Do you believe he really collaborated with fascists?

Not a trot, just stating the obvious. Why would a jew collaborate with nazis? Dumbass

Yes. He also collaborated with the CIA against the CPUSA.
Trotsky died in 1940 and the CIA was formed in 1947. Either he was a zombie or to learn history.

*you need to

Did you happen to turn off your sarcasm detector?

Buying time isn't collaborating with nazis.

wew lad

Splitting poland and sharing technology is collaborating with nazis

Great input mate

Poland deserved it.

probably. there's been an influx of particularly stupid LARPers lately.

You know, I kinda agree, but in Stalin doing so, it's still a collaboration

The Soviets occupied the territory in the Curzon line, a line drawn by the Allies themselves to mark the division between Poland and Russia after WWI. Poland forcibly annexed 7 million Ukrainians and 3 million Belorussians in 1920. Those territories were reincorporated into their republics.

Just about done.

Look, I'm not shitting in Stalin for having a non agression pact with the nazis,ok? I'm just saying I think Trotsky wouldn't have done that

Invading Poland was collaboration to buy time. The USSR was trying to form an anti-German pact with France and Britain but they told the Soviets to get fucked. In those circumstances invading Poland to get some space between Germany and the Soviet heartland makes sense even if it's collaborating with the Nazis.

Trotsky wouldn't have done much differently from Stalin. When you have an opportunity to get a country off your back, you take it.

I suppose that's true

I guess you can look at it that way, but if it wasn't not signing a treaty, I believe Trotsky would've attacked Germany first and not the other way around. Stalin became too careless regarding a probable german invasion

Attacked Germany with what? The Russians were barely prepared when Germany invaded. Unless you're talking about Trotsky building up a force earlier than Stalin and if so, how would that habe worked out?

Idk how that would've worked out. The soviet army probably would've been better trained and had better leadership but with worse equipment/armament. I can't say I know how that would've went down

The Soviet's were pretty wary regarding a German invasion. They thought that they had a lot more time than they did because they expected the Germans to finish their war against the UK before they turned east. The Soviets were looking at things like sheep slaughtered to make winter coats and in the lead up to Barbarossa the Germans weren't making winter coats. the Russians didn't expect that the Germans had deluded themselves into thinking they could knock out Russia before winter.

Maybe most of the soviet military, but definetely not Stalin. He regarded any suspicion of a german invasion as "fearmongering"

I don't "believe", but know that for all intents and purposes - yes, he did. Whether or not it was formal and recognized by both parties is irrelevant.

Not "believe", but strongly suspect. And not "he had bloc", but "bloc had him".

Internal opposition within the Party (and outside it) was quite real and existed independently of Trotsky. However opposition lacked clear leader, since everyone (other than Trotsky) publicly admitted their mistakes. That's how he became a figurehead, a token leader for real opposition.

Not "believe", and not "his". But - yes. All evidence points in that direction.

Whether or not he was honest, is irrelevant. The facts demonstrate that he was utterly wrong.

I have no opinion on this matter (and don't really care).

Trotsky wouldn't have resources to do it, since he would've fucked up industrialization. Chances are, Soviets would've had another Civil War in 1930s.

Even if he did, that would've led to joint coalition of Allies & Axis against the USSR. People seem to forget that USSR had only one real ally in WWII.

So far I've seen nothing that suggests it (i.e. actual evidence, not tall tales). Main fault seems to lie with the army.

All primary sources suggest the opposite.

Well, all non-biased sources. Khrushchev and some others who wrote memoirs post-1956 technically are primary sources.

Define primary sources. Because the best piece of information I have read about the german-soviet war (albeit it was primarily about Stalingrad but still covered the start of the war) is Anthony Beevor's "Battle for Stalingrad" which suggests pretty clearly that Stalin didn't believe one bit the Germans would've invaded

Well, if the main problem was the soviet army and not disregarding an invasion, then Stalin shouldn't have purged the army

The whole Soviet establishment thought that a war with Germany in 1941 was highly unlikely. They thought that Germany would require at least another year to prepare logistically for an invasion. That's on top of the utter stupidity of fighting a two front war when that's why you lost the last one.

You have to remember though that Hitler though he would've beat the soviets in 2 months, still when the weather wasn't a considerable problem. And when they did invade, Stalin probably thought this too, as he actually wanted to offer peace to Hitler. Only after he heard about massacres in Minsk (I believe this was it, haven't read that book in a long time) he realized he had to stop panicking and organize properly

Original information, obviously.

