros&qs=n&sp=-1&pq=saddam+hussein+sells+euros&sc=0-26&sk=&cvid=7531F47EE017408C9C1C1F2148E95CE4&first=11&FORM=PORE
Every single link seems to 404 when I look for it.

But anyway Iraq had actually moved the Dinar off USD to Euros for oil within literally months before the invasion and that was the real reason for Gulf War 2: ISIS boogaloo. The elites don't tell you this. Libya was agitating to do the same thing and if all petrol station countries did that it'd literally devalue our currency and lead to economic collapse. If everyone started trading oil for euros instead of dollars we'd probably become 90s Russia overnight. Libya, like Iraq, being big oil sellers would have dire repercussions.
https://www.rt.com/business/403465-dollar-end-china-crude-rogers/
There is currently a major secret war going on right now among the major powers to thwart us and end US supremacy and that includes Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China. You will notice that the Trump administration tried repeatedly to depose Maduro, obviously not because of human rights the US doesn't give a shit about that, but because they're a big petrol station. Iran similar thing. The US would rather have these countries literally ran by terrorists and cartels than let this happen, and sadly this is for once something that impacts the common burger because if everyone moved to yuan or euro it would crash our economy into the ground.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/bolivias-nationalization-oil-and-gas
Other countries that the US has been attempting to coup under Trump includes Bolivia. That's because they have a leftist government that tried to nationalize gas and petroleum reserves and could turn from trading petrodollar to euro or yuan.

Because the US doesn't actually make much of anything anymore because our prostitute corporate executives moved everything offshore, and because we've been losing our edge in everything we do make even videogames to movies and television, it will render us in massive financial exposure. Ironically our ridiculous spend and don't tax policies can work short term because of military enforcement of trade in USD for oil so in a vague sense you can print money like Zimbabwe and not have it effect you terribly provided you prop up petrodollars. This likewise makes me question what the hell Biden is doing because while climate change is an existential threat, ending the petrodollar is likewise an existential threat to us short term. I'm really not sure what his plans are to shift our country to green energy while keeping us propped up, because even before the pandemic we had so much national debt the country is effectively broke.
>>
No. 50205
>>50203
But Iran did move off it recently didn't they? Wish I saw your post first we must've replied same time. There's an alliance of countries against US power right now led by Russia and chyna.
>>
No. 50206
>>50205
From wiki:
>During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies.[11] The Kish Bourse was officially opened in a videoconference ceremony on 17 February 2008, despite last minute disruptions to the internet services to the Persian Gulf regions. Currently the Kish Bourse is only trading in oil-derived products, generally those used as feedstock for the plastics and pharmaceutical industries. However, officially published statements by Iranian oil minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari indicate that the second phase, to establish trading in crude oil directly, which has been suggested might one day perhaps create a "Caspian Crude" benchmark price analogous to Brent Crude or WTI will only be started after the Bourse has demonstrated a reasonable period of trouble-free running.[12]
>Due to technical problems, the oil bourse never proceeded, and the plans were finally abandoned after a vote by the Iranian Parliament on 7 January 2020.[13]

It really isn't cost effective for these nations to attempt to form their own trade exchange, even with the world undergoing dedollarization - they're still better off using USD. Euros and Yuans are the competing alternative to dollars, rubles really have little to no bearing in all of this. INSTEX is far more of a dangerous undercutting of US power than anything Russia offers (in fact, they'd dream of further exchange integration with the EU.
>>
No. 50207 Kontra
Fucking NSA I wrote a long reply and my battery suddenly rapidly drained and both copy and reply field stored disappeared with it powering off memory whatever fuck it
>>
No. 50208 Kontra
>>50207
Schizo tire
>>
No. 51641
472 kB, 1680 × 1026
391 kB, 1200 × 790
65 kB, 720 × 531
109 kB, 667 × 997
How come the Germans kept trying to go on autistic rampages rather than engage in trade? I know this is oversimplified and therefore wrong, but it really seems to me that every time some fuckwit got to power in Germany and tried to pick fights with neighboring countries in often ended in poverty and total humiliation, whereas the Germans both historically and up to the very present day have actually had some of their greatest successes engaging in joyful merchant like behavior? Der Hansa in particular strikes me as an especially bright spot in Germanic history but no one ever seems to talk about it. They not only had great economic success but great political and other successes through it as well. It strikes me as though even in present day they finally figured out that the real way to world relevance and power is through sheer economic might of their trade and industry. They're practically dominating the whole European continent right now and they're doing it peacefully because of their economic and political position in EU.
>>
No. 51680 Kontra
>>51641
>Germany
>Hanse
Please, tell me, what did the average peasant in Bavaria or even along the Rhine have from that? It was a few rich northerners and that's it.
>>
No. 51759
384 kB, 1105 × 1239
>>51641
I reject this claim, it was 'autistic rampages' that formed Germany in the first place.
>>
No. 51764 Kontra
>>51759
The emancipation of Germany is the emancipation from the Prussian influence.
>>
No. 51770
>>51680
You don't seem to know much about the Hanse besides the "they rich guys, trade dynasty 101". Their traded goods made their way into Germany as well. Heck even cities at the Rhine river were Hanse cities. If I remember correctly Cologne was a big stack for certain goods like salted herring.

