The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[peter grimes]

At least in Portuguese, yes. Os Estados Unidos são. The singular form é in this case would indicate illiteracy.

Was going to say the same thing. It's the same in continental Portuguese (of course), Castilian Spanish, and Italian. Not sure about French.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm only doing this because I'm bored.

I mean, you agree with Lenin's stance that countries have a right to self-determination (never mind the fact that he took the opposite stance towards Georgia, Armenia, the unmentionable country, and most other countries that broke away from the Russian Empire). So do the Tibetans and Uighurs have a right to self-determination and the right to secede from China?

A bit of clarification on the issue.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1

Social-Democracy in all countries therefore proclaims the right of nations to self-determination.

The right of self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights.

This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every custom and institution of a nation. While combating the coercion of any nation, it will uphold only the right of the nation itself to determine its own destiny, at the same time agitating against harmful customs and institutions of that nation in order to enable the toiling strata of the nation to emancipate themselves from them.

The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights.

This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every demand of a nation. A nation has the right even to return to the old order of things; but this does not mean that Social-Democracy will subscribe to such a decision if taken by some institution of a particular nation. The obligations of Social-Democracy, which defends the interests of the proletariat, and the rights of a nation, which consists of various classes, are two different things.

In fighting for the right of nations to self-determination, the aim of Social-Democracy is to put an end to the policy of national oppression, to render it impossible, and thereby to remove the grounds of strife between nations, to take the edge off that strife and reduce it to a minimum.

The Bolsheviks were internationalists, not nationalists. They respected the right of all nations to exist and have autonomy over their own affairs, but did not respect their right to oppress other peoples. Thus, the republics and autonomous areas of the USSR (and of all socialist countries) had such power, but were not free to make war upon one another and oppress other peoples. This is no different from the social contract's ban upon murder or assault on other citizens. You and I have a right to live without accosatation by each other, and so do nations.

The Bolsheviks didn't exactly ask the Georgians, P*les, Armenians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and others if they wanted independence. Unless you count wars of conquest as asking. Which you apparently do, as long as it's Communists doing the killing.

All the republics joined the USSR on equal terms, had control over the drawing of borders and the drafting of the constitution. The Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, and Kazakhs did not exist as nations at that time, either. They were collectively known as Turks or Kazakhs (sometimes Kirgiz, which was used as a synonym for Kazakh in pre-Soviet times). Those nations literally exist because the Soviets helped to create them. Soviet ethnographers identified different languages and ethnic groups and helped them to cultivate those identities which had become so blurred as to become indistinguishable. Everything they consider to be their "national heritage and culture" today was created under Soviet supervision in the 20th century.

You mention Georgia and Armenia. Strange, since the situation with them was that they wanted to join the USSR as separate states, and the plan was to amalgamate them into one big Transcaucasian SSR. The Georgian Affair was all about the Georgian Party's obstinate resistance to this plan, and after Stalin's heavy-handed and unauthorized handling of it, Lenin was was can only be described as "super-pissed," and until his death he and Stalin were "fighting."

China isn't exactly keen on allowing Tibetans independence, though. Autonomy is merely a tool of Chinese imperialists to distract and placate their Tibetan subjects, to use your language. China invaded Tibet. Look it up. ...
That has no bearing on the right of Tibetans to self-determination. I said nothing about the Dalai Lama. You're merely trying to distract from the issue.

Tibetan self-determination means a return to feudalism. Screw that noise.

Fine then, the Red Army. My point is that "national self-determination" Lenin had no qualms with invading former parts of the Russian Empire that had declared independence.

There were two areas which legit declared independence: Estonia and Finland. The Bolsheviks respected both of those declarations. The rest of the countries which arose during the Civil War did so as a result of Western intervention, both by the Germans who were intent on causing as much trouble as possible at the end of the war, and by the Entente powers plus Japan, who invaded the Soviet Union and supplied incipient nationalist groups with arms and funding in order for them to overpower the local soviets.

You're concerned so much about self-determination. Why are you not concerned that the capitalist powers funded nationalist groups to overthrow the soviets which were already in place and governing those territories? Or is self-determination only valid when it's anti-communist?

Who declared independence though? Workers of those nationalities, or the ruling classes?

Indeed.

Yeah, the Polish workers were dying to join the glorious Workers' Paradise! I wonder why they fought so tenaciously, often to their certain deaths, against the invading Red Army then. I wonder why the people of the Baltic States took every opportunity to seek independence.

