Deportation of Stalin into Gulag

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

no what?

No as your not right.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You know what buffer zones are right? Well, you seem not to so I'll explain to you.

When a country tries to get control of part of another country or the whole country to create a buffer zone it is precisely FORESEEING A CONFLICT THAT HASN'T STARTED OR HASN'T REACHED THE COUNTRY CREATING THE BUFFER ZONES.

So, they were preventive means.

Dude Russia had no idea the Germans would attack them, expassily when they worked toegether on Poland.
+there's no reason Finland would attack Russia.

Russia had Finland outnumberd from evrything so it makes no sense if Finland will attack them, it was imprealism. >

CoolKidX wrote:

No as your not right.

Then, speaking in your language: NO.

CoolKidX wrote:

Dude Russia had no idea the Germans would attack them, expassily when they worked toegether on Poland.

Do you really buy that crap? Do you know what the Anticomintern was? Did you know the axis had the express intention to destroy the USSR?

You're in serious need of some history lessons boy, really.

CoolKidX wrote:

+there's no reason Finland would attack Russia.

Actually there were chances of Finland joining the Axis either by Nazi conquest or diplomacy.

CoolKidX wrote:

Russia had Finland outnumberd from evrything so it makes no sense if Finland will attack them, it was imprealism. >

Yeah, fortunately the Soviet yoke over Finland finally fell on 1991 after half a century of Red Terror.

Dude just tell me why Russia had so many losses when Axis attacked them in the first 6 motnhs?
They didnt forsee they would be attacked, Russia could even lose if it wasnt for the Winter.

And ofcourse Axis will attack Russia(USSR) sooner or later cause there were commie, the massive enemey of Hitler but i geusse Stalin dint forsee that in so less time.

But at the main point Russia was imprelistic to.

CoolKidX wrote:

Dude just tell me why Russia had so many losses when Axis attacked them in the first 6 motnhs?

Because Stalin did a great job eliminating thousands of exerienced officials from the ranks of the Red Army destroying much of the pillars of it during the Great Purges. The Red Army lacked decent training and decent strategists an d it was evident during the start of WWII.

CoolKidX wrote:

They didnt forsee they would be attacked, Russia could even lose if it wasnt for the Winter.

Yeah of course. You don't seem to know USSR was far from being defeated right? Unlike germany or other countries its not matter of taking the capital and claim victory. USSR had moved both industrial and political infrastructure behind the Urals and towards Southeastern USSR.

Did you know that after winter 1941 there was Spring, Summer and Autumn in 1942, and again in 1943 and again in 1944, and even spring in 1945 and ven so Germans got stopped in 1941?

Winter is always a nice excuse for westerners to downplay Russian and Soviet military prowess, yet it has been always Russia or USSR who faces the bulk of the most powerful army in the world.

CoolKidX wrote:

And ofcourse Axis will attack Russia(USSR) sooner or later cause there were commie, the massive enemey of Hitler but i geusse Stalin dint forsee that in so less time.

This was a pretty naïve comment Stalin aside from previous idiocies was biding his time.

CoolKidX wrote:

But at the main point Russia was imprelistic to.

The Russian Empire? Yes of course it was an Empire, the least Imperialistic of all by the way. USSR, no it was not Iperialistic. There was not a Soviet global sphere of exploitation keeping USSR a superpower.

in 1937 or 38 he excuted so many high rank offciers that's why the Russian(when i say russian now i mean USSR) had rlly massive losses when they first tried to attack Finland, but 2nd time they were more prebared and at the end Russia got what he wanted....LAND!

An excuse?
OMG LOL!!
For what do u think i wnated that Germany would take Russia?
But seriusly whiout winter Stalinggrad was now from the Germansa and the Germands had a nice way trough out the country sides.
With winetr the Germands retreated backway.

Tell me plz when USSR free'd Poland and other eastern countries why did they stay there for like 40 years??
Yes USA did it to but not all, mostly GErmany and in France they leaved.

CoolKidX wrote:

in 1937 or 38 he excuted so many high rank offciers that's why the Russian(when i say russian now i mean USSR) had rlly massive losses when they first tried to attack Finland, but 2nd time they were more prebared and at the end Russia got what he wanted....LAND!

Do you really think fighting Findland would give USSR the needed military experience to deal with the German Blitzkrieg?

CoolKidX wrote:

An excuse?
OMG LOL!!
For what do u think i wnated that Germany would take Russia?

I'd dare to say your attempts at discussing are even cute. You don't even know English well enough to understand what you read yet you do efforts to argue...

"An excuse to downplay Russia's military prowess". Winter is used as an excuse for this.

CoolKidX wrote:

But seriusly whiout winter Stalinggrad was now from the Germansa and the Germands had a nice way trough out the country sides.
With winetr the Germands retreated backway.

