Soviet Liberalization?

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Well, the facts are indeed out there for all to see. The Moscow Files were opened, despite the best efforts of the communists to keep the truth hidden forever.

It's a fact that Lenin received financing from Germany, which was at war with his own country. It is a fact that he stated numerous times his desire to start a Civil War in Russia. It is a fact that during and after the war, which he provoked, he used institutionalized terror as the main tool to control the population and get his will done. Extra-judicial executions, torture, you name it - there are documents proving that he ordered all of that, and then some more. It is a fact that he had absolutely no regard for the wishes of the "majority", that he in fact removed all significance form the soviets and persecuted groups that had more popular backing than the Bolsheviks, like the Socialist Revolutionaries. He made alliances with them when was convenient, and later declared them "western agents" and "counter-revolutionaries" and had them destroyed.

The facts are very much real and out there. I can understand an ignorant person not considering Lenin to be evil, but in possession of the facts, there is only one conclusion.

Files are a poor way to understand how things work... the files tell what happen, what was said and what was done. But files paint only a parf the story.

So Lenin was financied by Germany? So what? They were fighting the Tsars. Germany was fighting the Tsars. 1 + 1 equals 2.

This part I'm not as familar with however there is a reason for everything and it doesn't mean that Lenin wanted mass slaughter. Perhaps I should read the book but the Civil War did conslidate Bolshevik Power making it less likely for the Tsarists to return to power.

Red Terror. White Terror. Terror is fine as long as its not following the word red eh? I don't support it but be realistic, he was heading a shaky country and needed to consolidate power. Wasn't right, but he did it, no changing it.

The facts are written on paper and history is subjugated only by the written word. Take what you read with a shot of vodka for there may be more behind it then previously believed.

I can understand a hypocrite repeatedly calling me ignorant because I don't agree with him... but in the end there are many more conclusions then you believe and just because I don't believe in yours you condemn me as ignorant.

 

[luiz]

Files are a poor way to understand how things work... the files tell what happen, what was said and what was done. But files paint only a parf the story.

Files are a poor way to understand history? What is the good way, propaganda? Or just believing what you choose to believe? Don't be ridiculous.

So Lenin was financied by Germany? So what? They were fighting the Tsars. Germany was fighting the Tsars. 1 + 1 equals 2.

Spoken like a true Bolshevik. You are evil, after all.
Is the concept of "treason" familiar to you? Is the concept of not making an alliance with the foreign power that is slaughtering your countrymen not obvious enough for you?

Jesus Christ, you have no moral compass whatsoever.

This part I'm not as familar with however there is a reason for everything and it doesn't mean that Lenin wanted mass slaughter. Perhaps I should read the book but the Civil War did conslidate Bolshevik Power making it less likely for the Tsarists to return to power.

Again, spoken like a true Bolshevik. If Lenin ordered mass executions, he certainly wanted them.

Red Terror. White Terror. Terror is fine as long as its not following the word red eh? I don't support it but be realistic, he was heading a shaky country and needed to consolidate power. Wasn't right, but he did it, no changing it.

Ok, so the destruction of all representative instruments and the use of institutionalized terror can be justifies because "the times were hard". Give me a break, commie.

The facts are written on paper and history is subjugated only by the written word. Take what you read with a shot of vodka for there may be more behind it then previously believed.

There are facts and there is what you want to believe (that communism is good). You can fight reality all want, but you will always lose.

I can understand a hypocrite repeatedly calling me ignorant because I don't agree with him... but in the end there are many more conclusions then you believe and just because I don't believe in yours you condemn me as ignorant.

Ignorant and immoral. I don't know which is more pronounced, but you are both.

Edit: Then I checked your birth date. You're just a kid, though your attitude is quite worrying even for someone your age. Hopefully you will grow out of it, but I am not sure you will.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Files are a poor way to understand history? What is the good way, propaganda? Or just believing what you choose to believe? Don't be ridiculous..