Actually the Red Army were welcomed with banners and presents in eastern Poland in 1939, as both liberators of Polish imperialism and saviors from the German invasion, and the Jewish-Belorussian majorities in those territories took the opportunity to lash out at their Polish aristocratic oppressors. Those Poles ironically turned to the Soviets to re-establish civil law and protect them from the peasants.

Citation: Jan T. Gross. Revolution from Abroad: the Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Princeton Univ Press, ( 1988).

I wonder why in Ukraine the freaking Germans were initially welcomed as liberators during Barbarossa.

Yes, I'm sure it was hatred of socialism that drove the Latvian Legion and the Banderists to murder hundreds of thousands of Jews and Poles for the Nazis. I'm glad we're back to fascist apologism again!

I was under the impression that while most Poles wanted an independent Poland, the privatization and market liberalization was mainly pushed for by the political/economic elites with support for it tepid at best among the workers.

Are we talking about 1989? Because Solidarnosc was elected on a strongly social-democratic platform. It was after the election that they volte-faced and shoved liberalization and lustration down the country's throat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War

This is how the Polish masses welcomed the Soviet liberators in Lenin's time.

By invading Ukraine and Belorussia?

I have no idea why you thought I was talking about Poland's emancipation from the Eastern Block much later. But in that case as well the message was clear: the vast majority of people, not just "the ruling classes", wanted the Soviet yoke to gtfo.

Well the Soviet presence in Poland in 1920 only lasted a matter of weeks, and they were ejected by the Polish Army, not some spontaneous uprising by the Polish people, so it's not really fair to say anything about some mass-rejection.

Yeah Churchill didn't know of the Secret Protocols back then, and even if he did, he would still try to spin it in a way to make it look like a blow to Germany, when it was nothing of the sort.

Churchill didn't know about the Secret Protocols because they didn't exist yet. They were drawn up only in part before the invasion, and heavily modified after, as the situation changed. The Soviets didn't expect to have to enter Poland at that time, they had planned to organize a defense treaty with the Polish rump-state and strongarm the Baltics into doing so as well, but some bizarre actions by the Polish government during the invasion, as well as the speed of the Nazi invasion, led the Soviets toward immediate action, which changed the nature of the Protocols, and led to later antics in the Baltic states as well. It's very likely that the Soviets would have allowed Ulmanis, Smetona, and Pats to remain in power, and their countries to remain independent (what post-war would be called "Finlandized"), along with the Polish rump state, had things gone differently.

It was, of course, a very strong blow to Germany's plans for the East. It was deprived of a lot of land it could have used for a springboard for its later invasion of the Soviet Union, in both eastern Poland and the Baltic coast. The narrow escape of the Red Army from destruction in November-December 1941 should be testament to the importance of Soviet control of these regions before the invasion.

Citations:
Edgar Thompson, "The Annexation of the Baltic States" in T. T. Hammond, The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers. Yale University Press (1971).
Geoffrey Swain. Between Stalin and Hitler: Class War and Race War on the Dvina, 1940-46. Routledge, 2004.

EDIT: Added some citations, lest I be conveniently dismissed as an apologist or liar.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Thank you, Cheezy.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I am aware. But citing "wikipedia" as substantiating evidemce is like using "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" as a Catechism text.

Link Xinhua or China Daily articles and I will read them.

Oh lord. Xinhua is definitely a news source that must be taken with a grain of salt. In terms of Chinese media, there is a number that I would consider to be worth reading, but Xinhua is not one of them.

It is heavily filtered news with the occasional propaganda injected within.

Just because you self-identify as a communist doesn't mean you must trust everything that is from a communist party.

Let me rephrase this: Why should I be a liberal? An "open mind" does not mean accepting every lie that is told to me by mainstream media, or accepting others' positions as my own. Or even accepting another's position as my own.

Yes it does not. But it also means not to automatically dismiss everything by "mainstream" media as lies. Almost every news source has its bias and some have more bias than others. The challenge here is to sort through all this information, glean out what might be the truth, and read between the lines.

As caustic your attitude is towards the mainstream media, you also appear to have an unbridled trust towards news sources heavily controlled by your favourite communist/former communist governments (Xinhua for instance). Why the double standards?

