Poll! How Russian was Soviet Union?

[Bignose Smallhat]

Too many attempts to whitewash Hitler and the Nazi scum lately.
The goals pursued by the Nazi regime in Germany, unleashing an inhuman war against the USSR, are defined in the materials of the Nuremberg Tribunal! A quote from the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal. No "sole purpose of destroying communism"!

Spoiler!

"International Military Tribunal No. 1, indictment

Section 1. General plan or conspiracy

III. Formula of the charge

All of the accused, together with others, during the several years preceding May 8, 1945, were leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices in the creation and implementation of a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in the Statute of this Tribunal, and in accordance with the provisions of the Statute, are individually responsible for their own actions and for all actions taken by any person to carry out such a plan or conspiracy. The general plan or conspiracy included the commission of crimes against peace, expressed in the fact that the defendants planned, prepared and waged wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and obligations. In its development, the general plan or conspiracy covered war crimes, expressed in the fact that the accused planned and carried out inhuman wars against countries and peoples, violating all the rules and customs of warfare, systematically applying such methods as murder, brutal treatment, sending to slave labor the civilian population of the occupied territories, killings, atrocious treatment of prisoners of war and persons sailing on the high seas, taking and killing hostages, robbery of public and private property, senseless destruction of cities and towns and villages and devastation not justified by military necessity. The general plan or conspiracy provided for, and the defendants were ordered to execute such means as murder, extermination, slavery, exile and other inhuman acts both in Germany and in the occupied territories, committed before and during the war against the civilian population, persecution for political, racial and religious reasons, in pursuance of a plan for the preparation and implementation of illegal or aggressive wars. Many of these actions were committed in violation of the domestic laws of the respective countries. "

Question: and if the Soviet people had thrown off the "yoke of the Bolsheviks" in 1942, would the "Fuehrer-Liberator" have given the order to withdraw troops from Leningrad? Would the Wehrmacht divisions turn around and begin to withdraw from Stalingrad? Would Romanian, Hungarian and other gangs of accomplices start returning home?

Let me remind you that the war of 1941-1945 is called the Great Patriotic War because the peoples of the USSR then fought not only for the sake of "defending the ideas of communism", but for our common Fatherland. And from the very beginning of hostilities, millions of Soviet citizens went to the fronts, whose relations with the Bolshevik government were not easy! In the Nazi death camps and in the occupied lands, not only communists, but all citizens of the USSR were subjected to mass murder and torture, bullying and oppression. Was it only communists who were killed in Babi Yar? Did they burn alive in Khatyn because of the presence of a party card in their breast pocket? In the oven of Auschwitz did they go by belonging to the party?

As I see it, this is my evaluative opinion, such "phrases" are in some way an "Overton window" to whitewash Hitler and Nazism, whispering to us:

"Hitler really did not want war and the destruction of tens of millions of our people, he just fought against Bolshevism. Nazism would not have killed so many citizens of the USSR and other peoples, if not for the communist regime of Stalin!"

In fact, everything is simple.

Spoiler!

Hitler in his "Mein Kampf" (my struggle, my war, my campaign) back in the 20s of the 20th century, when he was in a German prison for extremism, wrote, reasoned exactly within the framework of the German political tradition that appeared with the emergence of Germany as state, that is, under Bismarck in the second half of the 19th century - Germany needs markets, and since (as happened in the 19th century in the west) colonies provide markets, Germany needs colonies. That is, territories with a second-rate population that can be exploited in all holes.

But, according to Hitler's reasoning, almost all overseas colonies belong to England, and in Eurasia Russia occupies almost the entire territory, then Germany has only 2 ways out of the situation - either take away the colonies from England, or take away part of the territory of Russia (already the USSR). Hitler's fight against communism is in the 500th place there, he didn't care about ideas, the main thing is that Germany needs colonies. And, by the way, Hitler in his book inclined, reasoning about all the pros and cons, that it is still better from the point of view of Germany to take the colonies from England.

Perhaps this played a cruel joke in 1941, the leadership of the USSR, having studied the views of Hitler (and they were not original and opposed to the ruling class of Germany, on the contrary, were quite consistent since the 19th century), they expected that Germany would attack England, and then to the USSR. And the USSR will stand aside, as Stalin said, let the imperialists kill each other, and then we will come to help the working people. But Hitler nevertheless was afraid to attack England at first, “fearing a blow in the back from the USSR,” as the Germans said. In general, the situation for the Germans was in terms of risks 50 to 50, who to attack first. The Germans eventually chose the USSR.

But, again, the point was not that the USSR was building socialism, etc. The considerations in Germany were purely geopolitical and resource-based, not ideological. An ordinary servant of capital.

Good joke. Stalin was not a Trotskyist and an agent of Western capital, and he used Marxism mainly to educate the masses of the class theory and logic of imperialist actions.
What do you know about the works of Lunacharsky and Bogdanov (for example, "Empiriomonism")? Stalin was largely guided by the works of these (and other) Russian authors.

Stalin's socialism combined many of the virtues of capitalism and socialism, such as the encouragement of private initiative and artels. Stalin realized that socialism was not viable (this is the will to die) and began to build National Socialism (on a socialist / cooperative basis), based on the dominant role of the Russian people (and this is in a multinational country!). But, for this he had to disperse the International in the USSR. What a violation of the dogmas of Marxism!
As for rich people, they will always be, in any system, since people are not equal by nature. But the main thing (and Stalin knew this) is to provide working social lifts and prevent the “privileged castes” from being isolated from the people in society (the CPSU under Khrushchev and beyond, the hereditary aristocracy in Europe, oligarchs and other august persons). That is, the possibility of control over them by the people should remain. There is a popular belief that Stalin was killed for this. In short, he did not manage to do a lot of things. And the "comrades" after him isolated themselves from the people and sold the country for their personal interests, turning into banal imperialists. But it's not over yet.
I can guarantee that for the sake of the USSR, under the leadership of Lenin, Trotsky, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, no one would create the Third Reich - they would give everything themselves.

