AZ_IZ_OT posted:farmers are notorious assholes
hmm, tell me more
animedad posted:how come you never hear about the bad farmers, the ones that are lazy and wake up too late to feed the steers? it's always they got up a 4am for 80 years, and then keeled over, they were a good father etc. I wanna hear about the farmer that binged on acid and forgot to harvest his crops one season and they threatened to revoke his membership at the grain co op
read mao
getfiscal posted:animedad posted:how come you never hear about the bad farmers, the ones that are lazy and wake up too late to feed the steers? it's always they got up a 4am for 80 years, and then keeled over, they were a good father etc. I wanna hear about the farmer that binged on acid and forgot to harvest his crops one season and they threatened to revoke his membership at the grain co op
read mao
/nods /bows
Red_Canadian posted:i'm not really sure, since i'm not trying to do either.
the most powerful troll is to be completely sincere and obviously in the moral right. congratulations, you have arrived.
Guys, you have to realise that the bolsheviks had a pretty fucked up situation. They tried to do a bunch of experimentation, when things weren't so bad, but war communism, not living up to the ideals of the constitution, all that business was purely a result of every capitalist country invading as soon as they could wrap up their little world war diversion. I mean, look at the countries that invaded soviet russia, and the timeframe. The U.K, Canada, United States, Japan, France, on the allied side, as well as the Germans.
The United States imprisoned huge amounts of japanese on the mainland, after Pearl Harbour, when there wasn't any real invasion risk. What happened to Soviet Russia, and the rise of hitler and his appeasement by the western powers, probably scared the shit out of Stalin, and though it doesn't justify the excesses, it makes them understandable, at least from his perspective. He tried multiple times to ally himself with the western powers, and they refused. The agreement they signed with Nazi Germany was purely to buy time, and make the best of a bad situation. Selling grain whilst some ukrainians starved does suck, but it wasn't because Stalin personally hated ukrainians, but because they needed the capital to modernize. I think it's easy to be critical of that, but remember that that country played the biggest role in defeating fascism, sacrificing millions of lives in a war of extermination.
Intentions should count for something, especially if we're talking about survival situations.
Another thing that really blew my mind about the sides of the 20th century, was that British supported Greeks shot a peaceful protest in Greece, organised by the communist party of greece, in 1944! The Nazi's weren't even defeated yet, and they had to fight against peaceful protesters cause they were communists? Not to mention how the Nazis were treated after the war by the allied governments.
and
No, the holocaust could not be described as some jews were forced to stay in camps, because they didn't stay there, they were executed callously for no benefit to anyone. Some ukrainians starved so that grain could be sold to the western world, to purchase industrial goods. Some can equal millions, and like I said, it wasn't on purpose, it wasn't specifically done to punish ukrainians, it was a brutal realpolitik decision that may have prevented millions more dying to the Nazis, who actually planned on killing all the ukrainians, and the russians, and the poles. Trying to equate the Soviets with the Nazis is pretty fucking funny, since fascism is capitalist society's response to poor economic decisions and growing socialist support. Supporting the far right ukrainian viewpoint is pretty funny as well.
I really, really thought this thread had enough intellectual people to at least argue the topics, rather than just recycling facts in a vacuum. After all, it's definitely a guy who has had absolutely no effect on military thinking who said "We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means."
getting responses like;
Why the fuck is a political ideology your side rather than something you're willing to fairly evaluate the failings of so as to try and avoid them?
or
I think you're the only person here who is taking a political side. Surely you can see that describing the situation as " Selling grain whilst some ukrainians starved" is callous as all hell regardless of what your political leanings are? Like 8 million Ukrainians died. This is literally like describing the holocaust as "some Jews were forced to stay in camps".
and
On the off, off change you're not trolling:
Trotsky and Lenin militarized the trade unions, and let military campaigns against democratic socialists in the USSR, culminating in massacres - for no other reason than destroying any kind of democratic power outside their dictatorship. If you don't have to massacre somebody for any reason besides padding your own cult and destroying democracy, you are the fucking bad guy in the picture.
Whataboutism doesn't make a lot of sense, and even if it did you can't compare US enemy alien internment( that, while horribly racist, made military sense at the time) to throwing a good worker in a frozen work camp to most likely be murdered before his 5 years are up, for looking the wrong way at a police commissar.
The UK behaved towards Greece in the way state imperialists are expected to, you ought to hold an internationalist soviet government to higher standards.