With this said, it seems to me your pursuit of truth is not scientific, but rather something completely dictated by your religious beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

I will let Cheezy, who is my friend IRL, answer any questions about the USSR because as much as I know, he studies it for a living.

Thank you, Cheezy.

Aww... calling for reinforcements already? Well, he's not gonna be such a push over, that's for certain.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Tibetan self-determination means a return to feudalism. Screw that noise.

Out of curiosity, does that mean self-determination should not be respected if it means going back to feudalism? If so, where do we draw this line for acceptable self-determination?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@ ywhtptgtfo: I do not need you to tell me what news sources to pay attention to. I read the NYT daily; I also read Medical journals and quarterly legal publications; I read our mass organization publications and I watch Democracy Now! As well as CCTV news. I get the BBC and Telasur RSS feeds.

I also work my ass off 14 hours a day, 7 days a week with many loosely affiliated organizations dealing with a myriad of social problems.

DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?

I am an ass-kicking Red with a hot ass-kicking Red gf, 6% body fat and a 180 IQ. My father is retired USAF and my brother is retired USN. My mom's family are old southern money, and my family has fought in every American-involved war since 1775...

Eff CNN and eff wiki-effing-pedia.

Edit: did I mention I drive a Mercedes?

Aww... calling for reinforcements already? Well, he's not gonna be such a push over, that's for certain.

Communists organize, get over it. We are strong because we stand together, not because we are safe in our parents' basments.

Out of curiosity, does that mean self-determination should not be respected if it means going back to feudalism? If so, where do we draw this line for acceptable self-determination?

Hey... I'm the China-loving Red, here.

And, no, feudalism is COUNTER to any form of "self-determination." It is the most inane postulation to assume an educated, prosperous people would wish to be ruled by an obscurantist theocratic oligarchy. Do you really have as low a regard for the Tibetan people as the Dalai Lama?

 

[cramstpuee757]

Sorry, could not resist:

Lol. But really, who are the red and non-red? I'm just new here guys so don't be mean

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Lol. But really, who are the red and non-red? I'm just new here guys so don't be mean

Fair question, cramstpuee757.

Speaking for myself, only (if I am on the laptop, I sometimes put a header on my comments in this and the Ask a Red thread that reads "A Word from the Marxist-Leninist".

I am am American Communist of 22 years standing in a clandestine Party fomulation (i.e., "We don't talk about it") that, as its above-board activities, builds mass, open-ended organizations in geographic and occupational arenas of contention: e.g., we organize workers who are excluded from the dubious benefits of national labor laws; we organize medical and legal professionals to provide preventive care and give legal advice; we fight against local forms of political economic oppression and against policies that make it hard for working people to survive.

Most importantly, we are of, by and for the working people who need us.

That's me, anyway.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

@ ywhtptgtfo: I do not need you to tell me what news sources to pay attention to. I read the NYT daily; I also read Medical journals and quarterly legal publications; I read our mass organization publications and I watch Democracy Now! As well as CCTV news. I get the BBC and Telasur RSS feeds.

No you don't need to listen to anything in fact. You obviously know best

I also work my ass off 14 hours a day, 7 days a week with many loosely affiliated organizations dealing with a myriad of social problems.

DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?

I am an ass-kicking Red with a hot ass-kicking Red gf, 6% body fat and a 180 IQ. My father is retired USAF and my brother is retired USN. My mom's family are old southern money, and my family has fought in every American-involved war since 1775...

Edit: did I mention I drive a Mercedes?

I care very little about all that little bits of trivia you just threw at me. Just because we don't get in the habit of throwing credentials around doesn't mean it is necessarily impressive. No offence.

That 180 IQ or any sort of Menza membership that you have (if any) would also mean very little... especially when they don't automatically render whatever you write to be correct. But since you mentioned IQ, then I would sadly proclaim that we've just found a false positive in your IQ institute's scoring heuristic.

Eff CNN and eff wiki-effing-pedia.

CNN and Wikipedia are not the only mainstream media out there. You read NYT too, correct?

Communists organize, get over it. We are strong because we stand together, not because we are safe in our parents' basments.

I am sure that makes a lot of sense.

And, no, feudalism is COUNTER to any form of "self-determination." It is the most inane postulation to assume an educated, prosperous people would wish to be ruled by an obscurantist theocratic oligarchy. Do you really have as low a regard for the Tibetan people as the Dalai Lama?

