Says "Perhaps you should send your 'source' in the staff of the German air force back to his fucking mother" right when...

>says "Perhaps you should send your 'source' in the staff of the German air force back to his fucking mother" right when one of his officials tells him that the Nazis are planning on an invasion
What was his problem?

He thought Hitler was a lot like himself: a cold, calculating, rational (for given values) pragmatist primarily interested in survival, secondarily interested in power, tertially interested in pursuing interests. If you accept those premises, it's ridiculous to think that Hitler would start a war with the USSR; he's got other problems on his plate, and his only possible gain would be primary resources that he's mostly getting anyway through trade, at a hell of a lot cheaper cost than embarking on a 3 million+ man invasion.

Therefore, Stalin did not believe that Hitler would invade, despite the ground evidence against such a notion.

the original wehraboo

funny thing, Timoshenko and Zhukov went personally and said the Germans are invading the country in 6 hours (actually they warned him with every possible way during the past weeks), Stalin ordered them not to take any action, when Zhukov phoned Stalin several hours later and told him the invasion began, Stalin told him not to take action and arrange a meeting for the politburo, when the politburo met, Stalin told them not to take any action and call for the the German ambassador to clarify the situation, it's not until Molotov returned from the meeting with the German ambassador until Stalin realized this was really an invasion!

And then Stalin proceeded to hide in his room and cry two weeks

>it's not until Molotov returned from the meeting with the German ambassador until Stalin realized this was really an invasion!

I'm interesting in knowing what was said at that meeting between the German ambassador and Molotov. How long did the meeting last? Did the ambassador immediately admit that there was an invasion or did he try to obfuscate that fact? Was he apologetic or openly contemptuous? I know that for WW1, the German and Russian ambassadors ended up actually crying while handing each other formal declarations of war.

> I'm interesting in knowing what was said at that meeting between the German ambassador and Molotov. How long did the meeting last?
afaik it didn't last a couple of minutes, the ambassador just said that the Germans invaded because they had intelligence that soviets were about to invade (I guess he lied because they were invading Russia anyway, but the truth is Zhukov was already planning an offensive after convincing Stalin that war was inevitable )

despite acting very retard this night and its earlier weeks about the Nazi invasion, Stalin wasn't really that stupid, he had many intelligence reports from the NKVD and top foreign spies about multiple German invasion dates since early 1940, as an extreme paranoid, he must have lost faith in his spies or maybe thought they were double agents trying to invoke him into a war with hitler but unfortunately this time it was the truth kek

> it's ridiculous to think that Hitler would start a war with the USSR
he actually did but he miscalculated the time

I don't think Hitler particularly wanted to be dependent on Stalin for those resources, especially as he grows more and more of a threat every year.

He was frantically preparing for war and didn't want to believe Hitler would be autistic enough to attack so soon, not after Stalin had basically conceded to his every demand, not while he was still busy with Britain and various insurgencies. While in a way he was right to think that, it was also pure wishful thinking. Either through luck or just a good eye for weakness, Hitler attacked at pretty much the perfect time. The outnumbered, poorly organized, and improperly equipped Soviets didn't have a chance in hell of stopping the German juggernaut. Fortunately they were aided by the fact that the High Command assured Hitler of muh six months, hence over-extension, hence failure, hence massive delays and a war of attrition that became difficult when it was Germany vs. USSR+Britain and flat-out impossible when it became Germany vs USSR+USA+Britain.

To be fair, a few generals did display personal initiative and did their best to prepare for combat despite Stalin's orders (which were meant to appease Hitler). Their formations got obliterated almost as easily. So it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

He knew the Soviet army was unprepared due to his purges and was sure that he had fucked up.

Paranoia was part and parcel of the Soviet systems. Once you murder your first million people you start to suspect everyone around you wants you dead, so you have to purge more, and then you are even more paranoid and purge even more in a self-reinforcing cycle of death.

That, and also the fact that the only way to advance in the Soviet system was through brutal power struggles so in a sense his paranoia was right.

in his 30 years, he killed less than 5 million and that have been proved

No.

