Leaders with extreme retardation

>mobilizes against Austria-Hungary
>WE GON LIBERATE THEM SERBS
>End up being killed by commies

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia#Massacres_of_indigenous_peoples
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I tend to stan for Russia in general because the west tends to criticize them from a very self-centered lens. One of the biggest examples of that (aside from ignoring their extreme, but justifiable xenophobia) is how we remember Imperial Russia as a healthy, liberal, freedom-loving state, when it was really an insanely corrupt autocracy run by morons who literally ran the nation into the ground and threw their hands up in shock when the revolution came.

For the record, they abolished serfdom at around the same time the US abolished slavery. The Duma held no real power and everything went past the Tsar. Asian Turks were oppressed even more brutally than the whites, secret police were just as oppressive and ever-present as the NKVD/KGB/FSB, and the government would regularly scapegoat jews for legitimacy.

Of course, later governments did most of the same shit, but not a one was as retardedly malevolent as the Tsars.

>oppressed
>brutally
>oppressive
>malevolent
liberfag

You are right. But you get labelled as a cuck now-a-days even though what you said is in every legit russian history book. People go crazy when something puts communism in a more favorable light

>not a one was as retardedly malevolent as the Tsars
The commies were. In tsarist times, violent criminals were handed heavy punishment while political prisoners had it relatively easy, in Soviet Russia it was the exact opposite, to the point literal rapists and murderers served as prison guards in labor camps where they bullied people imprisoned for their beliefs.

Furthermore, the Soviets literally attempted (and to a large degree succeeded in) genociding an entire class of people. In the empire there were some individual pogroms, but never an actual organized genocide like what the commies did.

> fat blob
> antiunion
> gallipoli
> shit at everything
> Praised fascists while shitting on commies till shit hit the fan
> Didnt get BTFO because on an island, eastern front ramped up, and hitler stopped listeninig to generals.
> Ends up on winning side and everyone thinks hes great because "so witty."
> Depressed, drunk ass, weak, and lucky

what a load of bullshit propoganda

>political prisoners had it easy under the tsar
Yeah because exile to siberia, mock executions, and literal executions are "having it easy"

> rapists and murderers served as prison guards
You are referencing the instances when common criminals could become "leaders and organizers" in the prison camps that they were sent to. Political prisoners were not given this opportunity for the obvious reason that they are political and more likely to try to stage a revolt than a thief or a murderer. They did not become prison guards, it was just a cushier job that gave you authority over other prisoners.

> they bullied people imprisoned for their beliefs
You will find that everywhere, including US prisons right now.

> soviets "literally" (go back to tumblr) attempted genocide
Genocide of who? The soviet union has never been acused of genocide and, believe me, the west would have jumped on that during the cold war. You are an idiot.

>Genicide of who?
Whom*

I think he's referring to the Holomodor, which is recognied as a genocide in some countries.

Whoops, Holodomor.

post the sino jap war pic

>Genocide of who?
Kulaks you fucking dumbass.

I don't understand why some of the alt-right get a boner for Nicholas, he was a literal cuck and and like most of the czars a incompetent economic administrator (I don't blame him for WW1, he had to get involved or else Russia would look weak for not helping its ally).

>everyone I don't like is alt-right

That hardly qualifies. It wasnt an attempt at an ethnic extinction. It was a terrible thing, but a worst it was a human rights violation. There was never a plot to kill all the Ukranians.

Not sure if you are joking or not...so Kulaks arent an ethnicity. They are well off peasants/selfish saboteurs. A lot of them just went to prision, thats not even close to a genocide by any definition.

I don't think anyone views him as a competent leader. He's just viewed as an inadequate guy who wasn't suited for the job which is further emphasized by the tragedy of the execution of the royal family.

Also he's handsome.

>an entire class
>class

Where did I say ethnicity you absolute cretin?

>well off saboteurs

Oh right, I'm dealing with an 80 IQ tankie, I forgot.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
As per webster

This was not the destruction of a large group of people. Kulaks were wealthy peasants making up a minority of the peasant class. They had no ethnic, racial, political, or cultural distinction. They resisted collectivization and it is in this sense that they are saboteurs.
Not to mention that if the term genocide could be applied to kulaks, it still wouldnt fit because they werent all killed. Some were simply arrested and others were exilled.