He isn't. Do you want to make a separate thread for this?

What would convince you that purges might've improved situation?

Source, please.

what now?

Why isn't Anthony Beevor reliable information? Is to you "reliable information" some obscure stalinist website or what? Also I would like to know where do you find or access this "original" information. Because every piece of information I've read regarding the eastern front-ranging from the crudest wikipedia article to a book dedicated solely to this topic states that Stalin believed vehemently the germans wouldn't attack

Ok, what the hell do I care about this?

Hitler had already conquered all of western Europe, he was at the time playing (or being played) in elaborate diplomatic mindgames to remove Churchill from power and get a semi-organic collaborationist regime, just like in France, destroying Britain was never in his schedule, crushing the USSR was his primary goal since the street-fighting days.

muh only soviets collaborated with the nazis by signing the molotov-ribentrop pact!

Because he is objectively full of bullshit. Take, for example, the "Rape of Berlin" he popularized. It's undiluted bullshit.

I think I am bound to call you retard at this point.

Depends on information.

As I said: do you want to have a separate thread for this? It will take some time to get to the bottom of this, but I don't have a habit of keeping 100+ threads open, and will never remember that we had discussion in Trotsky's thread.

There is no doubt that the purges significantly contributed to the disaster of 1941. However, they aren't the only factor. The Soviet Army was in the middle of reorganizing in 1941. They had just updated their defence plan and were still redeploying their army to the new border when the Germans caught them entirely off-guard.

He propagates many myths of WWII like the Ukrainians and Belorussians accepting the germans with open are en masse. He also has a tendency to downplay German attrocities and play up Soviet ones. A good English language source on the Eastern Front is David Glantz.

Stalin did NOT believe the nazis would attack, if he really believed they would attack he wouldnt sell them shitload of raw materials and other things that were needed for the war effort.

Even if someone popularizes something just for shock value, it doesn't make them any less reliable, you dense cuck. Or are you now going to tell me the rape of Berlin is a myth?

While reading Stalingrad, I didn't really feel that he downplayed german atrocities while exaggerating soviet ones. Maybe you had a different perception when reading him?

He did, dude, everyone in the general staff knew Germany was going to attack the Soviet Union. The army was not ready to fight a war.

He didn't expect the Germans to attack in 1941.

Rape did happen in Berlin. There is denying that. That's regular occupying army bullshit. the Americans did the same in Japan. However, the specific rape of Berlin/Germany as portrayed by Beevor comes directly from the Germans attempting to portray the Soviets as inhuman monster who want to rape and destroy Western civilization.

*no denying it. FUCK

Are you implying 2 million women were raped during Battle of Berlin?

Also i bet you didnt know about this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France

There is. Military exercises of 1935/36 were absolute mess (as compared to the "disaster" of 1941 - which was no different from "disasters" Poland or England&France had with no purges), while the number of purged was relatively small (and many got re-instated). IIRC, replacements had much better education than those purged. And I'm not even touching the question of loyalty of certain people.

Please, put date and numbers of this trade. I don't want to find out that you were talking about Weimar republic - as some less scrupulous "historians" do.

< he is lying through his teeth, but that doesn't make him unreliable
Gotcha.

Yes.

IIRC, he references some (relatively) recent and very dubious study by two radfem activists.

No, I was aware american "liberators" also commited rapes in France. Hell they even commited rapes while stationed in England. But denying the rape of Berlin is utter historical revisionism

nobody is denying rape that happened during Berlin, people are denying this bullshit about Soviets raping 2 million women and wanting to destroy everything "western"

The replacements were incredibly inexperienced leading to tactical inflexibility. The purges also lead to politically correct yet militarily useless retards like Voroshilov and Grigory "horses lmao" Kulik being put in charge of large military formations.

The "Rape of Berlin" is as real as the Holodomor

< did not read the post
I repeat: army in 1935/36 was worse than it was in 1941. So "tactical inflexibility" is an improvement from "unable to function".

Also, look up number of horses in Wehrmacht and in Red Army before talking shit about horses. The "horses lmao" faction was the only thing that prevented utter logistical collapse of Red Army when progressive wanted to get rid of horses altogether and sit on their asses until ~1950 - when there will be enough trucks.

