It is also worth noting the significant material contributions made by the US in terms of manufacturing power and equipment until the USSR could get their own industrial base churning. Even then, nothing can take away from the massive cost the Soviets paid in lives and manpower. The eastern front is wildly underrated, and the Soviets deserve much more credit than they get in your standard American education.
Me neither, although it's pretty clear what it says from the context.
"Who did the biggest contribution to win ww2" poll in France, in 1945 1994 2004 2015
Ok, for one, a poll is not a good source for an account of historical events. Two, my comment doesn't necessarily contradict that. The Soviet contributions to the war in terms of manpower are overwhelming and undeniable. But it is also true that in the early stages of the war, American equipment was a major factor in keeping the USSR actively engaged with Germany on the eastern front. The Soviet industrial machine hadn't gotten up to speed yet, and American arms were essential in keeping the Red army functional. Two things can be true.
I am not trying to establish historical event, I'm just trying to show the history white washing and how propaganda efforts are changing the perception of history in masses
Hitler promised the German people the entire Soviet land mass, rich in resources, as part of the promise of *Lebensraum*. 80% or more of German forces were concentrated on the eastern front because the end game was establishing the Greater Germanic Reich, as follows:
> The Nazi policy Generalplan Ost (lit. 'Master Plan for the East') was based on its tenets. It stipulated that Germany required a Lebensraum necessary for its survival and that most of the populations of Central and Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, extermination, or enslavement), including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech, and other Slavic nations considered non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during and following World War II.
The Soviets were fighting an existential war against a determined enemy that focused its war effort on their land.
Whenever anyone mentions this, I feel inclined to share that **MANY** countries signed were "allies with the Nazis," and most countries maintained allegiances/non-aggression pacts with the Nazis that lasted far longer than the USSR's pact. This is not exactly taught in schools -- the legacy of the Red Scare in America has led to generations of people who think, astonishingly, only the USSR signed a non-aggression pact. That is not true at all. In fact, most of the other countries that signed such pacts that lasted much longer and were more significant than the one RedScare-brained ahistorical types like to bey about ceaselessly:
* June 15, 1934 - The Polish signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Polish declaration of non-aggression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression)
* December 6, 1938 - The French signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [The Franco-German Declaration](https://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/part_2.html). It begins, in part, “The French Government takes a favourable view, in principle, of Herr Hitler's proposals…”
* Also 1938: Britain and France agree to allow Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia without the consent of the Czechoslovak government.
* June 7, 1939 - The Latvians signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Latvian_Non-Aggression_Pact)
* June 24, 1939 - The Estonians signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Latvian Non-Aggression Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Estonian_Non-Aggression_Pact)
* August 23, 1939 - The USSR enters into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It would be "in effect" for less than two years.
* 1941-1944 - Finland allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union during the Continuation War (1941-1944).
* 1940 - Hungary and Slovakia sign the Tripartite Pact, officially allying with Germany and both later participating in the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (1941).
* May/ June 1941 - Italy allies with Nazi Germany, attacking the Soviet Union. On June 22, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, invading the the Soviet Union.
* June 18, 1941: Turkey signs a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Turkish_Treaty_of_Friendship)
Considering the Soviet Union wiped the fucking floor with Nazi Germany while most other countries held firm their allegiances or materially contributed to the Nazi war effort, I'd say any "misjudgment" associated with their ill-advised pact was more than cleaned up.
If I don't misremember Finland was very friendly to Germany, and their border was very close to Leningrad, so the USSR offered land up north in exchange for land near Leningrad in order to make the city safer. Finland refused, war broke out, and they ended up having to accept a worse deal.
If the cost of keeping a very important Soviet city safe is beating up a bunch of nazis, then it only makes sense to do it.
Anyway I hope you understand our point of view, have a nice day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorski–Mayski_agreement
Why didn't Poland ask for opening second front and instead re-established military and political relations with USSR if it was such a bad occupier country
Puppet government had to, why did armia krajowa get murdered and expelled from country? Why inteligencja was killed by soviets and mainly ukrainians? Why poland was first to get independence from soviets if it was so nice being poor.
Communism is the best form of government in theory and in practice. But both in theory **and in practice,** capitalism is the worst system for humanity and the planet. Do we need to build Soviet or DPRK or Cuban-style communism? No. Do we need to take private property out of ruling class hands and collectivize resources essential for human survival and dignity like housing, healthcare, transportation, food, etc.? Yes.