>Kulaks were wealthy
Kulaks were not wealthy, they were poor as fuck. The definition of a kulak as per Stalin meant owning more than two cows, be my guest if you consider that to be great wealth. The tankie propaganda portraying them as fat greedy pigs hiding grain from poor peasants was total horseshit and not too dissimilar from Hitler's anti-Jew propaganda.

This

>Not to mention that if the term genocide could be applied to Jews, it still wouldnt fit because they werent all killed. Some were simply starving and others were jailed

> Kulaks were not wealthy
Yeah ok, keep buying you capitalist propoganda. Apperantly they killed every peasant according to you. A kulak was someone who could afford to hire others to work for them. A person who could afford multiple farm animals not "two cows." Im not spreading any misinformation, I never said they hid grain from poor peasants. But it is well documented that they refused to collectivise and a lot of them slaughtered their livestock in order to prevent having to give it up to the state with hopes of selling it later. They self-destructed a large portion of the farming industry at the same time that a major agricultural policy change was being implemented. I dont support collectivized farms but you cant deny that part of the reason it failed was due to this refusal to participate on behalf of those with livestock.

I'll take the win on that genocide arguement since you just dropped it altogether tho.

>refused to collectivize
>"either you hand us all of your livestock over or you're a traitor!"

wew lad

First, thats not even an exact copy of what I said they did to kulaks, if you are going to try to point out a fallacy then do it right. If you cant, then its not a fallacy.

Second, are you implying that the Nazis just arrested some jews and then let them go once their time was up? Or did they not round them up into ghettos and then systematically work/straight up kill them. I dont remember any jews being arrested or simply exiled within the country.

Third, I made it a point that kulaks are not a group that the term genocide can be used on, while jews are. A kulak is simply a well-off peasant.

>kulaks
>well-off

It won't magically become true if you repeat it enough, just a heads up.

WTF. When did pointing out facts suddenly become an endorsement of what happened? They did refuse to collectivize. No one said it was right or fair to force them to. I even went out of my way to say I did not support collectivization. This isnt opinion based. The soviets told them to collectivize, they refused fearing they would lose all they had, they killed their livestock, the soviets called them sabotuers and had them arrested, exiled, or shot. Which does not qualify as a genocide, which is not to say that you couldnt call it an atrocity.

HEY EVERYONE, LETS GO BACK TO OUR GOOD FRIEND WEBSTER

Kulak - a prosperous or wealthy peasant farmer in 19th century Russia

Go fuck yourself you ignorance peddling edgelord

give your computer and your couch... otherwise you're a traitor

What are you trying to prove with this cringy ass comment? I already said twice that I dont endorse collectivization. Im just calling people out on their bullshit. But if you are asking me whether I would give up my computer and my couch if my governement asked me to, then yeah I probably would. I'm registered for the draft so they can ask me to fight for them "or else I'm a traitor," a computer is a lot less to ask frankly.

>muh Webster

It's an objective fact they weren't wealthy, they were fuck poor. They were literally just yeomen as opposed to landless peasants, you peasant.

>That hardly qualifies. It wasnt an attempt at an ethnic extinction. It was a terrible thing, but a worst it was a human rights violation. There was never a plot to kill all the Ukranians.

Starving a group of people to death, man, not that bad.

>simply exiled within the country.

nazi germany did that at the start, before shit got bad.

what is it with this thread and being illiterate retards. I called it a human rights violation. All im saying is that it doesnt qualify as a genocide. Since when did it become ok to call everything a genocide. The word has a meaning.

" I heard stalin stole a little girls candy once...sorry what I meant to say was I heard stalin commited genocide once." - you

They shipped them out of the country and put them in ghettos, if thats what you mean then yeah. Germany is kinda small for in country exile and I never heard of them doing that but I dont know that they didnt either. So ok. Still doesnt change my point.

