100 Million Victims of Communism

submitted by ua4 from apholt.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Hitler was the industrialist's bitch. They owned him lock, stock, and barrel. To call his critiques of capitalism anything but politicking is naive at best.

Yeah - no.

https://concisepolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/hitler-arrested-baron-louis-de-rothschild.jpg

And is Antifa in the room with us now?

I don't know, are they?

Stalin didn't believe Hitler would break the Pact, according to every historian I've read. The British, Americans, and his own spies warned of the impending attack, but he mostly ignored them. That's why the beginning of Barbarossa was so disastrous for the USSR (and for the numerous civilians murdered by the advancing Germans).

I know he didn't, he thought he'd be the one to break it when he had gathered sufficient strength. The German army were greeted as liberators in almost all of the Baltic countries and the Ukraine.

Specifically, I'd like sources that say the USSR gave arms during the 1934 riots.

Popular Front (France): In May 1935, France and the Soviet Union signed a defensive alliance, and in August 1935, the 7th World Congress of the Comintern officially endorsed the Popular Front strategy. In the elections of May 1936, the Popular Front won a majority of parliamentary seats (378 deputies against 220), and Blum formed a government.

Soviets were involved in funding and helping organize the french precursors to the "Popular Front". The 1934 (far-right) uprising was against the communists that were trying to (and ultimately did) wrest control of the government. Guns though, I don't know.

And let's get to the point, was the USSR more powerful in 1941 or 1945?

Militarily they were more powerful in 1941. Territorially they were more powerful in 1945. Had operation Barbarossa not occurred the Soviet Union would have been able to capture far more territory in Europe because the Soviets would have struck when Germany was exhausted from it's conflicts with other European powers and the US. Pearl Harbor would have been allowed to occur regardless, because FDR was itching to get in prior to Barbarossa.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah - that guy wasn't an industrialist.

Fun fact, the term "privatization" was coined by the Nazis. Corporate profits soared in Hitler's reign. It was the Aryan industrialists that put Hitler in power to begin with.

he thought he'd be the one to break it when he had gathered sufficient strength.

Then why is there no evidence of this? And why was the Red Army in such shitty condition in 1941?

Guns though, I don't know.

So this "bankrolling" of communist insurgents consisted of passing a few motions in the Comintern? Why would that necessitate giving the Soviets 200 million marks? And how does that justify the invasion of Poland, the Intelligenzaktion, the ethnic cleansing of Poles, and the Gestapo's cooperation with the NKVD?

Pearl Harbor would have been allowed to occur regardless, because FDR was itching to get in prior to Barbarossa.

Whoa, let's handle one conspiracy theory at a time, OK?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah - that guy wasn't an industrialist.

You're right, he was a leech sitting on top of productive capacity.

Fun fact, the term "privatization" was coined by the Nazis. Corporate profits soared in Hitler's reign. It was the Aryan industrialists that put Hitler in power to begin with.

In large part this is true. Much of his support in the US also came from Industrialists, Henry Ford for instance. Industrialists are productive members of society, the usurers that often end up seizing control of their creations through manipulation and malfeasance are not.

Then why is there no evidence of this?

Read Icebreaker by Suvorov, it has near ubiquitous support inside Russia and a couple of external detractors.

And why was the Red Army in such shitty condition in 1941?

The Red Army was shitty not because of manpower, but because of the incompetence of Stalin and communism in general. Intelligent officers were eliminated and replaced with inexperienced loyalists (Red Army Purges). Good tactical decisions could not be made because the game of telephone softened the blow of bad news so much that by the time it reached the generals ears it seemed like a minor inconvenience. In addition, the forces were in the middle of reorganization when the attack occurred - this wasn't on accident.

So this "bankrolling" of communist insurgents consisted of passing a few motions in the Comintern?

Money well spent, as by 1935 Marxists had taken control of the French government and put a Marxist jew named Blum in charge. This is why the French "lost" so easily to Germany. It's not like the Military in France were huge fans of their Marxist government.

Why would that necessitate giving the Soviets 200 million marks?

It wasn't a "give", it was an exchange.

And how does that justify the invasion of Poland,

Poland was invaded primarily to meet the promises of restoring Germany to it's pre-WW1 state. I'd assume you know this. Danzig and the surrounding area were majority ethnic German - as until very recently they had been Germany.

the Intelligenzaktion

This was an elimination of the people that would resist and was prudent.

the ethnic cleansing of Poles

Wasn't actually. It was the targeted elimination of jews, Nobles, Clergy, and community leaders that offered opposition to the NSDAP. War is war - if you want to occupy a territory and reshape it in your image - you either do this or throw people in camps to die. Personally I'd rather be shot outright, but your mileage may vary depending on your tolerance for lack of autonomy and penchant for slave labor.

and the Gestapo's cooperation with the NKVD?

In concordance with the pact. Germany cared about restoring pre-WW1 Germany, it truly didn't care what happened to the rest of Poland. Nor should it have. Ethnic Germans suffered much abuse at the hands of poles between WW1 and 2. Projecting this onto the modern world - I wouldn't feel sorry for the Bantu in South Africa if they got taken over by China, and if I had to make a deal to Annex parts of South Africa to save the Boers, I would.

Whoa, let's handle one conspiracy theory at a time, OK?

Are they theories though if you have reams of documentation, or merely conspiracies that occurred? I'd call them the latter. Theories cease to be such when supported by adequate evidence.