/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>400340
yes

>>400325
All your bullshit has been debunked long time ago, especially one about "old bolsheviks". In fact it was done so in this very thread, but you libshit either don't read, or you are persitent in your delusion. You post some bullshit, get debunked, leave thread without answering and then return some time later to post same shit over and over again. It's quite pathetic, you know.

>>385679
Necessary to remove the fifth column. After 1938, when Beria took over the NKVD, the numbers shot dropped enormously. It's important to remember local officials often showed their own initiative in rooting out traitors. A lot of people the Soviet state had to rely on in its early years could finally be rooted out.
>>398723
Undoubtedly some innocents were caught up in the crossfire but there were countless plots against the USSR during this period and before.

>>400357
>All your bullshit has been debunked long time ago, especially one about "old bolsheviks"
yeah, and what was debunked about it? the only thing I've seen in this thread is claims that repressions totally helped USSR to win the war (and failing to explain how) and how there totally were material proofs to the guilt of le trotskyite-zinovievite-bukharinite opposition, but no examples of material proofs, yet no examples were shown

also, if you want to debunk the old bolsheviks myth, then debunk these images >>399046
>>399049. where did all these people go? to french riviera?

>>400369
>Necessary to remove the fifth column.
>Beria
Beria literally admitted in 1953, that he was member of illegal anti soviet organization "Mussavat". looks like literally anynone in the party was the fifth column

>It's important to remember local officials often showed their own initiative in rooting out traitors.
so did local officials in Nazi Germany. Or anywhere else. snitching exists. so?

>Undoubtedly some innocents were caught up in the crossfire but there were countless plots against the USSR during this period and before.
yeah, but the problem is that Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Radek weren't involved in any. They were innocent in most of the things they were accused of. Especially in collaborating with Nazi Germany and provoking it to start a war with the USSR.

The Great Purge was McCarthyism on steroids. Prove me wrong

>>400376
>yeah, and what was debunked about it?
How about you just read? Reading is not your thing, isn't it?

> the only thing I've seen in this thread is claims that repressions totally helped USSR to win the war (and failing to explain how)
Then work on your reading comprehension. Just because the explanations do not conform to your idealist worldview, doesn't mean there are none.

>debunk these images
Do you think that people like Kamenev and Zinoviev, who basically exposed party's plans for October by printing them in a fucking newspaper are good examples of "old bolsheviks"? Is this the hill you want to die on? Explain to me how a good bolsheviks can do such things/

In the april of 1917 the party consisted of 30k memebers. By the october it was around 10 times as that. Why picture of a dozen people should be used to represent pruges? Cherry picking at it's finest.

>>400386
>Beria literally admitted in 1953, that he was member of illegal anti soviet organization "Mussavat".
Are you back again, faggot? You have yet to provide any evidence that wasn't introduce by fucking Yakovlev.

>yeah, but the problem is that Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Radek weren't involved in any. They were innocent in most of the things they were accused of.
Yes they were. The evidence was damning and even Trotsky did not object to their guilt at the time, only that he himself was innocent.

>>400394
Hm. But Trotsky is a proNazi liar and falsifier. Why should we believe him that they were guilty?

>>400386
>Beria literally admitted in 1953, that he was member of illegal anti soviet organization "Mussavat"
He was arrested and executed with no defence by revisionists who led the USSR down the drain, what they say he said holds no weight. The Communist writer Bill Bland has written about this and argued quite convincingly that Beria was a committed Marxist-Leninist.
http://ml-review.ca/aml/BLAND/DOCTORS_CASE_FINAL.htm
>so did local officials in Nazi Germany. Or anywhere else. snitching exists. so?
Interesting that your first reaction is to compare to fascist Germany. Very Tim Snyder. In a proletarian dictatorship which involves all of the working class, revolutionary vigilance takes place at all levels. It's the same in Cuba today with local committees designed to root out counterrevolution. Communists make no excuses for our repression of the bourgeoisie and traitorous elements by the proletarian state.
>Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Radek weren't involved in any.
The trials, which were conducted freely and fairly as even the American ambassador to the USSR stated, suggest otherwise. And frankly these people were of little use to communism.

>>400400
It means that the evidence of their guilt was so damning that even capitalist cocksucker like Trotsky didn't think he could deny it.

Do you even understand how logic works, shitlib?

>>400403
>The trials, which were conducted freely and fairly as even the American ambassador to the USSR stated, suggest otherwise. And frankly these people were of little use to communism.
Seriously we are going over this for like hudredth time already. I guess that is their tactic - post bullshit until people would be tired to debunk it and then conclude that they won.