t. had to read a book about the Hanse and its (herring) trade in uni (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/buecher/rezension-sachbuch-und-was-verdient-so-ein-fischer-fragen-wir-uns-11295430.html)
>>
No. 51839
>>51770
The Hanse went much further than just Cologne (or Cölln as it was written back than in their documents iirc). What they built was a trade network that as well connected to other trade networks and together they created lots of wealth throughout central europe (including parts of france, poland and switzerland) and scandinavia.

Source: The cloudy memory of someone who did some research once out of pure interest.
>>
No. 51840
>>51839
They did not create wealth, they merely amassed it. The wealth was at best created by the people who caught and pickled the herring. But let's not forget that herring stocks are a finite ressource that can be depleted. So it is best to say: Hanse exploited nature and workers to amass immense wealth in the hands of a few North-German merchants. Yes, Cologne is North German by any sane standard.

The leading Have cities controlled the trade around the baltic and Northern sea. Goods from the periphery were traded through those hubs, much like in an colonial empire were all trade between colonies is forced to go through the motherland, creating a highly centralized network instead of a scale-free network.
>>
No. 51844
>>51840
I thought the Hanse as a network is not up to debate here but its influence. Ofc it is trade capitalism in a sense, but the Goods that came in via the Hanse made its way even to Italy, where the herring for example was an expensive delicacy, while in Germany it was poor mans food, nonetheless in the waterway of the Hanse trade are other merchants that "benefited" from it. I think nobody calls into question that the Hanse was quite powerful even though not a highly organized entity with super coordinated decision making processes, there was many debates on Hanse city meetings.
>>
No. 51848
214 kB, 1170 × 638
152 kB, 1277 × 1078
>>51840
>They did not create wealth, they merely amassed it. The wealth was at best created by the people who caught and pickled the herring.
Ok Karlonius Marx :DD
These interconnected markets enabled the rise of a trading system with revolutionary financial instruments and a possibility for goods for find themselves in every corner of Europe. These merchants entering new and uncharted markets and calculating risk for shipments, entry fees, weights created a new system and forced it all through dukes, kings and even fighting the Pope in the case of the Venetians.
>>
No. 51919
799 kB, 1280 × 1593
Just learned that Frederic II was an enlightened secular, friend with Voltaire, musician, philosopher and probably homosexual. He has literally written against war in a humanitarian perspective. I always saw Prussia as a bloodthirsty bureaucratie but it was actually an enlightened bloodthirsty bureaucracy.
>>
No. 51929
>>51919
Fun Fact: His dad, who had Fritzens lover killed, managed to not only unfuck Prussia finance-wise, but also built up a huge army that he never used.
>>
No. 51930 Kontra
>>51929
He didn't quit just killed Fritz's lover. He also made him watch the decapitation and jailed him two years next to the cadaver.
>>
No. 51936
>>51641
>every time some fuckwit got to power in Germany

One of my favourite alternative historical pet-peeves is, that, if it wasn't for 'Deutsche Physik' (the ideology denying reality for the sake of politics, sort of in a way what we have with the modern far right conspiracy theories), Germany would've (or could've) absolutely smashed the 20th century with being the first to get an A-bomb. Not in as much as in dominating the world, but just using the ridiculously great scientific setup we had to further the cause of prussian Ordnung in the universe. I mean they send physicists to the front as cannon fodder, it's completely irrational. I think, I'm saying that great things could've happened, if we had our shit together in the twenties and not spiralled into fairy tale megalomaniac phantasies. What a waste.
>>
No. 51938
>>51936
I think this is ultimately speaking to a sort of broader trope about villainy, in that the villains often could utterly smash the superheroes were they not all a bunch of retarded fuckups perpetually hobbled by their own inadequacies and self destructive tendencies. The past year in America in particular had been that kind of clownshow, like you implied. They could've easily coasted to victory on accurately identifying and quashing the threat of coronavirus, but they didn't, because reasons, which flipped WH and Congressional control and even then they'd of had a chance had they not introduced the absolute stupidity of the stimulus. It's like a snake cannot help its own nature. The very idea of helping real Americans out with two thousand dollar checks was so horrible for them to comprehend they rejected it and thereby lost control of the senate all but guaranteeing we're going to get our checks anyway.