Big Numbers School:
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago,
Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

And from the Lower Numbers school:

Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
Cited in Nove:
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.

MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

Modern Authors:

A consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million.

In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
Daniel Chirot:
"Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
"Highest": 40M
Citing:
Conquest: 20M
Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
Medvedev: 40M
Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
Kulaks: 7M
Gulag: 12M
Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.

AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.

Nowhere do historians suggest 5 million, not even the greatest apologists from the Lower Numbers School

> t. retard
the USSR population was 148 million when Stalin took over and became 183 when he died, you want to tell me that he wiped out the third of his population?

Modern consensus is 20-30 million, next time read the whole thread before hitting that reply button brainlet

i read his biography, he killed less than 5 million and census proof that

look out guys we got a historian over here

People were still born buddy

>communist
>not dumb
Although, to be fair, by that point there wasn't much you could do about it. Denialism was the better option.

>he killed less than 5 million
he directly ordered the deaths of less than 5 million, he was responsible for well over 25 million deaths.

>killing is bad all the time

It's because Hitler's move was so autistically insane no one wanted to believe he'd be that stupid, but he was. Same with him allowing the Dunkirk evacuation instead of capturing those soldiers and getting the British to peace out.

Communists are dumb by definition

No shit the population goes up as you gain territory, you gonna say world war 2 didn't happen either?

yes.

How?
Thanks to him, soviets won the war

>Stalin, there are German planes taking pictures over our territory!
>Do not worry about it comrade, we do not want to upset the Germans
>Stalin, we have a report that the German invasion will begin soon!
>Perhaps you should send your "source" in the staff of the German air force back to his fucking mother
>Invasion begins
>Stalin! What do we do!?
>Hold the line until we figure out what is happening!
>Battle of Białystok–Minsk ensues
>Lose two thousand planes on first day of invasion alone
>Locks himself in room
>When he comes out tells officers to counter attack and lose even more tanks and men than he would have
>Won WWII
The Soviets won WWII because of men like Zhukov, even though he is VERY overrated and Rokossovsky. Also the fact that the German high command were autistc, except for a few people like Halder, and were busy trying to figure out win the war in a month plans to please Hitler.

Russia won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

t. retard

t. retarded tankie (which is an oxymoron desu)

i fucking hate you so much dominitard

Killing off nearly the entire red army officer corps sure was a brilliant move. Russia never could have won without that!

yet he should have let Tukhachevsky succeed with his coup and kill him, the Russian would have surely won the war

Letting somebody else be in charge probably would have improved the situation, DESU.

>tukhachevsky was an actual threat to stalin, or even planning on overthrowing him
kek

Tukhachevsky was probably the ONLY true threat that was purged

Proofs?

pic related.

I thought it was "back to fuck his mother"

why?

what is this about?

Gauleiter Tukhachevsky... sounds quite epic.

It is the note Stalin wrote back to his intelligence officer who typed up the report saying that sources point out that a German invasion was imminent. To which stalin replied (the handwriting) That he could tell his source to go fuck his mother.

Amazing how even as he is threatened with the destruction of his country and himself, he still could not resist getting a few more of his people killed.

holy shit, I thought OP was joking

The purges were only part of the problem.

A party bureaucracy jealously guarding every little piece of power and the promotion of loyality instead of military talent tends to cripple a military drastically.

Arabs for example tend to have the same problem. After the drastic shakeup of WW2 the soviet military seems to have stagnated again. The famous sortie with the Israeli Air Force indicates a quite drastic quality difference similiar to the situation in 41. The soviets would have probably performed similiar inept against the NATO after 1970-1975.

Stalin was told many time by the same people that the war was going to start either during spring or after the Germans finish off Great Britain.

Do you have a source?

>m-muh 666 gorillion people killed by the ebil communists

Do you have a single russian source?

>Median
>Median
>Average
What is up with the different methodology?

How many times did the Soviet generals try to assassinate Stalin in 1941 when defeat seemed imminent? 0. Hitler was nearly killed 12 times between 1941 and 1943. You know why? Because purging the old officer corps resulted in a new one being created that didn't have as much experience as the old one but was 100% loal to Stalin.

