Quote Originally Posted by mike
Yes, I am clueless. Thank you for not burdening me with such things as evidence and wordy explanations. I went to my friend, Matthew Flores, who has almost completed his degree in astrophysics
Almost completed! What an authority!

he proposed the following experiment to determine what (if any) are the gravitational effects of the earth:

1. Find an object in the room where you are sitting.
2. Hold it out in front of you.
3. Let it go.
Sure sure. Here's another experiment for you:

1. Wait for a night with clear skies.
2. Observe the circular motion of stars.

Congratulations! You've just obtained an experimental proof that the stars rotate about the Earth. Furthermore, the Earth is the center of the Universe, which was apparently created by somebody in seven days.

Newtonian gravity has been disproven and gravitational attraction is only a bend in space-time, however it exists nonetheless
Sure sure. The aether exists too, and light propagation is elastic perturbations thereof. Or therein.

Huh? Three-dimensional objects can't be round? WTF kind of nonsense is that? A snowball is round. A golf ball is round. An egg is round. A banana is round. A fat man is round. None of these objects have less than three dimensions. They aren't spherically or cylindrically perfect, but nothing is. The earth is round, so are all the stars and planets and moons. Even children know this simple fact of the universe yet it has somehow eluded you.
Whatever. I know that you have a tendency to use vague ideas instead of the precise facts.

The standards of today and 60 years ago are not as different as today and 100 years (or more). And if we are talking about racial prejudices or cultural differences then sure
Yes we are. The events took place in Russia, not in Luxembourg (which itself has not-so-nice a record if you look closely).

Killing somebody has always been looked down upon by at least some of the people as far back as human civilization can remember.
Stop that BS. The entire history of human civilization is killing lots of people. It is just that some are more equal than the others, when a political argument is needed.


Which is funny, since part of the Bolshevik platform was "the end of capital punishment."
So? The whole of Stalin's policy is one saying good bye and fuck off to the Bolshevik platform. And the law is the law is the law whatever the platform anyway.

[quote:1faz2dvp][quote:1faz2dvp]And nobody made you respond to me.
You're free to ignore my messages, too.
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Well that wouldn't be very polite.
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Then either ignore what you don't want to discuss or discuss it for fuck's sake.

Well, I guess I could just take the easy, cowardly way out every time and say, "Not to insult you bad manners, but I don't want to bring up a lot of things from large textbooks on the subject that would be too hard for you to comprehend. Do not ask me the nature of such books or in what fantasy land they exist and prove you wrong, but just know that while any professional in this field could tell you that what I say is true, it is so complex a topic that I simply will not waste my time trying to tell someone who is such much lower than I am on an intellectual level. Excuse me, I have to go now. My computer is flying away because of the nonexistence of gravity."
Exactly. When there is anything that you cannot communicate to me due to ignorance on my part, you can use that verbatim.


[quote:1faz2dvp]
I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.
I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Oh. So you want more arithmetic. Let's do it, then. Have a look here:

http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/casualti.htm

They say: "The most recent list of the number of Finnish soldiers killed, relating to the Winter War, between 30 November 1939 and 31 December 1940": 26 662. They are talking about those killed. Only ~27 thousand, right? BTW notice how cleverly in the table just above they give 19 576 killed, so the total 66 406 of that table should be adjusted to ~73 thousand. Which is already pretty close to Krivosheev's total. But then look further at that same page: "After the war, in a meeting of the high council, Minister Molotov represented an estimate of 200 000 dead, wounded and missing Soviet soldiers. These figures contradicted even the lowest Finnish estimates. The numbers usually referred to, gives a Soviet death toll of at least 150 000 - 200 000, which would bring the total casualty near 400 000 - 600 000." First off, I doubt it very much that they would know what Molotov discussed at the Supreme Council. Given that they don't even know the correct term for that council, that looks very unlikely. Secondly, we know that the total Soviet losses were about ~330 thousand, not 400-500 thousand, so the "lie" factor of that page averages to 1.4. Thus: 73 * 1.5 = ~100. Pretty damn close to Krivosheevs's data.

[quote:1faz2dvp]Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.
Oh, give me a break! Every nation that was within breathing room of the Soviet Union became a member, whether they liked it or not.[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Yup. Poland did, too.

To believe Finland was not on the same list as the Baltic States is insane.
mike, I really want to avoid calling you an idiot. But you're provoking me. Badly. Look: Finland effectively CAPITULATED. Every single sensible man in the world understood that. Look at Liddell Hart's quotation I gave: "eventual collapse was certain", "In the radically changed circumstances, particularly after the disastrous collapse in the Summa sector of the Mannerheim Line on February 12, the new Soviet terms were remarkably moderate". Had Stalin wanted to have Finland in entirety, he would, nothing could have stopped him.

