""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > ""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

«‹›22 »

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Perhaps the Soviets would have had more success preventing an inevitable German invasion by not assisting the Germans materially and militarily in the destruction of the European powers opposed to Germany. The Germans were actually pretty sure they couldn't win a two front war with Poland and France, and while they had been successful at the outset of the surprise attack the advances in Poland had slowed considerably as the Poles mobilized and retreated to defensible positions where they could hold out until France and the UK could intervene. It was only with the advance of Soviet troops to occupy the Eastern half of the country that Polish resistance disintegrated. The invasions of the Baltic states and Finland (to miraculously end up with the borders drawn up in Ribberntrop-Molotov) involved a significant loss of troops and material against not-Germans and solidified opposition to the Soviets in those areas.

But hey, I'm sure invading Northern and Eastern Europe through a succession of attacks while supporting the Axis was just pretend. Everybody in all those countries just had mass-hallucinations or were dastardly capitalist spies trying to tarnish the glorious Soviet Union. Probably planted all those documents in the Soviet archives, too!

# ? Apr 2, 2016 16:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 15:39

az: Dec 2, 2005

System Metternich posted:

az, you're doing good work here and thanks for the great effort posts. But you know that these morons don't care about stuff like "facts" and "evidence" and "sources" and will just go back sucking Stalin's dick without even giving a glance to what you wrote, right?

Ofc, but I was ~~tortured~~ educated for years by an old professor of Slavic studies and history of the 19th and 20th century who would smite me with a polonium laced thunderbolt if I didn't at least try every now and then. And sometimes it's just amusing for a few minutes to watch them try.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 16:59

Flocons de Jambon: Apr 11, 2015

Warbadger posted:

Perhaps the Soviets would have had more success preventing an inevitable German invasion by not assisting the Germans materially and militarily in the destruction of the European powers opposed to Germany.

In what way were the European powers "opposed" to Germany pre-MR pact?

# ? Apr 2, 2016 17:08

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Warbadger posted:

But hey, I'm sure invading Northern and Eastern Europe through a succession of attacks while supporting the Axis was just pretend. Everybody in all those countries just had mass-hallucinations or were dastardly capitalist spies trying to tarnish the glorious Soviet Union. Probably planted all those documents in the Soviet archives, too!

But you see, the Soviets were just punishing the Polish for their Right Wing government and their Anti-Soviet feelings. They deserved it!

Flocons de Jambon posted:

In what way were the European powers "opposed" to Germany pre-MR pact?

They were, but they were still hoping to appease Hitler rather than oppose him militarily.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Apr 2, 2016

# ? Apr 2, 2016 17:08

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Flocons de Jambon posted:

In what way were the European powers "opposed" to Germany pre-MR pact?

Well, the Poles signed a non-aggression agreement with the Soviets. The UK/France/Poland signed various mutual defense agreements pretty clearly aimed at Germany and generally talked about Germany doing bad things as Germany rebuilt its military. Militarily they didn't do much because it's pretty clear they didn't want to end up in a huge war with Germany again, complete with throwing smaller countries to the wolves (ala current-day Ukraine).

The Germans could not attack the Soviet Union without going through Poland. When they did eventually go through Poland, the Poles did fight back and there was a mobilization by the rest of the allies that may have actually been successful if the conflict in Poland hadn't been abruptly ended.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Apr 2, 2016

# ? Apr 2, 2016 17:33

Torquemadras: Jun 3, 2013

System Metternich posted:

az, you're doing good work here and thanks for the great effort posts. But you know that these morons don't care about stuff like "facts" and "evidence" and "sources" and will just go back sucking Stalin's dick without even giving a glance to what you wrote, right?

I don't know about most of the other posters here, but personally, I lack the knowledge to weigh in on this. So I think it's incredibly interesting AND educational to see effort posts like these around. Likewise, I'm kinda fascinated with the history trolls (???) you see every now and then in this subforum, because it always boils down to the same stuff, only from different angles - it's always the same language, the same deflections, the same assumptions. I like being educated on these topics, and I like seeing this insufferable way of arguing brought down. Even better when I don't see all the name-calling and othering and insidious assumption of intentions as fact myself - as I said, very educational, and it shows me my own errors.

So at the very least, these effort posts aren't wasted on me. There's that.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 18:26

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

I'm not disputing the total figures of how much was provided to the Soviets thorough Lend-Lease, I'm disputing the entire narrative that this was a benevolent gesture on the part of the USA and saying that the entire western paradigm of the history of WW2 in Europe is seen through a highly distorted capitalist-propaganda lens.