I've come to appreciate how much certain cultural fables are inspired by real life. My personal favorite exhibit on all the dumb shit the Nazis did was when Ukrainians greeted them as liberators, but because muh ideology they promptly treated them like shit and started alienating vast numbers of would be allies. Diverting something as not simply evil but utterly pointless and self defeating as diverting all that precious coal and petrochemicals and rail logistics towards just murdering a bunch of poor as shit shtetl dwellers is another excellent example, and I'm sure the full scale of Soviet wrath likewise could've been avoided if either a), they didn't turn the whole thing into literally an existential battle, or b), the Gitler hadn't decided to divert everyone to Stalingrad purely out of egoistic spite, and even then had he indulged his butthurt anyway maybe not willfully getting German armed forces encircled and annihilated. It's almost like villains just can't help themselves but to self destruct.

I've never believed the absurdity that every criminal secretly wants to get caught, but hot damn if even psychopaths don't routinely do retarded self defeating shit as a mode of existing.
>>
No. 51939
>>51938
Don't fall into the myth of Hitler's culpability being as absolute as this statement
>Gitler hadn't decided to divert everyone to Stalingrad purely out of egoistic spite

It's one of the postwar myths conjured up by rehabilitated Nazi commanders. Remember that fuggen Halder of all people was the US Military's go-to guy when they were writing their history of the eastern front. These same commanders were quite happy to overrule Hitler when it worked, but blamed failures on Hitler when it didn't. They were convinced of their ability to sustain the airlift. Hitler's decision was informed by the Luftwaffe practically boasting about how they could supply the entire encircled force when they really couldn't even come close.

Hitler thought they could stay, but he got the information that made him think that from a command staff that were themselves overconfident in their ability to prevail over the 'subhuman' Red Army.
>>
No. 51941
>>51939
There is allot of current revisionism around this topic and I would be careful not to take it all at face value. I know many Youtubers love to take things out of context to further this end.

Also the Luftwaffe and army are completely different things.
>>
No. 51942 Kontra
>>51941
To be clear I mean regarding the post war myth myth not Stalingrad itself. I am pretty sure Manstein ordered Paulus to hold initially and he also mentions the Luftwaffe promising to be able to supply the pocket so there is not much difference in the two things you mention.
>>
No. 51943
>>51941
The old record was taken completely at face value and on the word of a known war criminal who has a dog in the race (the guy commanded troops there, why wouldn't he embellish?). Revising that perspective is good history, especially when we now have more information (which we sure as shit do). It's not even a new trend. It started once we started getting access to Soviet archives, which sparked a lot of renewed interest in the Eastern Front in the west.

I'd consider David Glantz to be particularly important in this area because he remains one of the biggest names in western historiography asking the question of 'How did the Red Army win?' instead of simplistically hanging the entire war on German failure. He was working on this area from the early 90s particularly. I wouldn't call something that's been examined for 30 years a recent development in the field tbh. The field would really bloom in the mid 2000s, and continues to today, in other words, the specific field of study has existed longer than youtube has, so there goes pinning it on that.

Also, Hitler mostly would have interacted with OKW who were the unified high command which included both Heer and Luftwaffe leaders. At this level of the command hierarchy, they are very much the same group of people.
>>
No. 51944
>>51943
Forgot Eastern Front was OKH, whatever. They were separate for political reasons, and it collaborated closely with OKL anyway, so the point stands that both perspectives were there at the top.

Also RE: holding in Stalingrad, it was the least shit option. German forces were in no shape to fight out of the encirclement, and were getting hit elsewhere at the same time. Even if they could go mano a mano, the Soviets had reserves that the Germans just didn't. The only chance, no matter how slim they had was to hole up in Stalingrad for as long as they could, and hope for a rescue to come.

The only winning move was to not overextend imo.
>>
No. 51945
>>51943
I agree that they should not be taken at face value but they are still incredibly useful in that they are written by people in the thick of it but also by professionals in a field that really does not exist today, nobody has the experience that these officers have not lest historians and YouTubers.

I haven't actually read Galntz so I can't comment on that, I am just going on what I have seen on Youtube where people do that.

The OKW does not actually stand for the opinions and views of the army as a whole, infact the army was critical of it(as it was too close to Hitler and under his sway). Manstein was not a part of the OKW nor were many of the officers who wrote memoirs.

>>51944
And by going for Stalingrad they overextend in the first place.
>>
No. 51946
>>51945
They should be considered, but primary sources shouldn't be treated as the holy grail they often are. These commanders may have seen things but they saw things through their eyes. These eyes don't have all of the information, and again, have a vested interest in scrubbing their records clean (those who couldn't, got the chop). Many of those who professed to being against the invasion, end up having weirdly enthusiastic participation in things that go beyond their job.