Firs of all some grammatic correction because what you wrote doesn't make te least sense: "But seriously, if it hadn't been for the winter, Stalingrad would now be German and the Germans would have had a nice way through the country sides".

Second, no. Actually w ionter is always pretty stupid excuse for m ilitary failure in USSR. While it indeed help, it's nt like invaders w ould say " Oh no it's too cold, f**k fighting, we surrender!". If Germans retreated during winter and had been much superior to Soviets they would have pushed them back again during Spring, Summer and Autumn, during winter they would pull back a little bit and then make advances again during Spring, Summer an dAutumn. Yet, that didn't happen. Else, I don't think germans were too stupid not to learn from the 1st winter, there were 4 winters.

But of course, westerners love to downplay the Soviet people's struggle.

CoolKidX wrote:

Tell me plz when USSR free'd Poland and other eastern countries why did they stay there for like 40 years??

In the case of Poland, merely to keep a b uffer zone against the western powers. In the case Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania, aside from keeping a buffer zone to punish nazi collaborationists.

CoolKidX wrote:

Yes USA did it to but not all, mostly GErmany and in France they leaved.

*They left.

If they left I wonder why there are so many US military bases all over Europe to this day. Of course, just m ilitarily speaking... I was adressing another more important aspect of Imperialism.

Okay my english sux and all.
Thiz is going off-topic in the fact for Stalin to be in the gulag.
Im done.

CoolKidX wrote:

Okay my english sux and all.
Thiz is going off-topic in the fact for Stalin to be in the gulag.
Im done.

Thx.

zealut check my post again.

mattabesta wrote:

zealut check my post again.

What for?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

zealut check my post again.

What for?

I gave you sources your post is invalid I do have aources so you babbeling over me have bullshit is falses post agin when you've checked all the reffrances.

Like Jung Chang and Halliday's appalling book on Mao, the sources are fraudulent and all come from books penned by historians or propagandists that hotly disagree with each other. Your right to ignore mattabesta's posts, Zealot.

Also, the USSR attempted to trade land with Finland, offerring double the territory that they needed. The reason for this was that the day war broke out between fascism and communism, German long-range guns situated in Finland would have been able to hit Leningrad. By taking the territory, the USSR was better prepared when Finland inevitably went under the Nazi boot.

mattabesta wrote:

I gave you sources your post is invalid I do have aources so you babbeling over me have bullshit is falses post agin when you've checked all the reffrances.

Are you saying that your references make my post invalid or what?

I've read such kind of references quite often and I find them ridiculous. It's the typical kind of propaganda that based on a phallacy wants to defamate its subject.

There's always lack of evidence on such claims and they're often based on fictional estimates. All , again, with a difamatory objective.

Else, I'm adressing mostly the Stalin issue, to which you gave the least attention , and suddenly you launched an anti-maoist barrage just because you could find more sources on him. He wasn't even part of the discussion yet you brought him because, in western minds, his massacres are better documented, which is as well a phallacy.

Antifa wrote:

Like Jung Chang and Halliday's appalling book on Mao, the sources are fraudulent and all come from books penned by historians or propagandists that hotly disagree with each other. Your right to ignore mattabesta's posts, Zealot.

Indeed, it's precisely the same kind of argumentation that Stalin killed 100 million people in a 184million country. Absurd, totally absurd. I'm actually suprised they don't blame Mao on killing 300 million considering China's size.

Antifa wrote:

Also, the USSR attempted to trade land with Finland, offerring double the territory that they needed. The reason for this was that the day war broke out between fascism and communism, German long-range guns situated in Finland would have been able to hit Leningrad. By taking the territory, the USSR was better prepared when Finland inevitably went under the Nazi boot.

Thanks. This is in summary and with important additions what I was trying to explain.

None said Stalin killed 100 million O.O

50-60 million.
But you think its not true..so tell me how come'd thiz thing up?
Made up by ppl?

USSR wnna trade ladn with Finland..that's prby not true with Stalin on the lead but Finland didnt want to trade land so USSR attacked them..wow that is like a offer you must acsept.

Antifa wrote:

Like Jung Chang and Halliday's appalling book on Mao, the sources are fraudulent and all come from books penned by historians or propagandists that hotly disagree with each other. Your right to ignore mattabesta's posts, Zealot.

Also, the USSR attempted to trade land with Finland, offerring double the territory that they needed. The reason for this was that the day war broke out between fascism and communism, German long-range guns situated in Finland would have been able to hit Leningrad. By taking the territory, the USSR was better prepared when Finland inevitably went under the Nazi boot.

dude they offered "two pounds of dirt for one pound of gold"

CoolKidX wrote:

None said Stalin killed 100 million O.O

Read more and you'll find out there are some idiots out there claimin g 100 million deaths.

CoolKidX wrote:

50-60 million.
But you think its not true..so tell me how come'd thiz thing up?
Made up by ppl?