>>400405
But Trotsky was probably just lying and fueling this situation while he himself being the real guilty party, but managing to pin everything on his rivals

>>400407
Take your meds.

>>400394
>nooooo you can't read!!!!1
no u
>doesn't mean there are none.
then where are they? where is your material, materialist?

>nooooooooo they weren't bolsheviks because I don't like them!!!!!1
ok, retard

> Kamenev and Zinoviev, who basically exposed party's plans for October by printing them in a fucking newspaper
no, they didn't, lol

>Cherry picking at it's finest.
<showing photo of the first soviet government and the highest ranks of the army and komsomol is cherrypicking

ok retard 2


>Are you back again, faggot? You have yet to provide any evidence that wasn't introduce by fucking Yakovlev.
do you have some daddy fetish for Yakovlev, retard?

read this and then talk, cretin http://istmat.info/node/22226

>The evidence was damning
it was so damning that they relied only on testimonies, lol

>>400408
Says the person who thinks that Bukharin/Zinoviev/Trotsky was an ally of Hitler and helped plan Barbarossa as early as 1917, was planning to murder Lenin and wanted to destroy the USSR and the party.

>>400403
>He was arrested and executed with no defence by revisionists who led the USSR down the drain
the mussavat thing was the only thing he admitted at the trial, he refused every other accusation.

funny, how these retarded trials without any actual evidence are bed when it's done by "revisionists"

>nooooooo you are Tim Snyder
ok

>In a proletarian dictatorship which involves all of the working class, revolutionary vigilance takes place at all levels.
gibberish. just say that snitching and political trials are good when it's done by guys you like

>even the American ambassador to the USSR stated
yeah, the trials were good because american ambassador said it, ok

>>400411
>no, they didn't, lol
They literally did. In the newspaper "Новая жизнь" at 23 of October, two weeks before revolution.

You are either completely retarded or this is just some pathetic attempt at trolling. In either case, you have been btfod to the point you need to deny actual events happening. No point in actually arguing with you any further till you at least admit this.

>read this and then talk, cretin http://istmat.info/node/22226
By 8 of august beria was most likely already dead. Unlike defendants of the moscow trials he recieved no cross examination, no open trial. nothing like this. It's funny how you screech about "show trials" in that case, but this testimony you take at face value despite it being much more suspicious in every regard. Typical liberal double standards.

>it was so damning that they relied only on testimonies, lol
So you will have no problem actually showing this with counrt transcripts, right?

>>400413
Zinoviev and Kamenev literally exposed bolshevik's plans for revolution in 1917. Trotsky's CV is even worse than that.

You can deny reality all you want, but take your meds at least.

>>400421
>funny, how these retarded trials without any actual evidence are bed when it's done by "revisionists"
No, what is funny is how you can claim that open trials done in presense of the foreign ambassadors and journalists are fake, but closed trial with no witnesses can be relied on. You just exposed that you will take any "evidence" that will support your conclusion, regardless of wherever it is true or not.

>>400426
>They literally did. In the newspaper "Новая жизнь" at 23 of October, two weeks before revolution.
they only said that they are against violent uprising. how is that "revealing the plans of the party", dear retard?

>By 8 of august beria was most likely already dead.
take your meds, lol

>So you will have no problem actually showing this with counrt transcripts, right?
So you don't have problem to point out in the protocols where they use material evidence?

http://istmat.info/node/59103
http://istmat.info/files/uploads/52434/process_antisovetskogo_trockistskogo_centra_1937.pdf
http://istmat.info/node/40262

>nooooo it wasn't an open trials
i don't care if the trials were open or not, you imbecile. I said that Beria denied every accusation agianst him during the trial, except the mussavat thing, so there is no reason to not believe him. except maybe MUH YAKOVLEV!!!1

>>400421
>the mussavat thing was the only thing he admitted at the trial, he refused every other accusation.
Where did he admit it? His position was that he worked under instruction from local communists. And as the whole thing was behind closed doors it casts doubt on the whole affair. The Khrushchevites heaped endless lies on the Stalin period and Beria was the main target for his role. Beria was the one who ended the actual wreckers in state security and did an excellent job in ensuring the USSR had nuclear weapons.
>funny, how these retarded trials without any actual evidence are bed when it's done by "revisionists"
Because there's a difference between trumped up secret executions of genuine Marxist Leninists and those of anticommunists.
>gibberish. just say that snitching and political trials are good when it's done by guys you like
Nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes but the necessity of class rule. Frankly compared to the early years of the Cheka, the trials of the 1930s look very soft indeed. If you want to call workers defending their state snitches then so be it. Better that than letting the scum roam freely.
>yeah, the trials were good because american ambassador said it, ok
It reflects what was actually happening at the time, not what bourgeois "historians" and prostitutes of capital say 80 years later behind
mountains of anti-Soviet fabrications . Same with the "invasion of Poland". At the time it was not perceived as such.