Hence the fucked up Soviet Performance.

And yet they won the war. If the purges didn't happen, they generals could have assassinated Stalin in order to secure a peace treaty.

do you have any fucking evidence for that, m8?

Wtf I love Stalin now

The Soviets won because of the political situation.

>American Aid
>Germany wasn't able to access the international markets
>other fronts

Selling a low quality officer Corps/General Staff as positive because of a hypothetical assasination is really retarded.

For a possible coup? Similar situation in Germany when defeat was getting closer and closer.

Are you seriously telling me that the other fronts and germany's inability to access other markets played a more importnat role than the Soviets' fierce resistance?

>similar situation in german when defeat was growing closer and closer
So you have zero fucking evidence and are just pulling a guess out of your ass? Quality history there, m8. Also, you realize all of the assassination attempts on Hitler failed, right? As in, they had zero fucking effect on the war?

Yeah because with no l and l and Germany able to get the ressources it needs soviet resistance would prolong the war but it would have ended with a favourable Settlement for Germany ultimately.

Can't you see the word "possible"? There are no events in history that can be called 100% negative or 100% positive. And people ITT have pulled numerous numbers out of their asses when talking about the ourges so it's only fair I try to make predictions.

>soviet resistance would prolong the war but it would have ended with a favourable Settlement for Germany ultimately.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Also, there was no such thing as "other fronts" in 1941 and 1942, aside from the African one and by the time the second front in Europe was a thing, the Reich's fate had already been sealed.

>Can't you see the word "possible"? There are no events in history that can be called 100% negative or 100% positive.
In history, we generally do not make claims that we don't even have a shred of evidence to back up. What other people have done in this thread have no bearing on the fact that you're literally just making shit up. You are clearly not a historian and you haven't presented any actual evidence that your prediction might be true besides a weak corollary you drew between soviet russia and nazi germany. You're a fucking retard, dude.
Besides, if we're going to make the corollary between the two nations, you have to acknowledge that the assassination attempts against hitler had literally 0 bearing on the way the war was being run. Literally KYS you retarded fucking tankie

>Stalin
>pragmatic
>interested in survival

oh boy you people are insane.

>tankie
Holmes, you've cracked the case.
Oh, wait. You haven't.

I never implied that there 100% would have been a coup if Stalin hadn't purged the officers. That's why I used words like "possibly". The only thing that I implied was that the military was loyal to Stalin even during the darkest of days in 1941. You are not going to debate that, are you?

Also, getting mad at Veeky Forums posts is bad for your health.

>Germany in 41 has more oil and trucks and trains so Barbarossa is even more effective and Not hampered by logistics so much

>in 42 the Summer Offensive is more devastating because the German Industry is able to bring more than one HG up to strength

Without L and L the Soviets meanwhile have similiar logistic problems like the Germans actually had. Their industry isn't nearly as effective and focused as in RL. Leading to much weaker replacement rates and less military formations overall. Oh and massive starvation.

>Germany in 41 has more oil
Where exactly would they get that oil?
>more trucks
Useless without oil
>more trains
Having more trains won't help them since raliway tracks in the USSR are different from the ones in Germany.

What is L&L? Land-lease? The victory at Moscow in 1941 was achieved before the majority of it arrived.

>I never implied that there 100% would have been a coup if Stalin hadn't purged the officers. That's why I used words like "possibly". The only thing that I implied was that the military was loyal to Stalin even during the darkest of days in 1941. You are not going to debate that, are you?
You bet your fucking ass i'm going to debate that. You can't point to the loyalty of the soviet army and say that it was due to the great purges, considering that german forces remained more or less loyal to hitler through the closing days of world war 2. Even then, you STILL don't have any conclusive proof that the loyalty of the soviet high command was due in any part to the great purges. And no, a "possibility" is not good enough for an actual historical discussion. If you want to make the argument that the purges did something beneficial, provide me with concrete evidence that they increased the loyalty of soviet forces. You cannot say that the purges worked because they may or may not have prevented something that may or may not have even happened in the first place, and may or may not have even had an effect on the outcome of the war.

dictatorships always ends up in delusion, you have uncontrolled power, ppl will try to please you and you will eventually become detached from reality

I imagine it would have been very similar to the meeting between Molotov and the Japanese ambassador when the Soviet Union did the sucker punching:
"With sarcasm shrouded in old-fashioned diplomatic formality, Sato expressed his profound appreciation to Molotov for working with him to keep both countries neutral during three difficult years, insinuating that in reality Molotov had been deceiving the ambassador and the Japanese government for four months: Molotov embraced Sato, and the two bid farewell."