Harry Truman, June 1941 posted:

�If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible ��

So:
The dividing lines in Europe before the advent of WW2 were between the capitalist countries and the USSR. The encouragement and general liking of Hitler by the leaders of other capitalist countries was due to the Nazis vehement anti-communist rhetoric, in short the US and western Europe were hoping that Hitler would direct Germany against the USSR in the hope that this would weaken or destroy communism. To this end rearmament was encouraged and planning was carried out with the idea that western Europe would ally with Hitler to destroy communism

We tend to think of appeasement as a mistake by an idealistic and idiotic Chamberlain but it was nothing of the sort, Chamberlain treated with Hitler as a future ally against communism, constantly excusing Nazi imperialism because of a desire to see communism eliminated.

The western allies had had to declare war on Germany due to their agreement with Poland, but note that the phony war lasted 8 months, neither Britain or France really wanted to fight the Nazis, still holding out hope that Germany would turn attentions against the USSR. It was only with the 6 week defeat of France that things really hit home for France and the UK that their Nazi attack dog was utterly rabid and out of control.

With this in mind, that the USSR was always an ally of convenience against Hitler and communism was seen as the true enemy of Europe and the USA, it seems mystifying that the USA would throw its anti-communist position out the window to benevolently assist its most dangerous enemy.

Starting in 1941, when things were most dire for the USSR and it looked like Hitler might be victorious, you state that the USSR was in a really lovely spot, which it was, but if we look at what was actually provided to the USSR in that year:

Evgeniy Spitsyn posted:

Let�s look at the statistics for arms shipments from that year. From the onset of the war until the end of 1941, the Red Army received 1.76 million rifles, automatic weapons, and machine guns, 53,700 artillery and mortars, 5,400 tanks, and 8,200 warplanes. Of these, our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition supplied only 82 artillery weapons (0.15%), 648 tanks (12.14%), and 915 airplanes (10.26%). In addition, much of the military equipment that was sent � in particular, 115 of the 466 tanks manufactured in the UK � did not even make it to the front in the first year of the war.
If we convert these shipments of arms and military equipment into their monetary equivalent, then, according to the well-known historian Mikhail Frolov, DSc (Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voina 1941-1945 v Nemetskoi Istoriografii.[Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 in German historiography],� St. Petersburg: 1994), �up until the end of 1941 � the most difficult period for the Soviet state � under the Lend-Lease Act, the US sent the USSR materials worth $545,000, out of the $741 million worth of supplies shipped to all the countries that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition. This means that during this extraordinarily difficult period, less than 0.1% of America�s aid went to the Soviet Union.

So, while this feeble volume of lend-lease amounting to $545,000 sent to the USSR during its most difficult battles how much was being supplied to Nazi Germany by the US bourgiosie? Well, we have no idea, naturally, these companies do not want the extent of their Nazi collaboration to ever come to light:

quote:

"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." - William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937

Standard Oil (Exxon), the largest petroleum company in the world continued to supply the Nazis with oil and other essential chemicals throughout the war, channelling supplies through Venezuela and Mexico onto German merchant ships. Figures of total oil deliveries seem nonexistent, unsurprisingly, but I have seen references to 13,000 tonnes of oil per month and specific mention of at least 500 tonnes of tetraethyl lead, essential ingredient of aviation fuel, without which Germany could not have pursue its aggressive air campaigns.

US and UK chemical and manufacturer companies continued to operate in Germany during the war, supplying the majority of the materiel for the German war effort against the USSR while utilising slave labour. There has been a lot written on this, read more here:

https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2
http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/3/oil.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-history-the-u-s-supported-and-inspired-the-nazis/5439236
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf

back to Lend-Lease:

Evgeniy Spitsyn again posted:

There is a perception that lend-lease aid was offered by the US out of the goodness of its heart. However, this version does not hold up upon closer inspection. First of all, this was because of something called �reverse lend-lease.� Even before the Second World War had ended, other nations began sending Washington essential raw materials valued at nearly 20% of the materials and weapons the US had shipped overseas. Specifically, the USSR provided 32,000 tons of manganese and 300,000 tons of chrome ore, which were highly prized by the military industry. [...]
In addition, the USSR paid for the Allied shipments with gold. In fact, one British cruiser, the�HMS Edinburgh, was carrying 5.5 tons of that precious metal when it was sunk by German submarines in May 1942.
The Soviet Union also returned much of the weaponry and military equipment after the war, as stipulated under the lend-lease agreement. In exchange they were issued an invoice for $1,300 million. Given the fact that lend-lease debts to other nations had been written off, this seemed like highway robbery, and Stalin demanded that the �Allied debt� be recalculated.
Subsequently the Americans were forced to admit their error, but they inflated the interest owed in the grand total, and the final amount, including that interest, came to $722 million, a figure that was accepted by the USSR and the US under a settlement agreement signed in Washington in 1972. Of this amount, $48 million was paid to the US in three equal installments in 1973, but subsequent payments were cut off when the US introduced discriminatory practices in their trade with the USSR