I never said that and you are simply twisting words. les are a poor way to understand circumstance... Files tell history accurately but the situation is harder to read then what is simply on paper. I believe what I wish and as I said I neither hail Lenin or despise him.

Spoken like a true Bolshevik. You are evil, after all.
Is the concept of "treason" familiar to you? Is the concept of not making an alliance with the foreign power that is slaughtering your countrymen not obvious enough for you?.

Claim me what you want but it holds no water. The Bolsheviks did accept German aid but it could be argued they saved the nation from falling to the Germans. They made peace with the Germans, something the Tsar wasn't doing. Russia lost alot but the Bolsheviks got Russia out of the first World War. I am in no way supporting treason yet you seem quite happy putting words in my mouth.

Jesus Christ, you have no moral compass whatsoever..

Assumptions. I consider myself quite moral. I've never defended and claimed what the Soviets did was right, I've never wanted to immulate the Soviets but rather I've always supported democracy and civil rights.

You make a claim that you have no right to make. Who are you to judge me?

Again, spoken like a true Bolshevik. If Lenin ordered mass executions, he certainly wanted them..

Perhaps but that is a familar thing throughout history. Once more I never supported his actions but I've don't believe the actions, though terrible, make him the evilest man of history.

Ok, so the destruction of all representative instruments and the use of institutionalized terror can be justifies because "the times were hard". Give me a break, commie..

No. I said terror was used by both sides. And I said what was done was done and that cannot be changed... tell me how to change the past and then I'll consider aything you have to say.

There are facts and there is what you want to believe (that communism is good). You can fight reality all want, but you will always lose..

Communism can work and has the potential to be something good, perhaps not in its current forms but ideas can evole overtime and change. You can fight reality, but you will always lose.

Ignorant and immoral. I don't know which is more pronounced, but you are both..

I've already admitted in part that I am ignorant on some subjects however I am by no means immoral. Again you make claims you have no right to make. You have no right to judge me, something I have not done to you despite the constant flow of insults.

Edit: Then I checked your birth date. You're just a kid, though your attitude is quite concerning even for someone your age. Hopefully you will grow out of it, but I am not sure.

Perhaps I am young, however I feel that things cant change and I should not be insulted for that... I've already said that I don't support Soviet style Communism and I believe for communism to work in any way would need a mor evolution from its totalitarian state to something more democratic and free.

Perhaps being a kid does make my opinions hold less weigh then yours, however they do hold some truth. All this time I have simply stated that circumstances have the potential to cause terrible things. I have never claimed Lenin a great man. I have never claimed him the evilest man. Lenin was a man, flaws certainly but the situation was terrible. Doesn't make it right. Its still quite wrong.

But to call all Communists evil simply for Lenin's actions is wrong. I have certainly tried to distance myself from Marxism and Leninism. I have little intrest in the hypocracy of past Communist Regimes and rather have looked towards more liberal ways to work a Communist system. Will they work? Probably not. Maybe so. Trying is all I can do and is something I'm willing to devout my time to.

We can agree to disagree or we can continue this debate, though so far it simply seems to be hitting the same points again and again.

 

[luiz]

I never said that and you are simply twisting words. [Fi]les are a poor way to understand circumstance... Files tell history accurately but the situation is harder to read then what is simply on paper. I believe what I wish and as I said I neither hail Lenin or despise him.

Files and historic documents are the only way I know to properly study and understan the history of a long gone period. Myth and hearsay are the wrong way.

Claim me what you want but it holds no water. The Bolsheviks did accept German aid but it could be argued they saved the nation from falling to the Germans. They made peace with the Germans, something the Tsar wasn't doing. Russia lost alot but the Bolsheviks got Russia out of the first World War. I am in no way supporting treason yet you seem quite happy putting words in my mouth.

There's hardly any going around the fact that it was treason. I don't see how one can possibly claim that it "holds no water".

Saved the nation from falling to the Germans?
Please.

The Treaty of Brest-Litvosk was signed in March of 1918. The germans were already quite defeated. The war ended on that same year.

Lenin gave away parts of his country and vast sums of gold to repay the Germans for their aid. To repay the treasonous aid he received. There is no qualification for the sheer corruption and evilness of his acts.

He did take Russia out of WW1, on humiliating and extremely expensive terms, just to start a bloody Civil War, as he intended all along, that lead to famine and national disgrace.

Yeah, it is pretty hard to call him a villain

Assumptions. I consider myself quite moral. I've never defended and claimed what the Soviets did was right, I've never wanted to immulate the Soviets but rather I've always supported democracy and civil rights.

And yet you refuse to condemn Lenin, or even to see his treason.

You make a claim that you have no right to make. Who are you to judge me?

Well you can't expect to make contradictory statements and get away with it. You can't support democracy and civil rights and say that Lenin was no villain. You can't claim to be moral and say stuff like: "So Lenin was financied by Germany? So what? They were fighting the Tsars. Germany was fighting the Tsars. 1 + 1 equals 2."

Perhaps but that is a familar thing throughout history. Once more I never supported his actions but I've don't believe the actions, though terrible, make him the evilest man of history.

Just one of the evilest, not necessarily the eviles. After all communism also produced Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot. It is a hard contest.

No. I said terror was used by both sides. And I said what was done was done and that cannot be changed... tell me how to change the past and then I'll consider aything you have to say.

So we can only pass judgement if we can go back in time?

Geez, I'd like to condemn the Holocaust and call Hitler a villain, but I can't go back in time and undo anyhting. So I refuse to call him a hero or villain.

Makes sense to you? It doesn't to a sane person.

Communism can work and has the potential to be something good, perhaps not in its current forms but ideas can evole overtime and change. You can fight reality, but you will always lose.

Yeah, let's keep trying no matter how many dozens of millions die.

Give up already.

I've already admitted in part that I am ignorant on some subjects however I am by no means immoral. Again you make claims you have no right to make. You have no right to judge me, something I have not done to you despite the constant flow of insults.

You did call me a hypocrite though I am not certain why.

Perhaps I am young, however I feel that things cant change and I should not be insulted for that... I've already said that I don't support Soviet style Communism and I believe for communism to work in any way would need a mor evolution from its totalitarian state to something more democratic and free.

Not evolution. The Soviet system needs to be repudiated, not "evolve" into some democratic form.

There is nothing democratic about the system Lenin created. The sooner you understand that, the better.

Perhaps being a kid does make my opinions hold less weigh then yours, however they do hold some truth. All this time I have simply stated that circumstances have the potential to cause terrible things. I have never claimed Lenin a great man. I have never claimed him the evilest man. Lenin was a man, flaws certainly but the situation was terrible. Doesn't make it right. Its still quite wrong.

He caused the terribe situation, it's all on him.

But to call all Communists evil simply for Lenin's actions is wrong. I have certainly tried to distance myself from Marxism and Leninism. I have little intrest in the hypocracy of past Communist Regimes and rather have looked towards more liberal ways to work a Communist system. Will they work? Probably not. Maybe so. Trying is all I can do and is something I'm willing to devout my time to.

Nothing wrong with that. Just make you sure you read enough and have a very broad understanding of the world before thinking you can change the world.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Well I'm not gonna reply to all of that because basically we are once more visiting the same points we've hit over and over again, and neither of us seem keen to accept the others answers or opinions.

One thing I just wish to make clear is that I am by no means an evil or immoral person, despite what you may think. Everything I said was not really to defend Lenin's legacy, rather I believe that it is good that it is disected and the cult surronding him is disillusioned. I just tried to make a point that circumstance can play a large role, I don't know the true story, I plan to read into the book you mentioned early, which in fact, I currently have and intended to read, quite funny that you mentioned the book I was preparing to read... Rather, my point has been to try and claim that all Communists are not evil, which you seem to insist upon. I am actually quite moral and far from evil.

Perhaps reading the book will truen me further away from Lenin, but if anything it will likely push me further to my rethinking of the Communist system rather then simply accepting it as evil.

On a finally note this was quite the enlightening debate.

 

[Zardnaar]

Behind the Mask about the only way communism will work is withen a capitalist society- a small group of people with simialr views start a commune or something like that.

The major failure of communism is human nature. Killed alot more people than the Nazis did due to Stalian and Mao. Capitalism isn't perfect and one of its flawes is human greed but it usually isn't fatl to the capitalist system and is both good and ad as the markets recent performance and bail outs would attest to.

 

[plarq]

For the treason part, what if I helped foreign powers to overthrow the PRC trying to install a representative government? Then it is heroic deed for democracy, not treason right?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Lenin certainly wasn't a banal German spy. It was more of a "using the capitalists' resources to eventually destroy them all" thinking.

 

[luiz]

Lenin certainly wasn't a banal German spy. It was more of a "using the capitalists' resources to eventually destroy them all" thinking.

Yeah, too bad at Brest-Litvosk he rewarded those imperialists with russian land and russian gold.

He certainly was no banal german spy, he was a worthless piece of garbage willing to sellout his country and people just so that he could have absolute power in his hands.

 

[holy king]

did anyone argue that?

oh yeah, that leninist...

 

[luiz]

did anyone argue that?

oh yeah, that leninist...

Go to page 01 and you will see people claiming that Lenin supported democracy in Russia.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's worthy pointing out, that the SU did end up defeating Germany in WWII and controlling roughly 1/4 of it, and the Germans didn't held these lands for long.

I agree, through, that Lenin was no democracy supporter, and that claiming it is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Dachs]

It's worthy pointing out, that the SU did end up defeating Germany in WWII and controlling roughly 1/4 of it, and the Germans didn't held these lands for long.

Hell, they got back a lot of the lands they lost at Brest-Litovsk in 1918-9 when the Germans ended up losing. But for Poland, they'd probably have gotten all of the lost territory back. And Russia definitely was in no situation to continue fighting against the Germans at that point in time, with the collapsing army and all, and the fact that a lot of Lenin's support was from disillusioned soldiers who were forming soviets at the front, who would have abandoned him if they'd had to continue fighting a la Kerensky's government. That doesn't change the fact that by no means was that a certainty back in March 1918, though, because the Great War was still in the balance in the West, and if Ludendorff hadn't ignored his very own operational plan the USSR might not have been able to get those lands back. So yeah, Lenin's still a scumbag.

 

[civiijkw]

For the treason part, what if I helped foreign powers to overthrow the PRC trying to install a representative government? Then it is heroic deed for democracy, not treason right?

If the government you help establish remains around then you get to write the history. That means that George Washington/Sam Adams/Ben Franklin/etc., Mahatma Gandhi, Charles II, Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro, etc. are call revolutionaries or restorationists rather than traitors.
Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis would have been revolutionaries if the CSA had survived.

Working with a newly established government that then gets overthrown can also get you labeled a traiter (look at early-1940s Europe or mid-1917 Russia), so the representative government in your example would have to stick around.

 

[Dachs]

If the government you help establish remains around then you get to write the history. That means that George Washington/Sam Adams/Ben Franklin/etc., Mahatma Gandhi, Charles II, Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro, etc. are call revolutionaries or restorationists rather than traitors.
Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis would have been revolutionaries if the CSA had survived.

Nah, they're all traitors.

 

[neutrino]

Soviet Union pursuing liberalizing policies? What a joke.

I think the biggest stumbling block would be to put aside the national ego and unshamefully open up its secret archives. No ... oops! That is a state secret, comrade! The problem is that full exposure will illegitimize the Soviet system. After all, how can a sane person respect a regime that has killed tens of millions of its own subjects? Many more folks have been wiped out by their own government than by wars. However, it takes two to tango. There are still widespread belief among the Russian populace of the glories of Stalin and Soviet superpowerdom. While Putin & Co. have been reversing the post-glasnost policies, their voters do not relish in getting reminded about their horrible 20th century history.

The usual Russian 'play-book': a) Establish a strong central government, b) Resort to liberalizing policies only when the establishment lacks the means to make changes, c) Return to anti-liberal policies as soon as the ebb of the recentmost liberalizing policies is on the wane, e) form over substance; much cheaper to portray the greatness of Russia-this-or-that than bother with serious and painstaking reforms.

 

[CruelDwarf]

May i ask? From whom you know about "tens of millions own subjects" killed by soviet regime?

May be some more precise numbers?

 

[knez]

May i ask? From whom you know about "tens of millions own subjects" killed by soviet regime?

May be some more precise numbers?

try to find movie called "soviet story" if you wan't to watch something (or don't if you have a sensitive stomach)

as for good historical literature, i guess it would be hard to find one, especially one in english (I don't know how true this story is, but the story is that historians in the west didn't eaven belive until 1990's that alliance betwean soviet union and naci germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pakt) before attack on poland actually existed. But what I do notice myself is how brief and uncritical is just about everything on english you can read about communism.)

edit:
for example let's take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor (I know, I know, it's wikipedia)
this article more or less covers how soviets killed cca 7 million people (article says 2-3.5 million) in ukraine in early 1930s by robing all the food in the country and exporting it (to the brave free europe )

wiki

Some publications claim that after recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the drought and poor harvests, the Soviet government in Moscow continued to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people,[58] even though on a significantly lower level than in previous years. In 1930–31 there had been 5,832,000 metric tons of grains exported In 1931–32, grain exports declined to 4,786,000 tons. In 1932–33, grain exports were just 1,607,000 tons and in 1933–34, this further declined to 1,441,000 tons.[59] Officially published data [60] slightly differ

what isn't written here is that in 1929 soviets exported 260,000 metric tons of grain (340,000 metric tons in 1928)
ah truth, how relative is

 

[Dachs]

as for good historical literature, i guess it would be hard to find one, especially one in english

Wrong?

(I don't know how true this story is, but the story is that historians in the west didn't eaven belive until 1990's that alliance betwean soviet union and naci germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pakt) before attack on poland actually existed.

Way wrong. Said pact's announcement in August 1939 was what induced the French and British governments to begin mobilization (kind of hard for Western historians to ignore it then hmm), and Western historians have been noting it all the time, from Shirer to Keegan.

But what I do notice myself is how brief and uncritical is just about everything on english you can read about communism.)

...You don't have much access to literature in English, do you?

 

[CruelDwarf]

try to find movie called "soviet story" if you wan't to watch something (or don't if you have a sensitive stomach)

Sorry, but this movie is some kind of Goebels thing - people faster belive in greater lies. In plain words - this is just simple antisoviet propaganda without any regard to historical facts.

edit:
for example let's take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor (I know, I know, it's wikipedia)
this article more or less covers how soviets killed cca 7 million people (article says 2-3.5 million) in ukraine in early 1930s by robing all the food in the country and exporting it (to the brave free europe )

1. During famine of 1932-33 people die almost in half of USSR (not only Ukraine, but in south-est Russia, Black Sea-Caspian region and parts of Khasahstan).
2. Estimated death toll (by real research, not by bringing numbers from the blue sky) is 1.2-2 million people.
3. During the famine Soviet government minimized exports and depleted all reserve grain funds to provide food to popultaion.

If any interested - I may provide some more precise numbers and info about this famine.

but the story is that historians in the west didn't eaven belive until 1990's that alliance betwean soviet union and naci germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pakt) before attack on poland actually existed.

If pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop was alliance between USSR and Germany, Munich treaty between Germany, England and France also alliance.