Comments on post #3360951

@Demundo on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-01-05T12:44:57-05:00

Sigfried666 said:

And hide away from the huge text wars the lectures tend to start.

Why refrain if the topic might be interesting to you?
Only if it hits your interest, that is though.

@Sigfried666 on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-01-05T09:39:36-05:00

Higusan said:

Come for the gags, stay for the lectures.

And hide away from the huge text wars the lectures tend to start.

@Higusan on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-01-05T05:45:33-05:00

Death_Usagi said:

Every time I come on Danbooru for Ido's comics, I learn something about history every time.

Come for the gags, stay for the lectures.

@Death_Usagi on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-28T17:22:38-05:00

Every time I come on Danbooru for Ido's comics, I learn something about history every time.

@Demundo on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-28T11:54:24-05:00

ADNL said:

And that is just before and during WW2. After, is another story.

So I say, Stalinism is not Marxism.

Wholeheartedly agree! Man, it's so hard to find people who could discuss Stalin like this these days. Most the time, i got people pointing out how he made the army of his own nation so weak it was falling apart and no one says it's what was after the war that makes his downfall. Brilliant! It's always nice to see people making valid points like you just did.

By the way, Communism isn't mean dictator, Ok? Because it against most other system, so it had to be working alone until people accept it.

I know. I only wanted to say that what you call Stalinism is the result of that great war. It lasted for a while after the war so Soviet Union recovered fast. I'm just saying, after winning the war, it would be quite wise to stay true to what you did in the war. Especially if the Union was going to be target for the next great war. But the mess, the secondary effect was what came later on, even far after the war. It is undeniable that Stalin's actions and decisions lead to later leaders to doubt him which directly lead to the fall of Soviet Union. Basically, Stalin was made for defending the Union from war. But he couldn't handle it in peace. Like you said, he's the war hero, above the fact he destroyed what could have become a true communism. But given the timing, I wouldn't say there was much of a choice.

That's why I compared Stalin with Churchill. Both were heroes in the war. But after it, they have shown themselves as "not the hero they were".

Edit:
Oh, by the way, I forgot to say.
I did agree that communism in its true form doesn't have places for dictatorship.
But on the way to reach it, they tend to do it centralized, focusing powers at 1 place. I'm saying that on basis of China and Vietnam. Of course, both realized the problem and fixed parts of it. Parts.

Edit 2:
I just realized my comments are hidden, except for this one.
I thought it was open for discussion and the more points to it the better?
Just saying, I do study WW2, Nazi, fascism, Soviet Union, communism and a lot of other stuff related to WW2 out of interest so I often say stuff that would offend people, but I believe what I say would be at least more detailed to truth in history then most. So, of course it'd be unpleasant to you, but bear with it. At least, I didn't say the atrocities are good and should be repeated. On contrary, I would say knowing would be better than being ignorant of it.

But people are just so easily offended these days.

@ADNL on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-27T12:56:31-05:00

Demundo said:

Good stuffs...

Ah, the old dog of the Queen...
Yes, and no. Churchill may be dead practical and so Stalin, but Stalin is far more... sinister, I think.
What I mean was, although he did won the war, and like you said, he did see the war coming, but think again, Barbarossa and the Winter war is not the things that Churchill would do as Stalin.
Man like Churchill would fortify his country, prepare for the worst. Stalin, because of the result of his purge earlier, had to diverse the inner conflict into wars and weaken more his army.
It's true that Stalin's ruthless help a lot won the war, I can't say that any other Russia leader couldn't. Russia, again, fought by any mean to exist, thus Stalin was only the man in right position to be remember as a hero, rather than the one who killed of real Communism by his dictative nature.

And that is just before and during WW2. After, is another story. As I did say, he screwed Soviet so hard it hardly the Soviet in people's imagination. Political oppression, leader worshiping, feeding all money into military rather than production and research (except military and the moon race that Soviet never needed and won)...
All, combined help roten the root of the country, only to thicken the leaves, which sooner or later lead to the down fall of the Stalinism.