What if they want to be ruled that way? Then does that mean this self-determination thing only applies if the government of a certain acceptable form? If so, what's the criteria of this acceptable form?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Speaking as a 22-year standing, fit, intelligent and stunningly attractive male American Marxist-Leninist (did I mention the girlfriend and the Mercedes?), I offer this:

What if they want to be ruled that way?

Duh fuh? Um... You tell me. How many freed slaves voted to reinstitute slavery after passage of the Thirteenth Amendment?

Then does that mean this self-determination thing only applies if the government of a certain acceptable form?

By definition, self-determination would MEAN an acceptable form of government. You are attempting to graft an exteriorly-imposed "acceptability" hypothesis upon another people.

I am saying that the obscurantist theocratic oligarchy (feudalism at its worst) of the Dalai Lams belies self-determination.

If so, what's the criteria of this acceptable form?

This:

Link to video.

So to speak.

 

[Agent327]

Just because I did not address your points, does not mean I do not understand them. I don't have to address your points, this is not a court of law. This is not a classroom lecture.

But, in brief: Were I a lawyer and you a medical doctor, would you try to convince me of a legal course of action you read about in the New York Times?

Would I try to convince you that you should prescribe paxil versus prozac because of an article I read in Reader's Digest?

No. That said, I have a profession, I am a professional. I use the tools of my profession. I gather information that supports my profession and professional course of work.

This is supposed to be a reasonable discussion. By ignoring points being made and focusing on side issues (as again, you are doing right here) you are not contributing to any discussion. You are, in fact, chasing people away, as you have done just now.

Flip to Tibet. I do not agree with invasion on principle. However, the PLA in 1950 only had, like, one tactic: military engagement. The uneducated and enslaved masses of Tibet had no opportunity under the Dalai Lama TO educate themselves. Liberation from the oppression gave them that.

This is not fact, but mere Chinese propaganda. The Tibetans didn't feel 'liberated'; if they did, there would have been no resistance, let alone a guerilla.

Now, Tibet has a highly educated and prosperous population... And they kept their temples and beliefs... Just without the oppression. The 1959 uprising was coordinated by the CIA, who then whisked the Dalai Lama away to India. Now, why is the US soooo interested in Tibet of late? (ie, the 2008 unrest prior to the Beijing Olympics).

Source needed.

Water. And profit from water.

Tibet is the source of water for 43% of the population.

For China maybe, not the US.

In 1917, Russia first gave Finland its independence; then Baltic States; "gave up" Poland (at Brest-Litovsk 1918) and effectively controlled about 1/10th of the land area that was later to become USSR.

It's easy to 'give up' something that you don't actually control. Once the Boslheviks gained absolute power, they took back most of what they had 'given away'.

For these nations, self-determination was made possible in this way. It also made the break-up of the USSR possible.

Non sequitur. 'These nations' had no effective control over their respective territories until after the collapse of the USSR.

People also forget the American War Between the States (1861-1865) where the question of states rights and autonomy were settled on this continent through violence. Before this war, people referred to the United States in the plural ("The United States are..."); now, we refer to the United States in the singular ("The United States is.")

Actually, the correct use is still plural: the US are, not is.

The Bolsheviks were internationalists, not nationalists. They respected the right of all nations to exist and have autonomy over their own affairs, but did not respect their right to oppress other peoples. Thus, the republics and autonomous areas of the USSR (and of all socialist countries) had such power, but were not free to make war upon one another and oppress other peoples. This is no different from the social contract's ban upon murder or assault on other citizens. You and I have a right to live without accosatation by each other, and so do nations.

Interesting theory. In practice it meant very little, in fact. Just as the constitution of the USSR, which was in practice a dead letter. Stalin nor his successors ever respected other nations' 'autonomy' when it conflicted with their ideas.

All the republics joined the USSR on equal terms, had control over the drawing of borders and the drafting of the constitution. The Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, and Kazakhs did not exist as nations at that time, either. They were collectively known as Turks or Kazakhs (sometimes Kirgiz, which was used as a synonym for Kazakh in pre-Soviet times). Those nations literally exist because the Soviets helped to create them. Soviet ethnographers identified different languages and ethnic groups and helped them to cultivate those identities which had become so blurred as to become indistinguishable. Everything they consider to be their "national heritage and culture" today was created under Soviet supervision in the 20th century.