Also, for all his hoo-hahing in his post-war memoirs, there exists a lot of stuff that marks Manstein as a true believer. He is on record with plenty of rhetoric that goes beyond his apolitical portrayal in Lost Victories. The guy was also in charge of operations that run counter to this, like working with Einsatzgruppen pretty extensively. Also modern historiography still uses primary sources, just a wider variety of them, including war records from the other side. These records often contradict what these German memoirs propose, and so reexamining these sources that for many decades were considered sacrosanct is kind of necessary.

>And by going for Stalingrad they overextend in the first place.
That was part of my point. The question of whether they should have broken out is pointless because the forces couldn't realisitically do it. Then the simple answer is to then say that Stalingrad was the mistake? Which it sort of was, but the actual problem was the war plan in general. Stalingrad fits into it well because it was a strategically valid target (important city on the highway of Soviet oil supplies, which had not yet been captured) but the problem was bigger than just this battle. It was just the latest domino to fall.

So my criticism is on Stalingrad being something taken for ego alone, and that standing ground was an incorrect choice taken in the face of a superior alternative (which didn't realistically exist).
>>
No. 51948
>>51946
Everybody has a bias. I have not read Glantz as I said but the Youtubers have a bias in making themselves look smart and to get views, a good way to do that is to attack books written by generals that very few of their viewers will have read. Weirdly enthusiastic participation and criticism are not mutually exclusive either, after all, if it's going to happen anyway then you may as well do your best even if you disagree with orders. They are grown ups, they aren't going to do a half hearted job and deliberately sabotage any hope of victory just because they disagree.

>Then the simple answer is to then say that Stalingrad was the mistake? Which it sort of was, but the actual problem was the war plan in general.

I think they should have gone for Moscow first. It did not involve overextending so much and it was the rail hub of the USSR, if they had taken Moscow taking Stalingrad afterwards would have actually been made easier.
>>
No. 51949
>>51948
Assisting death squads in wiping out civilian populations, not stamping out overt cases of war crimes, and in the case of Halder, penning the orders which gave free reign to German soldiers to execute surrendering Russian soldiers is not simply 'not doing a half-arsed job'. It's active participation in war crimes beyond the scope of military action. Unless you consider things like ethnic cleansing and offically declaring the murder of captured men to be a noble, apolitical action that runs counter to Nazi ideology, they were as complicit in the Nazi regime as anyone else.

They weren't going to take Moscow. The map paints a much prettier picture than what was happening on the ground. Supply chains were not only long and near breaking point, but also way below the required capacity to supply the army for continued operations of a similar intensity as the offensives of 1940. Building up those supply chains was also made far more difficult by the fact that the road network was poor, with very few highways or even well-paved roads, and a rail gauge that was larger than German ones, needing either captured rolling stock to be used (not always available, especially in large numbers) or ripping up existing lines and putting in smaller ones.

At this same time, many factories were starting to come back into action past the Urals, and STAVKA had its reserves being built up. During the opening stages of Barbarossa, the civilian population was also being used to build fortifications around Moscow which make attacking it an even harder prospect.

Again, the war was lost not just on the Germans making the wrong decisions, but the Soviets making some really damn good ones too.
>>
No. 51950
>>51949
You were referring to objecting the invasion of the USSR though, not war crimes specifically.

It was possible they could have taken it early on, before the advance for Moscow was delayed in support of southward moves and before winter hit. As it was they got close.
>>
No. 51951
>>51950
If you actually object to the invasion, but don't want to stoop to sabotaging your own side, then you don't go after the side projects of the regime that serve only to take resources away from more strategically important tasks, no?.

So if they were so willing to turn to these side actions, and issue orders early on that had no strategic impact beyond serving this idea of combatting 'Jewish Bolshevism' and such, then to me, that says that they drank the kool-aid. You don't get to come back after you got your shit pushed in and act like you were against it the whole time, when you went out of your way to achieve goals unrelated to military victory.
>>
No. 51953
>>51951
Well that has to do with objecting war crimes not objecting invading the USSR. They could object invading but not object to war crimes.

But also, just because an order was written by a General does not mean they actually support it. After all, it's a hierarchy and a hierarchy under Hitler. Instructions get passed on from above and if somebody in the chain refuses to pass these on there can be repercussions. Not saying that no generasl did support it but just that it more nuanced than just y general wrote z order or did x and there fore he supported x.
>>
No. 52123
It really never gets old laughing at that
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2018/05/11/meet-the-worst-businessman-of-the-18th-century/
Imagine damn near four thousand years later and some people on the hypernet are shitposting and laughing about your tablets. Imagine if the hypernet itself breaks down and someone finds some badly corrupted data on your old server drives to shitpost about it on your Roman style space bathroom stall and you can no longer find evidence or broken imagelinks of the tablet itself, just some bad server data.
Oh god, why does wikipedia have an article called
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting