Grand Strategy of Stalin's Empire (Part One: 1928-1941)

McMeekin, Sean. Stalin's War: A New History of World War II. (2021): www.amazon.co.uk/Stalins-War-...
Suvorov's Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War: • Suvorov's Icebreaker: ...
With:
Hitman: / hitman49441
Rupert August: / rupertaugust

[@ApostolicMajesty]

If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.

[@VidaBlue317]

Does Iceland have a role in any of this, or do they just kind of do their own thing?

[@tonyromano6220]

This is a truly amazing discussion! I learned quite a bit, thanks for this.

[@tonyromano6220]

Wow you guys really seem to have a great channel, I see what I am listening to for the next month or two. Pleb! Maybe.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

WW1 was absolutely pivotal in human history, even in world history, it was a real turning point.

[@freeinformation9869]

Yes. Thank God!

[@booradley6832]

Many historians regard it as the "primal catastrophe" from which all of the modern era has sprung. From the arguments of some historians I also believe it is, though unprovable, the fastest period of technological development in human history.

[@ahuels67]

Feel like WW2 and the years following It would have something to say about that

[@Krugster]

@@ahuels67 ww2 was caused by the peace treaties of ww1

[@ahuels67]

@Krugster sure but that doesn't mean it had more technology or medical advances than WW2, which was what I was saying, not what caused it.

[@drbrainstein1644]

I must say not only have you solved the Gordian Knot but as masters of your craft you also nailed this one to the cross. It took me about 10 maybe 12 yrs to figure this out. Keep in mind history has always been a private endeavor and has nothing to do with my career. I commend you and your colleagues for your dedication and depth of knowledge on these issues. Well done!

[@nicktrueman224]

My grandfather was alive during the Polish Soviet war 1919 20 in eastern Poland. A teen working as apprentice blacksmith on a estate. When war broke out the Soviets entered the estate and the family who owned it was very well liked so my grandfather and some other workers tried to hide the family. It failed and as punishment he had warch them being executed. He also remembered WW1 off course preffering a German presence. Meanwhile my great grandparents on my Nannas side were fleeing Odessa for Poland, they made it. I find it amazing just having a relative's who saw these times and events.

[@adamradziwill]

in eastern Poland. wrong, edit for you: westren Bielarus´

[@nicktrueman224]

@@adamradziwill nope it was Polish Territory prior to WW2

[@scarletpimpernel230]

This is just a magnificent summation, Apostolic; thanks as well to your two other contributors. History as it should be done. I eagerly await your further disquisitions.

[@GameWatcher545]

Love the topics and the way you're dogn em, subscribed! Long format appreciated

[@rickjensen2717]

Very interesting and comprehensive discussion of a topic which is often misrepresented.

[@christophe9602]

Great podcast. Wonderful to have discovered this channel. It's filling a void for me that was left ever since Kulturkampf disappeared a few years ago, and Myth of the 20th Century became irregular and a bit more casual. And it looks like I have plenty of hours to go trough. Just thoroughly impressed.

[@OmegaTrooper]

Brilliant discussion - subscribed to this channel now.

[@simpinainteasy680]

Stalins War was a great book. Most fascinating was the fact that FDR gave all to the Murderous Soviets while making no hay when Stalin imprisoned US and Allied pilots who had to make emergency landings in the USSR following bombing runs on German.

[@shaiaheyes2c41]

They (the Soviets) stole the planes to copy them. There's a chapter on this in Viktor Suvorov's book "The Liberators".

[@RememberingWW2]

Fdr and Stalin did more to spread communism than any two people in the 20th century.

[@99IronDuke]

A excellent stream.

[@sunnyjim1355]

Whoever it was that I was discussing with about the great seige of 'Candia', you were correct; as that was the old name of Heraklion - so not the same place as the current town of Chania. 👍

[@e33d90]

Loving your content

[@EliteBuildingCompany]

Great stream chaps, cheers.

[@user-fm5vz3bt3q]

Great video, thanks

[@ballshippin3809]

Part of me can't help but admire the pragmatic and Machiavellian genius of Stalin (and Lenin). Maybe if he wasn't so ruthless in some areas of his policies on his own population he would've been considered one of the greatest leaders in history

[@AnneFallible]

So refreshing to learn details and also honest history, instead of war propaganda. Thank you brilliant guys.

[@TheMuncyWolverine]

great stream

[@ThugShakers4Christ]

Beria was the real hero that the Soviets deserved

[@dardade3277]

Bro, I'm ngl, the youtube videos that play in the background while my computer is running and I'm asleep are some varied and interesting topics and I don't ever get recommended this stuff when i'm awake

[@evolassunglasses4673]

Wonderful intro.

[@jle102112]

Informative

[@Tartarin269]

Hello,i'm waiting for the second part, when will you release ont? Thank you for the first

[@taWay21]

at this point id honestly want an AM only stream/lecture

[@Ynotnow9900]

I love the balance of Nationalism and ethnicity with the soviet center

[@davycrockett1112]

Veey informative

[@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016]

2:48:55 is a staggering catalogue of Soviet military capacity. We in the U.S. focus a lot on our immense financial and material production in the war, and for good reason. But the USSR had an amazing capability of its own; they clearly weren't the mere peasant Red hordes of myth.

[@canibezeroun1988]

He can be a bit of an ancap sperg but Tikhistory is great on dispelling the myths of the German generals. He even demonstrates that time and again mustache man was a pretty good strategist. Of the four main leaders I think only Churchill was better.

[@rbrookeb]

@@canibezeroun1988 then you don’t understand FDR or the immense opposition to the US even entering the war much less equipping Allies.

[@BiggestCorvid]

@canibezeroun1988 I just found this channel and am really trying to figure out if it's gonna be a tik situation. You've convinced me to give this channel a go. Thanks!

[@permanentlybotulated]

@@canibezeroun1988 "I think only Churchill was better" then you clearly do not actually pay attention to tik's videos properly or read much history yourself

[@canibezeroun1988]

@@permanentlybotulated better at orchestrating events to put a country that did not want to go to war and roping America in despite the significant opposition is a better strategist imo. He used America to overload his side, but in the end, put his nation in a position of subservience to that power. I am talking in terms of getting what he wanted done. He did very well at that.

[@mrdog4529]

Thanks 🙂Just commenting to tickle the algorithm.

[@berserker4940]

Based intro music

[@matteo.pilgrim]

I thought so too. Any idea what it is? Shazam ain't helping me out.

[@berserker4940]

It's Beethoven's Egmont Overture kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppzbiXmCh9KkrNk

[@user-zb4ef5tf7m]

8:53 "Вождь"(Vozhd) rather means "the Leader" than the "Boss". “Boss” translates onto Russian as “Хозяин” (Chozyain) - naming Stalin with this nickname is often attributed to various individuals from his personal circle. However, the veracity of these attributions is a matter of debate to this day.

[@lucidlywaking7286]

When you said, "Hitman" it first appeared to me that you were speaking of the fuhrer, "Hitler"

[@scarletpimpernel230]

1:34:00: "Regarding Tukhachevsky, his fall was linked to a bogus intelligence report....which is effectively German misinformation...so Stalin took this misinformation, and was essentially able to create an own goal..." This may be false; as Nancy Dougherty wrote in 'The Man With the Iron Heart'/'The Hangman and His Wife': "Stalin paid the cost. In due course, Tukhachevsky was executed, along with many Soviet generals, in a great purge that decimated the officer corps and weakened their combat readiness. Heydrich boasted of his great espionage coup. Only after the war did historians discover Stalin had been planning to purge the marshal anyway, and had paid for the SD forgeries with forged banknotes of his own."

[@ApostolicMajesty]

We're not disputing the fact that Stalin wanted to purge Tukhachevsky in any event, which was referenced. Indeed, purging Tukhachevsky was an own goal for the Union irrespective of whether it was intentional or not. German misinformation provided both a convenient pretext for Stalin and a boon to the Germans, and as it so happens a useful narrative for Soviet historians.

[@UnleashedOdinV2]

This is my favorite channel on YT. Are you a professor?

[@Bazed.]

Pretty dang sure I've heard AM mention that he is

[@ninny65]

*Stream ends* "alright lads, quick game of HOI4?"

[@andytucker6783]

If this has no commercials if be happy

[@rat_king-]

Another Monarchist Glorious.

[@giraffediety2477]

We will call you if we need to beseige Redwall Abby

[@rat_king-]

@@giraffediety2477 Its Abbey and yes, im beseiging the political one.

[@candlelightman653]

Suvorov thesis?

[@jjcustard6378]

It's not the CCP, it's the CPC

[@alg7115]

No it CCCP

[@jjcustard6378]

@Al G CCP is used by the West as an insult

[@alg7115]

@@jjcustard6378 I was joking CCCP is USSR in the Russian alphabet

[@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016]

Imagine taking umbrage on behalf of the Chinese government...

[@jjcustard6378]

@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 just pointing out the correct term as apposed to a derogatory term used by a hostile government

[@FulmenTheFinn]

Regarding Lenin, the Bolsheviks, the Finns and other national minorities within the Russian Empire: the Bolsheviks only ingratiated themselves towards the national minorities of the Russian Empire out of political necessity to gain their support. Originally they had preferred a Russia that was as unitary as possible and as Russian as possible, as it was seen that this would speed up the process towards socialism and communism, with ethnic minorities in turn being a hinderance. By 1917 with the Bolsheviks still being a relatively fringe party it became necessary to suck up to those minorities in order to gain their vote, a process in which they often succeeded. This process involved going as far as promising these minorities the right to secede from the Empire, with the thinking being that by promising this the minorities will see how well the Bolsheviks treat them and thus will not actually want to secede. On the chance that they did secede, Lenin developed a doctrine that Stalin called ingenius, which was the doctrine of "seceding for reunification". What this meant was allowing a nation to secede the Empire, only to then bring about a socialist revolution in that country. Once this socialist government was in power, it would seek reunification with the now-Bolshevik-led Russia. Which is exactly what Lenin did with the Finns: he acknowledged Finnish independence, again out of necessity with his hands tied elsewhere by the Russian Whites, only to then arm and incite Finnish socialists to revolt against the Finnish government with the aim of then having this government rejoin Finland to Russia. This same process played out in the Baltics, Poland, Belorussia, the Ukraine, the Caucasus and everywhere where a peoples tried to secede from the Russian Empire. Only in a fraction of these territories, namely in the European borderlands, was Lenin unsuccessful in re-establishing Russian control. The idea was however that inevitably these countries, along with the rest of Europe and in fact all countries in the world would unite with Soviet Russia to form a single socialist state which would work towards communism and the eventual abolishing of the state altogether. The spreading of the revolution had simply been postponed, for the time being. Stalin later resumed Lenin's policy of taking the Finns over, which was referenced in the video, although the bits about Lenin were skipped over, presumably because the participants were unaware of them. These are niche topics, so I don't blame them. As for the Finns across the border, there were two main regions within the Russian Empire where it can be said that there lived hundreds of thousands of Finns outside of Finnish borders. First, East Karelia: The East Karelians were Orthodox Christians who spoke what linguistically were a collection of Eastern Finnish dialects, for the most part mutually intelligible with standard Finnish, particularly those dialects spoken in White Karelia (the northern half of East Karelia). For some reference, the difference between standard Finnish and the so-called post-WWII standard Karelian is much the same as the difference between Dutch and Flemish, with standard Finnish vs. Olonets Karelian (Olonets Karelia being the more Russian-influenced southern half of East Karelia) being similar to the difference between Swedish and Norwegian. Second, Ingria: The Ingrians, or Ingrian Finns, were Lutheran Christians who descended from Finns from Savonia and the Karelian Isthmus who had moved to Ingria during the 17th century. They more or less spoke standard Finnish. The native groups of the territory were the Orthodox Christian Izhorians and Votes, the former of which spoke dialects of Finnish very similar to those found on the Karelian Isthmus. Again, virtually mutually intelligible with standard Finnish. Votes on the other hand spoke what I understand to be essentially a dialect of Estonian. Estonian is not majority mutually intelligible with Finnish and is linguistically a separate, although closely related, language. Outside of St. Petersburg* itself the population of Ingria overwhelmingly consisted of Ingrian Finns, with Izhorians being a small minority and Votes being an even smaller one. Now with that out of the way, we can talk about Lenin's and Stalin's designs for a Red "Greater Finland": there's a plethora of reasons to believe that had either Lenin or Stalin succeeded in bringing Finland into Soviet Russia, later the Soviet Union, Finland would have formed one of the SSRs in the Union with a number of ethnically Finnish territories attached to her from East Karelia. In Stalin's case this likely would have included all of what constituted the borders of the Karelo-Finnish SSR in 1940 (i.e. before the territorial changes made to it in 1944, when its territories on the Karelian Isthmus were transferred to the Russian SFSR's Leningrad Oblast). Ironically had Stalin managed to conquer Finland in 1940, the country today might be twice the size. Of course the price the Finnish people, society and nation would have had to pay for 50 years of Bolshevization would by no means have been worth it. As for Ingria, the proximity of St. Petersburg makes it unrealistic that lands there would have been transferred to the SSR. In fact both Lenin and Stalin had their respective "Red Finlands" cede territory on the Karelian Isthmus, pushing the border away from Ingria. *Since the timeframe covers a period during which the city was known by multiple different names, for simplicity I'm using the original name of the city here.