And

Evgeniy Spitsyn again posted:

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once called lend-lease "the most unselfish and unsordid financial act of any country in all history." However, the Americans themselves admitted that lend-lease brought in considerable income for the US. In particular, former US Secretary of Commerce Jesse Jones stated that the US had not only gotten its money back via supplies shipped from the USSR, but the US had even made a profit, which he claimed was not uncommon in trade relations regulated by American state agencies.
His fellow American, the historian George Herring just as candidly wrote that lend-lease was not actually the most unselfish act in the history of mankind, but rather an act of prudent egotism, with the Americans fully aware of how they could benefit from it.

So,
1) Pre-invasion of France, the Western Allies saw Hitler as the lesser of two evils compared to communism
2) US Lend-Lease to the USSR when it looked like the USSR might be about to be defeated was minimal and only once the Eastern front had turned in the USSRs favor did Leand-Lease support really pick up
3) Support by the capitalist structures of the United States and Europe for Nazi Germany was enormous, providing the fuel, chemicals and manurfacturing to continue the war against the USSR far beyond what they could have done using their own resources.
4) The USA made a profit out of Lend-Lease to the USSR while forgiving debts to capitalist countries
5) The USA would never do the USSR any favours without benefit to itself, the two being philosophically diametrically opposite and as soon as the war was over, the cold war started.

G.C. Furr III fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 2, 2016

# ? Apr 2, 2016 18:52

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

G.C. Furr III posted:

The western allies had had to declare war on Germany due to their agreement with Poland, but note that the phony war lasted 8 months, neither Britain or France really wanted to fight the Nazis, still holding out hope that Germany would turn attentions against the USSR. It was only with the 6 week defeat of France that things really hit home for France and the UK that their Nazi attack dog was utterly rabid and out of control.

Not to rain on your parade, but that isn't what the phony war was about. The French and British were stuck in a World War 1 mindset of always on the defense and assuming the Germans would walk right into them on the offense. The Germans were busy planning how to route around them entirely by moving through the Ardennes, there was never any doubt about the Germans attacking, and the allies were fairly certain Germany would uphold its Neutrality Pact with the USSR.

Also:

G.C. Furr III posted:

https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2

http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-history-the-u-s-supported-and-inspired-the-nazis/5439236

Libcom and Global Research.ca? Are you kidding me? These are the best sources you can find?

# ? Apr 2, 2016 19:04

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

CommieGIR posted:

Not to rain on your parade, but that isn't what the phony war was about. The French and British were stuck in a World War 1 mindset of always on the defense and assuming the Germans would walk right into them on the offense. The Germans were busy planning how to route around them entirely by moving through the Ardennes, there was never any doubt about the Germans attacking, and the allies were fairly certain Germany would uphold its Neutrality Pact with the USSR.

History Study Notes: Communist Principles in Two World War posted:

The outbreak of the imperialist world war is the result of the attempt of the imperialist countries to extricate themselves from a new economic and, political crisis. Whether on the German side or on the Anglo-French, the war is unjust, predatory and, imperialist in character. The Communist Parties throughout the world must firmly oppose the war and also the criminal actions of the social-democratic parties in betraying the proletariat by supporting it. The socialist Soviet Union is persevering as before in its policy of peace, is maintaining strict neutrality towards both belligerents. Mao Tsetung[14]

A few weeks after the beginning of the Second Imperialist War, the Red Army liberated Latvia, Lithuania and parts of White Russia and the Ukraine which had been seized from Russia by imperialism in 1920. The Red Army was welcomed everywhere by the workers and poor peasants. In the Western press the anti-soviet campaign reached hysterical proportions. The fact that the Soviet Union had regained its lost territory, rescued millions of people from the nazis and established a strong line of defence to block the nazi advance, was presented as a blow against Britain even though technically Britain was at war with Germany, (not with the USSR).

Churchill, then Lord of the Admiralty was at least honest; �That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the nazi menace ... nazi designs upon the Baltic states and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop�.

