My Political Profile

calinis wrote:

How about considering the Soviet invasion of Georgia?

Oh, it didn't happen. It was a revolution within the whole Russian Empire's territory and the reds crushed the whites everywhere in that territory.

that should be the last fail for calinis here...

Quote :

Oh, it didn't happen. It was a revolution within the whole Russian Empire's territory and the reds crushed the whites everywhere in that territory.

WTH

"The Red Army invasion of Georgia also known as the Soviet-Georgian War[2] (February 15 – March 17 1921) was a military campaign by the Soviet Russian (RSFSR) Red Army against the Democratic Republic of Georgia (DRG) aimed at overthrowing the local Social-Democratic (Menshevik) government and installing the Bolshevik regime in the country. The conflict was a result of expansionist policy by the Soviets, who aimed at control of the same territories, which had been part of Imperial Russia[3][4] until the turbulent events of the World War I, as well as the revolutionary efforts of mostly Russia-based Georgian Bolshevik elite, who did not enjoy sufficient support in their native country to seize power without foreign intervention.[5][6]"

Nope that is NOT imperalism at all

just in case you use the arguement that they were this was part of their civil war and they were helping the peasents there or whatever shit reason you give, "the sovietization of Georgia was offically denounced as "an occupation and effective annexation of Georgia by Soviet Russia."

"the [Soviet Russian] deployment of troops in Georgia and seizure of its territory was, from a legal point of view, a military interference (intervention) and occupation aimed at changing the existing political regime."

Don't forget the imprelastic move from Russia to invade Finland, but for some reasons Zealot says Finland was attaked by Russian to prepare for the nazi's but how come germany could invade russia so darn fast??

That's right Russia is damnit imprealistic!!

calinis wrote:

WTH

"The Red Army invasion of Georgia also known as the Soviet-Georgian War[2] (February 15 – March 17 1921) was a military campaign by the Soviet Russian (RSFSR) Red Army against the Democratic Republic of Georgia (DRG) aimed at overthrowing the local Social-Democratic (Menshevik) government and installing the Bolshevik regime in the country. The conflict was a result of expansionist policy by the Soviets, who aimed at control of the same territories, which had been part of Imperial Russia[3][4] until the turbulent events of the World War I, as well as the revolutionary efforts of mostly Russia-based Georgian Bolshevik elite, who did not enjoy sufficient support in their native country to seize power without foreign intervention.[5][6]"

Nope that is NOT imperalism at all

just in case you use the arguement that they were this was part of their civil war and they were helping the peasents there or whatever shit reason you give, "the sovietization of Georgia was offically denounced as "an occupation and effective annexation of Georgia by Soviet Russia."

"the [Soviet Russian] deployment of troops in Georgia and seizure of its territory was, from a legal point of view, a military interference (intervention) and occupation aimed at changing the existing political regime."

It's a pity that you had to copy paste so much shit... for me to destroy your arguement with less than 10% the ammount of the words you used.

2 things:

1) USSR didn't exist until 1922 so you can't blame it for this.
2) Georgia was part of the Russian Empire. Everything happening within the Russian empire prior to the creation of USSR was part of the civil war.

CoolKidX wrote:

Don't forget the imprelastic move from Russia to invade Finland, but for some reasons Zealot says Finland was attaked by Russian to prepare for the nazi's but how come germany could invade russia so darn fast??

That's right Russia is damnit imprealistic!!

Now this is being retarded. We have a fucking days long discussion in another thread about this with all your arguements disproven and you want to repeat the same fucking thing just now here? This definitely trespasses the boundaries of ignorance into the domains of idiocy.

Also, CoolKidX, whenever you try to reply to someone's arguement, just for the sake of your image as a mentally capable individual, read first what you're going to reply to and get informed about the topic you're going to talk about. One thing is ignorance which is mere lack of knowledge, another is stupidity which is to claim authority on a topic of which you know nothing about.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

1) USSR didn't exist until 1922 so you can't blame it for this.

The USSR (Heh, 'Soviet') was bad enough anyway, there's not much need to argue about that. This was in the NEP period or so, which was preceded by the Kronstatd massacre, the repression of Makhno and the anarchists, etc, so...

Quote :

2) Georgia was part of the Russian Empire. Everything happening within the Russian empire prior to the creation of USSR was part of the civil war.

So?

Quote :

And for sure it doesn't say that Lenin is flawed.

Yes, the period after the October Revolution does.

Quote :

Basically that was my point, that the are books because of which some people hold Lenin in high regards and that there are books written by Lenin.

If we're talking about Lenin's actions, I don't see what it has to do with Lenin's broken promises. If you're only going to follow ideas Lenin stole from anarchists at the time, then there's not much point in calling yourself a 'Leninist'.

Stos wrote:

The USSR (Heh, 'Soviet') was bad enough anyway, there's not much need to argue about that. This was in the NEP period or so, which was preceded by the Kronstatd massacre, the repression of Makhno and the anarchists, etc, so...

I'm not engaging in n apology of USSR, I'm simply saying USSR didn't exist by the time this so called "invasion" took place thusly being impossible to attach an event prior to its existance to it.

Stos wrote:

So?

Being the Russian Empire in a state of civil war, Georgia was part of it thus debunking the "invasion" arguement.

Stos wrote:

Yes, the period after the October Revolution does.

You mean that in the book Lenin states himself how flawed he is? I'm not saying Lenin wasn't flawed, I'm simply stating that "not all books say Lenin was flawed".

Stos wrote:

If we're talking about Lenin's actions, I don't see what it has to do with Lenin's broken promises. If you're only going to follow ideas Lenin stole from anarchists at the time, then there's not much point in calling yourself a 'Leninist'.

I'm not defending Leninism but explaining why many people hold Lenin in high regards. Wether those ideas are stolen or not, wether Lenin fulfilled or not his promises is irrelevant to the discussion since the arguement in this dicussion revolves around 1) wether Lenin was idolized as a god or not, 2)wether all books say Lenin was flawed or not, 3)why are there people that hold Lenin in high regards and 4) how is it possible that people that didn't meet Lenin hold him in high regards (simply put, he wrote books, others read them and agreed to them). What's the relevance of all this? I'm just disproving Calinis' untruthful statements, not defending Leninism.