|
-Troika- posted:Grover Furr is a crank case and a genocide denialist. Please don't hurt Grover's feelings when he spent all that time writing a neat little book
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Does Grover Furry or whatever his name is say anything about Stalin's personal relationship with Beria? Frankly, I think that relationship alone makes Stalin essentially criminal, without looking at anything else he did. Speaking about personal relationships, Stalin's dealings with his family and friends, such as his wives, children, best friend and adoptive family should clue in even the most morally retarded observer that he was a certifiable sociopath. Hint, most of them died at his orders or because of his actions, and many of those who survived suffered heavily. Cool guy Stalin.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I think it's pretty normal to disown your son for getting captured and only talking about him again after learning he committed suicide in a POW camp. Both of his sons were wrecks that would stutter in his presence because they were so afraid of him, and the only child he cared about, Svetlana, would later try to get away from him in panic after the family house cleaning had started to pick up speed with her mother's suicide. But he was a swell guy all around I mean that was just the times right??
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:This isn't actually true but whatever. Wow what took you so long comrade, you're getting slow. PS: I'm sure Stalin was a nice uncle and all those Aliluyevs just threw themselves on Nagant revolvers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
I want to believe you're real but I couldn't stomach the crushing disappointment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:anticommunists please try refuting this "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 (thank the USA for shipping several billion pounds and bushels of foodstuffs through lend lease, PS: you should take a really hard look at the amount of materials pushed through lend lease if you think the SSR won WW2 on its own). Soviet leadership, very much including Stalin, and the state organs such as the Ministry for Procurements kept dropping the ball on massive scales with awful policies (rationing that let the peasantry fend for itself all the way to 1948, export of foodstuffs months into famines, halfbaked food import schemes with China that never delivered even half of what they were supposed to, sentencing of ~300k citizens to hard prison for theft of "collective" food signed by the Supreme Soviet in 47 alone, just to name a few without bringing out the cudgel of collectivization et.al.) The (drought caused natural) famine of 46-48, just like the previous famines, was preventable, and the deaths caused by it were mediated or excerbated by Soviet state actions. And as for "eliminating famine", it's too easy to point to the fact that after thirty years of on and off famines, eventually an empire should have been able to work through the issues why this kept happening and how to prevent it. Only in July 1947 the Central Committee of the Party in Ukraine decreed that food stocks would have to be, in essence, disaster proofed in the future. Coincidentally excactly one year after the first deaths attributed to that particular famine occured. This event is notable because it was the arm of the Ukrainian Party that forced this policy change through, probably because they had gotten a little bit too aquainted with famine in the Ukraine at that point. This change alone was a serious improvement for future events, coupled with smarter import/export policies and various changes to disaster management and farming and storage administration. I am sure you would want to claim that this constitutes "methodical and effective" measures for combating famine in the Soviet Union, but a realistic observation shows that this is merely the end point of a progress thirty long hunger filled years in the making, not something to be celebrated as a great achievment but something that I can only describe sensation someone feels when they exasperatedly yell out "Finally!" Mind that this is ignoring the massive advancements in technology and techniques for all aspects of agriculture and food storage in the following years and decades. Improvements and inventions of new machinery, chemicals, irrigation, electrification etc. had a massive worldwide impact on food safety, including the Soviet Union, but this can not be counted as a Soviet achievement by any standard. Then there are pet projects by Soviet leadership such as Uncle Joe's Great Transformation of Nature, cribbing from the American model employed to fight the Dust Bowl and cultivate the Great Plains. Unfortunately these projects were headed by none other than noted anti-scientist Lysenko and quickly abandoned once Stalin croaked. The Aral Sea gave its life for Soviet steppes cotton, rest in peace. I think this is enough for the moment, eagerly awaiting the cries of "imperialist propaganda". PPS: It's a bit rude to call us anticommunists, could I please be upgraded to antistalinist?