White Victory in Russia; Horrible?
- Thread starter Johnharry
- Start date
Except the gulag processed in volume:
Thieves
Workers
Peasants
Fa
Rights
Fascist / White Republican Russia will not be as discriminative about the Thieves.
And it is going to have to repress far more workers and peasants. It is almost like the Collective Farms were an agreement to get the minimum out of the minimum compliant population who didn't want a free-promotion factory job…
…
…
Yeah nah let's stay prearchival and masturbate ourselves with chilli oil.
The Soviet Union was significantly repugnant enough historiographically; it doesn't need your fantasy imposed upon it. See it for what it was if you choose to hate it. Hating isn't a historian thing.
Why is it going to have to oppress more workers and peasants than the USSR? Yes, it will be nationalistic I am sure but it is not going to be selling itself as a superior new economic system which doesn't have crop failures and which would rather have people starve than admit defeat by buying in wheat from the filthy capitalist USA and Canada. Nor is it going to force collectivisation or purge the kulaks (natural supporters of the new regime after all) , nor is it going to waste resources on going for autarky and trying to minimize imports of machine tools from the capitalists. Yes going to break strikes and round up labour organisers is a strong possible though not an inevitability. And remember that the "thieves" include what we would call small businessmen because we aren't trying to run a Communist economy
Thank you for being analytical. You have improved the tone of the thread immensely.
Thank you for your historical materialist bent. The NEP castrated the existing working class. Without a line of credit or an exploited manufacturing or rural working class a line of credit for grain purchases will be unavailable.
No, it will try to impose the pre civil war 40% tithe and tax obligations (https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/index.htm) with attendant social cost. The Leninists avoided this.
Are you suggesting that small business people are 100% criminal? I doubt it. Seriously mate. The whites are going to liquidate a large number of people. Who is a moral question. The cummupance is a material one.
Yours,
suggest a non genocidal german white (Theweleit, Mannerphantasien),
Sam R.
A good many of the "thieves" would be criminals who would be incarcerated in virtually any society but at least 20% are people who would be described as market traders or small shopkeepers in any regime less woo-woo than the communist regime.
In addition, assuming the Whites do not repudiate the Tsarist loans like the Bolsheviks did, why on earth would a country rich in oil, coal, gold, precious stones(though they haven't found the Siberian oil or diamonds yet) minerals and timber have difficulties in establishing a credit line?
BlackDragon98
Banned
There's always the probability that the Whites beat the Reds, they just fall back into internal conflict among each other.
Russia is pretty much screwed in such a scenario.
Russia is pretty much screwed in such a scenario.
Raulpankine
Banned
This can happen only without Lenin as a unifying force. He allmost died after an assasination attempt on August 30th 1918. If he dies and Trotsky/Stalin start a power struggle, a reason could be Troskys wish to replace Stalin as leader of the Southern Front, then the White offensives in the spring of 1919 could be the beginning of the end for the Bolsheviks.
Not as screwed as OTL. The Whites would not have been as murderous as the Bolsheviks, also they would have accepted help from the West more readily, unlike Lenin who at first rejected it. This could have greatly reduced the number of dead in the Famine of 1921 - 1922.
Sure the Whites could have slaughtered most of the Bolsheviks that would have surrendered in the 1919-1920 period, they could have expanded the old Tsarist tradition of labour camps in Siberia, they also could artificially have produced a famine in the Ukraine to kill off opposition, and started some form of the Great Terror to kill of supposed Bolsheviks that slipped through their fingers. But at worst we are talking about hundreds of thousands sent to labour camps and hundreds of thousands killed, but definitely not dozens of millions in each category.
Oh an there is also no Hilter, or at least not as radical as OTL, another great +
BobTheBarbarian
Banned
1. It was certainly within the military ability of the United States and Great Britain to defeat Germany. Especially by 1945 the former had the strongest armed forces in the world and an untouched industrial base. Perhaps without the USSR the Nazi regime might have survived long enough to get nuked, but there was no realistic way they could win.