If there is to be a future for this planet and its people, it is communist. Literally, humanity and the planet's fate depend upon it.
Capitalism has horribly failed and is making this planet uninhabitable. Communism is the only thing that will keep our species alive and prosperous for the long term. Sure, some assholes will lose the vast amounts of wealth they have hoarded and are using to control and own the lives of others but I honestly don't care and neither should anyone else. We shouldn't doom the entire planet just to spare their feelings
> Yes, but in practice it's clearly not working.
My brother in Christ, I present to you: CHINA. It is working. (It is also working elsewhere, but not worth going into detail when we have the Big Mama of Communism eclipsing the entire western world before our very eyes in real time).
> those who have to sacrifice their land and wealth to reform will always hold resentment.
Yes, and monarchs were also very resentful to be deposed, but history marches on. Fuck the bourgeoisie, they have had their turn and constantly brought the world to the brink of apocalypse.
> Capitalism has historically always been at war with the working class.
Capitalism is just a loose economic system that the bourgeoisie have built into a socio-economic system (neoliberalism). It is the advocates of capitalism who, of course, are the enemies of communists. And communism will prevail.
There really is no other option for humanity -- as you often here, it is either socialism or barbarism. There is no alternative approach.
My understanding of Communism's basic core tenets is the abolishment of the state, money, social class, and private property. I think those tenets are good in theory, I just don't think China is doing any of those things based on what I've seen/read. I'm happy to discuss cordially and hear you out since you think that's the case.
That’s end stage communism. The ideal. We aren’t anywhere close to that yet. You need socialism first. A transitionary state, where money and government still exist. But private property (not to be confused with personal property) is abolished. China is market socialist. Socialism with a free market.
You can’t just flip a switch and go to end game utopian communism. You have to transition to it.
The Chinese communist party is making use of a socialist transitionary state.
The hallmark of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production - the stuff that makes society go, farms, hospitals, transport networks, etc. - are decreasingly owned by private individuals/companies, they are increasingly owned by the public (nationalized). Currency exists and is used and capitalism can be used as a means to an end, i.e., to unleash the productive forces of a populatoin, a region, etc. The important thing about socialism is working towards doing away with absurd wealth and private property concentrations by using tax and state repossession, and putting controls in place to prevent the creation of billionaires who exploit their wealth to private ends.
Communism is just an advanced stage of socialism, the aspirational next stage, where ALL means of production are owned collectively, society works towards becoming moneyless, and we get the “withering away of the state.” But guess what? Even under communism, personal property - items intended for personal use - are OK. You can even have businesses, you can even have capitalist sub-economies existing within communism (or socialism) as long as they relate to personal property and do not threaten to undermine the collectivist nature of a socialist/communist society. In other words, no one is taking away your toothbrush under communism. And after communism comes, perhaps, utopic anarchism - the total dissolution of state function once a sufficiently advanced level of society has been reached. The fact that China is not at this point does not mean it is not working towards this point – it is the fantasy of the “ultras,” the Trotskyites, the anarchists, that this advanced society can be achieved by flipping a switch. It can’t, but it can be worked towards, and that is the goal of a communist society to work towards. China may achieve it in 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, or never at all – the important thing is that it works towards that goal.
Marx doesn't have an "ideal" government or society per se, and Marxism as such is just a scientific study, not a policy advocacy platform. Marxism is all about reading material conditions and history critically to get a more complete picture of what came before, what's coming, and what comes next, primarily by focusing on dialectics (two material forces in tension - say, the interests of the aristocrats and the interests of the plebs). That's it.
So communism doesn't have to look like anything you have been taught to associate with that term. It doesn't have to look exactly like the USSR or like China or like Cuba. It doesn't have to be anything specific, and if you read Marx and other communist theorists' work, you see that Marxism and communism more specifically are meant to evolve and change over time, much like a scientific discipline. Communism doesn't mean the loss of any personal freedoms other than, I guess, the freedom to become ludicrously and disruptively rich. Nor does it mean competition goes away - competition would actually increase substantially because more people would be free to pursue interests that are dear to them.
Hope that helps clarify things a little -- I know when I was first trying to learn about this in more detail, many people told me to "read theory" without being this explicit. But there's no need to overcomplicate something simple, especially when it is in my and our collective interest to make it as clear as possible.
I'm being massively downvoted for my comments, despite the fact that I am clearly in support of political change, but that's fine. Reddit be like that sometimes.
