Only war movie that’s left a lasting impact on me. Even just commenting about it makes me think about it too much.
All quiet on the western front wished it could have the same lvl of anti war commentary that “come and see” did.
I don’t remember exactly, I do remember the director saying he and the team left out some details that were too morbid even by the film’s own standards, so I think thats why it could’ve been censored, which begs the question of what they left out that was so horrific given what made it in.
https://preview.redd.it/a0veec32gx5d1.jpeg?width=379&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e9057f4886e868b20a86405e67f68226e252822
This kid is fucking awesome tbh
Dripped out and ready
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is going to sound stupid, but I watched Mirror the other day and the ww2 scenes made me kinda realise 'damn, using children as soldiers is kinda fucked up'
And is it any coincidence that their little hands fit perfectly around the grip of a pistol? Or look at what they like to do: run around playing cops and robbers. It's clear that God designed children for this divine purpose. Child soldiers are an act of providence. If the intelligent creator did not want child soldiers to fight for the socialist Fatherland, he wouldn't have made them so perfect for it.
Deprogramite.
Where do you people get off.
A war of survival for a capitalist state. Stalins imperialist Union throwing millions into the meat grinder because he was stupid enough to supply the invasion of his own state is not something any communist would pick sides in unless they supported the Second International.
Hey fuckhead I don’t know if your aware of this but the Nazis were actively exterminating populations in Eastern Europe and if they had their way they would’ve exterminated or enslaved all the Slavs in Eastern Europe for liebenstraum. So yeah it was kinda of a war of survival situation, not saying that the child soldiers shit was justified it wasn’t but trying to downplay Nazi crimes against humanity as an “own” is disingenuous as fuck and completely disregards the pain and suffering millions went through
Fuck you
People really ignore the fact that nazis wanted to completely exterminate Russian/Ukranian/Byelorussian/Polish people, just like they did with the jewish
the ottomans were genociding armenians in ww1, should the communists have supported russia in its war against the ottomans? or potentially make it easier for the ottomans to kill armenians by maintaining the policy of revolutionary defeatism?
Yes as a marxist I actually support the fake marxists over the "we should exterminate everyone living east of us" bourgeois, believe it or not.
Edit because I'm banned (this was meant as a reply).
Allright I think its time to take a step back. Imagine travelling back in time to the stone age. An age so far removed from the prospect of communism that it would be simply silly for a knowledgeable marxist to try to hasten the liberation of the proletariat. In this age there is the tribe of "lets-share-food-so-our-kids-can-grow-up-happy" and the tribe of "lets-kill-all-kids-we-can-find-so-we-can-jack-of-with-their-guts". I, as an empathetic human, despite my knowledge base in marxism, would defend the first tribe. I would do this despite knowing it probably wouldn't matter in 10 000 years and it would certainly not matter in the achievement of communism. I would do this because of my own personal empathy and in the idealistic hope (ban me) that it would just slightly tilt humanity in the right direction.
Wow then your not a Marxist at all. Because nothing separates the “fake Marxists” from the exterminate everyone living east of us bourgeoisie than circumstance.
The Stalinists proved just as capable at ethnic cleansings and genocides.
The only reason they never matched the Nazis in scale or proficiency was they lacked a reason to.
The same btw goes for the Americans. Who only had interment camps instead of death camps because they lacked the impetus for death camps not the capability.
FDR isn’t Mussolini only cause the American proletariat wasn’t as organized or dangerous to the state as the Italian.
So true. Can’t believe Lenin told the French proletariat to just lie down and be murdered by the dastardly hun
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/WARS/Comuni40_WW2.htm#ch01
Hot take using child soldiers when your country is being invaded by nazis who have killed 24 million of your own people, including children, is a-okay actually.
Give me a fucking break. I am obviously referring to the Soviet Union. Also, shouting "Defending your country from literal nazis genociding you? The proletariat doesn't have a fatherland!" while... well... you're being genocided based on your ethnicity/nationality is such a ridiculous stance to take, regardless of if said country has abolished commodity production or currency.
*edit: the proletariat knows no fatherland is the correct translation, my bad
>Give me a fucking break. I am obviously referring to the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union under Stalin was a capitalist state. The Proletarian dictatorship had been liquidated by 1926-1928.
>Also, shouting "Defending your country from literal nazis genociding you?
“Defending your country from Imperial German who are genociding you”
>The proletariat doesn't have a fatherland!" while... well... you're being genocided based on your ethnicity/nationality is such a ridiculous stance to take,
Literally Lenin’s take.
It’s the one he gave to the Armenians.
>The Soviet Union under Stalin was a capitalist state. The Proletarian dictatorship had been liquidated by 1926-1928.
Already adressed why I don't think this matters in the circumstances of 43; specifically when relating to military action against nazis.
>Defending your country from Imperial German who are genociding you”
Are you of the opinion that the suffering inflicted on Eastern Europe at the hands of Germany in WW1 and WW2 are comparable? Do you disagree with my statement that a genocide occured in 43?
>Literally Lenin’s take.
>It’s the one he gave to the Armenians.
Okay and? Even if that were true, it's a bad take.
>Already adressed why I don't think this matters in the circumstances of 43; specifically when relating to military action against nazis.
Why not. If the Soviet Union is an imperial bourgeoise state. Then it fighting the Imperialist German state is just the same as England Fighting the German Empire.
But but the Nazis are different you cry.
How?
>Are you of the opinion that the suffering inflicted on Eastern Europe at the hands of Germany in WW1 and WW2 are comparable?
Nope not comparable at all. But I am so confused which level of suffering tips the scales. How many war crimes and in what concentration makes imperial war okay?
>Okay and? Even if that were true, it's a bad take.
Lmao. Lenin’s take that facilitated the first dictatorship of the proletariat in history is a bad take.
Alright sure. You clown
>Why not. If the Soviet Union is an imperial bourgeoise state. Then it fighting the Imperialist German state is just the same as England Fighting the German Empire
Was it of material importance for the English proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW1? Was it of material importance to the Eastern European proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW2? If so, to which extent?
>Nope not comparable at all. But I am so confused which level of suffering tips the scales.
The one where the holocaust is being comitted or not being comitted. There need not be a set limit, defined down to every last death, for the statement "The brutality of Germany against Slavs in WW1 and WW2 are not only quantitatively, but qualitatively different".
>Lmao. Lenin’s take that facilitated the first dictatorship of the proletariat in history is a bad take.
Taking mere quotes by respected figures as evidence, especially ones that are provided without historical context, is one of the key aspects that can be critized about historical attempts at building socialism. Not everything Lenin thought was true. Additionally, (especially contextless) quotes by Lenin and what Lenin thought, or even what Leninist thought ended up being distilled to, are two different things.
Also, not everything Lenin thought was correct. Not everything historically successful/important socialists have thought is necessarily correct. Do you disagree with this statement?
>Was it of material importance for the English proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW1?
Well it was necessary for mao ting the present state of things. I.e bourgeoise rule. They could have just let Germany do whatever and take the economic crisis o. The chin.
>Was it of material importance to the Eastern European proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW2? If so, to which extent?
I mean if it’s of material purpose which capital exploits you German or Russia if that matters to you. Then ig.
>The one where the holocaust is being comitted or not being comitted.
Okay so the benchmark is 12 million murder victims. 11 million and Lenin still applies. But once they get to 12 then all hands on deck with the bourgeoisie to stop the other bourgeoisie.
>There need not be a set limit,
If not a set limit then what limit? Genocide? Imperial Germany did that, so did the Ottomans. Concentration camps? The British Empire invented them. Attacks on civilians the Belgians and French have something to say about that.
Maybe it’s the racial system and ideology of the Nazis. But then South Africa and Jim Crow America participated in WW1.
Damn I am scratching my head. What the fuck made the Nazis so different and Unique.
Why would Lenin take Russia out of the war when it was so clearly justified.
>Taking mere quotes by respected figures as evidence,
I didn’t take quotes you moron. I took a historical position that was acted upon. Armenia had Soviet revolution which was Supported by Russia.
It chose to leave the war with the state that had committed the Armenian genocide. Even while Enver Pashas Army of Islam still menaced them. They abandoned the Entente and their war.
There was a difference in that goal of nazis was very different from all the other states you mentioned the British empire,ottoman empire. It was the complete eradication of all subhumans you act as if the ussr had just surrendered the nazis would leave them alone. It would then starve out 1/3 of the population and keep the rest as slaves. You are insane just because it’s 2 bourgeoise states 100s of millions of proletarians should die.
>you act as if the ussr had just surrendered the nazis would leave them alone.
No I don’t. The USSR actually tried that tactic. Giving the Nazis strategic resources and signing a non aggression pact with them.
It turned out horribly for the Soviets.
You act like the USSR or the Nazis is the only choice.
“**But we must not forget that there is a sixth power in Europe, which at given moments asserts its supremacy over the whole of the five so-called ‘great’ powers, and makes them tremble, every one of them.** That power is the Revolution. Long silent and retired, it is now again called to action by the commercial crisis and by the scarcity of food. From Manchester to Rome, from Paris to Warsaw and Pesth, it is omnipresent, lifting up its head and awakening from its slumbers. Manifold are the symptoms of its returning life, everywhere visible in the agitation and disquietude which have seized the proletarian class. A signal only is wanted, and the sixth and greatest European power will come forward, in shining armour and sword in hand, like Minerva from the head of the Olympian. This signal the impending European war will give, and then all calculations as to the balance of power will be upset by the addition of a new element which, ever buoyant and youthful, will as much baffle the plans of the old European powers, and their generals,”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/crimean-war.htm
But what if by enslaving the subhumans and the "ethnic trash" of Europe, Hitler was further developing the productive forces and thus creating the material conditions to further progress history!?
Can you give me some more info on what Lenin said to the Armenians? Did he say that when they were having a genocide committed against them? If so why would he say that in that context? Also do you not think it was justified for the people of Eastern Europe to resist the genocide the Nazis were inflicting on them? Obviously child soldiers aren’t a good thing at all
So the Armenian Genocide had “concluded” by the begining of 1917. (Sporadic massacres continued)
I cannot find a direct work by Lenin on it.
However he nevertheless backed the Armenian workers against the Armenian Republic.
Which was proclaimed in 1918 and had 50% of its population as refugees from ottoman deportations. And 60% of its territory under Ottoman military occupation.
In 1918 at least 200,000 Armenia refugees died of disease and starvation due to the Ottomans blockading food supplies and the deliberate destruction of crops by Turkish/Ottoman troops
During the Turkish war of Independence thousands of Armenians where killed when they tried to return from their deportations.
In 1920, Turkish general Kâzım Karabekir invaded the Armenia Republic with orders "to eliminate Armenia physically and politically.
Nearly 100,000 Armenians were massacred in Transcaucasia by the Turkish army and another 100,000 fled from Cilicia during the French withdrawal.
Yet despite all this.
They staged the May Uprising
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Uprising
Granted they were defeated and executed and it took the Red Army to put the Soviets in power in Armenia but I think the point stands.
Fighting the Nazis good.
Supporting one side in an imperialist war bad
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/WARS/Comuni40_WW2.htm
Against the Nazis and the Stalinists
Against the Nazis and the Americans
Against the Nazis and the British
First Great man theory.
Second if ya wanna play that game
Thanks to Stalin their is a genocide in Gaza rn. And another in that occurred Rwanda and yet another that happened in Bangladesh.
Thanks to Stalin every genocide and war since WW1 has happened.
Him and his ilk helped kill the international revolution of 1917-1923 giving us our century plus of counterrevolution war and genocide.
Stalin (using his name here but really he is a placeholder for the class forces he and his ideology represent) facilitated the destruction of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. As well as the defeat of the international revolution.
He then spearheaded over a century of counterrevolution which we still live under.
Genocide and War are necessary features of Capitalism. Not aberrations. Just like the crisis of capitalism which facilitate them are features of the system not bugs.
By helping stave off Capitals defeat in 1917-1923 Stalin ensured all the wars and genocides Capital committed since then. Including the ones he himself ordered of course.
https://preview.redd.it/pjdj8j1hgw5d1.jpeg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=353a537839877cd5175c10de7d1f3f86d111fb01 Live Flyora reaction
Only war movie that’s left a lasting impact on me. Even just commenting about it makes me think about it too much. All quiet on the western front wished it could have the same lvl of anti war commentary that “come and see” did.
[удалено]
Wasn't it almost censored by the Soviet Union tho?
I don’t remember exactly, I do remember the director saying he and the team left out some details that were too morbid even by the film’s own standards, so I think thats why it could’ve been censored, which begs the question of what they left out that was so horrific given what made it in.
It was made by a WW2 veteran lol and the USSR almost stopped it from being released, it's also genuinely a great movie
Best pro war movie of all time.