[@21nickik]

I think the title is wrong. As Kotkin has shown, Stalin was essentially in control starting in 2022, not 2028. He literally planned coups in other countries without telling anybody for example.

[@hyperion3145]

A time traveling Stalin would've been an interesting Golden Age comic

[@tonyromano6220]

What countries?

[@21nickik]

​@@tonyromano6220 I don't remember exactly, for sure Estonia. He did stuff in Germany. There were others. The book is good and readable if you are interested.

[@tonyromano6220]

@@21nickik Finland, the other 2 Baltic states I imagine.

[@JonathanSaxon]

Awesome to hear that it was the British Labour party who recognise their Communist cousins in the Soviet Union. I'm so glad that we have a socialist party here in England, they've added so much to our nation!!! /sarcasm.

[@Ditka-89]

Indeed. The modern efforts to rehabilitate Stalin and the USSR’s reputation is unsettling to say the least

[@markntexas8265]

@@Ditka-89 especially as the same folks cry “Putin is evil”

[@YoutubeChannel-ol7zx]

Indeed lol

[@RovingTroll]

I mean you guys have unions and laws protecting workers rights and guaranteeing safe workspaces, with paid leave and companies aren't allowed to pay you in company scrip. Who do you think fought for all that?

[@ahuels67]

​@@RovingTrollObama?

[@Ciech_mate]

😅 did you guys know that there is a whole host of countries and ethnicies btween Germany and Russia? I will buy you a map of Europe and hopefully once you discover all of these wonderful places, such as Hungary and Poland, maybe you could talk about them for once.

[@bilinguru]

I wonder why you bother with guests. You mostly just interrupt, talk over and criticize their contributions. Don't get me wrong, you quite obviously know more than they do and are clearly happy to display your superior knowledge. My question, while perhaps a bit facetious, is genuine - Why not do away with the awkward pauses that accompany your questions, which are really just calls for agreement with your analysis? Go it alone.

[@Richvern1]

17:09

[@rubenjames7345]

Don't know what "to the right" and "to the left" of Stalin means.

[@earlyandoften]

2 hops this time

[@99IronDuke]

I think AM explains this from about 1.02,50. into the stream.

[@sunnyjim1355]

I'm thinking it's the Communist version of the 'Hokey Cokey'?