Interesting inversion of actual events. The USSR was only formally formed in 1922, after the civil war was won. Those 'nations' you mention already existed prior to czarist Russias annexation.

Tibetan self-determination means a return to feudalism. Screw that noise.

Ah, national self-determination only applies if it serves the State's purpose. As mentioned earlier...

Yes, I'm sure it was hatred of socialism that drove the Latvian Legion and the Banderists to murder hundreds of thousands of Jews and Poles for the Nazis. I'm glad we're back to fascist apologism again!

You seem to forget that antisemitism was as rampant under Nazism as it was under Communism - it's still alive today, in fact.

Are we talking about 1989? Because Solidarnosc was elected on a strongly social-democratic platform. It was after the election that they volte-faced and shoved liberalization and lustration down the country's throat.

'They'? Solidarnosz actually left the government, if I remember correctly. Liberalization and social-demcoracy are not mutually exclusive, by the way.

Well the Soviet presence in Poland in 1920 only lasted a matter of weeks, and they were ejected by the Polish Army, not some spontaneous uprising by the Polish people, so it's not really fair to say anything about some mass-rejection.

That's OK: the Soviets made good for that in 1939 when allying with Nazi Germany to crush the Poles - en passant instigating the infamous Katyn massacre.

Churchill didn't know about the Secret Protocols because they didn't exist yet. They were drawn up only in part before the invasion, and heavily modified after, as the situation changed. The Soviets didn't expect to have to enter Poland at that time, they had planned to organize a defense treaty with the Polish rump-state and strongarm the Baltics into doing so as well, but some bizarre actions by the Polish government during the invasion, as well as the speed of the Nazi invasion, led the Soviets toward immediate action, which changed the nature of the Protocols, and led to later antics in the Baltic states as well. It's very likely that the Soviets would have allowed Ulmanis, Smetona, and Pats to remain in power, and their countries to remain independent (what post-war would be called "Finlandized"), along with the Polish rump state, had things gone differently.

Interesting speculation. The whole point of the Secret Protocol, however, was to divide up Eastern Europe between the two dictatorships: there were additional provisions to that effect covering the entire area. The volte face was entirely on the Soviet side here, as they instructed the Komintern to stop attacking Fascism, unpleasantly surprising many antifascists - including those in the various European Communist parties.

Unlike you assert, there were no 'last minute adaptations': the rapid advance of the German army in fact necessitated certain withdrawal movements to honour the pact with the Soviets.

It was, of course, a very strong blow to Germany's plans for the East. It was deprived of a lot of land it could have used for a springboard for its later invasion of the Soviet Union, in both eastern Poland and the Baltic coast. The narrow escape of the Red Army from destruction in November-December 1941 should be testament to the importance of Soviet control of these regions before the invasion.

More unwarranted speculation: the point of the pact for the Nazi side was to have a free hand in Western Europe in order to defeat the Allies. Also, there was no 'narrow escape' for Soviet armies in December 1941: by that time the entire Red Army in the West had been destroyed - including the reserves that had been called up thrown into battle after that. This lead Hitler to believe the Soviets were out of reserves and initiate Operation Typhoon. In fact, however, it was the Germans that were out of reserves at that point. The USSR saved primarily in 1941 because the Nazis totally underestimated the immensity of the task they had taken upon them, not even providing for winter clothing for their armies. Of the 3 initial goals for Operation Barbarossa only 1 was achieved. That had little to do with temporary Soviet control over Eastern European territories as it was precisely in these territories that the bulk of the Red Army defense was stationed - and destroyed.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I have not chased you away, Jeelen. You keep on posting. *sigh*

Multiple sources needed for your last post, btw, which was rife with untruths and US State Department press release language, seriously.

Adam Ulam's ghost lives...

And if the existence of a "guerrilla" movement (read CIA-backed terror campaign) is your only proof that the Tibetans do not feel liberated, you may as well cite Tom Clancy novels as substantiating evidence, because that position is incorrect.

And if you think you know more than Cheezy about the USSR/ Eastern Europe (Cheezy is a PhD candidate in Russian/ Eastern Euro studies), then you must show credentials.

Yours truly,
RT...
Coming soon to your neihhborhood

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That JEELEN post is not even worth responding to, it's so poorly constructed, informed, and argued. It literally sums up to "nu-uh!" But I suppose I repeat myself...