But the dominant section of the ruling class and its propaganda acted as if Britain was at war with Russia not Germany. This was the �phoney war� period; the �men of Munich� were still in office, an unnatural atmosphere of neither peace nor war prevailed at home and no decisive action was taken against Germany. Britain and France still hoped to �switch� the war against the Soviet Union. Chamberlain made this quite explicit when he told the Commons in November, �none of us knows how long the war will last, none of us knows in what direction it will develop, none of us knows when it is ended who will be standing by our side, and who will be against us.�

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/red-flag-3-2.htm

# ? Apr 2, 2016 19:13

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

G.C. Furr III posted:

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/red-flag-3-2.htm

Hahahaha the Red Army "liberated" the Baltic states. "Imperialism for me, but not for thee" -- a thing actually believed by ~~Marxists~~ idiots.

What is your position on the Moscow show trials, Mr. Furr? Were they all guilty as charged?

# ? Apr 2, 2016 19:17

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

CommieGIR posted:

Libcom

look who didn't even click on the link to see that it consists of nothing but a series of quotes from two books on collaboration with the Nazis: Trading With the Enemy: An Expos� of The Nazi-American Money-Plot 1933-1949" by Charles Higham;
& "The Coca Cola Company under the Nazis" by Eleanor Jones and Florian Ritzmann

Guess you were just too eager for that sick burn lol

# ? Apr 2, 2016 19:19

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

Jack of Hearts posted:

What is your position on the Moscow show trials, Mr. Furr? Were they all guilty as charged?

pretty much, yeah. If you want to read a decent entry level analysis of the Moscow Trials not written by a Trot you could start here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/22/the-moscow-trials-in-historical-context/view-all/

# ? Apr 2, 2016 19:53

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

G.C. Furr III posted:

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/red-flag-3-2.htm

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah. Reputable source, right there.

Between that, the Libertarian Communists (which is such like....one of these things is the exact opposite of the other) and the GlobalResearch.ca source, you can't seem to find a source that isn't broiled in idiocy, can you?

quote:

Globalresearch (under the domain names globalresearch.ca(link) and globalresearch.org(link)) is an anti-globalization left wing website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk and so publishes both. The website is run by the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky,[2][3] a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa.[4] Weep for the future.
While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is broadly conspiracist, with a strong anti-Western bent. It's no surprise that the site has long been a crank magnet for moonbats of all stripes. If you disagree with mainstream sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or Gaddafi, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by mainstream "Western" media, then Globalresearch is guaranteed to have a page you can cite in support.
Globalresearch may be best described as the moonbat equivalent to WorldNetDaily. Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

But please, carry on. You must be Jrod's clone.

G.C. Furr III posted:

look who didn't even click on the link to see that it consists of nothing but a series of quotes from two books on collaboration with the Nazis: Trading With the Enemy: An Expos� of The Nazi-American Money-Plot 1933-1949" by Charles Higham;
& "The Coca Cola Company under the Nazis" by Eleanor Jones and Florian Ritzmann

Guess you were just too eager for that sick burn lol

Its a garbage link, and you apparently love garbage links.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 20:04

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

G.C. Furr III posted:

pretty much, yeah. If you want to read a decent entry level analysis of the Moscow Trials not written by a Trot you could start here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/22/the-moscow-trials-in-historical-context/view-all/

In defense of a crank you link to another crank? At least you're consistent.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 20:28

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

CommieGIR posted:

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah. Reputable source, right there.

Between that, the Libertarian Communists (which is such like....one of these things is the exact opposite of the other)

Firstly, Jesus, G.C. Furr III is trolling you. This shouldn't even need to be said but hey, D&D.

Libertarian was originally what you called anarchists. Left-wing anarchists. (among other groups. Marxists hardly have a monopoly on left wing ideas) That it was expropriated by free market fundamentalists hasn't lead to libertarian communists just giving up on the term any more than they accept "anarcho-capitalists" as having anything to do with anarchism. So no, libertarian & communist are not mutually exclusive ideas at all except in the incredibly narrow usage of one or two North American countries.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 20:35

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

CommieGIR posted:

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah. Reputable source, right there.

Between that, the Libertarian Communists (which is such like....one of these things is the exact opposite of the other) and the GlobalResearch.ca source, you can't seem to find a source that isn't broiled in idiocy, can you?

But please, carry on. You must be Jrod's clone.

Its a garbage link, and you apparently love garbage links.

Like I said, you don't seem to be capable looking at content over a need to make snap dismissals. Maybe thats the origin of your inability to reassess your propaganda derived opinions on Stalin too?

heres a link to the full text of Trading With the Enemy: An Expos� of The Nazi-American Money-Plot 1933-1949" by Charles Higham:

http://www.whale.to/b/higham_b.html

and a link to "The Coca Cola Company under the Nazis" by Eleanor Jones and Florian Ritzmann:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~class/coke/coke1.html

since the location where you would be reading these rather than the words you would be reading seems to be the main factor for you in this hopefully exactly the same words on different sites will make you feel better.

