Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Trotsky

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

  • #46
    whereas the white army was commanded by professional generals, colonels and officers - the red army was commanded mostly by ideologists/ex-terrorists/bolsheviks, and red army won!
    I don't think it was that simple though. Weren't many great generals of WW2 also soldiers in the Civil War before? I've always looked at the Russian Revolution at succeeding because of the way power was already so central and tied to the Capitol cities. The Whites started on the fringes of the nation and there were too many other groups that weren't unified as they could have been.
    The more brutal army doesn't always have the advantage anyway. The Reds in the Spanish Civil War were as bad as anyone, but they lost because the Nationalists had the better generals and better allies.

    i wonder - if american civil war had its own trotskys, lenins etc.?
    That's a can of worms alright, but you'll see from the Civil War board that I certainly think so. Abolitionists were very much the fanatics but are rarely seen that way now. It doesn't make it into the book that they justified hacking people to pieces and later acted out on it. Lincoln was a brilliant tyrant, ruthless, a great sophist and orator like Lenin and just as cynical. The two have many similarities, in my opinion. Most generals were not exceedingly cruel but some were - officers nor enlisted men didn't ussually execute prisoners in the field, but prison wardens in the rear would starve them. Cavalry Commander Sheridan was a butcher, but in our schoolbooks he only becomes the villain when he is fighting Indians. The western and northern theaters saw cruel partisan warfare and anti-partisans (called "Red-Legs" for their boots) who killed anyone. They made a movie on part of this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075029/

    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.
    That's pretty much my estimation too. Leftists here tend to pin everything that went wrong with Communism on Stalin, and some consider Trotsky's word as being the perfect continuation of Marx. Of course, Lenin is also idolized and a lot of people are also fans of Mao, but definitely not any Chinese who are here.

    Note the shirt.

    Is it true that it was Trotsky who introduced blocking units to the Red Army? The times I've actually heard human waves being taught was by teachers who called them 'Stalin marches.' Those were non-military teachers, and then when I got an officer to teach history, you get a more in depth picture.
    And then there is propaganda I've also seen that has the Czarist armies as the 'White Hordes.'

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by General Staff View Post
      ... Stalin looks a little- well- surgically altered...
      ... But it was the slippered exit from the plane down the red carpet in that white suit that really had me in convulsions...
      1. yes, but - at the same time, his gorgeous make-up is so glamourous!
      2. bollywood (indian movies industry) springs to mind, here.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Swampwolf View Post
        ... I've always looked at the Russian Revolution at succeeding because of the way power was already so central and tied to the Capitol cities...
        bolsheviks succeeded,
        because they promoted totally new concept of totally new approach to society's problems.
        people were bought on it.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Swampwolf View Post
          ... Is it true that it was Trotsky who introduced blocking units to the Red Army?...And then there is propaganda I've also seen that has the Czarist armies as the 'White Hordes.'
          not true, of course.
          the civil war red army - consisted, mostly, of volunteers that were led by the ideological brainwash.
          trotsky and the likes of him were orators alright and were fully capable of instigating the processes.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by General Staff View Post
            Granted a little before WWII, but the more I read of him, the more I like him. Maybe worth a thread of his own, though where to put it not sure, so I'll start here. Very intelligent chap too. Thank you Stalin.

            http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/

            Moderator note:
            Trotsky left the USSR long before WWII. But as he made a lot for development of the Soviet Army I'll left this thread here.

            Alex AMVAS
            Trotsky was nothing more than a bandit and murder.
            He was able only to destroy something ,but unable to build anything,just like Lenin.
            Trotsky's best general Michail Tuchaczewski was one of the biggest idiots at warfare history,during the Polish-Soviet War he had forgotten about railways troops and at august 1920 whole supply RKKA transported from Minsk to outskirts of Warsaw by horse wagons !!!
            At 1927 Tuchaczewski aksed Stalin for 50 000 tanks in a 2-3 years !!!
            At 1941 RKKA had got 21 000 tanks and 17 000 planes,14 years later soviet industry was able to build 17 000 tanks,Tuchaczewski wanted to have them just at 1927.
            At 1941 RKKA had T-34 KW-1 with 76mm guns and diesel engines, tanks from 1927 had usually 20mm guns and gas engines with power about 50 KM.
            Stalin prepare RKKA for worldwide revolution by building tanks,planes ,by 5 Airborne Corps.
            Trotsky by writing books ,very clever.Propably he truely believed that the revolution would start after workers of USA read one of his books.
            Once more question :
            Where had Trotsky got money for bodyguards ,for editions of his books from ?
            That true son of Soviet Russia and trusted fighter for freedom and egalite had got a accounts at Swiss banks,and not only there.
            Guerrero contra marxismo