> rejects objective definition
> states unfounded claim is objective fact

Am I speaking to president elect Trump? Wow what an honor.

They were wealthy compared to other peasants who did not have as much as them and compared to workers. They were not "fuck poor." They werent aristocracts or anything but they were like I keep saying "well-off peasants." Keep believing your stories about evil commies taking a starving family's last cow then laughing as they ate steak and raped their daughters. The truth is they were a small percentage of peasants that since the end of serf-dom had accumulated some wealth, some more than others but they werent "fuck poor."

oh boy here we go again

>Tsars never genocided

um buddy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia#Massacres_of_indigenous_peoples

As a distinct group of people that oppose a certain political agenda within a state without doing anything close to an armed revolt they might just as well fit the definition of a 'political group'.

>Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
>As per webster

Well now....

>be nick
>send a battalion to fuck up the krauts and the hungry australians
>half the battalion dies of starvation before contact
>the other half deserts
Such is life in the Russian Empire.

He wasn't the leader of the army at the time though.

the answer is the bottom track as you actually end up saving a twelfth of a person at the end of time

By this ridiculous standard of genocide, the breakup of the Soviet Union was genocide.

>denying soviet genocide
3/10 I guess since the rest of your post didn't look like bait. Go pass 5th grade world history please.

...

>goes out of his way to become friends with the mewling autist next door even after granny died
>makes the autist swear on their friendship that Wilhelm will not mobilise and just let the war pan out
>autist wants to have his time in the sun even though he hates being outside
If anything Wilhelm is the retard in this situation

shut up man

>hitler stopped listeninig to generals.
Nice meme

It's literally only because he was killed by leftists

>literally scared of Commies
>greatly responsible for setting back the church from embracing the Second Vatican Council's resolutions
>raises a shitstorm for Latin American Catholics and theologians that actually understand Christianism
>covered up pedo scandals
>imposed a retarded moral standard for the Church
>vamped the AIDS epidemy in Africa and helped overpopulation rocket with his stupid antipreservative sexual morals
>deprived the Church from actual credibility before the world for some of the most crucial decades of the 20th century

Fuck you John Paul II, the Turk that shot you was right

>those hand painted eyes
the spice must flow

>Kulak - a prosperous or wealthy peasant farmer in 19th century Russia

You literally have no idea what you are writing about. Like totally.

"Kulaks" was a dergatory term coined after the Bolshevik coup that simply meant freeholders. Freeholders started to appear in Russia after the Stolypin reform which took place after the Revolution of 1905. Prior to that reform, peasants couldn't even own land as individuals. Instead, land was owned by peasant communes (mirs). Mirs were absolutely retarded and disincentived peasants from any improvement of the land. Stolypin reform allowed for peasants to break out of their respective mirs and go on their own.

Whereas it rapidly showed that free homesteads were far more effective than communes, freeholders weren't rich. They were by our standards extremely poor, just not that abysmally poor like peasants who stayed in their communities.

Freeholders' small properties were a source of great jealousy. Bolshevik's dekulakization was as much a communist experiment as it was a coarse purchase of peasants' support. Because peasants who didn't own anything (mostly because of their own decision to stay in their mirs) simply loved to see their freeholding neighbors to be robbed of everything.

Amazing posts like this one have really been popping up in the last week I wonder what the reason could be

Thats a more sensible arguement but i still dont agree simply because they did not act as one group. They did not get together and proclaim opposition, hese were just individual instances of peasants refusing to collectivize. There was no "movement" and as they held no political power or sway, I would say its not really fair to call them a political group.

thanks for recognizing, I feel like Im taking crazy pills here

Even those who were not particularly weathly implies that most were. I'm not denying that some got fucked over, however as the sentence itself implies kulaks were usually wealthier than the other peasants.

We're counting destroying primitives as genocide now?

t. Romanov

i hate commies as much as any non retarded person, but its not like tsarst russia was a great place. it fucking sucked for most people and i have no qualms about the origonal revloution. if i was a serf in tsarist russia i would want a revloution too

>The soviet union has never been acused of genocide

Ever heard about genocide of Crimean Tatars, Chechens and Ingushes?

...