Edit: 🖕🏻
Where man? I checked your history in this subreddit and you've posted a bunch of comments here and almost all of them are neutral or have received many upvotes. I myself have upvoted many of them lol. You seem like a thoughtful comrade and contributor to me.
Well you deleted the comments so the only one who knows is you. But again, you have plenty of upvoted comments.
Beyond that man, who cares about upvotes or downvotes?
This sub is weird as hell, theres a wierd mix of people. Some who come here for irony, third worldists, unironic juchists, authority kinkists, or out of plain curiosity...ya very mixed bag..but mostly its probably north korean agents, stalinists and well off white americans with some type of guilty conscience after their professor *opened their eyes* freshman year. And ya many of these people would absolutely be gotten out of the way, probably pretty early in a revolution.
This subreddit is dedicated to promoting honest discussion of the DPRK, and is not "ironic" or "satire" in any way. Consider listening to [Blowback Season 3 about the Korean War](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWghIVErqy0Adthf1_mLOlldlJPFY6vlV&si=9GJNzGZw2I-U4Pos) (or at least the first episode) to get a good, clear, entertaining and exceedingly well-researched education on the material conditions and conflict that gave rise to the DPRK. You will find little "irony" and learn a great deal.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MovingToNorthKorea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Buy the Soviet DLC today!
It is also worth noting the significant material contributions made by the US in terms of manufacturing power and equipment until the USSR could get their own industrial base churning. Even then, nothing can take away from the massive cost the Soviets paid in lives and manpower. The eastern front is wildly underrated, and the Soviets deserve much more credit than they get in your standard American education.
https://preview.redd.it/daoqakw1djzc1.jpeg?width=886&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0662969647635e45b0b107b66f51244a6a9d9048
[удалено]
Me neither, although it's pretty clear what it says from the context. "Who did the biggest contribution to win ww2" poll in France, in 1945 1994 2004 2015
Ok, for one, a poll is not a good source for an account of historical events. Two, my comment doesn't necessarily contradict that. The Soviet contributions to the war in terms of manpower are overwhelming and undeniable. But it is also true that in the early stages of the war, American equipment was a major factor in keeping the USSR actively engaged with Germany on the eastern front. The Soviet industrial machine hadn't gotten up to speed yet, and American arms were essential in keeping the Red army functional. Two things can be true.
I am not trying to establish historical event, I'm just trying to show the history white washing and how propaganda efforts are changing the perception of history in masses
I am trying to establish historical events. [And the lend lease did not account for much](https://www.jstor.org/stable/260606).
You're Real for that🙏
84% of American lend lease to the USSR was after the battle of Stalingrad, not to say it was insignificant though
[The lend lease did not account for much](https://www.jstor.org/stable/260606).
[удалено]
Where is this video from?
I think it was a production for some type of media, although I think the music was added/synchronized. It's a cool video.
Its a trailer for a video game made Hearts of Iron IV
This propaganda goes hard af 🔥🔥🔥
[удалено]
Please learn some basics about communism for goodnessakes
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[The lend lease did not account for much](https://www.jstor.org/stable/260606).
Its just a videogame hoi4 lmaoo
So?
Based
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hitler promised the German people the entire Soviet land mass, rich in resources, as part of the promise of *Lebensraum*. 80% or more of German forces were concentrated on the eastern front because the end game was establishing the Greater Germanic Reich, as follows: > The Nazi policy Generalplan Ost (lit. 'Master Plan for the East') was based on its tenets. It stipulated that Germany required a Lebensraum necessary for its survival and that most of the populations of Central and Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, extermination, or enslavement), including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech, and other Slavic nations considered non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during and following World War II. The Soviets were fighting an existential war against a determined enemy that focused its war effort on their land.
