This man killed more communists than anyone else in history. He literally decimated the COMINTERN and replaced it with useless yes men, he killed most of the original October revolutionaries and a huge chunk of the Red Army officer corps were shot. In the late 30s, he called back many spies who were subverting foreign countries and had them executed. Communist artists, playwrights and musicians who made things he personally disliked were sent to gulags.
What did he mean by that?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Stalin was based uncle.
There can only be your interpretation of communism if there are no other communists
eat shit Trotskyist scum
Delicious salty Trotskyist traitor tears.
>Fuck up entire campaign in Poland by diverting precious cavalry troops from Warsaw to Lviv
>Claim the entire war was a mistake in the first place absolving yourself of guilt
>?????????
>Profit
Retake it a while later anyway.
>Trotskyist
There were like 6 people that could have succeeded Lenin, my personal favorite was Bukharin
Murderers killing murderers.
Lest we forget, Lenin and Trotsky purged the SRs, the Kadets and the Mensheviks because the Bolscheviks had lost the elections for the Constitutional Assembly. Lenin sent in the Red Army the day following the election and just shut the Assembly down. From then on he imposed a reign of Red Terror and ruled like a tyrant, his hands forever soaked in the blood of millions of innocents.
Thus, the whole Soviet experiment was rotten from day one, its existence was affront upon Human decency and a blight on the world.
The only good thing about the Soviet system is that among the millions of innocents mass murdered, occassionally they killed each other as well. Every time I read about Beria's execution it makes me smile.
Bukharin? haha low energy Bukharin, he was a soiboi autist, he shouldn't have been in politics in the first place
why is stalin killing a buddhist
the constituent assembly election was a croc of shit.
The Bolsheviks together with the "left-SR" party, had seized power in the October Revolution. The candidate lists had been drawn up before the SR split took place; therefore, right SRs were overwhelmingly overrepresented, leaving out left SRs who were part of the VTsIK coalition government with the Bolsheviks.[1] The Constituent Assembly convened on 18 January 1918. However, the other parties refused to give their support to Bolshevik leader and premier Vladimir Lenin's idea of a soviet republic. The VTsIK dissolved the Assembly the next day, leaving the All-Russian Congress of Soviets as the governing body of Russia
He meant that communists are naive fucking dipshits - even their leaders.
ego > equality.
He had an opportunity to fuck over a bunch of fools for his benefit and he took it.
The Buddhist is committing suicide over the removal of the dalai lama from his absolute monarchy and feudal society which includes hundreds if not thousands of slaves all at his beckon. Pic related some of the cruelties the feudal system allowed to happen on it's people
Stalin is simply happy and smug that the Chinese peoples liberation army has brought freedom and democracy to a people who lived much like peasants in 1917 Russia did.
So what if the elected assembly did not support a Soviet form of government? What if they wanted a democratic republic? It was what the people voted for. Those are the rules of democracy.
SRs were the most popular party in Russia and they were left to left-of-centre. The difference is that the SRs actually respected democracy. "Right SR" was a slur used by Bolscheviks to purge those SRs that opposed them (the majority). Eventually they kept going down the list and finally begun purging the "Left SRs" as well.
All of these mental gymnastics to justify an authoritarian takeover. Sad to be you.
The left SR's would have formed a majority coalition with the bolsheviks in the constituent assembly if the election represented the actual balance of forces. The delegates to the assembly were chosen *before* the split happened and was composed of older, conservative veterans of the party. Thus the assembly was not truly representative of the political mood of the time.
From wiki: The Bolsheviks justified closing down the Assembly by pointing out that the election did not take into account the split in the SR Party. A few weeks later the Left SR and Right SR got roughly equal votes in the Peasant Soviets.
By that point the SR vote was equally split down the middle, but there were hardly and Left SR delegates in the CA. Is that truly democratic? I think not.
Also the reason the left SR party was later purged was that their immediate actions were leading to another war with Germany. It was an emergency measure taken to deal with actual treason.
He learned to trust no one.
>The left SR's would have formed a majority coalition with the bolsheviks in the constituent assembly if the election represented the actual balance of forces.
Assuming people would vote for those left SRs. That's a big IF.
The people voted for the representatives they were offered, the SRs. Bolsheviks lost. That's the end of the story. Everything from this point onwards is mental gymnastics.
>The delegates to the assembly were chosen *before* the split happened and was composed of older, conservative veterans of the party.
The people voted for those representiatives, those are the rules of democracy.
You are underestimating voters by treating them like ignorant sheep and assuming they were somehow "misled", and thus they needed Papa Lenin to close down democracy.
Maybe they knew exactly which representatives they were voting for. Maybe they voted for that "Old Guard" EXACTLY because they opposed the Bolscheviks. You are assuming too much.
>Thus the assembly was not truly representative of the political mood of the time.
[Citation needed]
The fact that many SRs would end up foughting in the Green Army *against* the Bolscheviks suggests otherwise.
Only a small part of the SR party openly supported the Bolscheviks. Even left SRs were purged.
>A few weeks later the Left SR and Right SR got roughly equal votes in the Peasant Soviets.
So, Right SRs + Kadets + Menscheviks + Monarchists > Bolscheviks + Left SRs
I still see no proof they could have formed a coalition government.
I find it surreal that you are regurgitating 100-year old propaganda, particularly with the hindsight of knowing what happened in the Red Terror.