[@melfice999]

TLDR Left is Trotskyism, international revolution, and modern neocons way of "making world safe for Commu---Democracy" As well as Permanent revolution - with Neocons being simply former Trotskyists. This is probably the most common Communist branch in modern west. Right is NEP (New Economic Policy) and idea of developing Kulaks into Socialism with certain economic liberties and certain opposition to rapid industrialization as well as 5-year plans destructive industrialization at all costs. they ceased to exist after Stalin's Purges. Though some might argue that Modern China is a revived take on Right.

[@rupertaugust2403]

I believe it was primarily around economics - ie. whether of to end/continue the NEP, but also to an extent whether to continue to embrace internationalism, or try to first build 'socialism in one country'. Don't take it as gospel though, because basically everyone flipped positions on all of these issues at different times. One of the greatest proponents of the continuation of the NEP - Bukharin, first came to prominence by opposing it as I recall. And Stalin himself obviously goes back and forth as well, first supporting war communism, then alleviating it with the NEP, then reverting back with collectivisation.

[@joelex7966]

Sustaining communism is never a humanitarian effort.

[@bestiedosalazar]

That is probably one of the worst arguments to use in each and every single debate about socialism and communism. Communism never took a place in any country, socialism did. Communism is what comes after socialism is complete; and it is about a society with free access to food, water, healtcare, education, electricity, and literally anything else that you can imagine. In communism, we do things because we know it will help other's, In socialism we do things because we know it will help other's, but we still need to pay for taxes, and in capitalism, we do things because we need to survive or else we will die.

[@joelex7966]

@@bestiedosalazar every country that ever adopted communism ended up with shortages of everything. The people who embrace communism fall into two general camps. Those who want power and those who want everything for free. The argument is always about good intentions vs greed and the power hungry always claim the moral high ground. Venezuela went from having the highest standard of living in South America to being an economic basket case that people can't leave fast enough. Hugo Chavez embezzled $1B from the country and he did it in the name of social justice. Show me one example of a communist country that has a higher standard of living than the United States or any other Western country.

[@bestiedosalazar]

@@joelex7966 Sure thing homie, just let me check it real quick. Curently, there are 4 socialist countries, wich are China, Cuba, Laos and Vietname. It doesn't take long to notice how all of those are a pretty good place to live, and how shitty they were before socialism. Then you had Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Mozambique, Guiné-Bissau, The Ex-States and Satellite States of the USSR, wich were socialist but were either over thrown in a coup or were in a civil war for a shit ton of time because the 'Mericans and their allies were worried that socialism would spread across the globe. Also, did you know that you got free housing in the URSS, with free electricity and water? Plus, you actually had a universal healtcare and education system that worked pretty well. But hey, if you don't want to look at the former or think that those 4 countries are a bad example, then you should check out Brazil for instance. They were in a really bad government from the capitalist right, and now they have a social-democratic/socialist government, wich is just incredible. Also, if you want to talk about Venezuela and their so called elites then you should think about talking about the american elites, and the amount of actual politians that are corrupt. Chavez was a real nice man, and he cared about his people, so he suffered with the consequences of it, just like Allende and Sankara

[@joelex7966]

@@bestiedosalazar out of the four that you listed, China and Viet Nam both have free market economies with lower taxes than the United States. China under Mao is a better example of a communist country. Cuba has a very corrupt Goverment and I know nothing about Laos. You completely left North Korea out of the conversation for obvious reasons. What all communist countries have in common, aside from rampant corruption is a lack of liberties. Criticism the Goverment of of China, the CCP and it won't end well for you. They also limit land ownership and you have internal passports. The other common area is a willingness to ward through blood in the name of revolution and social justice. The current body count exceeds 100 Million for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and we can throw Hitler in there as well because he declared himself to be a socialist. So I would rather have Free Speech and property rights than a subsidized minimum standard of living and a culture of death.