Your pointless attacks on hosting rather than content are exactly the same arguments used to dismiss the works Grover Furr, that he is a crackpot so not worth reading, rather than actually looking at his arguments against what Snyder wrote in Bloodlands. This really is a childish way to go about history and since Furr is actually correct in his meticulous analysis of Snyder's "work" prehaps that is a sign you should rethink your snide dismissal of historical evidence that does not conform to your aparently ossified historial prejudices?

As for History Study Notes: Communist Principles in Two World War, its a very good look at the 2nd world war from a Marxist-Leninist Historical Materialist perspective, so it is no supprise that it is completly different to the bourgious western capitalist "historical consensus". I consider it an exellent analysis of the 2nd world war and you would probably gain quite a lot from reading it.

EDIT: and yes, as forkboy84 said: you seem to not understand what a libertarian communist is.

G.C. Furr III fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 2, 2016

# ? Apr 2, 2016 20:50

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

Jack of Hearts posted:

In defense of a crank you link to another crank? At least you're consistent.

Everyone who doesnt agree with you is obviously a "crank". What were you expecting, a WSJ piece?

# ? Apr 2, 2016 20:55

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

forkboy84 posted:

Firstly, Jesus, G.C. Furr III is trolling you. This shouldn't even need to be said but hey, D&D.

We all know that, we just like watching him bend over backwards to defend this poo poo.

G.C. Furr III posted:

Everyone who doesnt agree with you is obviously a "crank". What were you expecting, a WSJ piece?

Yeah, basically. Unless they are considered a crank by their entire field. Then, you know, conspiracy.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 21:25

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

G.C. Furr III posted:

Everyone who doesnt agree with you is obviously a "crank". What were you expecting, a WSJ piece?

There are lots of people with whom I disagree who aren't cranks. For instance, as a general rule, I don't agree with Trots on most topics. But when given the option between the following two hypotheses:

a) that nearly every Old Bolshevik was in fact guilty of conspiring in one way or another against Stalin and the Soviet state, or

b) that at least some of the Moscow trials were deliberate frame-ups,

then yeah, it's gonna take quite a lot to get me to accept the former and reject the latter. WSJ would probably do.

Even Furr claims that of the ~700K people executed during the Great Purge, "hundreds of thousands" of them were innocent. To accept that the Soviet justice system was working as advertised at the time of the Moscow trials is simply laughable.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 21:43

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

JoH,

You might be interested in Furrs other main work, the equally rediculously titled: "Khrushchev Lied. The Evidence That Every �Revelation� of Stalin�s (and Beria�s) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev�s Infamous �Secret Speech� to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False."

what sort of communist/whaterverist would you describe yourself as?

# ? Apr 2, 2016 22:00

az: Dec 2, 2005

quote:

I'm not disputing the total figures of how much was provided to the Soviets thorough Lend-Lease, I'm disputing the entire narrative that this was a benevolent gesture on the part of the USA and saying that the entire western paradigm of the history of WW2 in Europe is seen through a highly distorted capitalist-propaganda lens.

It wasn't a benevolent gesture it was an attempt to stop Nazi Germany from becoming the most powerful nation on the planet as they were, to the outside observer, becoming very quickly, what with having absolutely destroyed everything in their path in shockingly short campaigns. Soviet LLP was struck when the Wehrmacht was converging on the capital of the Soviet Union, like, that should be understandable.

quote:

Harry Truman, June 1941 posted:

�If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible ��

That was Truman alright. Also happened to have been a nobody Senator from Bumfuck Missouri with little prospects for advancement when he said those words on the senate floor. You could use that quote for context when discussing his eventual administration, not any of this. Oh and you got this quote from the same idiotic article as everything else in this post.

G.C. Furr III posted:

To this end rearmament was encouraged and planning was carried out with the idea that western Europe would ally with Hitler to destroy communism

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff please.

quote:

We tend to think of appeasement as a mistake by an idealistic and idiotic Chamberlain but it was nothing of the sort, Chamberlain treated with Hitler as a future ally against communism, constantly excusing Nazi imperialism because of a desire to see communism eliminated.

Read into Chamberlain's reasoning in private and to the British parliament. He was desperately trying to stop the wheels coming off the european train again. If you want to pick a world leader and use him as a strawpuppet for this line of rhetoric, always pick Churchill.

quote:

The western allies had had to declare war on Germany due to their agreement with Poland, but note that the phony war lasted 8 months, neither Britain or France really wanted to fight the Nazis, still holding out hope that Germany would turn attentions against the USSR. It was only with the 6 week defeat of France that things really hit home for France and the UK that their Nazi attack dog was utterly rabid and out of control.