The excuse given for the Winter War is that Finland had vital areas near Leningrad and Kronstadt that Stalin wanted to use to protect himself against Germany's navy. This is true. The joint occupation of Porkkala and Naissaar would've all but quashed any attempt by the Nazis to attack Leningrad or Kronstadt. But these areas are not the ones that the Soviets requested. The original locations, like Hango, that Stalin requested in 1939 were of very little value against an invading German navy.
You are some military expert, mike. One real military expert, whom I quoted earlier, holds a view totally opposite of yours. Namely: An objective examination of these terms suggests that they were framed on a rational basis, to provide a greater security to Russian territory without serious detriment to the security of Finland. They would, clearly, have hindered the use of Finland as a jumping-off point for any German attack on Russia. But they would not have given Russia any appreciable advantage for an attack on Finland.

And in the end Hanko was successfully used to check Germans' invasion into the Baltic. In St. Petersburg, there is улица Пестеля, if I remember correctly, that is perpendicular to Фонтанка, and just at that intersection there is a building, whose facade says: "in memory of the heroic defenders of Hanko".

However, these locations would be of great use to the Soviets if they were to begin an invasion into the Finnish mainland from them.

Likewise in Karelia the locations of the new border would've made the Mannerheim line worthless as a defense against Russia (which is in actuality what Stalin probably would've liked), they overran two or three main Finnish artillery fortresses that would be of no practical use to the Nazis in an invasion but would definitely be crucial to the Finns protecting themselves against a future Soviet war.
Refer to Liddell Hart. He says clearly that "The re-adjustments of the frontier would still leave intact the main defences on the Mannerheim Line."

The "justification" you and most Stalin-sympathizers give is that Finland was to blame for the invasion because it would not go along with the peaceful, paltry requests of the USSR--even though such requests would in effect destroy Finland's attempt to ever defend itself against a Soviet aggressor and they had every right to refuse to cooperate.
So Liddell Hart is a Stalin sympathizer now. Stop smoking that stuff, mike.

So I'm still waiting for you to respond to my original proposition. Let's say that the White House puts a deal on the table that requests only a few pieces of Russian territory that we say are vital to protecting our country. This territory is populated by Russians but they would be given a generous number of weeks to pack up their things and move somewhere else.
The Finns were not asked to take their stuff and leave. It was entirely their choice. Not to mention that if they had accepted the original proposals, there would've been lots fewer of those in the occupied territories.

We would be allowed to install military bases on this territory and use it for trafficking any equipment and cargo we see fit. Although it would be physically impossible for Russia to estimate how many soldiers are passing through, we would establish a limit on paper of how many can enter. These territories, though crucial to Russia's defense against an attack from the United States (oh, heaven forbid), are more important to the interests of the White House.
Isn't it what you are doing in Western Europe and in Central Asia now?

What I want you to tell me, bad manners, is whether or not you would get upset when we declared war on the Russian federation for not agreeing to the terms.
Go ahead and try )))) (Even though you could probably get most of that by just bribing the Russian authorities.) In this world, mike, it is the guys with big guns who decide what is good and what is not, what is fair and what is not. Save that humanitarian BS for the laymen.


1. That gravity does not exist
Correct. You’re getting it. Slowly but surely.

2. That anything bad done under Stalin he either had no knowledge of or was completely helpless to stop
Incorrect. I’m not going to repeat that all again.

3. Things that are round are not round
Given your phenomenological definition of “round”, it might even be “square”, so that depends.

4. The annexation of countries was done all the time and was therefore not a bad thing
Bad, but traditional. I hope you’re not a virgin female who faints when somebody kills a mosquito. Blaming only Stalin for that is ridiculous. You might have a look at the nice and pleasant Brits, who almost occupied Norway at just about the same time, yet you’re ignoring it, apparently because they were doing it in the nice and good English way.

5. The losses of 430,000 men on two sides of a war that lasted a few months are valid because one side gained 40,000km^2 that it didn't truly need
Incorrect. Losses were below 200 000. The land proved to be necessary, since it’s only thanks to that buffer zone that Leningrad was not occupied on June 22, 1941.

and the other side made the mistake of believing it had the right to disagree with a diplomatic proposal that was grossly one-sided and suicidal to accept.
Correct. The original requirements were benign, so only idiots would risk so much for so little. Actually, I think I know why there were so stubborn. Apparently the British and the French had given them a guarantee, just like they did to Poland. In that case the idiocy of the Finish government is gross, because Poland was more accessible to the British and the French than Finland was, yet they were unable to do a thing. Most likely it was sheer arrogance on the Finnish part, which is actually very consistent with their idea of “Great Finland”. Yet somehow you ignore the fact that the Finns had openly declared their intentions to occupy a part of Russia. Their cruelty during the early years of the civil war is well known, but you of course ignore all that.