2. Why? What suffering was taking place in colonial countries that could compare with that inflicted by Communism during the same time period?
3. But both the Soviet Union and USA were military superpowers, each with the capacity to destroy the entire world. Without a Cold War the knife edge balance between these adversaries would not have been a concern. Furthermore, without the need to confront and contain communism the United States would almost assuredly have not maintained such a longstanding military presence worldwide: the public overwhelmingly wanted to bring the troops home after the war, and without a major opponent there would be far less basis for keeping large forces overseas.
In other words, without the communist threat, you wouldn't see the American military everywhere like you do today.
4. In connection with (3), without the Soviets' explicit meddling in these regions there would have been no reason for the US to take measures to oppose them. These measures produced mixed results in hindsight, but again, no Cold War basically removes the entire reason for their existence.
5. It is a fallacy. By their own measures the Soviets improved the conditions of the 'working class'. . . at the cost of millions of workers' lives. Who really benefited? The regime.
Furthermore, the reason for the economic growth in the United States was because it was the largest economy in the world and survived the war almost untouched. Having recovered from the Great Depression, the massive boost to the workforce created by so many millions of servicemen returning home and starting families created a housing boom and massive demand for goods and services. The huge automobile industry and government military spending during the early part of the Cold War also played a part. It was not, as you claim, because of some conspiracy theory that big capitalists 'allowed' the working class greater privileges to keep up with the USSR.
Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
This is a poorly sourced blog post written mostly by one guy on wiki with an axe to grind.
BobTheBarbarian
Banned
Linking in-line citations behind a sentence is one thing; creating a truthful narrative is quite another. Check the talk page of the same 'article' to see what I'm talking about.
The Khmer Rouge admit it themselves US support was essential for maintaining power, and multiple anti-communist ideologues have confirmed as much. But keep trying to wash your hands of it, man.
Khmer Rouge jailer says U.S. contributed to Pol Pot rise
Pol Pot's chief torturer told Cambodia's "Killing Fields" tribunal on Monday that U.S. policies in Indochina in the 1970s contributed to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
www.reuters.com
The Pol Pot dilemma
A trove of more than 500,000 US diplomatic cables from 1978 released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday includes hundreds that paint a vivid picture of a US administration torn between revulsion at the brutality of Pol Pot’s government and fear of Vietnamese influence should it collapse.
Something has gone terribly wrong in your internal memory of history....
Check how stretched the Czars were on their french line. The rates of interest would have been sufficiently usorious to have justified a continuing cycle of 1905s.
But you also have the Americans coming out of WW1 with a lot of surplus capital looking for an outlet. Recollect the Dawes and Young Plans OTL?
Dementor
Banned
There are various estimates about the number of famine deaths, but none of them comes even close to explaining any of the excessive estimates claimed here.
As for the Stalin's quote, like nearly all Stalin quotes, it is invented.
The problem with this argument is that you could turn it around and claim that without the industrialization and build up of the military under Stalin the disaster would be even greater.
And anyway, however culpable the Soviets were in not preparing for the German invasion, it was the Nazis who decided to start a genocidal invasion. Trying to transfer blame for that to the Soviet regime only diminishes the Nazis decision to carry out those crimes.
It most certainly was. After all the Soviet repressive organs had to show how effective they were in eliminating "enemies of the people". Labor camps meanwhile had every interest in not under-reporting deaths because their production quotas were assessed based on the numbers of workers available.
Your argument would make sense if the figures in the archives were meant for publishing. They most certainly were not - they were precisely the second set of data that was only for the inнer circle. Also, nothing was destroyed in the Soviet archives. They did not even destroy the order to execute the Polish POW at Katyn, even though Khrushchev ordered them destroyed.
