libs will call communism naive and then cheer on this s***

dedaenabar.ge/for-russians

i love how it's in english instead of georgian

That’s not gonna hurt them in any way lol

reads like one of those times when historians cite one case of someone not agreeing with the status quo, which is looked back at as crazy

she a republican doe

edition.cnn.com/2022/08/05/politics/victoria-spartz-ukraine-republican-reaction/index.html

Gotta get those upvotes from the redditors

Honestly she's right

Like when @americana cited that one CIA a***yst who thought USSR wasn't a dictatorship

Libs agreeing with me something’s fishy

One memo from like the 50s vs the entire historical establishment including the vast majority of the left

Who is telling the truth

The "historical establishment" corroborates what was written in that memo

No stalin was a crazed madman who consolidated power and killed countless opponents. Just because the black book of communism or whatever overshot the mark in a stupid way doesn't mean a spade isn't a spade

Maybe learn about what serious historians like J. Arch Getty, Wheatcroft and even an conservative anti-communists like Kotkin have to say instead of MI6 agents like Conquest

Nobody in academia who specialized on Soviet history takes the idea that it was a personalized totalitarian dictatorship with Stalin pulling all the strings seriously

cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

Read point #1

Yes. Collective leadership. Captain of a team

What does it mean when the team gets gutted and replaced with henchmen and lackeys? Dictatorship. You could call Putin the same with his Siloviki

He killed a lot of people and governed brutally and autocratically. End of

imagine calling pro-russian structures in ukraine "leftist parties"

especially now

you ☭ dweebs just write anything these days. zero understanding of the subject, as usual

Man will call out zelensky for banning a communist party that is literally a Russian cahoots organ of organised crime and then say Stalin’s purges were necessary for survival

He was a brutal leader for sure, but you have a cartoonish image of how the USSR worked that isn't even supported by western academics

I don't think the ussr was a hellisy behemoth of evil, starvation and genocide anymore but under stalin an absolute s***load of people died, it wasnt all natural, and it wasn't all traitors or opponents. And lastly it wasn't all wealthy landowners. We haven't even touched on the ethnic deportations

Even if staljn wasn't a dictator you can say he was a deeply reprehensible and mentally unwell tyrant and it's good that he died in agony

Shout out Stalin man

IDK why people think the worlds very first socialist project was supposed to be some kind of immediately stable utopia, especially given the conditions it existed in. Even inherently, it’s very presence presented a dangerous existential threat to the world order at the time. It’s even more odd to consider him mentally unwell when he had asked to resign multiple times, was rarely an opportunist, and died with no possessions other than his basic amenities and his large collection of literature, meaning most of what he did was in collaboration with the collective rule of the party

They had just exited a civil war in the face of an upcoming famine, they had massive pervasive elements within their population and growing factionalism within the government itself, they were dealing with the largest global depression at the time, they were largely alienated on the foreign scale, and they had to deal with the growing threat of fascism over the course of the 1930’s

Yeah there’s much criticism to be had, but to say that Stalin was somehow mentally unwell when he was able to successfully steer the country, the people, and the very system of production through the time that he was dealing with is absurd.

There’s a reason why people across the third world revere him even through their knowledge of his atrocities.

Stalin was worse to his people than he had to be

Crazy how the war in Ukraine led directly to restarting the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. A good example of how things can escalate and get out of hand, and why we need to nip Russia’s aggression in the bud

it didn't restart it at all, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict never ended and media simply stopped covering it
even after the ceasefire agreement 2 years ago clashes never actually stopped. the reason you likely didn't hear about this is because of the "agreement", the media changed the name from the "Nagorno-Karabakh" conflict to the "Armenia-Azerbaijan Border Crisis" with a claim the prior conflict ended in 2020 but the former started in 2021. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Armenia%E2%80%93Azerbaijan_border_crisis