6. Any book used to quote information on Stalin must come from an author who has sympathies for him
I know that is what you think, mike. I, on the other hand, so far have only quoted two sources, none of which can be called sympathetic of Stalin.


Like I have said, what Lenin said was what got done.
Whatever. A military commander who knows he cannot perform the task should resign. That’s standard practice in all armies. That happened even under Stalin, e.g., Zhukov threatened with his resignation a few times. And either got what he wanted or was relieved of his task. A military commander who cannot do so is impotent.

My argument was supposed to be a question of whether or not Stalin as an individual was necessary, as you claim, to defeating Hitler.
Then find somebody better than Trotsky. Even if we assume that Trotsky is a military genius, I doubt it very much that the USSR would have been a candy-mountain kind of country under him. That makes the whole discussion pointless.

Based on..? The Red Army itself were not to be the head of the invasion. I think in a sense Trotsky and Lenin's vision of the Red Army in regards to internationalism was a mirror of the Bolshevik vanguardism itself. Merely the guidance of the masses in armed support, not a fully-functional invasion force. Whether or not they would've succeeded in revolutionizing Germany, I have no doubt they would have eliminated Hitler and his heads or at least sent them into hiding. So much for becoming Fuhrer of the Third Reich.
That needs to be proven, mike. The Germans had been very nationalistic, they could declare themselves communists but had the Russians whom they almost organically hated appeared on the horizon, they would have put the brown shirts on. Which they actually did.


[quote:1faz2dvp] I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?
Military buildup that I'm sure any leader in Stalin's place would've likewise created.[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Funny, funny. You agreed last time that Trotsky would not have done that. Nor Lenin.

It is of course also a matter of self-defense of the homeland in WW2 versus a war for imperialism and private wealth that was exhausting the country of its ability to survive in WW1. It is not hard to see why there would be more public support for the former than the latter.
That too. But you suggest that they should have invaded Germany. Non sequitur, mike.

I don't charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia. I have attempted to distance myself from these arguments throughout ours.
You are, mike. Each time you say “Stalin the asshole” and so on, you’re doing it, mike.

I've read Martens' "Another View of Stalin" and I don't doubt a lot of it is true. There is always a second side to every story. What I blame him for is not doing a whole lot to remedy any of the crimes committed against the public when he was in a position of power to fix all of them. If he did not know about them then he was not a very good leader. If he did know about them but never bothered to fix them then he is not a very good leader.
You still don’t get it, mike. The number of those “repressed” was not exactly as high as to agitate somebody who had seen much worse. I’ve reiterated that a few times, so I’m not going to repeat. I believe he’s solely responsible for the high-ranking guys, though, but that’s their personal business.

No, but it was what made the Japanese agree to unconditional surrender (they refused to agree to these terms before).
Incorrect. I can provide quotations if you want. Not to mention that it was not unconditional. They had one condition, and it was granted. It was the sovereignty of the Emperor.

Right! They were working on one at the same time! However, even the American scientists in the Manhattan project had no exact ideas of the capabilities of the atomic weapons on a city
Non sequitur, mike. First you said “they would have dropped the bomb on the Germans”. After that the Germans would have known the effects very well.

[quote:1faz2dvp]
The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.
Because Hitler made them. It was not a popular war among the Nazi administration in Germany in the end. Why else would his officers try to have him assassinated? Why else would they attempt to negotiate a surrender to the Allies behind Hitler's back?
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

It is irrelevant, mike. They were suffering a lot from “conventional bombardment” (actually even the Japanese were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombardment than they did from two A-bombs). That did not end the war. Ditto for a couple of A-bombs.


[quote:1faz2dvp]My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.
Only if we conclude that the events in Europe would've still led to World War 2.
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Most likely. It was the German revanchism and arrogance of the winners, not Stalin, what started that. Even if you prove that no Stalin would have meant no Hitler (which I’m not going to agree with unless you come up with a totally new argument), you will have to prove that “the other Germany” would have been a peaceful country, which will be very difficult to believe in.

[quote:1faz2dvp]Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.
Which? All or just the ones against the military? And do you mean under Stalin specifically or in general? How about the fact that every member of the first Politburo except Molotov were convicted? Also over 75% of Central Comm and roughly 50% of the congress? Do you really believe every single one of these people were part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow Stalin, and that they received a fair and impartial examination of the evidence?[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Blah blah blah. I said very specifically: “prove that the case of Тухачевский et al was fabricated.” Prove it if you think you can, mike.