Knowing the conditions in the Gulag does not help in estimating the number of total deaths. Furthermore, Solzhenitsyn made no estimates in his book (which incidentally is subtitled "An Experiment in Literary Investigation"). He quoted the estimates of Ivan Kurganov, a Nazi collaborator, which were more or less baseless speculations.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimated 60 million and he knew first hand the conditions in a gulag.
Other scholars say 20 million minimum with a 60 million maximum.
Source is below.
How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?
Most reputed scholars and historians estimate that the number of people Stalin killed ranges from between 20 and 60 million.www.ibtimes.com
And most modern scholars (your source only cites cold war era figures) no longer consider even the 20 million figure credible, let alone 60 million. The Soviet archives have been opened and even taking into account underestimation and unreported deaths, as well as the highest estimates of the 1932-33 Soviet famine makes it's difficult to see how there could have been 15 million deaths. In fact the Black Book of Communism estimated 14 million and was criticized by one of its writers of exaggerating the numbers. In my opinion if someone like Timothy Snyder - probably one of the last historians who can be accused of sympathy towards the Soviet Union - considers the deaths to have been about 9 millions, it's not very likely that they were much higher.
It's always better to read a work before quoting it or you're just going to look ridiculous by making obviously false statements, like you did here.
One should be careful in citing sources, since the Russians have certainly not "admitted" anything like that.
Most of which include baseless speculation from the Cold War years.
I don't think anyone who can look at a population deficit of between 13 and 18 million and claim that 30 million is the most accurate number is in a position to call other estimates ridiculous. The declining birth rates alone would have substantially decreased the population growth and there was certainly a substantial reduction of birth rates both due to the famine and due to the increasing urbanization. For example, in Russia and Ukraine there was over 9 million decrease in births overall during this period when compared to 1926.
Anyway, if the claim about 30 milion was even remotely true, birth rates would have collapsed even further, leading to a significant population decrease, not an increase.
Even Robert Conquest modified his figures down to 14 million in total after the Cold War ended.
Yes, if you discount most of Hitler's victims.[/QUOTE]
Raulpankine
Banned
You missed the part where I wrote : And then there are the dead between 1937 and 1953.
Source?
On a sidenote: It absolutely shocks me how communist appologetia is rampant and that it is tolerated. All tricks and lies are used to minimize the number of vicitims slaughtered in the USSR, ridiculous excuses are used to justify millions of dead: "You know Stalin improved the lives of the people that surived his rule - by like a LOT."
With the same "logic" one could say: "You know Colonialism improved the lives of the people that surived its rule - by like a LOT." I doubt that such a statement would be treated as leniently as Stalinist appologetia.
Last edited:
Dementor
Banned
These are even more unlikely to be exaggerated to the extent needed to come even close to your claims, since most of those deaths were recorded. And while the Soviet archives might undercount the total numbers, it's not going to be by an order of magnitude or even close to that.
Just summing up the births between 1928 and 1936 posted here and here and comparing them with the births which would have happened if all those years had the same number of births as in 1927. This is of course an underestimate, since number of births would have increased with the growing population.
Regarding Soviet apologia, do you mean in general or on this forum? Because I haven't seen anything remotely resembling "tricks and lies" here. And I don't really see much justification, except for the argument that the alternative would have been worse and that the Soviet regime prevented defeat against the Nazis. Both of these are debatable, but it's contributing to any useful discussion to simply denounce them as Soviet apologia.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
without splitting up Poland, and dismantling the Stalin Line on the old Polish Border, followed up by supplying the Third Reich with every bit of raw materials they asked for, means, yes, the Soviets were indeed responsible for growing
the German War Machine, and even more so for later ignoring his own spies who warned of the Summer attack, and warnings from the Allies
11M in the Camps and a couple million more Sov POWs is less than Stalin's Toll in 1939
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
If someone claimed that Leopold was good for the Congo from the infrastructure improvements done, they'd be kicked for a week, if not longer.