France and GB deliberately struck a defensive alliance with Poland because they wanted to set a line in the sand, knowing full well what that entailed. They didn't want to go to war with Germany, because Germany was powerful and had a very strong showing in WW1, yet they stuck to their word and declared war 52 hours after outbreak of hostilities, the time in between was spent sending notes and envoys to Hitler for a final chance to avoid catastrophe. If that crockpot idea held any water the allies would have simply ignored the Polish war and attempted more appeasement. And that "attack dog" line is the same dumb poo poo you see on conspiracy forums and youtube videos these days, what a coincidence.

quote:

With this in mind, that the USSR was always an ally of convenience against Hitler and communism was seen as the true enemy of Europe and the USA, it seems mystifying that the USA would throw its anti-communist position out the window to benevolently assist its most dangerous enemy.

As I said before, if you want to pick an anticommunist person in this time period, always pick Churchill. If you want an anticommunist country, pick Churchills England. The US really didn't rate highly on the anticommunist train, you're off by about 10 years.

quote:

So, while this feeble volume of lend-lease amounting to $545,000 sent to the USSR during its most difficult battles how much was being supplied to Nazi Germany by the US bourgiosie? Well, we have no idea, naturally, these companies do not want the extent of their Nazi collaboration to ever come to light:

I feel like I know where you got this from, hmmmmm. It complains that "From the onset of the war until the end of 1941*" only x amount was delivered and that of course is proof that FDR wanted to personally murder all Soviets. The only problem is that a) those numbers are wrong and b) the Soviet participation in the war had lasted a whopping six months. For which deals had to be struck, materials collected and transports to be sent. And it compares that to the other allied recipients of LL which had been in the war for oh, 20 months?
Can you guess what comes next, this might prick a little: Lend Lease aid for the western allies had been approved by congress in March 41. Lend Lease aid for the Soviet union was approved.... Mid November??? Not being able to send the same amount to the Soviets in the span of 6 weeks, for shame.
*The attempt to throw shade at Lend Lease by use of 1941 as a cutoff for comparison is hilarious in a really sad way.

quote:

Standard Oil (Exxon), the largest petroleum company in the world continued to supply the Nazis with oil and other essential chemicals throughout the war, channelling supplies through Venezuela and Mexico onto German merchant ships. Figures of total oil deliveries seem nonexistent, unsurprisingly, but I have seen references to 13,000 tonnes of oil per month and specific mention of at least 500 tonnes of tetraethyl lead, essential ingredient of aviation fuel, without which Germany could not have pursue its aggressive air campaigns.

Fyi there are much better examples at this suggested collusion than StandardOil. You should read up on this entire topic, from the early stages of the German-American friendship Bund, Ford, IG Farben, Coca Cola, IBM, Texaco etc etc. to the lawsuits, fines, regulations and investigations during and after the war, it's a really fascinating story. I shouldn't be doing your homework for you but maybe you can learn something new to throw at the wall there. As for the argument that this was a US government hatched plan to destroy the Soviet Union, Pfffffffff Please. PS: The numbers and conclusion that this was critical to the German war effort are wrong too. Again, I feel like I've seen this before somewhere...

quote:

US and UK chemical and manufacturer companies continued to operate in Germany during the war, supplying the majority of the materiel for the German war effort against the USSR while utilising slave labour. There has been a lot written on this, read more here:

Old hat, see above. They did not in any way shape or form supply the majority of any material for the war effort.

quote:

Evgeniy Spitsyn again posted:

There is a perception that lend-lease aid was offered by the US out of the goodness of its heart. However, this version does not hold up upon closer inspection. First of all, this was because of something called �reverse lend-lease.� Even before the Second World War had ended, other nations began sending Washington essential raw materials valued at nearly 20% of the materials and weapons the US had shipped overseas. Specifically, the USSR provided 32,000 tons of manganese and 300,000 tons of chrome ore, which were highly prized by the military industry. [...]
In addition, the USSR paid for the Allied shipments with gold. In fact, one British cruiser, the HMS Edinburgh, was carrying 5.5 tons of that precious metal when it was sunk by German submarines in May 1942.
The Soviet Union also returned much of the weaponry and military equipment after the war, as stipulated under the lend-lease agreement. In exchange they were issued an invoice for $1,300 million. Given the fact that lend-lease debts to other nations had been written off, this seemed like highway robbery, and Stalin demanded that the �Allied debt� be recalculated.
Subsequently the Americans were forced to admit their error, but they inflated the interest owed in the grand total, and the final amount, including that interest, came to $722 million, a figure that was accepted by the USSR and the US under a settlement agreement signed in Washington in 1972. Of this amount, $48 million was paid to the US in three equal installments in 1973, but subsequent payments were cut off when the US introduced discriminatory practices in their trade with the USSR