Let's dissect your reply for a second. I merely quoted hitler on a single thing that I largely agree on, but you couldn't resist writing a book about hitler being evil and stalin being a good boy. But you're not whitewashing stalin with your essay on him, while I am whitewashing hitler for quoting him. Do you mind explaining the thought process behind that?

Your nuremberg chapter is a straw man by definition, namely, I didn't even give my opinion on the goals of nazi germany, so what exactly are you making a counter-argument to? I hate communism, but you didn't see me write a book in my reply to you about all the atrocities it has done or whatever displeases me about it.

I got it, you're a communist, it's normal that you pick a candidate within those circles, if you don't sympathize with lenin, you might sympathize with stalin for reason X or reason Y. My point is, he still killed millions, he is still a communist, I disagree wholeheartedly with communism and that's it. I'm not going to go into details "about him actually not being same shit as lenin because his mustache was more well-maintained than lenin's" or whatever other minute arguments that only interest people within your communist circles.

In the future, please try to keep your replies to me more "point by point", and writing all that you think about someone or something that I merely mentioned isn't the best way of keeping a topic relevant to the topic at hand.

[Óttar]

Stalin with his "Socialism in one country" doctrine was a relatively right-wing tendency where he exalted the interests of the Russians over everyone else. I can't believe Moldova is a separate country from Romania just because of the Russian minority.

[Bignose Smallhat]

Stalin with his "Socialism in one country" doctrine was a relatively right-wing tendency where he exalted the interests of the Russians over everyone else. I can't believe Moldova is a separate country from Romania just because of the Russian minority.

I assume you're replying to me.

I guess we can oversimplify the concept of socialism now and claim that hitler's germany and stalin's USSR were the exact same economic model then.

Except they aren't, and that "one country" is worth shit if it is not a nation-state, we see how it's working out in the modern west, and it would be pretty much the same regardless what economic model you test out.

[Óttar]

I assume you're replying to me.

I guess we can oversimplify the concept of socialism now and claim that hitler's germany and stalin's USSR were the exact same economic model then.

I believe you're getting me mixed up with the Trump 'tards on this forum.

What I'm saying is that vis-a-vis other socialist tendencies it is right-leaning, as in, the right-most feather on the left-wing.

[Bignose Smallhat]

I believe you're getting me mixed up with the Trump 'tards on this forum.

What I'm saying is that vis-a-vis other socialist tendencies it is right-leaning, as in, the right-most feather on the left-wing.

Okay, sure.

[PaleoEuropean]

All roads lead to Moscow.

[Zeno]

The Union itself was indeed multiethnic. About 55% or so were ethnic Russians and 70% East Slavs (Belarussians, Ukrainians). The rest 30% of non-Slavic peoples were mainly Kazakhs, Caucasus peoples and Western Asians.

But what about RSFSR, the main republic in the Soviet Union? The Russian republic itself, which was by far the largest, was extremely homogeneous. About 90+% of RSFSR's population were ethnic Russians, with the percentage in European Russia, the original русская земля being almost uniformly ethnically Russian.

[Not a Cop]

However, they did achieve rapid industrialization (at a big cost, nonetheless), housing for virtually everyone, abolished the brutal Russian feudal system, made life for women 1000 times better, reduced illiteracy to almost 0%, increased the life expectancy to a point higher than even today's Russia and much more. Perhaps read more on the issue before making a judgement. It's more nuanced than what red-baiting US propaganda would like you to believe.

Well what you've wrote is also just a commie propaganda.

1) It's true about industrialization, however Russian Empire was industrializing very fast itself, it's debatable, but results could've been much better if not the civil war.

2) Housing is another part, by 1996 there were still 14% of communal flats in Saint-P (flats that are shared by more than one family).

3) Russian feudal system was abolished in 1861, and later in 1900-s, however commies made kolhoz systems which effectively enserfed peasants again.

4) As for women it's debatable agian, but i would like to hear how soviets made life better for them.

5) In 1913 67% of conscripts were already literate, compared to 31.5% in 1890 and 49% in 1900, Russia would've achieved full literacy by 1930-s anyway.

6)

[Methuselah]

Well what you've wrote is also just a commie propaganda.

1) It's true about industrialization, however Russian Empire was industrializing very fast itself, it's debatable, but results could've been much better if not the civil war.

2) Housing is another part, by 1996 there were still 14% of communal flats in Saint-P (flats that are shared by more than one family).

3) Russian feudal system was abolished in 1861, and later in 1900-s, however commies made kolhoz systems which effectively enserfed peasants again.

4) As for women it's debatable agian, but i would like to hear how soviets made life better for them.

5) In 1913 67% of conscripts were already literate, compared to 31.5% in 1890 and 49% in 1900, Russia would've achieved full literacy by 1930-s anyway.

6)

Yeah, better life for women and free education is nice, but what about Stalin and million of murdered people in purges and the Civil War itself? All the chaos in 90's which is a result of the revolution too. Without revolution and Lenin there would have been no Hitler and all of that shit. Soviet Union did improve certain things but how the f*ck was it worth it if we look at the whole picture?

[Art23]

Soviet Union was very Russian. First of all, Moscow was the capital. But most importantly, Russian language and culture dominated at expense of other languages and cultures which were suppressed.