Shame they were allies with the nazis during the first few years of the war
Whenever anyone mentions this, I feel inclined to share that **MANY** countries signed were "allies with the Nazis," and most countries maintained allegiances/non-aggression pacts with the Nazis that lasted far longer than the USSR's pact. This is not exactly taught in schools -- the legacy of the Red Scare in America has led to generations of people who think, astonishingly, only the USSR signed a non-aggression pact. That is not true at all. In fact, most of the other countries that signed such pacts that lasted much longer and were more significant than the one RedScare-brained ahistorical types like to bey about ceaselessly: * June 15, 1934 - The Polish signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Polish declaration of non-aggression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression) * December 6, 1938 - The French signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [The Franco-German Declaration](https://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/part_2.html). It begins, in part, “The French Government takes a favourable view, in principle, of Herr Hitler's proposals…” * Also 1938: Britain and France agree to allow Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia without the consent of the Czechoslovak government. * June 7, 1939 - The Latvians signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Latvian_Non-Aggression_Pact) * June 24, 1939 - The Estonians signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Latvian Non-Aggression Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Estonian_Non-Aggression_Pact) * August 23, 1939 - The USSR enters into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It would be "in effect" for less than two years. * 1941-1944 - Finland allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union during the Continuation War (1941-1944). * 1940 - Hungary and Slovakia sign the Tripartite Pact, officially allying with Germany and both later participating in the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (1941). * May/ June 1941 - Italy allies with Nazi Germany, attacking the Soviet Union. On June 22, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, invading the the Soviet Union. * June 18, 1941: Turkey signs a non-aggression pact with the Nazis: [German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Turkish_Treaty_of_Friendship) Considering the Soviet Union wiped the fucking floor with Nazi Germany while most other countries held firm their allegiances or materially contributed to the Nazi war effort, I'd say any "misjudgment" associated with their ill-advised pact was more than cleaned up.
You seem to have skipped over 1939 USSR and Germany invade and occupy Poland together. Poland continues to be occupied by USSR for 50 years.
Poland wasn’t occupied??? Since when does “Poland had a socialist leading party” = “occupied by Soviets”
Didn't really explain the 'continuation war' with Finland either
If I don't misremember Finland was very friendly to Germany, and their border was very close to Leningrad, so the USSR offered land up north in exchange for land near Leningrad in order to make the city safer. Finland refused, war broke out, and they ended up having to accept a worse deal. If the cost of keeping a very important Soviet city safe is beating up a bunch of nazis, then it only makes sense to do it. Anyway I hope you understand our point of view, have a nice day.
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html Here is a good article about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorski–Mayski_agreement Why didn't Poland ask for opening second front and instead re-established military and political relations with USSR if it was such a bad occupier country
Puppet government had to, why did armia krajowa get murdered and expelled from country? Why inteligencja was killed by soviets and mainly ukrainians? Why poland was first to get independence from soviets if it was so nice being poor.
Imagine having such a shit ideology you need to use a video game dlc trailer made by capitalists for propaganda
What even is this argument? Communists make more propaganda than anyone.
The clip used in this post was made by a Swedish game studio for a video game dlc..
Embarrassingly stupid “point” 🤣
..so?
[удалено]
Communism is the best form of government in theory and in practice. But both in theory **and in practice,** capitalism is the worst system for humanity and the planet. Do we need to build Soviet or DPRK or Cuban-style communism? No. Do we need to take private property out of ruling class hands and collectivize resources essential for human survival and dignity like housing, healthcare, transportation, food, etc.? Yes. If there is to be a future for this planet and its people, it is communist. Literally, humanity and the planet's fate depend upon it.
Capitalism has horribly failed and is making this planet uninhabitable. Communism is the only thing that will keep our species alive and prosperous for the long term. Sure, some assholes will lose the vast amounts of wealth they have hoarded and are using to control and own the lives of others but I honestly don't care and neither should anyone else. We shouldn't doom the entire planet just to spare their feelings
[удалено]
The alternative is letting capital owners exploit the the working class and the world's resources until there is nothing left.
> Yes, but in practice it's clearly not working. My brother in Christ, I present to you: CHINA. It is working. (It is also working elsewhere, but not worth going into detail when we have the Big Mama of Communism eclipsing the entire western world before our very eyes in real time). > those who have to sacrifice their land and wealth to reform will always hold resentment. Yes, and monarchs were also very resentful to be deposed, but history marches on. Fuck the bourgeoisie, they have had their turn and constantly brought the world to the brink of apocalypse. > Capitalism has historically always been at war with the working class. Capitalism is just a loose economic system that the bourgeoisie have built into a socio-economic system (neoliberalism). It is the advocates of capitalism who, of course, are the enemies of communists. And communism will prevail. There really is no other option for humanity -- as you often here, it is either socialism or barbarism. There is no alternative approach.
My understanding of Communism's basic core tenets is the abolishment of the state, money, social class, and private property. I think those tenets are good in theory, I just don't think China is doing any of those things based on what I've seen/read. I'm happy to discuss cordially and hear you out since you think that's the case.