hmmmmmmmm, that source again... Now I remember, it's modern Russian clickbait garbage written by a self styled ~~historian~~ blogger. The bias in it is seeping through the letters and the language alone, filled with unsourced and unexplained accusations, is enough to warrant a red sharpie "F, intent? unreadable! see me later!" over it. But unsourced and unexplained plus accusations of malice with forethought isn't excactly a new theme here, is it? Everything in that tankie rag that is being copy pasted around the various pro Soviet and pro Russia websites is unsourced garbage. I don't care to check all of the fantasy in it but everything I've seen so far was either fabricated outright or so incredibly distorted it was worthless academically, and actually in every other way too. loving Sputnik quotes this kid in the Russian state media, ay carumba.
Note: I am deeply saddened that you edited out the part where he writes "Suffice it to say that when German industry was deprived of the manganese from the rich deposits in Nikopol as a result of the Soviet Nikopol�Krivoi Rog Offensive in February 1944, the 150-mm frontal armor on the German �Royal Tiger� tanks turned to be much more vulnerable to Soviet artillery shells than the 100-mm armor plate previously found on the ordinary Tiger tanks." Hahaha, everything about that sentence is adorable, most of all the "Royal Tiger", jesus christ Evgenyi.

quote:

1) Pre-invasion of France, the Western Allies saw Hitler as the lesser of two evils compared to communism
2) US Lend-Lease to the USSR when it looked like the USSR might be about to be defeated was minimal and only once the Eastern front had turned in the USSRs favor did Leand-Lease support really pick up
3) Support by the capitalist structures of the United States and Europe for Nazi Germany was enormous, providing the fuel, chemicals and manurfacturing to continue the war against the USSR far beyond what they could have done using their own resources.
4) The USA made a profit out of Lend-Lease to the USSR while forgiving debts to capitalist countries
5) The USA would never do the USSR any favours without benefit to itself, the two being philosophically diametrically opposite and as soon as the war was over, the cold war started.

Lightning round.
1. Nah
2. Wrong and terrible logic
3. F, intent? structure? hearsay, speculative, see me after
4. нет
5. Reductive, wrong, simplistic, shrug???

G.C. Furr III posted:

from a Marxist-Leninist Historical Materialist perspective

Pssst, don't overdo it too quickly, I'm still hoping actual real life stalinfan Horselord comes back in here.

G.C. Furr III posted:

You might be interested in Furrs other main work, the equally rediculously titled: "Khrushchev Lied. The Evidence That Every �Revelation� of Stalin�s (and Beria�s) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev�s Infamous �Secret Speech� to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False."

Holy moley, I'm not sure what I think anymore. Furr is a genius..? I'm gonna order that book and hang the entire 426 pages in a barbed wire intellectual gulag rememberance frame.

az fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 2, 2016

# ? Apr 2, 2016 22:12

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

congratulations on typing an essay to respond to an obvious troll account i guess

# ? Apr 2, 2016 23:18

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

botany posted:

congratulations on typing an essay to respond to an obvious troll account i guess

As long as it's interesting/informative, who cares?

# ? Apr 2, 2016 23:45

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

G.C. Furr III posted:

The use of market socialism while in the primary stage of socialism does not = "not socialist". But don't let that stop your weak troll attempts. I see you have literally no answer to the incredible successes of China in eradicating poverty compared to capitalist countries which, if you look at my first graph, have barely moved on the poverty front in 25-30 years. Thats capitalism lol.

Actually we agree on China's success. It's just that I call it capitalism.

# ? Apr 2, 2016 23:56

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Have we decided if this is a gimmick or if its earnest belief?

# ? Apr 3, 2016 00:59

Famethrowa: Oct 5, 2012

Fojar38 posted:

Have we decided if this is a gimmick or if its earnest belief?

Both hilarious

# ? Apr 3, 2016 04:37

Sorcery: Jul 3, 2012

What's hilarious? That Britain, France and the US actively collaborated with the NAZIs before, during and after World War II for the purposes of destroying the world's first worker's state? Read Jacques Pauwels, Guido Preperata, George Seldes, Michael Jabara Carley or Edwin Black if GlobalResearch makes you uncomfortable.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 05:10

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Sorcery posted:

What's hilarious? That Britain, France and the US actively collaborated with the NAZIs before, during and after World War II for the purposes of destroying the world's first worker's state? Read Jacques Pauwels, Guido Preperata, George Seldes, Michael Jabara Carley or Edwin Black if GlobalResearch makes you uncomfortable.