...

Care to shoot me a source because that contradicts what i have read.

Again i need sources also i was refering to Kulik's hard on for cavalry which performed horrendously in 1941.

*cavalry over tanks

"disciplined for"

there's your answer.

Really activates my almonds

Why didn't you quote this part?

Holla Forumstards cherry picking from sources? Why I never!

lol fag

Can you really blame him? He assumed Hitler was rational, and wouldn't invade the USSR until Britain was dealt with.

How would she know the race of a man she can't even see?

Yes
"An agent named Mark Zborowski, who around 1935 succeeded better than any predecessor in becoming the confidant of Trotsky's son, Lev Sedov, who operated the small secretariat of the Trotskyist movement, first in Berlin, then in Paris. What Zborowski, if it was he, learned was that in 1932 Trotsky, communicating through Sedov, had formed what they called a 'bloc' with dissident elements in the Soviet Union. There a Trotskyist named I. N. Smirnov had proposed to form a coalition of underground opposition to Stalin. Only after a previously closed section of the Trotsky archive at Harvard University was opened in 1980 was it demonstrated that this bloc, although feeble, actually had existed. The evidence is incomplete because somebody, quite possibly Trotsky himself, had removed from the file the letters that he had attempted to send to Sokolnikov, Preobrazhensky, Radek, Kollontai and Litvinov. Nor is there direct evidence in the archive that Stalin came into possession of this material, but the resemblance between the account of the formation of this bloc, as it appears in the Trotsky papers and as it emerged in the show trial of August 1936, makes it reasonably clear that the trial was based on this evidence.This implies significant revision of the previous interpretation of the trial of 1936 by non-Stalinists, for it shows that the confessions were not totally fabricated by the police. It also demonstrates, by the way, that Trotsky did not tell the precise truth to the 'Dewey Commission', a counter-trial that he arranged in 1937 to exculpate him of Stalin's charges, before which he testified that he had not been organizing an underground" - Robert McNeal, Stalin Man and Ruler pp. 184-85

No
Yes
Yes
No
I don't think FBI and Trotsky existed in the same time period.

the real question is, was there a man that stuck more fear into porky's heart than trotsky?, i mean you gotta be pretty fucking good at agitating if you got banished multiple times for revolutionary actitivity, and fucking attempted multiple revolutions, as agitators go trotsky was the best, closely followed by che

he struck so much fear into porky's heart that he lived the remainder of his years in a capitalist country bitching and whining about the true nightmare of porky, Stalin.

him being an old bastard doesn't count, also socialism in one nation literally calmed porky not disturb them any more, literally fite me

It's pretty dishonest to say Stalin didn't believe the Germans would attack. If you read Ian Grey's biography you know that everything Stalin did in the entire decade before was preparing for an invasion. He just believed that there were still a few months before the invasion was coming.

Framing it as a belief by Stalin that there would be no attack, like some sort of betrayal by the Nazis or failure to understand the Germans by Stalin, is mendacious.

As other people have mentioned Hitler thought he would crush Russia very quickly. What I have seen mentioned yet is Hitler's belief that the people would rise up against Stalinist "oppression," which obviously didn't happen. Anna Louise Strong in The Soviets Expected It mentions how important too the concept of collective ownership of the land was in exhorting the people to defend it.

not sure
probably
yes
i think so. bourgeois media always renders him as "moderate" commie who fought against evil fanatic bolsheviks.

in terms of ideology trotzky himself wasn't probably half as bad as his reputation is, infact i like his views quite a bit, however he worked with anti-communists. what's more, trotzkyists still work on dividing the political left and most of them turn full neocon when they get older.

What?

No.

Yes.

Everyone was an opportunist when it comes to the power struggle that formed in the '20s; nobody had any allegiance to anyone at all, just to their own interests and what they believed the best interests for the future of the USSR would be (complete with what they themselves thought that ought to be in the first place).

No, and yet he also was the biggest bureaucrat in the few years he had a high function in the party and was a tyrant as high commander of the Red Army.

Not unlikely. Many communist dissidents from the Soviet Union (or East Bloc in general) were forced to aid the secret services where they stayed, or were even made to extradite information to the larger entities of the western States like the US if they stayed in less powerful/leading States like West Germany.

does anything even exist? WOAAAAAAAAH

But it actually happen, isn't it?