So I say, Stalinism is not Marxism. Because true Communism has to prior it's people on top, not political and military power. It represent a man's paranoia and dictatorship in name of Communism.
That say, if you want to call Stalin a 'true something', I don't think it would be 'true communist'. A 'true dictator' more like.

By the way, Communism isn't mean dictator, Ok? Because it against most other system, so it had to be working alone until people accept it.
Marx predict that Communism system would have a advanced democracy government along with Communist style economy. No country has claimed to achieve this form yet though.

NNescio said:
...

That was cold! But somehow it's also funny.
It remind me of a movie in that the character shoot so bad, he's desperated and tries to shoot himself, but... You can guess the rest.

Laisi said:
...

Ah true, I remember that now.
McCain said he was being freed from NVA prison after being caught, but refused and demanded to stay or go with all of his comrade, correct?
Funny, the Vietnamese said otherwise. But you know how Communist works.

@Demundo on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-27T11:11:29-05:00

I agree with you on all what you replied to me, except for this one. Just this one.
On the son, the others have already said enough, I believe.

ADNL said:

I disagree that Stalin make Soviet strong though. It's true that Soviet under Stalin was able to defeat German, control eastern Europe, make America crazy..., But his legacy did not make the foundation for the stable economy latter on.
By spending most of the money in military and wasting manpower on old method production and purging restlessly, he destroyed the chance turn Russia into a real Communist paradise, and also the reputation of what Socialism really means, but into just his own mess that none of the latter Soviet leader can fix. He, in many means, is the real enemy of the true Maxism.

First, I believe I have said Stalin wasn't the best, but he was the leader the Union needed at the time.
No, not because he could make the Union strong. It's more because he was able to see a great war, one that is going to be at least as bad as the last Great War, coming. Making the Union strong or making the revolution works was more of a Trotsky thing. But as I have said, all the others executive members of the Communist Party weren't trying to setup a functional government. They were trying to reach a compromise with each other, so the system can work. But Stalin saw that they couldn't afford doing things slow so he did what he did... At least, I believe so.

So then, all the powers opposing him needed to be cleared away so he can prepare for a war, one that can actually end the Union they fought so hard to build. I'm not saying what he did was right, I mean to say it was needed to keep the Union from being crushed.

I'm not denying he did have his people killed either, because that's a fact. But then again, he did have the Union grow back to itself before the war in the time Britain and France were struggling on it.

The only thing is, later leaders undid what he built instead of driving it into what they needed. Khrushchov was pretty much right after Stalin but he denied all Stalin did. That's funny in and of itself too though. But I'm not getting into it.

So, summing up, I would compare Stalin to Churchill. They were both leaders that took stance for a war, one that had the fate of a nation riding on it. They did what they needed to win that war. And exactly because of that, I believe that Stalin was a true communist, or an ally of all soviet and communism of any kind for he protected the Union. At a great cost, but he did it. A shame later leaders couldn't see past the mistakes Stalin caused achieving that.

@NNescio on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-27T02:28:17-05:00

ADNL said:

I thought Stalin son never returned and died in German camp?

Yakov Dzhugashvili? Died in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Shot by a guard for refusing to obey an order, according to declassified papers. Could have been a deliberate suicide by 'cop'.

ADNL said:

Maybe I have to check again since the last time I watch a Russia film they said so...
You know, he didn't trade doesn't mean he value his people. Stalin is... Well, Stalin. Political and ruthless. He killed his own people more than Hitler, just longer the time to die in his time...
You think he would trade his son for the people trust and more power for himself? Yes, maybe. Many historians did think that he only refused because he feared of showing weakness as the supreme leader would stain his political image while the party is in dissarray after his purge. We never know what the man thought though. Lost a son, gain a country...

Plus, well, that particular son was a perpetual source of embarrassment (NTRing somebody else's wife being among the highlights) and was pretty much estranged from his father since, well, uh, almost forever, so...