[@joelex7966]

@@bestiedosalazar Fre

[@tadficuscactus]

I'm glad you mentioned the Suvorov thesis. There is another book Stalin's War of Extermination by Joachim Hoffmann that talks about this too. Just another allied lie about WW2.

[@user-wj6dt5bq3w]

Meltyukhov is a pro-Soviet historian, but he also says Stalin was planning to attack Hitler in 1941. Also, you claim its allied propaganda is total nonsense since most mainstream Western historians spout the pro-Stalin claim he was innocent.

[@BurningtunaDC]

I was looking to see where the credentials of those who appeared in this discussion are displayed.

[@rogerharper9304]

😉 P r o m o S M

[@andreybogoslowsky]

My comments disappear fu…You @TikTok destroys my words. This is evil #evil #IamBgsowsky🦁🤴 😱😱😱

[@DanHalper]

Without an analysis of the Thermidorian bureaucracy this is all trivia

[@adamradziwill]

Mой сын кажа - мaскавіцкая мова ўвогуле не патрэбна будзе ў жыццi. Калi знiкне лукавы пра - маскоўскі тыран, у Беларусi (ВКЛ) будзе беларуская мова, а калi прыйдзецца жыць за мяжой, то будзе патрэбна мова той зaмежнай краiны. А для паразумення з iншаземнымi сябрамi, патрэбна ангельская, польская цi ўкраінская.

[@freeroommalmo2792]

Did you say "left-wing" lol? There is no universal "left wing" lol. "Left" and "right"is different depending on what country you are talking about and has to do with how the various parties sat in their parlament, on the left side, or on the right side. The "Left party" in denmark are "right" in american terminology. When it comes to soviet union there was no "left wing". There was only one party.

[@freeinformation9869]

There were various factions within the party. Always competing for power and their agenda. Some factions wanted socialism in one country, others were hellbent on going international, no helm before realizing a world revolution. Some factions were more fascist in their approach, pushing brute force, terror and violence to implement certain policies, or outdo opponents (also within the party). Others were democratically minded and non-violent. Every kind of faction you could imagine.

[@jimmyneutron1776]

The descriptions “left” and “right” with regard to the main party line were laid out by Trotsky in his writings, with Bukharin and the people in favor of the NEP being described as “right”, the Stalinists being described as “center”, and Trotskyists self describing as “left”. It’s an incoherent way to describe political views anywhere, but it’s the description that has stuck for these different subcategories of Bolsheviks

[@suurirealismi879]