Or, you could quote these sources at length. That'd be good!

# ? Apr 3, 2016 05:23

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

I'm starting to think that the OP and the recently regged account were gimmicks designed to draw out true believers

Well played, Goon Sir.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 05:59

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Fojar38 posted:

I'm starting to think that the OP and the recently regged account were gimmicks designed to draw out true believers

Well played, Goon Sir.

No, there's a Party for Socialism and Liberation thread in YCS (i.e. the The Greens Aren't Useless Enough Party) and OP posted in that and was recognized by other posters as a long-time SA socialist. OP just sucks. Can't speak to the other Stalinists itt.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 06:15

KiteAuraan: Aug 5, 2014; JER GEDDA FERDA RADDA ARA!

Fojar38 posted:

Have we decided if this is a gimmick or if its earnest belief?

I seriously cannot tell because I've had these same discussions with a friend of mine 100% in earnest, right down to the lend-lease stuff.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 06:43

az: Dec 2, 2005

Op was commissared in the line of duty, god bless.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 11:19

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Let's pretend for a second that Stalin was awesome. What do we do with this knowledge? Turn america into a dictatorship and then do what? Led by whom?

# ? Apr 3, 2016 15:28

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

asdf32 posted:

Let's pretend for a second that Stalin was awesome. What do we do with this knowledge? Turn america into a dictatorship and then do what? Led by whom?

First you find a sexy bank robber.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 16:25

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

asdf32 posted:

Let's pretend for a second that Stalin was awesome. What do we do with this knowledge? Turn america into a dictatorship and then do what? Led by whom?

The vanguards (of which I am a member of course)

# ? Apr 3, 2016 16:43

Flocons de Jambon: Apr 11, 2015

az posted:

That was Truman alright. Also happened to have been a nobody Senator from Bumfuck Missouri with little prospects for advancement when he said those words on the senate floor. You could use that quote for context when discussing his eventual administration, not any of this. Oh and you got this quote from the same idiotic article as everything else in this post.

Good point. He might as well quote some mad man walking down the street screaming about how the moon is made of cheese. Truman was only the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee for Military Affairs when he said this. A total loving nobody just walking around screaming insane ideas that weren't shared by anyone else. They only put him on the presidential ticket a few years later to shut him up.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 17:08

az: Dec 2, 2005

Flocons de Jambon posted:

Good point. He might as well quote some mad man walking down the street screaming about how the moon is made of cheese. Truman was only the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee for Military Affairs when he said this. A total loving nobody just walking around screaming insane ideas that weren't shared by anyone else. They only put him on the presidential ticket a few years later to shut him up.

Yes, he was a nobody that was acceptable to everyone because he stood for nothing. Yet they put him on the ticket, not to shut him up, but because the democratic powerbrokers ratfucked the actual VP Wallace and wanted someone more malleable who wouldn't make any waves, ie. timid Truman. But of course you know everything about him and his career.

# ? Apr 3, 2016 17:44

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

asdf32 posted:

Let's pretend for a second that Stalin was awesome. What do we do with this knowledge? Turn america into a dictatorship and then do what? Led by whom?

Full Communism Now

# ? Apr 3, 2016 20:41

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

az posted:

"Everything in that sentence is wrong and goes against established historical consensus."

The SSR was wracked with four major famines and a half dozen near famine and critical harvest events between 1917/19 and 1949, all of which were FAD (preventable food availability decline) with exception of the famine years 1941-45

you typed a bunch of words but you didn't actually refute anything, let me explain why:

when someone says there were no famines after 1933 except for one caused by WWII, and you go "Nuh-uh! There were some before 1933 and then one caused by WWII", you have not even contradicted what the first person said. you just agreed with them, by accident, because you are dumb

please try not to sit on your own balls again

# ? Apr 3, 2016 21:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 15:39

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

HorseLord posted:

you typed a bunch of words but you didn't actually refute anything, let me explain why:

when someone says there were no famines after 1933 except for one caused by WWII, and you go "Nuh-uh! There were some before 1933 and then one caused by WWII", you have not even contradicted what the first person said. you just agreed with them, by accident, because you are dumb

please try not to sit on your own balls again

Developed nations, as opposed to developing nations, usually don't have famines. I don't understand why this is so impressive. The USSR successfully industrialized under communism, so what?

# ? Apr 3, 2016 21:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > ""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

«‹›22 »