(I mean, he attempted suicide earlier, missed and hit his lung, and you know what Stalin allegedly said? "He can't even shoot straight.")

@laisy on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-27T01:46:38-05:00

ADNL said:

I don't recall something like that, may you enlighten me?

Couldn't find it again. Now I think back, I might have mixed it up with John McCain's (which is a very different situation)

@ADNL on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-27T01:32:44-05:00

laisy said:

...TBH that sounds political, and didn't something similar happens in Vietnam War?

I don't recall something like that, may you enlighten me?

@laisy on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-26T21:42:12-05:00

ADNL said:

I thought Stalin son never returned and died in German camp? Maybe I have to check again since the last time I watch a Russia film they said so...
You know, he didn't trade doesn't mean he value his people. Stalin is... Well, Stalin. Political and ruthless. He killed his own people more than Hitler, just longer the time to die in his time...
You think he would trade his son for the people trust and more power for himself? Yes, maybe. Many historians did think that he only refused because he feared of showing weakness as the supreme leader would stain his political image while the party is in dissarray after his purge. We never know what the man thought though. Lost a son, gain a country...

Allegedly Stalin responded that every Soviet citizen is his son, hence he would only trade if the German released every one of them. TBH that sounds political, and didn't something similar happens in Vietnam War?

@ADNL on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-26T15:16:10-05:00

Demundo said:
...

In fact, Stalin stayed so true to the way of a communist and put the people of Soviet Union above himself, yes, above himself all the way through his life as Secretary of Communist Party. He even outright refused to trade Paulus for his son for crying out loud.

I thought Stalin son never returned and died in German camp? Maybe I have to check again since the last time I watch a Russia film they said so...
You know, he didn't trade doesn't mean he value his people. Stalin is... Well, Stalin. Political and ruthless. He killed his own people more than Hitler, just longer the time to die in his time...
You think he would trade his son for the people trust and more power for himself? Yes, maybe. Many historians did think that he only refused because he feared of showing weakness as the supreme leader would stain his political image while the party is in dissarray after his purge. We never know what the man thought though. Lost a son, gain a country...

And yes, I know Lenin, Stalin or whoever in Communist party were good enough of a student of Marx. They're too shalow, too selfish and not yet the time for a true socialism, not mentioning Communism, government in the world. As Marx did said:" Until the production level and people's intelligent are strong enough, so wait, dude!!"
But on the other hand, Lenin was the most capable of the time, and after Stalin, it kept disrail more and more, until it's so wrong it collapsed on it own falses. Soviet never was a real Communism as Marx forsaw. It's only a personal will.

You're right, Soviet Russia isn't just gulag, but in Western side, they always has that image, and I wouldn't thank Stalin for that.
You do know that gulag existed before the war, right? And for everyone who opposed Stalin rather than just criminal and POW. So, yeah, blooming in Stalin Soviet, and latter supposed to be exist in every bloody Communist country (which become a fixture in Western mind, which, again, is not entirely true)

I disagree that Stalin make Soviet strong though. It's true that Soviet under Stalin was able to defeat German, control eastern Europe, make America crazy..., But his legacy did not make the foundation for the stable economy latter on.
By spending most of the money in military and wasting manpower on old method production and purging restlessly, he destroyed the chance turn Russia into a real Communist paradise, and also the reputation of what Socialism really means, but into just his own mess that none of the latter Soviet leader can fix. He, in many means, is the real enemy of the true Maxism.

To make it short, Marxism, Socialism or Communism, did not and would not etablish successfully, YET!
Soviet is just a terribly wrong experiment by human will. Real Communism is not bad, in fact it's our future. Naturally, the world will eventually be there, like it or not.
But maybe not in our life time.

@Demundo on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-26T11:48:02-05:00

ADNL said:

But, as a true commie, Tashkent should know better. Stalin is litterally Lenin's betrayer. I read somewhere that Lenin never want Stalin to be his successor because of his dictative attitude, but was killed too early and Stalin screwed his legacy into a gulag Paradise and forever stained Socialism and Communism reputation.