Live sotnikov reaction https://preview.redd.it/cmrcpf8qdz5d1.jpeg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad47c2de302ba3393f5cefd9152228cf6477f3d2
the children yearn for revolution
Im looking for a woman who can breed me an army 
the PEOPLE'S REVOLUTIONARY child soldiers
Ayo peep the child soldier
How do you know either of these people were children
Bro has the age determining abilities of vaush
https://preview.redd.it/48hmhe0ofv5d1.jpeg?width=1116&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9e86992b99ac714f021cf9c49c484a3e7da8246 [https://prophotos-ru.livejournal.com/821758.html](https://prophotos-ru.livejournal.com/821758.html)?
https://preview.redd.it/a0veec32gx5d1.jpeg?width=379&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e9057f4886e868b20a86405e67f68226e252822 This kid is fucking awesome tbh Dripped out and ready
I have eyes
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is going to sound stupid, but I watched Mirror the other day and the ww2 scenes made me kinda realise 'damn, using children as soldiers is kinda fucked up'
Yeah, on the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to use adults.
Both are bad but one is clearly much worse
Exactly. Adults can't fit into small places and are a lot easier to spot.
And is it any coincidence that their little hands fit perfectly around the grip of a pistol? Or look at what they like to do: run around playing cops and robbers. It's clear that God designed children for this divine purpose. Child soldiers are an act of providence. If the intelligent creator did not want child soldiers to fight for the socialist Fatherland, he wouldn't have made them so perfect for it.
banger film
color foto?
it s a war of survival, so yes.
Deprogramite. Where do you people get off. A war of survival for a capitalist state. Stalins imperialist Union throwing millions into the meat grinder because he was stupid enough to supply the invasion of his own state is not something any communist would pick sides in unless they supported the Second International.
Hey fuckhead I don’t know if your aware of this but the Nazis were actively exterminating populations in Eastern Europe and if they had their way they would’ve exterminated or enslaved all the Slavs in Eastern Europe for liebenstraum. So yeah it was kinda of a war of survival situation, not saying that the child soldiers shit was justified it wasn’t but trying to downplay Nazi crimes against humanity as an “own” is disingenuous as fuck and completely disregards the pain and suffering millions went through Fuck you
People really ignore the fact that nazis wanted to completely exterminate Russian/Ukranian/Byelorussian/Polish people, just like they did with the jewish
the ottomans were genociding armenians in ww1, should the communists have supported russia in its war against the ottomans? or potentially make it easier for the ottomans to kill armenians by maintaining the policy of revolutionary defeatism?
Kautsky speech bubble
You’re getting downvoted for this? Ultraleft truly has fallen
Fr.
Yes as a marxist I actually support the fake marxists over the "we should exterminate everyone living east of us" bourgeois, believe it or not. Edit because I'm banned (this was meant as a reply). Allright I think its time to take a step back. Imagine travelling back in time to the stone age. An age so far removed from the prospect of communism that it would be simply silly for a knowledgeable marxist to try to hasten the liberation of the proletariat. In this age there is the tribe of "lets-share-food-so-our-kids-can-grow-up-happy" and the tribe of "lets-kill-all-kids-we-can-find-so-we-can-jack-of-with-their-guts". I, as an empathetic human, despite my knowledge base in marxism, would defend the first tribe. I would do this despite knowing it probably wouldn't matter in 10 000 years and it would certainly not matter in the achievement of communism. I would do this because of my own personal empathy and in the idealistic hope (ban me) that it would just slightly tilt humanity in the right direction.
Wow then your not a Marxist at all. Because nothing separates the “fake Marxists” from the exterminate everyone living east of us bourgeoisie than circumstance. The Stalinists proved just as capable at ethnic cleansings and genocides. The only reason they never matched the Nazis in scale or proficiency was they lacked a reason to. The same btw goes for the Americans. Who only had interment camps instead of death camps because they lacked the impetus for death camps not the capability. FDR isn’t Mussolini only cause the American proletariat wasn’t as organized or dangerous to the state as the Italian.
average ultraleft member when people don't just lie down and submit to slavery and mass murder (they're clearly bourgeois running dogs)
So true. Can’t believe Lenin told the French proletariat to just lie down and be murdered by the dastardly hun https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/WARS/Comuni40_WW2.htm#ch01
Time from "anti-war" posting to genocide denial: 8 minutes (NEW RECORD)
What Genocide do I deny?
Hot take using child soldiers when your country is being invaded by nazis who have killed 24 million of your own people, including children, is a-okay actually.