50-60 million is still too high a number. And yes, it's very easy to claim something with no evidence. Actually that's what you call "making up something". And once again, you don't kill 50-60 million people without producing solid enough evidence.

CoolKidX wrote:

USSR wnna trade ladn with Finland..that's prby not true with Stalin on the lead but Finland didnt want to trade land so USSR attacked them..wow that is like a offer you must acsept.

You definitely love to disregard the context even after you've been explained. It was strategic operation, USSR needed buffer territories to limit Nazi operational capabilities. As part of prevention.

mattabesta wrote:

dude they offered "two pounds of dirt for one pound of gold"

It was merely a strategic trade and was a "lease", that is a temporal territorial exchange.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

dude they offered "two pounds of dirt for one pound of gold"

It was merely a strategic trade and was a "lease", that is a temporal territorial exchange.

dude zealot I can't beleve you are so stupid the soviets asked for 20% of finnish industri and offerd 100,000 sq of tundra in return how can you say yes to such a rediculus offer and the leash was only for a peninsula that was used as a naval base.

Soviet Union tried to be nice and offerd some shit hole for 20% indtry from FInland, sounds fair to me...NOT

I guess you're really confusing things. After the conflict is when USSR gained that.


Anyway you're really missing the point. To the eyes of the USSR Findland was a potential ally for nazi germany and if n ot a potential ally at least a very important territory. Finns ended up siding with the germans so after all Soviet precautions were ended up justified.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I guess you're really confusing things. After the conflict is when USSR gained that.


Anyway you're really missing the point. To the eyes of the USSR Findland was a potential ally for nazi germany and if n ot a potential ally at least a very important territory. Finns ended up siding with the germans so after all Soviet precautions were ended up justified.

OK there were a couple of wars in WW2 with Finland, one of them was the Winter War(Soviet VS Finland) and the Lapland war were they FOUGHT against GERMANY!.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I guess you're really confusing things. After the conflict is when USSR gained that.


Anyway you're really missing the point. To the eyes of the USSR Findland was a potential ally for nazi germany and if n ot a potential ally at least a very important territory. Finns ended up siding with the germans so after all Soviet precautions were ended up justified.

dude they sided with them AFTER the soviet union invaded finland in the winter war they did gain a littel moar in the continuation war but not nearly as much as in the winter war. the finns sided with germany so that they could get theyer land back and no teh soviet union was wrathere looking to annex finland and innstal a puppet regime but that wouldhave cost them too much.

and zealot since you obviusly don´t know shit about this this is something that was pure terratorial ambition for the soviet union something you call "imperialist"

Look between 1942-1944 Finland helped Germany but not with many, i mean they had losses from the Soviet impreslitic attack, but in 1944 Finland attacked Germany alll on it self, and they won ^-^

CoolKidX wrote:

Look between 1942-1944 Finland helped Germany but not with many, i mean they had losses from the Soviet impreslitic attack, but in 1944 Finland attacked Germany alll on it self, and they won ^-^

lol yeah 1000 troops in lapland are hard to defeat

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Look between 1942-1944 Finland helped Germany but not with many, i mean they had losses from the Soviet impreslitic attack, but in 1944 Finland attacked Germany alll on it self, and they won ^-^

lol yeah 1000 troops in lapland are hard to defeat

There enemey apprntly sucked ass

You definitely do not know what "imperialism" stands for and much less have the ability to comprehend the context of the situation.

The situation is simple to understand:

Nazi Germany was threattening the USSR thus the USSR was at risk of an invation from Nazi Germany.

Fearing that, the USSR tried to gain as many buffer zones as possible before confronting the germans.

Finland is located in a prime-importance strategic position in regards to one of the most important Russian (and then Soviet) cities. Finnish border was located too close to Leningrad.

USSR tried for very long to negociate with Finland about a defensive plan against Germany. Given Finnish refusal USSR began losing its patience and demanded expressely that the Finns move back their border 25km further from Leningrad and that Finland leases the Hanko Peninsula to the USSR for 30 years.

Finland refuses. Given Finnish refusal and Soviet desperation to gain buffer zones in an extremely tense environment, USSR launches an offensive on Finland starting the Winter War.

To this point USSR is seeking for a Finnish response to Soviet deffensive needs given Finnish neutrality and strategic importance. Finland refuses to every single proposal and gives no proposal from its part totally disregarding the Political context in that moment leaving USSR with no option but to take actions.

Soviet imperialism? If USSR had had Imperialist intentions against Finland they would have gone even farther than they did. The final soviet offensive broke the mannerheim line even tually leaving Finland helpless. Did USSR conquer Finland? No. Could have USSR conquered Finland? Yes.
Was it the soviet intention to conquer Finland then? No.

USSR simply needed a buffer zone against Germany and Finland didn't cooperate. The result a war.

Is it justified? Probably not. Is it understandable? Yes. But evidently not for you.