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:Hahhaha as if lend-lease wasn't bare faced capitalist extortion which the USA was demanding repayment even during the second world war in shipments of minerals and gold. The USSR had to return most of the military equipment and then were presented with a bill for $1.3billion dollars. Thankfully the Soviets rightfully told the US to gently caress off, but they still, in the end they agreed to pay back $722million (still overinflated), which they were still doing up to 2006! Also see that arms and supplies lend lease only ammounted to 4% of domestic war production in the soviet union Wild change of topic from famines but sure why not. The US didn't demand payments, the US and SSR agreed to payments for the LLP beforehand because they weren't gifts but loans. Not bothering to look it up but iirc only the first of five LL agreements was stipulated to be paid in materials, the remaining were left TBD and eventually ended up in the grain and loan paydown in the 70s. Return of nondestroyed equipment was also agreed upon beforehand, however in many cases recipient nations were allowed to keep it for a loan payment equal to 10% of value. The vast majority of LL aid was never returned but destroyed either in combat or as salvage, consumed, or paid for and kept. Keep in mind that the Red Army took the highest combat casualties in world war two by far, a great percentage of all equipment including that of the LLP was lost in military operations. They were not presented for a bill for $1.3B, the US asked to be repayed for a total of $1.3B at some point under interest free loan agreements and were offered $170M instead. Disputed until 1972 when an agreement was reached for $770M in grain and various means of payment. Note: the total value of US LL to the SSR was ~$10-11B in 1947 money, asking for 10% of that was not a bad deal, getting $770M 70s money was. 2006 was when the British LLP repayment plan ended. Not 4% but 7% by modern historical records. Note that military aid only amounted to <50% of the total weight of shipments. I don't have enough time (or care) to write out a very long detailed explanation of the importance of LL right now but here are some broad points of huge impact to the Soviet war effort: -Tens of thousands of tanks (9%) and airplanes (13%), sometimes delivered at replacement rates such as early 42. This is common knowledge and doesn't require much explanation why this was important. -More than 400k trucks and other vehicles. The SSR had lost massive amounts of automobiles in 1941 and could not replace them in any speed, incredibly important to the war effort, combat operations and logistics. Half of their vehicle fleet at wars end was allied made. -Billions of rounds of ammunition and hundreds of thousands of small arms and infantry anti tank weapons. -Telecommunication equipment. The British alone delivered thirty thousand miles of cables. Critical to say the least. -Railroads and Locomotives, the Soviet rail system was in shambles after Barbarossa and couldn't match production with requirements by any stretch. By the end of the war over half their tracks, cars and engines are foreign made. -Food, millions of tons, I'm not going to open my books to find the number because gently caress it's a lot of numbers. I remember 600k tons of sugar, almost half the soviet total production during the war. -Tools and Machine Tools. Because of the state of Soviet industry at the start of the war, which then was stomped on by the Germans and the remainder relocated, the Soviet Union was in a really really tight spot for all tools. Without these the Soviet industry would have had a much harder, and slower, time catching up and would not have come out near its eventual production levels. -Chemicals, such as explosives of which the US alone supplied something like 40% iirc. -And because I'm bored of listing things, the most important item on this list, raw materials. Common perception is that the SSR was loaded to the gills with them, ores, oil, what have you. Kinda yeah, but all of that has to be extracted and refined, and there wasn't enough around to meet any of their industrial requirements. LL practically floated large parts of the Soviet war production. 50% of the aluminum used for the VVS' planes was american. 50% of their aviation fuel was american in origin. Now, in essence, the lend lease program was very important to the Soviet Union. It's a fact most historians agree upon, unless they are crabby cranks with weird complexes. No, it does not diminish the struggle of the Soviet people, before you even try that. Point is, the Soviet Union was in a really really lovely spot in 1941. Like I don't think most people who are interested in world war two can appreciate how dire things were if you go down into the details. The LLP effectively filled the gaps in many areas the Soviets were lacking in, and it was hugely important, especially in regards to their material and machinery needs. Mark my words, without lend lease, the eastern front would have looked a lot differently, and in my opinion was more important than the allied landings in Normandy to help end the war. There are detailed lists in books and on the net that detail what was sent down to the last bolt, including official Soviet receipts. I suggest looking at some of them and wonder in amazement at the sheer number and range of items, like 9126 jewelled watches in 1945 alone (really, that's on a receipt). Not to mention the effort expended to ship all of that crap to Soviet territory over sea and through Persia. Regarding profit, yes the US came out the war nice and shiny. Mostly by virtue of massively expanding their industrial and commercial base and to a much lesser extend plain money loans made to the allied powers and defeated Germany aswell as being the only power left standing that had not sustained serious damage in the war. The LLP however was not a for profit venture by any stretch of imagination. And yet this isn't a discussion of the US and their actions at any time in history. Mind there's a lot to discuss about what the US has done, good or questionable or bad. But this is a discussion about crank history and moaning "but but America!" every time you run out of ground to maneuver is the oldest and lamest trick in the crank history book. CommieGIR posted:No, I mean your plucky little 'Eye for an eye' justification system. It's always the same backup argument, "but the other kids did it too", whether it's applicable or even true doesn't matter. At least it means the argument is over because that is historical discussion bedrock and there is no more digging from there. az fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 16:31