In fact, it seems they were in a very similar situation to Stalin before Hitler invaded somehow, earnestly refusing to believe the Soviets would invade and trying to the last to defuse the situation even when the invasion had already started.

I think you mean a tautology.

You really shouldn't use words if you don't know their meaning.

t. (((Montefiore)))

>oil

International markets.

>Battle of Moscow

Debatable if it would have happened with a more Mobile and better supplied Wehrmacht. And even if it would have happened in a similiar fashion: The Soviets wouldn't have been able to push back the Germans without Lend and lease. They would have quite literally starved. Ukraine was responsible for 40% of the Soviet agriculture.

He thought Hitler was a strong man creating good times.
He was wrong.

>International markets.
And who would've sold that oil to the Germans?

Where are you guys even getting the loyalty?

Apart from the political officers, the Red army in 1941 can hardly be called loyal - the enlisted were a mish-mash of various Soviet ethnicities, the officers were subservient to political officers and still demoralized by the Purges - you wouldn't get order 270 if there wasn't a problem in this regard.

It took a complete rehaul of the Red army - reintroduction of patriotic notions, return of epaulettes, return to commanding officers being superior to political officers, return to operations in depth (buried with Tukhachevsky beforehand), German treatment of POWs, and the effects of Order 270 for the Soviets to be able to mount a meaningful resistance.

they told him that "Krauts are going to attack next week" about 7 times between 1940-1941, why should he bealive them?

"but mein führer we can go around stalingrad, the city is in ruins and no real threat."
"TAKE IT AT ALL COST!"

end of story.

In terms of infrastructure, Stalingrad was key to holding the Caucasus oil fields, as well as denying the Soviets use of the Volga for shipping, and Stalingrad itself as a massing area for operations with railway connections to the Soviet hinterland.

So it wasn't really a meme objective.

If he hadn't've invaded Stalin would've done so in order to seize the petroleum wells in Romania that fueled Hitler's tanks. It would've crippled the German military machine and destroyed their capability to make war, so Hitler put all his chips on invading preemptively, this is in his own words.

>Implying I said Hitler was any better
Hitler was a fucking autist, but to be fair most of the German high command were autists as well. However I will give it to Stalin that he eventually started listening to his generals, unlike Hitler. But still the point stands like
Said, the Soviets won the war in spite of Stalin not because of him.

The scenario always was that GB and the USA aren't hostile. So one of them probably.

Oh and one more thing, the Germans made Stalingrad into ruins in preparation for an assault. Saying "The City is in ruins and no real threat" does not work.

You could argue they went in diverging directions in terms of listening to actual general officers - Hitler started out listening to them, and increasingly going against them, while Stalin started with complete political command of the military and ended up returning the reins to the officers.

The whole reasoning of invading in 1941 was faulty and based on faulty intelligence on the part of Germany. In the abstract, yes Russia could have invaded Romania but they didn't, what they did is in fact do battle group formations on the border with Germany to give the illusion of preparedness for offensive action. In 1941 the Soviet military was a mess, and Stalin did not want another at least until the British-German war had conclusively finished, whereby they would reap of the benefits of both powers being weak.

In fact the only reasoning for attacking in 1941 was the illusion that Russia was barely industrialised and had to catch them off guard before full industrial production had gained traction. But in reality the same was true for Germany, Germany was not a fully industrialised nation and neither was its military, even worse Germany never entered a war economy phase in fear of the shortage mess in 1918. The whole thing was based on faulty proportions, and foolish hopes of a quick war.