I so want to quote Lenin's will to prove that you were wrong. But unfortunately, in his will, Lenin did say that he wasn't sure Stalin had the ability to use the power he had grabbed to that point and Lenin also explicitly expressed that personally thought Trotsky was better in abilities as a leader, but also pointed out that Trotsky was too over confident and was too easily absorbed into the paperwork side of things. That is after noting that Stalin and Trotsky were the best of Communist party at the time.
There are still many voice going all direction about how Lenin's vision was so shortsighted or how it was a mistake not making it public at the time of 13th Party's Meeting, but personally, I think Lenin got too scared of how Stalin is acting strong to setup a system, a proper government instead of a temporary one running at that moment.

In fact, Stalin stayed so true to the way of a communist and put the people of Soviet Union above himself, yes, above himself all the way through his life as Secretary of Communist Party. He even outright refused to trade Paulus for his son for crying out loud.

And no, contrary to your belief, Soviet Union wasn't a Gulag Paradise. Even the condition in gulags weren't that bad, compared to the norm on the out side of its wall. However, considering how people of Soviet Union were taking bare minimum food, water and other necessities, do you expect prisoners to be treated better?

So, let's just say, Stalin wasn't the best leader, but he was the leader Soviet Union needed at the time. You can see how it was thriving in population and industrial production in and after WW2. The down fall of Soviet Union only started after Stalin's death and Khrushchov taking over.

Lastly, for your information, Lenin's death was the result of malnutrition throughout his life. His diet of mainly eggs and milk in his final days really just killed him faster than helping him. And the doctor who said he should be eating those did not know that. Not that it would make much of a difference though, with Lenin had already started having mental problems before that.

@laisy on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-26T09:25:57-05:00

ADNL said:

And I just notice that Iowa's Sherman has a bulldozer nose. Is that correct that American use those version, or it is British mad invention I forgot.

The Americans did use bulldozer Shermans, but only after observing the Brits did it first. https://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m4_sherman_bulldozer.php

@ADNL on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-26T07:16:14-05:00

laisy said:

It does look like it has a turret, albeit it is misshapen to be recognizable. Judging from post #3011071 Gangut do own an IS-2

Da, IS-2 confirmed. Check on the position and shape of the turret, beside the massive 122mm cannon compares to American puny 75mm of the Shermans (the 76mm has the flash suppresser I think).

But, as a true commie, Tashkent should know better. Stalin is litterally Lenin's betrayer. I read somewhere that Lenin never want Stalin to be his successor because of his dictative attitude, but was killed too early and Stalin screwed his legacy into a gulag Paradise and forever stained Socialism and Communism reputation.

And I just notice that Iowa's Sherman has a bulldozer nose. Is that correct that American use those version, or it is British mad invention I forgot.

By the way, Iowa 'Datte...!' ('But...!') is really adorable ^^

@laisy on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-26T01:55:21-05:00

Mega1987 said:

is that Russian tank?

SU-152? or ISU-152?

or worse... the SU-100 or the SU-85?

it doesnt shape as the T-34-85 or the IS...

It does look like it has a turret, albeit it is misshapen to be recognizable. Judging from post #3011071 Gangut do own an IS-2

@Mega1987 on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-25T21:05:37-05:00

is that Russian tank?

SU-152? or ISU-152?

or worse... the SU-100 or the SU-85?

it doesnt shape as the T-34-85 or the IS...

@Tyrswed on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-25T15:34:38-05:00

Death_Usagi said:

Time for another COLD WAR II

Electric Boogaloo?

@Death_Usagi on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-25T13:18:10-05:00

Time for another COLD WAR II

@RYANC00P3R_Youtuber on post #3360951 (hibiki, verniy, iowa, gangut, tashkent, and 1 more (kantai collection) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2018-12-25T12:54:10-05:00

alright now the conflict is getting heat...

Time to go defcon 2!!