|
|
"Well, Poland did it too, so they were just asking to be run down by the Soviets and the Nazis. Soviets aren't the bad guy here"
|
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
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
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: 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:
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: hmmmmmmmm, that source again... Now I remember, it's modern Russian clickbait garbage written by a self styled 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 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
|
|
|
Op was commissared in the line of duty, god bless.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
^^^^ There aren't many countries in the 20th century that managed to catch up a rather large amount rather quickly (really no other country was in the running for this particular medal but hey) so that means... Stalin strong? Certain people often get confused and believe that only communism/Stalin/whatever could have done XYZ and therefore communisms/Papa Joe/Ice cream is the best. It doesn't matter what actually happened, how things were done, all the nitty gritty of life and history are unimportant as long as there's an outcome that can be used to browbeat with. HorseLord posted:you typed a bunch of words but you didn't actually refute anything, let me explain why: A wild horselord appears?! And that's the best angle you found to wedge into, welp. Let me try again, there were four major famines, half a dozen near famine level events of starvation, some of which barely creaked under famine levels by the by. The famine of 41-45 was mostly caused by war exhaustion, but since you asked so nicely I may as well tell you that the poor weather and massive rationing, which hilariously hosed the peasants yet again, made it worse again. The famine of 46-48 was not caused by the war. The so called "first person" you quote cited the famine of 46-48 as being war caused, which was wrong, it was drought caused, that was the point I wrote about, how do I english to make you read good. You got your large numbers mixed up friend, may it be that ball sitting could be to blame or is can you also blame the war for that?? az fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:So we've now reached the point where you're so desperate, that you're trying to argue WWII didn't damage soviet agriculture.  I'm desperate... for full communism now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
I told you guys, I told you we would hit peak horselord sooner or later.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Heh, nice imperialist propaganda piece bro, how about posting a real source But where can one find a Russian blogger at this time?!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
swampman posted:Citation needed Balls the size of Kazakh watermelons that you try to undermine opposing arguments by repeatedly bleating you want to see evidence for what amount to established and well sources historical facts, when all you have ever done is blather on about how, oh did you know Blood Lies says this? May I suggest you put down Furr's Blood Lies for one second and actually do one loving ounce of research for your drat dumb self. Really, the only thing you've done in this thread is try to summon the ghost of, unfortunately not dead yet, Not Actually A Historian PS: stop killing the forums Grover
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
swampman posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3769585&userid=88399 You really don't understand the difference between using source material to verify information when writing a takedown of you and your tankie friends' spillage itt and footnooting everything as if writing another dissertation, poo poo son don't tempt me. Of course who needs to verify information from sources when there's the academical golden gun, History for Tankies by Grover Furr, esq[1]. "poo poo he's copy pasting from the furrinomicon, game over man." Aaand you ignored to engage with the material yet again, what a twist. swampman posted:And in the meantime, I really suggest you give Fight me in the thunderdome for it. swampman posted:Thanks for the reading recommendations! Tipped your hand too soon.[1]Bod Lies
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