These are all extremely tired old claims that we've heard a million times before. There are so many stupid exaggerations, distortions, strawmen and one-sided falsehoods that its impossible to even list them all. Basically the speakers in the video claim the USSR always acted cynically, because the USSR had a level of tactical flexibility. In reality, according to the Soviet understanding, different periods called for different tactics. In revolutionary situations, violent methods were to be used. In non-revolutionary situations, legal and public methods were to be used. Lenin said communists must combine legal and illegal methods, but the emphasis depends on the situation. Lenin said all alliances are conditional and temporary. All allies have limitations, making it difficult for communists to work with them, and rendering collaboration with them only limited. All alliances are intended for a certain goal. The Bolsheviks allied with legal marxism against narodism, with the bourgeoisie against the feudalists, with the Left-SRs against Kerensky, but all those alliances were obviously bound to be temporary, and the different parties inevitably parted ways as the movement proceeded forward to the next phase. I found it particularly preposterous that one of the speakers in the video claimed the famine and recession of the late 1910s and early 1920s was caused by Bolshevik war-communism, rather than by the destructive wars themselves! What an absurd statement. It was also particularly hilarious that one speaker claimed the USSR adopted a false sense of victimhood when 14 capitalist countries invaded them at once, despite the Soviets not committing aggression on them. Besides those outrages claims, everything said in the video has already been said many times before by anti-communist historians. The notion that Tukhachevsky was simply framed is dubious. As a continuation of Rapallo he advocated an alliance with Nazism and Trotskyists like Radek were also well known to have similar views already since the 1920s, when they tried to unite with far-right fascists based on anti-Versailles sentiments. This was already discussed as early as the 1950s or 60s by the likes of E. H. Carr. Considering the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is often falsely called an alliance with Nazi Germany, its strange that people ignore Tukhachevsky's and Radek's advocacy of such an alliance. The notion that the USSR sent too little support to Spain is also quite dishonest. How could they send land troops if Poland refused? Obviously they could only send supplies through difficult routes, send military specialists and intelligence officers like they did, and smuggle in international volunteers. Its strange that the speakers accuse the USSR of cynicism in attacking Spanish trotskyists. The crack down against Spanish trotskyists took place after the said trotskyists launched a failed rebellion against the Spanish Republic in May 1937. I think you should try to consider other alternative explanations besides just repeating some junk you read or hear without even questioning it. After each of your claims, you should ask "why would the USSR do that?", "what reason do we have for believing it?", "is there a better explanation?". It is not actually so difficult to understand the Bolshevik mindset, it all comes from Lenin's writings. Adapting, changing emphasis, evaluating the situation, but not compromising on principles. If you understand it, their actions become clearer. Lenin said left-doctrinaires don't adapt, while right-opportunists abandon their principles -- the Bolsheviks were supposed to be smart and adapt without abandoning the main goals and principles. It was actually quite funny one of the speakers claimed that Bolsheviks had no principles and only wanted power at any cost, while Mensheviks stuck with their principles. Again, what an absurd biased statement! Not historically accurate. The Mensheviks "stuck to their principles" in the sense that they opposed a socialist revolution. But they abandoned their principles when they supported the tsarist war effort, and in countless other ways. The Bolsheviks stuck to their principles by opposing the war effort, which really was a harsh test of who had principles and who didn't.

[@HealthyCigarette864]

not gonna lie I was taking you seriously until you said Tukhachevaky wasnt framed. The preponderance of evidence literally everything that ever existed says that he was framed. there's a couple good points otherwise but I'm just going to dismiss the whole thing out of hand as blatant Russian misinformation because of how terrible that argument was.

[@drbrainstein1644]

The one thing I can say about Stalin is, I luved when he purged all the old party members especially Trotsky and his followers. That was pure genius! Talk about tactical flexibility. 👍

[@suurirealismi879]

@@HealthyCigarette864 Russian misinformation? Hasn't Putin's government rehabilitated Tukhachevsky? What proof is there that Tukhachevsky was framed? You mean he was framed by Stalin? Or by Nazi Germany? There are documents captured by Czechoslovaks which show he was working for the Nazis, but people who want to defend him, claim those are forgeries created by the SS. However, Tukhachevsky was known for desiring an alliance with Nazi Germany. Trotskyists like Radek also voiced such views, beginning since before the early proto-nazi far-right groups, because Radek wanted to create a united front against the Versailles peace treaty.

[@suurirealismi879]

@@drbrainstein1644 is that supposed to be ironic or not? While it was a smart move to expel Trotsky, it wasn't Stalin who killed him. Trotsky was killed by one of his own supporters. Second of all, Trotsky was not an old party member. Bolshevism formed in 1903. Trotsky joined in 1917, and had been fighting against bolshevism all his life prior to that. He claimed he was "joining with certain reservations", because "bolshevism has become internationalized, de-bolshevized" and since he "doesn't recognize bolshevism". When trying to promote himself as Lenin's successor, Trotsky began calling his supporters "bolshevik-leninists", but he certainly wasn't saying that in the past. In a 1913 letter he infamously said “Leninism is ... built up on lies and contains the poisonous germ of its own disintegration.” letter to Chekeidze, Feb 25th)

[@drbrainstein1644]

@@suurirealismi879 You explained Trotsky but what about the others? Do you condone political executions if it’s for the benefit of the party?

[@jeffclark7888]

Can you stop interrupting each other every 10 seconds? This is always what happens with two or three or more “guests”. As in the sports broadcasting penels of 5-7 blabbing buffoons who talk over each other.

[@Richvern1]

16:33