Out of curiosity, does that mean self-determination should not be respected if it means going back to feudalism? If so, where do we draw this line for acceptable self-determination?

As the lengthy Stalin quote I posted shows, the line is drawn where oppression is reasserted on some level. I didn't quote Stalin because I love him or something, I quoted him because that text, Marxism and the National Question, was the basis for the Soviet nationalities policy, and Stalin, as the author, was put in charge of organizing it. I don't think a society should be allowed to revert to a more oppressive mode of existence.

You think "self-determination" can honestly lead to a return to feudalism? What if a bunch of Blacks got together and decided to re-allow their own enslavement? Should we respect that bit of self-determination as well? We don't allow people to sell themselves into slavery, as the Romans once did. There's a reason for that. We shouldn't allow nations to do so either.

There hasn't even been a popular referendum on Tibetan independence. How can you assert that the entire population assents to being returned to serfdom?

 

[Hygro]

@ ywhtptgtfo: I do not need you to tell me what news sources to pay attention to. I read the NYT daily; I also read Medical journals and quarterly legal publications; I read our mass organization publications and I watch Democracy Now! As well as CCTV news. I get the BBC and Telasur RSS feeds.

I also work my ass off 14 hours a day, 7 days a week with many loosely affiliated organizations dealing with a myriad of social problems.

DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?

I am an ass-kicking Red with a hot ass-kicking Red gf, 6% body fat and a 180 IQ. My father is retired USAF and my brother is retired USN. My mom's family are old southern money, and my family has fought in every American-involved war since 1775...

Eff CNN and eff wiki-effing-pedia.

Edit: did I mention I drive a Mercedes?

This is the makings of a rap career.

 

[crabapple]

Some people here keeps defending the Soviet union, the actions of red china, and craziest of all, North Korea. It seems that for some reason just because something is called "Socialist" it is somehow worth defending, regardless of actions.

I thought the point of socialism is to defend workers, not dictatorships?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's an interesting question, but I doubt that the Red Army really asked when it invaded.

Usually it was invited by local the local soviets. You can certainly contest their right to invite the Red Army- but, in doing so, you must contest the right of the various provisional governments to wage their own war Neither side was working with what we'd think of as a democratic mandate, just competing claims to embody "the nation" or "the people".

 

[ReindeerThistle]

This is the makings of a rap career.

That post was a humorous half-rant poking fun at what Phrossack said I sounded like.

BTW, I drive a minivan... A donated minivan... The Mercedes, also donate, is for airport pick-ups only... Lol.


Edit:

Some people here keeps defending the Soviet union, the actions of red china, and craziest of all, North Korea. It seems that for some reason just because something is called "Socialist" it is somehow worth defending, regardless of actions.

I thought the point of socialism is to defend workers, not dictatorships?

All governments are dictatorships... Class dictatorships.

Cheezy, Traitorfish and I disagree on a great many things, which we all accept as disagreements. But we all agree in that basic premise above.

China, USSR and DPRK may appear in mainstream media to be "dictatorships," but workers there were far better off after their respective revolutions than before. And that is the only fair assessment you can make of the merits and successes of a proletarian revolution. Maybe the average Chinese worker makes less money than an average US worker... But a Chinese worker pays less in taxes, rent and for food. And since 2010, Chinese wages risen 19% annually.

In the China before the 1949 revolution, the KMT did not have general elections. The KMT suppressed all opposition. Other non-CPC groups joined in a united front with the CPC against the KMT, even the revolutionary committee OF the KMT sided with the CPC. Those groups, 8 total, still exist in Chinese politics.

My "defense" of the DPRK consists of citing documents and often first-hand positions to debunk the utter pack of lies that comes out about the DPRK. I even cited their state constitution as evidence of their socialism. It is highly contested on this thread, but, then, this thread is about debate on Red topics.

As for the USSR, in Ask a Red III, I gave a rather lengthy explanation of my views on the political faults that led to the break-up of the USSR... But imho they were shining examples of the powerful potential of a worker-run state during the Stalin Era. It went downhill esp. After 1956.

 

[luiz]

Actually the Red Army were welcomed with banners and presents in eastern Poland in 1939, as both liberators of Polish imperialism and saviors from the German invasion, and the Jewish-Belorussian majorities in those territories took the opportunity to lash out at their Polish aristocratic oppressors. Those Poles ironically turned to the Soviets to re-establish civil law and protect them from the peasants.