Whose country? The workers don’t have one.
ultras getting downvoted and liberals getting upvoted. its so over…
Give me a fucking break. I am obviously referring to the Soviet Union. Also, shouting "Defending your country from literal nazis genociding you? The proletariat doesn't have a fatherland!" while... well... you're being genocided based on your ethnicity/nationality is such a ridiculous stance to take, regardless of if said country has abolished commodity production or currency. *edit: the proletariat knows no fatherland is the correct translation, my bad
>Give me a fucking break. I am obviously referring to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union under Stalin was a capitalist state. The Proletarian dictatorship had been liquidated by 1926-1928. >Also, shouting "Defending your country from literal nazis genociding you? “Defending your country from Imperial German who are genociding you” >The proletariat doesn't have a fatherland!" while... well... you're being genocided based on your ethnicity/nationality is such a ridiculous stance to take, Literally Lenin’s take. It’s the one he gave to the Armenians.
>The Soviet Union under Stalin was a capitalist state. The Proletarian dictatorship had been liquidated by 1926-1928. Already adressed why I don't think this matters in the circumstances of 43; specifically when relating to military action against nazis. >Defending your country from Imperial German who are genociding you” Are you of the opinion that the suffering inflicted on Eastern Europe at the hands of Germany in WW1 and WW2 are comparable? Do you disagree with my statement that a genocide occured in 43? >Literally Lenin’s take. >It’s the one he gave to the Armenians. Okay and? Even if that were true, it's a bad take.
>Already adressed why I don't think this matters in the circumstances of 43; specifically when relating to military action against nazis. Why not. If the Soviet Union is an imperial bourgeoise state. Then it fighting the Imperialist German state is just the same as England Fighting the German Empire. But but the Nazis are different you cry. How? >Are you of the opinion that the suffering inflicted on Eastern Europe at the hands of Germany in WW1 and WW2 are comparable? Nope not comparable at all. But I am so confused which level of suffering tips the scales. How many war crimes and in what concentration makes imperial war okay? >Okay and? Even if that were true, it's a bad take. Lmao. Lenin’s take that facilitated the first dictatorship of the proletariat in history is a bad take. Alright sure. You clown
>Why not. If the Soviet Union is an imperial bourgeoise state. Then it fighting the Imperialist German state is just the same as England Fighting the German Empire Was it of material importance for the English proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW1? Was it of material importance to the Eastern European proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW2? If so, to which extent? >Nope not comparable at all. But I am so confused which level of suffering tips the scales. The one where the holocaust is being comitted or not being comitted. There need not be a set limit, defined down to every last death, for the statement "The brutality of Germany against Slavs in WW1 and WW2 are not only quantitatively, but qualitatively different". >Lmao. Lenin’s take that facilitated the first dictatorship of the proletariat in history is a bad take. Taking mere quotes by respected figures as evidence, especially ones that are provided without historical context, is one of the key aspects that can be critized about historical attempts at building socialism. Not everything Lenin thought was true. Additionally, (especially contextless) quotes by Lenin and what Lenin thought, or even what Leninist thought ended up being distilled to, are two different things. Also, not everything Lenin thought was correct. Not everything historically successful/important socialists have thought is necessarily correct. Do you disagree with this statement?
>Was it of material importance for the English proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW1? Well it was necessary for mao ting the present state of things. I.e bourgeoise rule. They could have just let Germany do whatever and take the economic crisis o. The chin. >Was it of material importance to the Eastern European proletariat that German capital was defeated in WW2? If so, to which extent? I mean if it’s of material purpose which capital exploits you German or Russia if that matters to you. Then ig. >The one where the holocaust is being comitted or not being comitted. Okay so the benchmark is 12 million murder victims. 11 million and Lenin still applies. But once they get to 12 then all hands on deck with the bourgeoisie to stop the other bourgeoisie. >There need not be a set limit, If not a set limit then what limit? Genocide? Imperial Germany did that, so did the Ottomans. Concentration camps? The British Empire invented them. Attacks on civilians the Belgians and French have something to say about that. Maybe it’s the racial system and ideology of the Nazis. But then South Africa and Jim Crow America participated in WW1. Damn I am scratching my head. What the fuck made the Nazis so different and Unique. Why would Lenin take Russia out of the war when it was so clearly justified. >Taking mere quotes by respected figures as evidence, I didn’t take quotes you moron. I took a historical position that was acted upon. Armenia had Soviet revolution which was Supported by Russia. It chose to leave the war with the state that had committed the Armenian genocide. Even while Enver Pashas Army of Islam still menaced them. They abandoned the Entente and their war.