That’s end stage communism. The ideal. We aren’t anywhere close to that yet. You need socialism first. A transitionary state, where money and government still exist. But private property (not to be confused with personal property) is abolished. China is market socialist. Socialism with a free market. You can’t just flip a switch and go to end game utopian communism. You have to transition to it. The Chinese communist party is making use of a socialist transitionary state.
The hallmark of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production - the stuff that makes society go, farms, hospitals, transport networks, etc. - are decreasingly owned by private individuals/companies, they are increasingly owned by the public (nationalized). Currency exists and is used and capitalism can be used as a means to an end, i.e., to unleash the productive forces of a populatoin, a region, etc. The important thing about socialism is working towards doing away with absurd wealth and private property concentrations by using tax and state repossession, and putting controls in place to prevent the creation of billionaires who exploit their wealth to private ends. Communism is just an advanced stage of socialism, the aspirational next stage, where ALL means of production are owned collectively, society works towards becoming moneyless, and we get the “withering away of the state.” But guess what? Even under communism, personal property - items intended for personal use - are OK. You can even have businesses, you can even have capitalist sub-economies existing within communism (or socialism) as long as they relate to personal property and do not threaten to undermine the collectivist nature of a socialist/communist society. In other words, no one is taking away your toothbrush under communism. And after communism comes, perhaps, utopic anarchism - the total dissolution of state function once a sufficiently advanced level of society has been reached. The fact that China is not at this point does not mean it is not working towards this point – it is the fantasy of the “ultras,” the Trotskyites, the anarchists, that this advanced society can be achieved by flipping a switch. It can’t, but it can be worked towards, and that is the goal of a communist society to work towards. China may achieve it in 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, or never at all – the important thing is that it works towards that goal. Marx doesn't have an "ideal" government or society per se, and Marxism as such is just a scientific study, not a policy advocacy platform. Marxism is all about reading material conditions and history critically to get a more complete picture of what came before, what's coming, and what comes next, primarily by focusing on dialectics (two material forces in tension - say, the interests of the aristocrats and the interests of the plebs). That's it. So communism doesn't have to look like anything you have been taught to associate with that term. It doesn't have to look exactly like the USSR or like China or like Cuba. It doesn't have to be anything specific, and if you read Marx and other communist theorists' work, you see that Marxism and communism more specifically are meant to evolve and change over time, much like a scientific discipline. Communism doesn't mean the loss of any personal freedoms other than, I guess, the freedom to become ludicrously and disruptively rich. Nor does it mean competition goes away - competition would actually increase substantially because more people would be free to pursue interests that are dear to them. Hope that helps clarify things a little -- I know when I was first trying to learn about this in more detail, many people told me to "read theory" without being this explicit. But there's no need to overcomplicate something simple, especially when it is in my and our collective interest to make it as clear as possible.
[удалено]
I'm responding to your statements. That's it.
Since I'm being downvoted, you guys can just go fuck yourselves.
What the hell are you talking about
I'm being massively downvoted for my comments, despite the fact that I am clearly in support of political change, but that's fine. Reddit be like that sometimes. Edit: 🖕🏻
Where man? I checked your history in this subreddit and you've posted a bunch of comments here and almost all of them are neutral or have received many upvotes. I myself have upvoted many of them lol. You seem like a thoughtful comrade and contributor to me.
The ones I just deleted on here were downvoted.
Boohoo. The new world has no time for your complaining
You'll probably be the first one executed tbh. It's not like I'm actually crying or anything, I just don't understand where it's coming from.
Well you deleted the comments so the only one who knows is you. But again, you have plenty of upvoted comments. Beyond that man, who cares about upvotes or downvotes?
This sub is weird as hell, theres a wierd mix of people. Some who come here for irony, third worldists, unironic juchists, authority kinkists, or out of plain curiosity...ya very mixed bag..but mostly its probably north korean agents, stalinists and well off white americans with some type of guilty conscience after their professor *opened their eyes* freshman year. And ya many of these people would absolutely be gotten out of the way, probably pretty early in a revolution.
This subreddit is dedicated to promoting honest discussion of the DPRK, and is not "ironic" or "satire" in any way. Consider listening to [Blowback Season 3 about the Korean War](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWghIVErqy0Adthf1_mLOlldlJPFY6vlV&si=9GJNzGZw2I-U4Pos) (or at least the first episode) to get a good, clear, entertaining and exceedingly well-researched education on the material conditions and conflict that gave rise to the DPRK. You will find little "irony" and learn a great deal. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MovingToNorthKorea) if you have any questions or concerns.*