They voted for the SR party, not individual delegates. The slate was chosen at a party convention. The Assembly was dominated by anti-Bolshevik Right SRs: over-represented thanks to out-of-date ballot papers which failed to take into account their split from the pro-Bolshevik Left of the SR party.[31] Victor Chernov, leader of the Right SRs, was elected Chairman of the Assembly with 244 votes against 153 for Maria Spiridonova of the Left SRs.
People would have definitely voted for the Left SR's if they had split before the constituent assembly election in November.
>They voted for the SR party, not individual delegates. The slate was chosen at a party convention
So? People knew who the candidates were and the party positions. The slates were public knowledge. Doesn't change what I wrote.
A lot of countries have elections based on "party lists" rather than individual candidates, it's the same thing in practice. People get acquainted with who the candidates are regardless.
>over-represented
Source: Your ass
>People would have definitely voted for the Left SR's if they had split before the constituent assembly election in November.
[citation needed]
IRL, the few Left SRs that had split at that point got 1% of the vote. You are grasping at straws.
Your mental gymnastics are ridiculous.
With that logic, Trump should shut down Congress since so many Republicans are against him... the people voting Republican representatives must be misled Trump supporters!!!1!!11
Better graph.
Previous one shows seats.
This one also shows election results.
Note how Left SRs got 1% of the vote.
In b4 "da split was not complete hurrr"
None of this changes the fact that by the time of the constituent assembly the Left SR's were equal to the mainstream SR's. The congress opposed reforms and directives handed to them by the soviet delegates, while the left SR's were part of the ruling soviet coalition. The constituent assembly was an attempt by petit bourgeois cucks to neutralize the gains won by the october revolution.
>None of this changes the fact that by the time of the constituent assembly the Left SR's were equal to the mainstream SR's.
According to an unsourced Wikipedia sentence about a single peasant Soviet election where Left SRs got as much botes as Right SRs. (Spoiler: There were many such Soviets all across Russia, a single one proves nothing)
>The constituent assembly was an attempt by petit bourgeois cucks to neutralize the gains won by the october revolution.
>muh cucks
Horseshoe theory is real.
>* votes
It's late.
how were the Bolsheviks able to murder all of the political opposition, defeat the Western-backed White Army, and invade Ukraine and the Caucasian states and probably more places I forgot
if they had so little popular support, and were so obviously evil, how did they keep winning?
Jewish tricks obviously
I'm pretty sure the left SR's gained more or less equal votes across the entire country to the Right SR's. It would have been pretty hard for them to pull results out of their asses and just show up at the soviets with so many delegates.
By crashing the train with no survivors. They took urban areas and broke down logistics and agriculture in areas it didn't have. The result was high casualties for themselves but higher casualties for whites. Although what you said isn't true. they lost support and wars immediately in the Baltic and poland. They then went on to need German help fighting Poland and when they invaded Finland they thought the Finns would have a "revolution", but the opposite was true and they fought bitterly in terrible odds. By the cold war it was obvious what the ussr was and polish,Czech,and Hungarian dissidents we're attempting to free themselves. The dissolution of the ussr and eastern Bloc should prove their own realization of what they had done and at what cost.
I meant 1917-1922 or so, not WWII era. the Eternal Pole actually invaded Belarus after gaining independence.
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
They did bad. It wasn't even the poles fault,the Soviets promised independence among nationalities it tried to pander to but didn't keep to it's word when it wasn't convenient.
Was he secretly a capitalist plant?
the issue was that poland invaded ukraine. Way to conveniently forget about that.
Ukraine was Polish before the partitions.
Except it wasn't about that at all. Pilsudski and the Poles wanted independence and didn't care about Ukrainians. They just wanted a nation and no communism.
Not really Pilsudski wanted independent Ukraine and Lithuania allied with Poland.
en.wikipedia.org
In 20th century this idea transformed into Intermarium.
en.wikipedia.org
Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and Southeast, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland as the largest and strongest of new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus.
-Josef Pilsudski
I feel bad that the poles were ruled by such a LARPer.
The first link is to Poland over 200 years before gommies were a thing and the second is a voluntary alliance system which contradicts your message of Poland not wanting independence. It was even trying to support the Independence of others!
>The idea of Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth returned during the January Uprising, when in 1861, a patriotic demonstration took place at Horodło. The so-called Second Union of Horodło was announced there, by the szlachta of Congress Poland, former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Volhynia and Podolia. New Poland, based on the Second Union of Horodło was to be based on the three nations, and its proposed coat of arms consisted of Polish eagle, Lithuanian Pahonia, and patron saint of Ruthenia, Archangel Michael.
That's the most important part.
>which contradicts your message of Poland not wanting independence
But I just said that.
>Pilsudski wanted independent Ukraine and Lithuania allied with Poland
But those were really outdated ideas. Lithuanians hated Poles more than Russians and blamed them for everything bad happening to their country. Ukrainians hated Poles and Russians equally and Belarusian peasants couldn't give less of a shit about politics.
So who can top this guy for the worst human award?
Killing fellow Communists is entirely consistent with historical dialecticalism. In fact, absolutely everything is entirely consistent with historical dialecticalism, so long as it advances the cause of Communism. Saying that killing fellow Communists means that one is not a Communist or is not representing or carrying out the Communist cause is a fundamental misunderstanding if what Communism actually is. They believe that literally any action can be justified by appealing to dialecticism.
...
The American hero we deserved.
>this is your brain on stirner
your fucking parents for birthing you thereby starting the chain of events that led to this horrendous post, you fucking abysmal human being
He was literally paranoid