100 new posts overnight and the new argument is that Poland shouldn't have dressed so government-less-ly if it didn't want to be invaded  Literally the argument my six year old used for when he ran off with the remote, after all I had put it down when I went to get a drink.swampman posted:Actually, the graves at Katyn have long been excavated. Furr discusses Katyn at great length in Blood Lies and concludes, in agreement with the official Russian account of events, that most of the killings were done by Germans, that Russians also killed many Polish officers, and that these killings did not take place in a single discrete or planned event, but were most likely done in acts of revenge for the Polish murder of Russian POWs in the 1920-21 war. Did you really just claim that most of the bodies in Katyn were dumped there by the Germans and the Russians only happened to threw a few more onto the pile at a later date? I assume Grover has amazing arguments for why little things such as the Gorbachev papers, Yeltsin's package #1, the eye witness accounts, Beria's correspondence arguing that up to 30000 Poles should be put to death, or Russia refusing to hand over the last ~30 crates of relevant files despite heavy Polish protests, etc. etc., all do not actually make a case for a govt. planned and executed event of mass murder?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
swampman posted:Read the book. No gently caress you. I did a cursory search out of curiosity and it all makes sense now. Furr starts gaining traction in stalinist and conspiracy message boards around 2013 and then really takes off in 14 and 15. It's like a game of telephone that tankies can really get into. The internet maoists really hate him though, what a shame. Even rhizzone hates him, what a world. swampman posted:Look at the bottom of page 11 where I reproduce an entire section of the book with citations. I'm willing to do it whenever I have time, but it's arduous. As I and others have noted, there are forum rules and fair use issues that prevent me from just linking a pdf and copying/fixing OCRed sections. All of the names you copy pasted out there are also from the same tankie playbook, it's like they come in a package deal. Some of the first hits you get for them is communism reddit telling people to throw these at the wall in an attempt to silence opposition that can't be assed to read all of that poo poo. It's like you found all of this, including Grover, searching for a new hobby on tankie boards. az fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Grover Furr, all around cool guy posted:"What you said is bullshit! It's wrong! It's a lie! ... Of all of the falsifications that go on in the school systems in this country -- this world, Soviet history is falsified the most. I have spent many years researching this and similar questions that I have yet to find one crime -- yet to find one crime -- that Stalin committed. I know they all say he killed 20 or 30 or 40 million people. It's bullshit! ... This is the big lie -- that the Communists, that Stalin killed millions of people and that socialism is no good ... The United States has the lowest standard of living of any of the industrialized countries, and they all have some form of socialist health care, and you should have it too." Hmmm. quote:“I think the reason Stalin is vilified is because, in his day at the helm of the Soviet Union, the exploiters all over the world had something to worry about! That's why I feel some kinship with Stalin..." Hahaha how did this guy ever get a job in the US if amerikkka really is the great satan. He uses Marxist literature in his humanities courses, he taught a Vietnam war course (why anyone would let him I have no idea) for which he required using course material from his website, all of which heavily biased and most of which were written by himself(the uncredited non historian). Montclair University, what are you doing to your students?! Edit: Glossing over some hilarious furrfacts, such as accusing the US of having been behind the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, or having deserved 9/11, it's extremly clear that his entire shtick is a drawn out game of "No you". Everything he cares about, and I mean everything, he finds ways to lay at another door. It is always the US, it is always the Nazis, and when there are no outside enemies to blame, it is always the Trots, or the Menschewiks, or Krushchev. He finds a topic he wants to clear Stalin of and then works backwards from there to find the "real" culprit, while making grandiose statements (Stalin has done literally nothing wrong) even when they go against official Soviet accounts and admissions.  And his ratemyprofessor is amazing. az fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
^^Nobody you ever quoted has actually pointed anything out, they claim things. Lots and lots of claims, referencing their brethren "historians" in a circular firing squad of neostalinist vindication efforts. Looking into Losurdo's body of work is almost as funny as Furr's. Even the Rosa Luxemburg foundation accuses him of being inconcrete, creating homogenous abstracts in an effort to obfuscate, naked apologia and my favorite, cynical bean counting styled attempts to compare Stalin to Churchill and FDR, in an effort to muddy the waters true to whataboutist fashion. And I'm only halfway through this recension, it's great. It's like looking into a mirror and Furr staring back. az fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
That excerpt is insane. A naked, rude and fruity blowjob for Stalin and an equally rude hitjob on Krushchev (neostalinists have to attack him constantly in an effort to defend Stalin). The bits and pieces pertaining to military history are especially egregious, and I'm not sure if calling it crass fabrications or a sweaty fever dream is more accurate. It's so terrible it would take more words correcting it than he used to "present" it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 15:07
|
|