American imperialism? No need to run away from label

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


I never had you for a spelling Nazi

Don't worry, I know my English is horrible.
but I always type "nazi'', not "Nazi" for purpose.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't be agree too. I meant "f*ck you friend" in the best possible way.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agree

1. To grant consent; accede: We agreed to her suggestion.
2. To come into or be in accord, as of opinion: I agree with you on that. Our views on the election agree.
3. To come to an understanding or to terms: We agreed on the price.
4. To be compatible or consistent; correspond: The copy agrees with the original. His story agrees with mine.
5. To be suitable, appropriate, pleasing, or healthful: Spicy food does not agree with me.
6. Grammar. To correspond in gender, number, case, or person.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Serb, these pictures (including the "Net hujne!" you posted earlier) are hilarious! Reminds me the time I spent in Russia .

I know they are hilarious. "Net huine" originaly was "net voyne".

Do you have a source for them?

Unfortunately I don't remeber where I get them. Probably there, but i'm not really sure:

http://www.funpix.ru/

Btw, I have only three such pictures. You already saw first two. The last is :

[Serb]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Don't be agree too. I meant "f*ck you friend" in the best possible way.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agree

1. To grant consent; accede: We agreed to her suggestion.
2. To come into or be in accord, as of opinion: I agree with you on that. Our views on the election agree.
3. To come to an understanding or to terms: We agreed on the price.
4. To be compatible or consistent; correspond: The copy agrees with the original. His story agrees with mine.
5. To be suitable, appropriate, pleasing, or healthful: Spicy food does not agree with me.
6. Grammar. To correspond in gender, number, case, or person.

bastard. I meant 'angry" of course.

[Drake Tungsten]

Enough trolling for now. I'm off to take my final. Bye Serb.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I think you are strectching the term capitalism a bit too far here.

In any event the Russian economy was never as good as the raw ouput figures suggested and the defence spending of the US in the 80's ruined the good bits.

No, I am not. I suggest reading about Kosygin/Lieberman reforms of 1965(I posted a thread on this), which reformed and expanded on some of Khruschev's own reforms. These were the reforms that led the USSR to it's period of stagnation, by expanding capitalist-market mechanisms already prevalent(under Khruschev) in the Soviet economy.

Anyway, the Soviet economy would have continued to run by exporting raw materials and resources, albeit that wouldn't move it too far. IMO, the "Kosygin economy" should have been dumped in '69 rather than '89. Better yet, it shouldn't have been introduced at all. If it had been run like it was under Stalin, it wouldn't have had any problems, and we wouldn't have to see ridiculous policies the likes of perestroika, or witness the collapse of the USSR.

Well, anyway, LONG LIVE STALIN!

POWER TO THE SOVIETS!

[TheStinger]

People saying long live hitler(jockinly or not) are normally condemed, I do wonder why Stalin gets away with it

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by TheStinger
People saying long live hitler(jockinly or not) are normally condemed, I do wonder why Stalin gets away with it

That's because you know little or next to nothing about Stalin(or probably Hitler, for that matter).

But, I digress. For all I know, you could be a great, wise and honest historian like your fellow countryman, Robert Conquest ( ).

[Az]

Well, if Stalin wouldn't be a totalitarian ****, and would hold honest elections, and would have pluralism, and wouldn't send millions of people to their deaths because of paranoia, and/or lack of due process, I would find him a great, wise, and benevolent leader.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Propaganda


That's because you know little or next to nothing about Stalin(or probably Hitler, for that matter).

But, I digress. For all I know, you could be a great, wise and honest historian like your fellow countryman, Robert Conquest ( ).

I know Stalin was in totla control of a country in which millions of people died due to him either directly or indirectly. I know he denied other countries the ability to determine who governed them. In 200 years time historians will place him alongside Hitler as the 2 morst men of the 20th century.

And who Robert Conquest is I have no idea

[Serb]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Enough trolling for now. I'm off to take my final. Bye Serb.

Good luck. You will need it. I feel pity for your history teacher...





Dinodoc, I'm so sorry that I turned your very intellectual thread to another spam fest.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


I know Stalin was in totla control of a country in which millions of people died due to him either directly or indirectly. I know he denied other countries the ability to determine who governed them. In 200 years time historians will place him alongside Hitler as the 2 morst men of the 20th century.

Don't worry you don't need 200 years for this. Revisionists are doing their best currently to achieve this goal earlier.



Enough with spam! Discuss the article!

[Propaganda]

Well, if Stalin wouldn't be a totalitarian ****, and would hold honest elections

Eh, didn't he and his platform WIN the election in 1927?

and would have pluralism

I guess you are implying here that Stalin made all the decisions and controlled everyone within the Party. Perhaps I should point you to memoirs of Zhukov, Voroshilov, Vasilevsky, interviews with Kaganovich, and Molotov...Also, "Origins of the Great Purges" by J. Arch Getty is a nice one.

and wouldn't send millions of people to their deaths because of paranoia

What millions? BTW, do you know anything about the Riutin Affair? The Zionoviev-Kamenev-Smirnov bloc? Tukhachevsky Affair? The premise for having a large "purge"(meaning primarily forced expulsions, before 1937) was fair. However, it's what Yezhov did that set it off and made it bloody. Consequently, that's exactly why we didn't see him in his post for too long(and why a ban on capital punishment was later set). I can post the CC complaints and resolutions(against Yezhov) if you'd like.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Serb

Don't worry you don't need 200 years for this. Revisionists are doing their best currently to achieve this goal earlier.

Serb, don't you mean Cold Warriors? Revisionists seek to do the opposite.

[Az]

Eh, didn't he and his platform WIN the election in 1927?

I never knew they had 26 year terms.

I guess you are implying here that Stalin made all the decisions and controlled everyone within the Party. Perhaps I should point you to memoirs of Zhukov, Voroshilov, Vasilevsky, interviews with Kaganovich, and Molotov...Also, "Origins of the Great Purges" by J. Arch Getty is a nice one.

You don't know the meaning of pluralism, Propoganda. pluralism, is the acceptance of difference of opinion. Just like in the US, communists are able to speak ( well, sort of. ), the same way it should've been done in the SU. There would be no fear of counter-revolution, if a strong democratic socialist ( don't confuse it with the SDs ) constitution would've been established, and would've been respected, with separation of powers, and a true parliament, like in any democratic society.

What millions? BTW, do you know anything about the Riutin Affair? The Zionoviev-Kamenev-Smirnov bloc? Tukhachevsky Affair? The premise for having a large "purge"(meaning primarily forced expulsions, before 1937) was fair. However, it's what Yezhov did that set it off and made it bloody. Consequently, that's exactly why we didn't see him in his post for too long(and why a ban on capital punishment was later set). I can post the CC complaints and resolutions(against Yezhov) if you'd like.

Millions of people were not given a fair trial, and were sent to prison, because of being "enemies of the state", or other rediculous charges. True, that many people actually did commit crimes, It was a large country after all, but many of them didn't, or the thing that was defined as crime was stupid. We both lived there propoganda, ( though, admittedly, not during the Stalin era. ) What do your parents, or you grandparents that lived during Stalin think of him?