Damn bro you just exposed your ignorance. Literally read a book on American politics at any time, or failing that just google it.

But russian oligarch perhaps fearless because didn't afraid show TV series about him where he showed in good light.

What makes you think this?

Because now soviet property in filthy porkeys hands. Why?

Trotsky was based and would've lead the USSR to its true glory while Stalin was jealous and hateful. Fight me.

yes
yes
yes
not sure
no

< something happened, so this specific reason must be the cause
I sense a certain flaw in your position. Why do you think it's "bureaucratization"?

Because working class actually didn't rule in questions about further destiny of soviet property.

With out a doubt.
He had a personal line of contact with Goebbels.
Yeah he actually revived financing from the remains of White Army and Nazi Germany.
Absolutely he could never set a foot in Mexico with out the USA authorizing it.
Also let me post this screen cap.

So? Are you claiming bureaucrats were main beneficiaries of the privatization?

Facts:
1) Absolute and total majority of bureaucrats didn't gain anything
2) Among those who did gain, bureaucrats weren't over-represented

I.e. there is no reason to think that being bureaucrat granted any advantages. I could elaborate on "red directorate" being behind it all, but that would require separate thread (starting with the definition of Petit-Bourgeoisie and non-material MoP; general public might get triggered by either - which will devolve into retarded shit-flinging).

Because Hitler was a Jewish plant.
If it weren’t for Hitler, would Israel even exist?

Trotsky was mad as fuck at Stalin and the soviet union.
I always wonder why the CIA or america was all "oh i guess the trots is in mexico" They had to be watching him or have talked to him.

I think i saw this old political cartoon once of reagan and trotsky pointing at a map of the soviet union and shouting "evil empire"

I really hope you just pretending to be retarded, user

didn't Goebbels literally announce that Trotsky was sending the Nazi party telegrams?

So can anyone give any substantial non biased evidence of Trotsky's collaboration with Fascists?
Or is it just Stalinist autism?

I just found the quote

from Goebbels' diary

They have none, they only have their illegitimate confessions.

why would Goebbels write this in his private diary? this wasn't some kind of front page article

goebbles isnt exactly a trustworthy person though is he?

he wrote this in his private diary. this evidence has no reason to be fake.

...

Assuming it's true what of the other 34 officers confessions?

Are you guys all autistic? You realize Goebbels is not claiming that they worked with Trotsky, but that they used his name?

damage control

But his diary "founded" about year after defeat nazi Germany.

I'm not sure if this was collaboration, Trotsky himself openly admitted that he was helping Fascists.

Political Dialogue (1938, Dec 20) - page 155 in pdf-related (couldn't find online):
NB: this is all Trotsky, both asking questions to himself and answering
> But you cannot deny that the fascists use your criticisms. All the reactionaries shout for joy when you unmask the USSR. … You reveal only the defects of the USSR, and consequently this lowers the prestige of the first workers' state in the eyes of the workers of the world, and thus objectively you are helping fascism.

To put things into context, to demonstrate that Trotsky was not vaguely "criticising" USSR, this is his position at a month before (i.e. at the end of 1938, less than a year before WWII). Notable points:
a) there is a need to start Civil War within the USSR
b) Proletariat should not resist to Fascist invasion

A Fresh Lesson On the Character of the Coming War (1938, Oct 10):
marxists.catbull.com/archive/trotsky/1938/10/imperial.htm

a) there is a need to start Civil War in the USSR

b) Proletariat should not resist to Fascist invasions

In case there is some doubt, I'll present Trotsky's logic.

Defending oneself from Nazi invasion is wrong, since you might accidentally become imperialist yourself:

Defeat is okay, because it is temporary. One must obediently march into the death camps - anything else is doubting the Revolution.
> This does not exclude that in passing the imperialist war may improve or worsen the position of this or that “nation”; or, more exactly, of one nation at the expense of another. … In reality all speculative arguments of this sort and raising bogies of impending national calamities for the sake of supporting this or that imperialist bourgeoisie flow from the tacit rejection of the revolutionary perspective and a revolutionary policy'.

And even if Trotskyite Fourth International does not defeat Fascism (after Trots defeat USSR in an armed uprising) and all "revolutionaries" die in death camps, it's okay because new generation can look upon them and say "fucking morons".

