Sep 7, 2023·1 replyWhen Stalin recriminalized abortion and homosexuality that's when the Soviet Union went down the road of reaction and began eroding its own socialist foundation
Sep 7, 2023stovein the 1930s, stalin indeed sought alliances with france and england, but they were hesitant to commit fully. this reflects his willingness to adapt his foreign policy based on the changing international landscape.
the great purge, in which stalin purged rivals and dissenters, allowed him to eliminate threats to his power and consolidate control, a classic example of political opportunism.
you're right that stalin initially downplayed his own cult of personality but later embraced it during ww2 for propaganda purposes. he did, however, foster a cult of personality around lenin.
stalin's support for north korea and discounted military aid to china demonstrate his geopolitical opportunism during the korean war.
i don’t see anything wrong with foreign policy change what other option was there let Chamberlain isolate USSR to be eaten by the Nazis? The USSR didn’t owe any other country at that time anything and had to do whatever needed to survive. I would say this was born with Lenin who would take advantage of contridctions between international powers for his advantage like using Germany for his own goals. Geopolitical oppertunitsm was a staple for the bolshieviks since Lenin, and nothing wrong with it imo.
I think that’s an huge oversimplification of the great purge there was too much backtracking and purging of his own loyal supporters to sum it up as getting rid of political rivals, the culture of paranoia was manifesting in the bolsheviks from the start from being isolated from the world to the war scare of 27 or 28 i think and Kirov death Stalin own paranoia 100% played a role on the extent of how big it was but a purge was inevitable at that point. Also ignores how the great purge had massive mass mobilization movements of workers to express their discontent with managers for better or worse who were acting as kings in their regions.
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replySkinn Foley
And Soviet support for NK was good
yeah it is but he also tried to take advantage of North Korea to drag the US in the war without fully committing himself
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replyChoking
yeah it is but he also tried to take advantage of North Korea to drag the US in the war without fully committing himself
I mean it is Joey Steel we're talking about
Horrific military strategist lmao
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replySkinn Foley
I mean it is Joey Steel we're talking about
Horrific military strategist lmao
he was learner, he did become a good military strategist later on with ww2 after suffering painful lessons from the Nazis early in the war.
- Sep 7, 2023Choking
he was learner, he did become a good military strategist later on with ww2 after suffering painful lessons from the Nazis early in the war.
Painful lessons is a way to put it lol
But yeah he did get better
- Sep 7, 2023·edited·1 reply
Between the criminalization of homosexuality and abortion, the elevation of the power of the party to a really...questionable...level, ethnic deportations, and brutal failure of collectivization in Ukraine, Stalin lowkey set all of the forces in motion that would lead to liberals taking advantage of a traumatized USSR and eventually destroying it altogether
He flat out betrayed the revolution with the recriminalization and deportations. The rest is a lot more complex than just singularly blaming Stalin and didn't directly pose a threat to Soviet socialism but between the carnage of WWII and the worst aspects of Stalin's reign it just didn't go well. All of it aside from strengthening the power of the party to a point was moreover avoidable or could have been done obviously much better.
I see Stalin as a mediocre leader, bad person, and great theorist.
Sep 7, 2023·1 replyChokingexpand on the first throughout the 30s he tried to ally france and england but they both kept toying with him
how is the great purge an example of political opportunism
he actively denounced his own cult of personality until ww2 when he was willing to do anything to help him defeat the nazi. he did create a cult of personality around lenin tho.
i don’t much about eastern bloc dynamics to comment on
North Korea yeah i can see the political opportunism there then at least he still backed the chinese with giving them discounts on military equipmenti think the purges were a glaring problem in stalin's policy
the purges in and of themselves were warranted and necessary but the soviet officer corps was crippled to politically streamline its ideological foundinfs
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replyeye contact
i think the purges were a glaring problem in stalin's policy
the purges in and of themselves were warranted and necessary but the soviet officer corps was crippled to politically streamline its ideological foundinfs
do you think the military officer corp should have been left alone or the purge just target them less? if there’s one clique i’d agree needed to be purge would be Tukhachevsky since he did try to get minister of the economy under the army’s control before and was a bonapartist. Or if u wanna take Molotovs word that someone in his crew was 100% a spy but they didn’t know who
- Sep 7, 2023Choking
do you think the military officer corp should have been left alone or the purge just target them less? if there’s one clique i’d agree needed to be purge would be Tukhachevsky since he did try to get minister of the economy under the army’s control before and was a bonapartist. Or if u wanna take Molotovs word that someone in his crew was 100% a spy but they didn’t know who
the purges were obviously needed, but with the threat of not a political war, but an ethnic conflict, looming on the western border I think the officer corps should've been thoroughly vetted and surveilled before purges occurred rather than just one fell swoop
Zhukov's genius in the deep battle doctrine was what saved the Soviet Union's bacon after the previous, Stalin-backed guy f***ed up with his own doctrinal theories
- Sep 7, 2023stove
in the 1930s, stalin indeed sought alliances with france and england, but they were hesitant to commit fully. this reflects his willingness to adapt his foreign policy based on the changing international landscape.
the great purge, in which stalin purged rivals and dissenters, allowed him to eliminate threats to his power and consolidate control, a classic example of political opportunism.
you're right that stalin initially downplayed his own cult of personality but later embraced it during ww2 for propaganda purposes. he did, however, foster a cult of personality around lenin.
stalin's support for north korea and discounted military aid to china demonstrate his geopolitical opportunism during the korean war.
you’re not wrong at all lol anyone who disagrees is just lost
Sep 7, 2023·1 replySkinn FoleyBetween the criminalization of homosexuality and abortion, the elevation of the power of the party to a really...questionable...level, ethnic deportations, and brutal failure of collectivization in Ukraine, Stalin lowkey set all of the forces in motion that would lead to liberals taking advantage of a traumatized USSR and eventually destroying it altogether
He flat out betrayed the revolution with the recriminalization and deportations. The rest is a lot more complex than just singularly blaming Stalin and didn't directly pose a threat to Soviet socialism but between the carnage of WWII and the worst aspects of Stalin's reign it just didn't go well. All of it aside from strengthening the power of the party to a point was moreover avoidable or could have been done obviously much better.