Citation: Jan T. Gross. Revolution from Abroad: the Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Princeton Univ Press, ( 1988).

That's WW2, I was talking about how the Poles, rich and poor alike, resisted the Soviet invasion in 1920 with all their strength, fighting until death to prevent a Bolshevik takeover.

Naturally, after WW2 and years of being brutalized by the Germans, the Poles would welcome anyone who kicked out the Nazis. They would welcome the Mongols. It is extremely clear, however, that the Poles had no desire to become a "People's Republic" in the Soviet orbit. They never stopped resisting and resenting that.

Yes, I'm sure it was hatred of socialism that drove the Latvian Legion and the Banderists to murder hundreds of thousands of Jews and Poles for the Nazis. I'm glad we're back to fascist apologism again!

So everyone who wanted to be free of Soviet occupation was a Jew-murdering fascist? There are only two possible paths for Ukrainians: support Stalinist occupation or be a Jew-murdering fascist. Is that your opinion?

Are we talking about 1989? Because Solidarnosc was elected on a strongly social-democratic platform. It was after the election that they volte-faced and shoved liberalization and lustration down the country's throat.

So? It was elected because people were sick of communist authoritarianism, of Soviet overlordship. I'm not discussing economic policy. My point is that the Poles hated the Soviet yoke.

Well the Soviet presence in Poland in 1920 only lasted a matter of weeks, and they were ejected by the Polish Army, not some spontaneous uprising by the Polish people, so it's not really fair to say anything about some mass-rejection.

You're denying that the Polish people, not just soldiers, played a great role in driving the invading Red Army out? You're denying that the Polish people were entirely committed in preventing their country from falling under Bolshevism?

Churchill didn't know about the Secret Protocols because they didn't exist yet. They were drawn up only in part before the invasion, and heavily modified after, as the situation changed. The Soviets didn't expect to have to enter Poland at that time, they had planned to organize a defense treaty with the Polish rump-state and strongarm the Baltics into doing so as well, but some bizarre actions by the Polish government during the invasion, as well as the speed of the Nazi invasion, led the Soviets toward immediate action, which changed the nature of the Protocols, and led to later antics in the Baltic states as well. It's very likely that the Soviets would have allowed Ulmanis, Smetona, and Pats to remain in power, and their countries to remain independent (what post-war would be called "Finlandized"), along with the Polish rump state, had things gone differently.

It was, of course, a very strong blow to Germany's plans for the East. It was deprived of a lot of land it could have used for a springboard for its later invasion of the Soviet Union, in both eastern Poland and the Baltic coast. The narrow escape of the Red Army from destruction in November-December 1941 should be testament to the importance of Soviet control of these regions before the invasion.

Well, now we're back to plainly false statements.

The Nazis actually urged the Soviets to honor their part in the Secret Protocols and invade Poland immediately after they did! The only reason there was a slight delay is the USSR was occupied with some disputes with Japan and Stalin, always cautious, wanted to see how the German invasion would play out. Once it became clear that the Germans had overwhelmed the Poles Stalin invaded at once. To say that the Soviet invasion, which was agreed upon and actually requested by Germany, was a blow to the Nazis is, I'm sorry to use the term, a plain lie.

Reference:

Soon after they began their invasion of Poland, the Nazi leaders began urging the Soviets to play their agreed part and attack Poland from the east. Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German ambassador to Moscow Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg exchanged a series of diplomatic messages on the matter but the Soviets nevertheless delayed their invasion of eastern Poland. The Soviets were distracted by crucial events relating to their ongoing border disputes with Japan. They needed time to mobilize the Red Army and they saw a diplomatic advantage in waiting until Poland had disintegrated before making their move.[59][60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...invasion_of_Poland_prior_to_the_Soviet_attack
[59]Zaloga, Steven J. (2002). Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-408-6.
[60] Weinberg, Gerhard (1994). A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44317-2.

And of course the Poles soon got a taste of Soviet humanism at Katyn. What do you think of Katyn and the attempt to blame the Germans for it, BTW, Cheezy?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Why they stopped... I'll never know...

The Poles, btw, were throwing theirs Jews into the fires, so to speak, long before the Nazis arrived. Pilsudski was just a home-grown despot.

Soviet Union was founded 1922... Which "Soviet" invasion was in 1920?

