Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Trotsky

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by stalin View Post
    ...Permanent Revolution...
    He saw clearly- зэк- more clearly than most. That Revolution must by its inherent nature revolt, and keep doing so or it will ultimately- and to use an oldspeak construct 'as the apples fall from the trees'- lose its revolutionary nature and appeal to the masses.
    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

    Comment


    • #17
      Why is it that revolutions turn to so much blood, that it even consumes its leaders?
      Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
        Why is it that revolutions turn to so much blood, that it even consumes its leaders?
        not the revolutions' bloodshed consumes revolutionists - the new bureaucracy does.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by stalin View Post
          not the revolutions' bloodshed consumes revolutionists - the new bureaucracy does.
          I guess that's why they call it red tape (now, now I know there's going to be a ton of US Civil War fanatics piling in to correct me here).
          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by General Staff View Post
            I guess that's why they call it red tape (now, now I know there's going to be a ton of US Civil War fanatics piling in to correct me here).
            i wonder - if american civil war had its own trotskys, lenins etc.?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by stalin View Post
              not the revolutions' bloodshed consumes revolutionists - the new bureaucracy does.
              That's very true in the case of Stalin, he power base was in the bureaucracy that he learned to control and manipulate with the placement of his supporters.
              Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

              Comment


              • #22
                Any thoughts on Tuchaczewski?
                Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by stalin View Post
                  i wonder - if american civil war had its own trotskys, lenins etc.?
                  The Slavery Abolitionists had vicious revolutionarys at the local level, and a few became widely famous. But none of those atain leadership of large masses. The Repbulicans who came to the center of power in the Federal government were seen as the devil himself by the Southerners. So, in their view yes there were Trotskys. A more clinical dispassionate analysist would probablly say not. The most radical of the Republican party of the 1860s were only concerned with overturning a few specific social institutions, mostly conected to slavery. Their other concerns were the more ordinary issues of business, taxation, and relatively petty political questions.

                  If you want leaders who motivated large scale mayhem and who overturned a social order look to Grant & Sherman. Those two moved away from the niceties of 18th or 19th Century warfare in the aristocratic European style and the Napoleonic focus on the grand decisisve battle. Those two took the resources many other leaders had fumbled indecisively with and ground their enemy to dust with a new sort of industrialized warfare. They also thought to wage total warfare, destroying the agriculture of Northern Virginia and Central Georgia and aiming for critical industrial citys rather than politcal centers.

                  However Grant & Sherman were not social revolutionarys like Trotsky. That is they did not write vast volumes of political screed. A few simple pargraphs and speeches served to convey their ideas. Neither did they prefess a broad social agenda. However their actions were more than sufficient to turn a social order to ruin.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                    Any thoughts on Tuchaczewski?
                    Marshal Tukhachevsky - The Red Bonaparte:
                    http://www.pwhce.org/rus/tukhachevsky.html
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In Russia Trotsky is not popular, I haven't heard that there are his modern followers in Russia.

                      In the West his image is better because he is consdidered Stalin's victim.

                      Trotsky was a real monster. It is very good for the whole World that Stalin and not Trotsky won in the struggle forthe rule in the USSR in 20th years.

                      Trotsky was real extremist. For example, he offered to organize labour armies. The workers were to be like soldiers - to live in barracks and to work where they would be sent without any choice. Stalin was very soft guy in comparison to Trotsky.

                      Trotsky was guilty for red terror. He made very many bad things during the Civil War.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        In Russia Tukhachevsky is considered a very good guy. He is considered a very talented military leader destroyed by Stalin.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          nah...
                          tukhachevsky is considered a controversial military/political figure and, maybe, even - a traitor.
                          he brough the red army to hip-and-thigh defeat in polish campaign 1920.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The strange pathways of history. Who'd have believed Tuchaczewski and De Gaulle meeting in the same camp? Certainly not me. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall.
                            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by stalin View Post
                              Tukhachevsky is considered a controversial military/political figure and maybe even a traitor. He brough[t] the Red Army to hip-and-thigh defeat in [the] Polish Campaign [of] 1920.
                              Thanks. The campaign's results might have had something to do with those pesky Poles. And Stalin- are you related to Beria in any way?
                              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                                ... Stalin- are you related to Beria in any way?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X