I think you're the only person here who is taking a political side. Surely you can see that describing the situation as " Selling grain whilst some ukrainians starved" is callous as all hell regardless of what your political leanings are? Like 8 million Ukrainians died. This is literally like describing the holocaust as "some Jews were forced to stay in camps".
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Red_Canadian posted:I think you're the only person here who is taking a political side. Surely you can see that describing the situation as " Selling grain whilst some ukrainians starved" is callous as all hell regardless of what your political leanings are? Like 8 million Ukrainians died. This is literally like describing the holocaust as "some Jews were forced to stay in camps".
and
On the off, off change you're not trolling:
Trotsky and Lenin militarized the trade unions, and let military campaigns against democratic socialists in the USSR, culminating in massacres - for no other reason than destroying any kind of democratic power outside their dictatorship. If you don't have to massacre somebody for any reason besides padding your own cult and destroying democracy, you are the fucking bad guy in the picture.
Whataboutism doesn't make a lot of sense, and even if it did you can't compare US enemy alien internment( that, while horribly racist, made military sense at the time) to throwing a good worker in a frozen work camp to most likely be murdered before his 5 years are up, for looking the wrong way at a police commissar.
The UK behaved towards Greece in the way state imperialists are expected to, you ought to hold an internationalist soviet government to higher standards.
I think you're the only person here who is taking a political side. Surely you can see that describing the situation as " Selling grain whilst some ukrainians starved" is callous as all hell regardless of what your political leanings are? Like 8 million Ukrainians died. This is literally like describing the holocaust as "some Jews were forced to stay in camps".
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Instead of trying to tell people "oh what happened was bad and mistakes were made" you should be advancing the truth, which is that the USSR politburo made the right decisions and nobody could have prevented the famine of 1932-33, which only killed 2.5 million people (not just Ukrainians) and was thus not as deadly as the famine of 1921-22 (which killed twice as many people and was due entirely to environmental factors). You don't mention that the USSR tried to sell gold instead of grain but the US and UK, the financial backers of the Nazis in Germany, refused to take any payment but grain in exchange for the supplies needed to industrialize the USSR. Your problem is that you're descending to their level of "debate" by calling things "realpolitik" and making generalizations about how you think the situation should be interpreted. All you really need to do is spam passages of Douglas Tottle and Davies & Wheatcroft at them, or you could email like, J Arch Getty directly and they'll respond in the same day.
it's pretty frustrating that a group of pretty intelligent posters, who read about military history for fun, think that you can be non-political. it's literally impossible, at any point in history, to not be affected by political things, and to not influence them. but you know this.
fucking whataboutism... it's infuriating, because how you can value something without comparing it something else? nothing exists in a vacuum. decisions have to be analysed compared to other possible decisions, this is fucking business 101 shit. sorry, i'm just pissed off that so many smart people can be so dumb.
swampman posted:that highly anticipated alt-history show about the Civil War where the writers thought it preceded the French revolution
please post please
This is present day, or close to present day, and how the world would have evolved if the South had been successful seceding from the Union. And what was also exciting to me was the idea that in order to build this, we would have to rebuild world history … Okay, if this had happened here, how did the rest of the world change? That was another huge bonus factor for me — the idea of rewriting some of the history of, like, the French Revolution. What happened in the entire world if that one event had ended differently?
Red_Canadian posted:it's pretty frustrating that a group of pretty intelligent posters, who read about military history for fun, think that you can be non-political. it's literally impossible, at any point in history, to not be affected by political things, and to not influence them. but you know this.
Red_Canadian posted:haha yeah, whataboutism is hilarious, since it means they see themselves as above petty concerns as taking sides, and are just impartial observers to the dance of life. Both sides are wrong, i don't take sides, i just stay neutral whilst millions die.
evidently they read wikipedia military history for fun because i'm 99% sure that's where 'whataboutism' originates
hmmmmm
lol
roseweird posted:
i went for an interview and they said they'd like to test my practical skills by putting up a section of fence, and i thought, they must be desperate if they're getting the interviewees to put up their fence for them, and before i knew it id said "you must be desperate if you're getting the interiewees to put up your fence for you", one of them laughed but the other one didnt... and i didnt get the job
i can only conclude that farmers are infact notorious assholse
tears posted:roseweird posted:i went for an interview and they said they'd like to test my practical skills by putting up a section of fence, and i thought, they must be desperate if they're getting the interviewees to put up their fence for them, and before i knew it id said "you must be desperate if you're getting the interiewees to put up your fence for you", one of them laughed but the other one didnt... and i didnt get the job
i can only conclude that farmers are infact notorious assholse
What you say about that company, is what you say about society