And, um, "Poland" did not exist as a sovereign nation until Brest-Litovsk Treaty -- it was held by the Tsars.

Waiting for the inevitable "reaction..."

5.... 4.... 3.... 2.... 1....

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's WW2, I was talking about how the Poles, rich and poor alike, resisted the Soviet invasion in 1920 with all their strength, fighting until death to prevent a Bolshevik takeover.

Naturally, after WW2 and years of being brutalized by the Germans, the Poles would welcome anyone who kicked out the Nazis. They would welcome the Mongols. It is extremely clear, however, that the Poles had no desire to become a "People's Republic" in the Soviet orbit. They never stopped resisting and resenting that.

There were also many people in Eastern and Central Europe who were ready to try something new after having seen the murderous double-failure of capitalism and Western ideas, otherwise the Soviets would not have been able to stick around no matter how many guys with guns they had.

The Soviets were only very lightly involved with the Polish Civil War. They were ready to become more involved, but it proved unnecessary.

So everyone who wanted to be free of Soviet occupation was a Jew-murdering fascist? There are only two possible paths for Ukrainians: support Stalinist occupation or be a Jew-murdering fascist. Is that your opinion?

You're the one who brought up the militias that welcomed the Nazis, not me. I simply pointed out who you were praising.

So? It was elected because people were sick of communist authoritarianism, of Soviet overlordship. I'm not discussing economic policy. My point is that the Poles hated the Soviet yoke.

I wasn't even talking to you with that response. Calm down.

You're denying that the Polish people, not just soldiers, played a great role in driving the invading Red Army out? You're denying that the Polish people were entirely committed in preventing their country from falling under Bolshevism?

I don't know how they felt, I'm saying that the Soviets were only there for a few weeks at best, so there wasn't time for that kind of thing to manifest itself. I don't really care how they felt in 1920.

Well, now we're back to plainly false statements.

You see the word "citation" in my post? You must have, since you conveniently edited it out.

The Nazis actually urged the Soviets to honor their part in the Secret Protocols and invade Poland immediately after they did!

Do the Soviets take their marching orders from Nazi Germany? The Germans can urge whatever they wish, that doesn't mean the Soviets are obliged to do anything about it. As I said and proved, the Soviets had every intention of maintaining the Polish rump state as a barrier.

The only reason there was a slight delay is the USSR was occupied with some disputes with Japan and Stalin, always cautious, wanted to see how the German invasion would play out. Once it became clear that the Germans had overwhelmed the Poles Stalin invaded at once. To say that the Soviet invasion, which was agreed upon and actually requested by Germany, was a blow to the Nazis is, I'm sorry to use the term, a plain lie.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...invasion_of_Poland_prior_to_the_Soviet_attack
[59]Zaloga, Steven J. (2002). Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-408-6.
[60] Weinberg, Gerhard (1994). A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44317-2.

So I guess you don't understand how this post doesn't disprove mine, right? Only the narrative applied is different, the facts are the same.

The Protocols only delineated spheres of interest, they were not a contract agreeing to mutual invasion. The Soviets bore no obligation to do so, they only entered when the Polish government fled to Romania, where they were detained (because Romania was neutral), instead of backing up into eastern Poland to continue the conflict. Without a legal Polish government, there could be no rump state in the Soviet zone of influence to serve as a barrier with Germany. Thus, they entered Poland to stop the Nazis from rolling all the way up to the Belorussian border.

By the way, I actually read my sources. You just went to wikipedia and scooped up a part of an article. Probably a bit more that you missed by doing so. But hey, expertise in a subject means nothing when you have Google!

Soviet Union was founded 1922... Which "Soviet" invasion was in 1920?

Eh, the government prior to the USSR was called Sovnarkom, for Soviet Narodnikh Komissarov, or Council of People's Deputies. I doubt Luiz knew that, but it's forgivable to refer to the government or its subjects and agents as Soviet. However, the country should never be referred to as the Soviet Union or USSR before 1922.

And, um, "Poland" did not exist as a sovereign nation until Brest-Litovsk Treaty -- it was held by the Tsars.

The Bolsheviks sort of supported the Polish independence movement. The heavy anti-Soviet sentiment only became identified with anti-Russian sentiment [which was obviously very high in Poland, as in all of non-Russian Russia] after the 1920 War.

What Luiz is neglecting to discuss with this war is the fact that the Poles started it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War_in_1920#Operation_Kiev