>>400456
>they only said that they are against violent uprising. how is that "revealing the plans of the party", dear retard?
Are you really daft or are you pretending very well? They exposed the intention of bolsheviks to overthrow Provisional government. If it wasn't so fucking incompetent and unpopular it may have cost bolsheviks revolution. You are a fucking idiot.

Those faggots should've been shot right there.

>take your meds, lol
after you, schizo

>So you don't have problem to point out in the protocols where they use material evidence?
So, you can't. Good to know that you have no argument actually.

>i don't care if the trials were open or not, you imbecile.
I know that you don't. You only care if it suits your purpose. Like i said, double standards.

The trial was performed after a military coup it was a closed trial without any unaffiliated witnesses to see it. I can dismiss it without second thought.

>>400431
The did not. Thry resigned the CC and wrote thst the party shouldnt do revolution. They were then soon back onboard and started working according to the party line. What does a political conflict in 1917 have to do with the 1936 situation.

>>400421
Not only the ambassador, but also Trotsky

>>400482
>The did not. Thry resigned the CC and wrote thst the party shouldnt do revolution.
Imagine you are planning military uprising IN SECRET. Then some guy publishes article in a newspaper saying "Hey, we shouldn't do military uprising". What do you call it?

>They were then soon back onboard and started working according to the party line
They wormed themself back in because they supported Lenin on Brest peace. They shouldn't have been let back in, obviously.

The point i made is that those "old bolsheviks" had a history of actual betrayal of party and communism so it's not all that surprising that they did it again later. And obviously it's not just Zinoviev and Kamenev, it is true for most of the other "old bolsheviks" (which is nothing but a trot meme btw).

The real question is not "how could they have betrayed revolution" but "how the fuck party let them havy important position after their numerous fuck ups". The answer is that a) bolsheviks had to compromise because the lacked administrative resources so they wanted any barely coimpetent person on board, since even with that they were already stretched all over the place. Good part of new government was former mensheviks, SRs and even whites b) they were inspired by French revolution very much, to the point where they tried to call any happening of their times by the names from French revolution times (i.e. termidor, bonapartism), they didn't want to make same mistake of purging too much and ending up killing each other so they erred on the side of coution too much and forgave where they shouldn't have. I mean, they let white guard general Krasnov out on his FUCKING WORD OF HONOR that he wouldn't participate in military action against bolsheviks anymore. I don't think i need to mention that it failed miserably. Not only Krasnov participated in civil war and even in wwii, but even his sons and grandsons particiapted in communist killing in LatAm later on.

>Frankly compared to the early years of the Cheka, the trials of the 1930s look very soft indeed
It is exactly opposite imo. If you read trials like процесс Промпартии or процесс Главтопа, you would see that perpetrators are getting off with but a slap on their wrist. I think it is exactly why the nedd of large scale purges arised. If bolsheviks were not as retardedly humanist and soft in the 20s they wouldn't need those purges in 30s.

>>400468
>They exposed the intention of bolsheviks to overthrow Provisional government.
yeah, because bolsheviks were totally hiding their intention to overthrow the government. Especially after April theses and the "July days". nah, Kerensky wasn't suspecting anything, he was waiting for Kamenevs article.

>So, you can't. Good to know that you have no argument actually.
you have none. because there are was no material evidence at the court : )

>I know that you don't. You only care if it suits your purpose. Like i said, double standards.
I wasn't talking about that at all, little illiterate moron : )

>>400458
>Where did he admit it? His position was that he worked under instruction from local communists.
you can read this. his actual position was that he was working for them, but did nothing wrong. he also refuses the accussation that he had contacts with the british intelligence through "Mussavat". he also admitted that Maisky was tortured (beaten) during one of his interrogations.

>Beria was the one who ended the actual wreckers in state security and did an excellent job in ensuring the USSR had nuclear weapons.
he was also first to release thousands of GULAG prisoners and rehabilitate people who sentenced in the "Doctor's case". weird. Kruschev is bad for doing this but Beria is ok?