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by stalin View Post
              Bolsheviks succeeded because they promoted [a] totally new... approach to society's problems. People... bought... it.
              Yes. Especially given contrast to prior serfdom. But I thought 'bought' was a Capitalist construct... Maybe 'believed in' would be better.
              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by stalin View Post
                ... and - you are not alone on that.
                i'm admired by millions of people !
                Oh man.....red cheese it's great!!!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Bartek View Post
                  ... he (Trotsky) truely believed that the revolution would start after workers of USA read one of his books...
                  not workers, though.
                  more likely - power elites of the usa and europe could have ''bought'' his ideas.

                  welcome on board.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by stalin View Post
                    welcome on board.
                    Yes. That incredible icebreaker the SS Lollipop, captained by Stalin and manned by his terrified crew...
                    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      Yes. Especially given contrast to prior serfdom...
                      er.. what serfdom?
                      serfdom was abolished in 1861.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by stalin View Post
                        serfdom was abolished in 1861.
                        Prior. It's a lifestyle or mindset concept, rather like slavery in the US. Takes a while to rub off. In the US we could argue from the 1860s to the 1960s. In Russia maybe you're still working on it. Perhaps take Clover out for a trot.
                        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                          ... a lifestyle or mindset concept, rather like slavery in the US...
                          looking at what the usa are nowadays,
                          i get some doubts about - whether they should have had slavery abolished at all.

                          abolishig of the serfdom in russia caused revolution in 1917.
                          see, those ex-serfs proved themselves an anarchists, eventually.
                          we, russians, should be kept uder strict control of the state,
                          otherwise - the whole country may drown in anarchy.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by stalin View Post
                            ...the whole country may drown in anarchy...
                            Or Vodka...
                            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                              Or Vodka...
                              ...and beer.
                              that would be a relatively acceptable outcome of any social unrest, over here.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                abolishig of the serfdom in russia caused revolution in 1917.
                                see, those ex-serfs proved themselves an anarchists, eventually.
                                we, russians, should be kept uder strict control of the state,
                                otherwise - the whole country may drown in anarchy.
                                My thoughts are that people ruin their freedom because they don't understand it. In my opinion, freedom and duty need one another, and either is perverse by itself. A citizen's highest duty is loyalty to the state, but the state must reciprocate that by protecting the Rights of citizens. I don't like the idea of a servile class (I think the workers should rule, not autocrats or blind "democratic" systems), but there are better ways to make that change than changing it overnight.
                                Of course, Trotsky was such an unrealistic ideologue that he believed that the world Comintern could happen and it had to happen at once. More than the actual rights of workers, it is about tearing down the state first. The communist ideas of production are second place to this idea. His followers today are more of a joke than anything, but sadly the Trotskyite legacy leaks into other political groups as well. I would call the current administration an ugly mix of unchecked market capitalism and anti-Nationalism.

                                bolsheviks succeeded,
                                because they promoted totally new concept of totally new approach to society's problems.
                                people were bought on it.
                                My point is that it could have happened in Russia for the very reason it couldn't have happened in America. The concentration of power in few places. If Washington DC is nuked tomorrow or taken by a revolutionary vanguard, most of the country will continue much as it was and probably make a bigger reaction to counter it instead of collapsing. Our richest State, California, has little power over the central States that are completely different. In contrast, Ukraine was completely different from the Petrograd area after the Revolution, but had little power of any kind and was absorbed in to the new state. Likewise, the French Revolution came after centuries of increased centralization by a succession of Kings, so the country was in the hands of those that took the head of power. Then there was Germany, which because of its less centralized history, couldn't have changed overnight by a violent revolution in the capital. Instead it took over a decade to become the Nazi state.
                                So the main point is that some nations are more succeptible to revolution because of their structure, regardless of the social situation.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X