STALIN IS KREMLIN GANG

Trotskyist here to fight you. Trotsky himself said that basically everything would have been the same if he were in charge, bureaucracy and all but with Trotsky at the top. The Trotskyist analysis pertains primarily to the material conditions in Russia, not just leadership.

Yep, he are right. Now russians can enjoy oligarch authoritarianism almost without socialism. And seems like they enjoy it, perhaps they totally earn this

The "Political Dialogue" which you're referencing also seems to have no identifying markers, nor presence in academic catalogues. As of now, it's not all too inconceivable that you fashioned that quote from the thin air and your burgeoning malice.

As for the whole of the "analysis" of the writing of Trotsky in the remainder: Your reading leaves a lot to be said, and the whole piece to be read; the compulsions of an ideologue hardly qualify as meaningful commentary. Much to the contrary, your horribly distended cathexis, borne of some misguided 'ethical' necessity to oppose tov. Trotsky, reveals nothing but your own ignorance of their work - the Trotskyists. In light of the comments made, I shall, just as easily, demonstrate the 'reasonable' probability of the opposite interpretation:

This is actually pretty straight forward: Trotsky was always the internationalist whose idea was that socialism could not maintain the national identity as an inherent in-itself. The all-encompassing formalism of Stalinist bureaucracy was a grave affront to the idea of an independent system of decentralized (as in non-didactic) management and production, with the detractors of this idea advocating the "pragmatic necessity" of re-subjecting the proletariat to "the will of the proletariat" which always came in the form of some body of representation that separated power from the masses for "the good of the masses"

What a convenient titling, as if to thoroughly damn the whole of the clique: they surely must recognize their folly in light of the indescribable violences to be perpetrated against the Soviet people in the years to come!! No, I'm sorry. This attempted grafting of a military defeatism is much more about the defeatism of a forced objective, that the war to come will be about the reshuffling of national powers in Europe than that of the universal revolution. To insinuate a sort of contrived wont towards accepting fascist aggressions is so far beyond the scope of reasonable assumption.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

You are absolutely retarded.

Nonetheless, the USSR also traded with them

So what? Nazi Germany was literally no worse than Britain, America, or any other imperialist, fascist country.

Not my point.

Source, please. Also it's unclear what numbers are supposed to mean. Was USSR exporting grain into Germany in the October of 1941?

Can you verbalize your distress?

>> Political Dialogue (1938, Dec 20) - page 155 in pdf-related (couldn't find online):
< uploaded the book for those without ability to find the text
You can't read, can you?

Well, I'm quite far from your level. That is true.

Are you trying to sound smart?

Mein Gott. You are trying to sound smart.

READ MARX

IRL "decentralized (as in non-didactic) management and production" means restoration of private property.

Such a blatant attempt to weasel out. Except, qualitative differences of Fascism (as well as mass murders perpertrated by them) weren't news by 1938.

< let me invent a lot of stuff Trotsky never actually wrote or meant
You are quite similar to Holla Forums retards, who don't care about actually arguing, only about presenting convincing facade - even if it falls apart the second you poke at it.

What are you even expecting to achieve?

Given the context of your post, you are and you did. A regular Trot.

I apologize, English is not my first language, and I'm at work

I wasn't making a joke that you can't read, I'm saying that your reading is talking past the argument Trotsky is making. You can't argue the merits of Trotskyism within the ethics of Stalinism, the critique is damning and total but also completely irrelevant.

Bud, I choose the words I do. I usually make a "WAH WAH WORDS ARE OPPRESSING ME" comment, but come on: "compulsions" "ideologue" "cathexis". The bar is being set pretty low.

You misread me, the critique of formalist bureaucracy is not in service of the critique of Marxian economics. Also non-didactic, as in non-hierarchical, so I assume the keyword that set you off was decentralized. In which case, I refer to the theory of the necessity of the alienated bureaucracy, which in its historical context is actually in major praise of Stalin.

Housecleaning is usually not referred to as such.

You literally invented Trotsky's argument.

Do you admit to never reading the article in question?

Did you invent this theory yesterday?

Care someone to explain that part?

Surprise, the guy who said "tankies don't function in relation to theory" is a bit more than theoretically retarded. The rest of what you said is quite literally, "That can't be what Trotsky is saying, because it isn't what I'M SAYING Trotsky is saying". Suffice to say, you're another pedant namefag who overindulges his ego.