>If you want to call workers defending their state snitches then so be it.
gibberish again. you can call any snitching "defending the state".

>It reflects what was actually happening at the time
it reflects a personal opinion of someone who wasn't even insider. Personal opinion of anyone isn't a proof of anything

>>400516
>you can read this
this http://istmat.info/node/22226

>>400516
>yeah, because bolsheviks were totally hiding their intention to overthrow the government. Especially after April theses and the "July days". nah, Kerensky wasn't suspecting anything, he was waiting for Kamenevs article.
You never read April theses, didn't you? You haven't read anything from what you refer too, it seems. April theses did not call for overthrowing the Providional government. It called for "no support for Provision government" and for power to soviets (it means councils). God, i hate you fucking historylets.

There is also a difference between "they are gonna maybe attack you some day" and "they are preparing to attack already". The later would cost bolsheviks reovlution or at least a lot more lives if the Provsional government wouldn't be so popular that they only could get the support of woman's battalion and a couple of companies of junkers. And even they surrendered as soon as they saw who is coming for them.

Conclusion - you don't know shit about history of revolution.

>because there are was no material evidence at the court : )
Shitload of it, but you refuse to read. No sruprise.

>I wasn't talking about that at all
Work on your reading comprehension, liberal shitstain. You tried to dodge the fact that you rely on conclusions of a kangaroo court while trying to argue against fair and square open trial with unaffiliated witnesses. I caught you on this. You have no actual standards of evidence, you use what suits your conclusion only. Another liberal btfod.

>>400456
>I said that Beria denied every accusation agianst him during the trial, except the mussavat thing, so there is no reason to not believe him.
He literally denies that too.

ВОПРОС: Таким образом, вам всегда было вполне очевидно, что мусаватизм является агентурой английского империализма?

ОТВЕТ: Да.

ВОПРОС: Таким образом, активно сотрудничая в мусаватистской контрразведке, вы хорошо понимали, что являетесь вместе с тем сотрудником английской разведки?

ОТВЕТ: Я это отрицаю.

>>400538
he denies that he was collaborating with the britsh intelligence not mussavat, lol

>>400534
>There is also a difference between "they are gonna maybe attack you some day" and "they are preparing to attack already".

<«Взять на себя инициативу вооруженного восстания в настоящий момент, при данном соотношении общественных сил, независимо и за несколько дней до съезда Советов было бы недопустимым, гибельным для дела революции и пролетариата шагом»

yeah, they literally talk about concrete date and hour and totally not speak in vague terms, you cripple.

how is that different from april these, highly literate smartass?

>Shitload of it, but you refuse to read. No sruprise.
there is none. you just refuse to read it :)

>I caught you on this.
You caught yourself shitting in your pants, lol. it was you who started talking about le open trials not me, lel

>>400548
>he denies that he was collaborating with the britsh intelligence not mussavat, lol
Why are you so stupid? NOWHERE in this documents he admits on working with them. He was asked a loaded question. You are truly shit for brains.

>yeah, they literally talk about concrete date and hour and totally not speak in vague terms, you cripple.
You don't need a specific date, all you need to know is that they are planning to do that as soon as they could. It is enough. It was enough for provisional government to try and muster all military that they could. Thankfully it wasn't amount to much, like i said earlier.

>how is that different from april these, highly literate smartass?
Very different. For starter, there is not talk about military uprising in april theses, you illiterate mongoloid.

Again, you show that you just can't read to save your own life.

>there is none. you just refuse to read it :)
Fake passports, weapons, letters, money trails etc. But we already established that you don't actually read documents you refer to. Like in case of Beria being a spy.

>it was you who started talking about le open trials not me, lel
So, do you actually admit Moscow trials being legitimate? Otherwise i don't see what is the excuse you are trying to make here.

You are already btfod on all your pathetic excuses for arguments. Why keep shitting yourself in public?

>>400516
>you can read this. his actual position was that he was working for them, but did nothing wrong. he also refuses the accussation that he had contacts with the british intelligence through "Mussavat".
Assuming the document is accurate, it's possible he was acting as a double agent within it. He was quite a cunning man. Nonetheless by 1953 he was obviously a firm communist. Which brings to the next point.