I see Stalin as a mediocre leader, bad person, and great theorist.
I mean even if he did everything right it wouldn't really stop liberal forces from shaking his foundations. you're looking at it as if anybody cared about 'progressive' issues at that time to the point they could be used to undermine Stalin's leadership, which is a 21st century point of view. nobody cared about that stuff prior to and in the wake of the most devastating war against the most dangerous enemy the country has ever seen. even with Ukrainian collectivization it's not like there were no forces that would undermine bolshevik leadership from the very start, Ukraine was always tough to manage, both before and after 1930s
my point is you cant call Stalin an opportunist and then say that he allowed opportunists to take power after his rule, that would just make everybody opportunist which to me doesn't make sense. a lot of faults of his leadership have very material beginnings that can't be just boiled down to him being 'a bad person and a mediocre leader'
- Sep 7, 2023·2 repliesSkinn Foley
I don't blame him for the western alliances given the Nazi threat. The purge was hit or miss.
The bureaucratization of the Communist Party, disempowering of the workers councils, and cult of personality were his most damning examples
The Eastern Bloc one is weird because he relied way too much on party politics to get most of the Soviet republics and satellites acquired after WWII, but at the same time he avoided these territories falling into the hands of the west and kept the republics under Bolshevik influence and alliance in a way better economic state than for republics that went the "third way", i.e. Yugoslavia which I don't even consider a socialist country. I see it like an overall good though because at least communists were brought into power, though again, how this was done helped build the contradictions that would lead to the unraveling of the Eastern Bloc
lmao we wanted to fall into the hands of the west since we’ve been part of the west we’ve never been better off
- Sep 7, 2023tgdaddy
lmao we wanted to fall into the hands of the west since we’ve been part of the west we’ve never been better off
k
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replyWRU
I mean even if he did everything right it wouldn't really stop liberal forces from shaking his foundations. you're looking at it as if anybody cared about 'progressive' issues at that time to the point they could be used to undermine Stalin's leadership, which is a 21st century point of view. nobody cared about that stuff prior to and in the wake of the most devastating war against the most dangerous enemy the country has ever seen. even with Ukrainian collectivization it's not like there were no forces that would undermine bolshevik leadership from the very start, Ukraine was always tough to manage, both before and after 1930s
my point is you cant call Stalin an opportunist and then say that he allowed opportunists to take power after his rule, that would just make everybody opportunist which to me doesn't make sense. a lot of faults of his leadership have very material beginnings that can't be just boiled down to him being 'a bad person and a mediocre leader'
He didn't allow opportunists to take power
A power vacuum was created in his wake and was filled by liberals who bid their time during his rule
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replySkinn Foley
He didn't allow opportunists to take power
A power vacuum was created in his wake and was filled by liberals who bid their time during his rule
aight I see what you mean. yeah it would be super difficult to not allow for power vacuum to be created, at least at some point, from how 'gloriously' the whole soviet union had started
- Sep 7, 2023WRU
aight I see what you mean. yeah it would be super difficult to not allow for power vacuum to be created, at least at some point, from how 'gloriously' the whole soviet union had started
Of course but I think liberal reform would have picked up less steam within the Party and Soviet society if Stalin didn't do so much of the vicious s*** he did
- Sep 7, 2023·2 repliestgdaddy
lmao we wanted to fall into the hands of the west since we’ve been part of the west we’ve never been better off
you're polish
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replyeye contact
you're polish
yes - that’s the point. the prevailing attitude here is that the communists taking over was bad, there’s some minor bad blood with the west over the fact it was allowed to happen. by and large we wish this was never the case
it wasn’t our will.
although in the interests of balance, the americans and soviets basically administering their respective halves of europe helped prevent a lot of bloodshed during the population transfers, which is undeniably good as that could have been a continent sized yugoslavia
- Sep 7, 2023·1 replytgdaddy
yes - that’s the point. the prevailing attitude here is that the communists taking over was bad, there’s some minor bad blood with the west over the fact it was allowed to happen. by and large we wish this was never the case
it wasn’t our will.
although in the interests of balance, the americans and soviets basically administering their respective halves of europe helped prevent a lot of bloodshed during the population transfers, which is undeniably good as that could have been a continent sized yugoslavia
They don’t want to hear this
- Sep 7, 2023·2 repliesMarble
They don’t want to hear this
lmao i can easily just cite my polish friends parents who miss communist poland, individual reports like his or my friends parent usually mean nothing
- Sep 7, 2023·2 repliesChoking
lmao i can easily just cite my polish friends parents who miss communist poland, individual reports like his or my friends parent usually mean nothing
look at polish political discourse
- Sep 7, 2023·2 repliestgdaddy
look at polish political discourse
Mainstream Political discourse in any country is aligned with the powers that be
FREE 💜Sep 7, 2023Chokinglmao i can easily just cite my polish friends parents who miss communist poland, individual reports like his or my friends parent usually mean nothing
You stupid twink comeback to MSCT
- FREE 💜Sep 7, 2023eye contact
you're polish
LMAO sorry but this as a response is so funny shoutout the polish