Look at where the oil fields are and then look at where Stalingrad is.

The whole operation was one the greatest military disasters in human history.

>Hitler justifies himself and his insane paranoia which was arguably worse than Stalin's

Stalin was paranoid to the point where he closed off his country entirely. He was in desperate need of allies as he thought literally everyone was against him. Stalin was many things, but he was not particularly ambitious other than securing some sort of powerbase for himself. He wasn't out to rule the world or colonize Europe like Hitler LITERALLY wrote about in his book.

>but he took over Eastern Europe

Yeah, he did because he inherited the collapsed allies and puppet states of Hitler's. If Hitler never invaded, USSR would've really just stood there. Anything else like >muh international gommunism when Stalin was all about Socialism in One Country is meaningless fearmongering, Nazi WW2 propaganda or US Cold War propaganda. Stalin had trade relations with a lot of the Balkan monarchies before Hitler's autism forced them to attack as well.

Operational failures ("Gee, those Romanians in our flanks are screaming about Soviet tanks, better ignore them") do not discount strategic priorities being correct - or incorrect.

Look at the rail connections - you take Stalingrad, you cut Soviets off from accessing the Caucasus almost completely - everything East of it is basically empty steppe.

>USSR would've really just stood there

USSR had literally just either fought a war, or made ultimatums threatening war against all its European neighbours in 1939/40.

All it did was move to reclaim old Russian Imperial land. Treaty of Bretsk-Livosk wasn't considered legitimate by the Allies, and Hitler rejected it himself, ergo Soviets legally moved in on territory recognised as their's (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, parts of Poland and Finland).

Molotov had already made overtures regarding Romania and other Easter European countries under the sway of Germany, even after Bessarabia was conceded in June 1940. The Soviets were belligerently expanding their territory/sphere of influence while Hitler was busy tidying up France, seizing the Baltic countries. It was perfectly sound and rational to assume they'd come for Germany at an inopportune moment.

> He wasn't out to rule the world or colonize Europe like Hitler LITERALLY wrote about in his book.
That's literally the goal of communism though.

>If Hitler never invaded, USSR would've really just stood there.
See above, they were expanding into the Baltic and looking to further extend their SoI south into Romania despite previous agreements with Germany. Don't be naive.

>Anything else like >muh international gommunism when Stalin was all about Socialism in One Country is meaningless fearmongering,
Socialism in One Country is about building socialism in one country and when it's built, expanding/""""liberating""""" others, all the while funding socialist/communist movements elsewhere or fucking them, like in Spain, as necessity dictates.

>Nazi WW2/US Cold War propaganda refuting any facts

ok keep believin

keep believin those ebul antifa are commies and not LARPing liberal college students

keep believin

fuck off Ivan

...

what i want to know is why would anyone become or take command of anything in the red army when if you make the slightest wrong move you get shot for treason

>old Russian Imperial land
The USSR claimed no hereditary rights to anything Tsarist Russia had, explicitly so.

>Treaty of Bretsk-Livosk wasn't considered legitimate by the Allies
Source on this?

At any rate, the Soviets signed separate peace treaties with Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Finland in 1920, renouncing any rights to these sovereign nations "for eternity".

The USSR then broke every single one of these treaties.

>legally moved in on territory recognised as their's
Not recognized as theirs by either the League of Nations, wherein the 1920 peace treaties were registered, nor by Western Allies, which maintained a non-recognition of forceful Baltic occupation for half a century.

tl;dr: you're full of shit

Oh, you're a tankie. Guess I wasted my time.

Baltic countries were brought under Soviet control through mock elections in their country to provide a veneer of legitimacy, it had nothing to do with Tsarist Imperialist territorial claims, that would've been even more ridiculous.

It's the median all three times. The word average has no business being there, actually, it's confusing.

But it does say "Average: The median for all 17 estimates is..."

Half of thouse sources are Russian.
Do you want me to point them out for you? Can't you read?

Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago,
Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M

>m-muh
>666
>gorillion
>ebil

There were clear signs this chap had no intent on actual discussion, friendo.