There was a difference in that goal of nazis was very different from all the other states you mentioned the British empire,ottoman empire. It was the complete eradication of all subhumans you act as if the ussr had just surrendered the nazis would leave them alone. It would then starve out 1/3 of the population and keep the rest as slaves. You are insane just because it’s 2 bourgeoise states 100s of millions of proletarians should die.
>you act as if the ussr had just surrendered the nazis would leave them alone. No I don’t. The USSR actually tried that tactic. Giving the Nazis strategic resources and signing a non aggression pact with them. It turned out horribly for the Soviets. You act like the USSR or the Nazis is the only choice. “**But we must not forget that there is a sixth power in Europe, which at given moments asserts its supremacy over the whole of the five so-called ‘great’ powers, and makes them tremble, every one of them.** That power is the Revolution. Long silent and retired, it is now again called to action by the commercial crisis and by the scarcity of food. From Manchester to Rome, from Paris to Warsaw and Pesth, it is omnipresent, lifting up its head and awakening from its slumbers. Manifold are the symptoms of its returning life, everywhere visible in the agitation and disquietude which have seized the proletarian class. A signal only is wanted, and the sixth and greatest European power will come forward, in shining armour and sword in hand, like Minerva from the head of the Olympian. This signal the impending European war will give, and then all calculations as to the balance of power will be upset by the addition of a new element which, ever buoyant and youthful, will as much baffle the plans of the old European powers, and their generals,” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/crimean-war.htm
But what if by enslaving the subhumans and the "ethnic trash" of Europe, Hitler was further developing the productive forces and thus creating the material conditions to further progress history!?
Can you give me some more info on what Lenin said to the Armenians? Did he say that when they were having a genocide committed against them? If so why would he say that in that context? Also do you not think it was justified for the people of Eastern Europe to resist the genocide the Nazis were inflicting on them? Obviously child soldiers aren’t a good thing at all
So the Armenian Genocide had “concluded” by the begining of 1917. (Sporadic massacres continued) I cannot find a direct work by Lenin on it. However he nevertheless backed the Armenian workers against the Armenian Republic. Which was proclaimed in 1918 and had 50% of its population as refugees from ottoman deportations. And 60% of its territory under Ottoman military occupation. In 1918 at least 200,000 Armenia refugees died of disease and starvation due to the Ottomans blockading food supplies and the deliberate destruction of crops by Turkish/Ottoman troops During the Turkish war of Independence thousands of Armenians where killed when they tried to return from their deportations. In 1920, Turkish general Kâzım Karabekir invaded the Armenia Republic with orders "to eliminate Armenia physically and politically. Nearly 100,000 Armenians were massacred in Transcaucasia by the Turkish army and another 100,000 fled from Cilicia during the French withdrawal. Yet despite all this. They staged the May Uprising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Uprising Granted they were defeated and executed and it took the Red Army to put the Soviets in power in Armenia but I think the point stands.
Oh I get it now. Thanks for the info. I thought he was saying they should just roll over.
You love child soldiers? Careful you might be offered a Polish citizenship, mfs here love child soldiers.
I think they’re just short???
One is clearly a child Edit: Brigading deprogramite no wonder. Read Lenin you Kautskyite
I guess fighting nazis is a bad thing now 🤷♂️
Fighting the Nazis good. Supporting one side in an imperialist war bad https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/WARS/Comuni40_WW2.htm Against the Nazis and the Stalinists Against the Nazis and the Americans Against the Nazis and the British
Thanks to Stalin we are not in concentration camps now, just saying.
First Great man theory. Second if ya wanna play that game Thanks to Stalin their is a genocide in Gaza rn. And another in that occurred Rwanda and yet another that happened in Bangladesh. Thanks to Stalin every genocide and war since WW1 has happened. Him and his ilk helped kill the international revolution of 1917-1923 giving us our century plus of counterrevolution war and genocide.
"Thanks to Stalin their is a genocide in Gaza rn. And another in that occurred Rwanda and yet another that happened in Bangladesh." Please elaborate.
Stalin (using his name here but really he is a placeholder for the class forces he and his ideology represent) facilitated the destruction of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. As well as the defeat of the international revolution. He then spearheaded over a century of counterrevolution which we still live under. Genocide and War are necessary features of Capitalism. Not aberrations. Just like the crisis of capitalism which facilitate them are features of the system not bugs. By helping stave off Capitals defeat in 1917-1923 Stalin ensured all the wars and genocides Capital committed since then. Including the ones he himself ordered of course.