>he was also first to release thousands of GULAG prisoners and rehabilitate people who sentenced in the "Doctor's case". weird.

http://www.lalkar.org/article/3403/the-doctors-plot-a-presentation-made-by-paul-cannon-to-the-stalin-society-in-london-in-december-2019
>It was Bill Bland’s contention that Beria released the Doctors as part of a broader and more general overhaul of a number of other decisions that had included the arrest and purging of Marxist-Leninists. That seems sensible to this writer. It was also comrade Bill Bland’s contention that this situation was a trick, a ‘feint’ played on Beria to release a group of revisionists quite rightly suppressed. It was the only way to undo the unjust purges which had been directed against the Marxist-Leninists.

Plenty of Marxist Leninists opposed to the revisionists were likely killed by the Khrushchevites, not just in the USSR but the likes of Bierut abroad as well.

>gibberish again. you can call any snitching "defending the state".
Not sure why you have such a grudge against workers exericisng vigilance. Every serious communist must be on the lookout for bourgeois influence. The Cheka existed for a reason, and it's this reason the USSR had the very effective Smersh, also led by another ally of Beria, Abakumov.

>it reflects a personal opinion of someone who wasn't even insider.
Given the usual lies the bourgeoisie heaps on the trials, it's telling that their first hand witness who was actually there deemed it fair. That holds some weight. Being an insider doesn't automatically grant one special knowledge especially if there's no secrecy and clandestine action.

>>400567
>Assuming the document is accurate, it's possible he was acting as a double agent within it.
Nowhere in document Beria admits on working with musavatists. This fucker can't even read his own "proofs" properly.

>>400516
>it reflects a personal opinion of someone who wasn't even insider.
If the trials were conducted without any evidence, like you claim, how much of an insider a person like Davis or Pritt (both experienced lawyers) need to be to actually understand that the trials are a sham if they are actually being present at those trials?

>>400510
>It is exactly opposite imo. If you read trials like процесс Промпартии or процесс Главтопа, you would see that perpetrators are getting off with but a slap on their wrist. I think it is exactly why the nedd of large scale purges arised.
I was mainly talking about the actions during the civil war and intervention. Understandably they didn't have the time for lengthy trials.

>>400598
Sorry then, i misunderstood you. Still, even then they were a bit soft. Krasnov release alone is a proof imo.

>>400566
>Why are you so stupid? NOWHERE in this documents he admits on working with them. He was asked a loaded question. You are truly shit for brains.
you are retard. he was working in mussavat, either as double agent or not, both sides confirm this, lol. you are a cripple :)

>Very different. For starter, there is not talk about military uprising in april theses, you illiterate mongoloid.
yeah, because according to Lenin, "revolution" is always peaceful. you are illiterate cripple :)

plus you didn't explain, how the vague text of Kamenev and Zinoviev was actually a betrayal. In which world is saying that "violent uprising woudln't help us at this moment" a snitching for cops and helping the counterrevolution? Also, redactor of "Novaya Zhizn" was Maxim Gorky was he a counterrevolutionary for allowing such to be printed in the newspaper?

>Fake passports, weapons, letters, money trails etc.
there were no weapons brought to the trial, brainlet.
and the only time the one fake passport and magazine "Byulleten Opozicii" was mentioned was in my post here, lol>>398932
(inb4 it wasn't posted by you, it was posted by Yakovlev!!!1)
but a passport and a newspaper aren't a proof of the things they were accussed. there is no evidence of them collaborating with Germany and Japan, there is no evidence of them doing a sabotage, there is no evidence of them assasinating anyone. keep coping. :)

>So, do you actually admit Moscow trials being legitimate? Otherwise i don't see what is the excuse you are trying to make here.
that I didn't talk at all about trials being bad for being open/closed, lol. that's what you were accusing me of ,moron. looks like you are lost in your own cretinism.

>Why keep shitting yourself in public?
he said after he shat his pants for the sixth time

so where are the fabled proofs of sabotages, assasinations, conspiring by nazis and all of the other things done by the trotskyist opposition? not a single one was presented.

seems like the trials were fake.

>>400567
>rehabilitation of the doctors was a plot against Beria
meds. now.

>>400634
>you are retard. he was working in mussavat, either as double agent or not, both sides confirm this, lol. you are a cripple :)
Show me where he explicitly agrees to that. The only thing in that document is him answering the loaded question and only rejecting part of it. It does not constitutr as admission.

>yeah, because according to Lenin, "revolution" is always peaceful. you are illiterate cripple :)
Way to shift goalposts. April theses say nothing about revolution, baby lib. Only about power to soviets and rejection of Kerensky's government.

>plus you didn't explain, how the vague text of Kamenev and Zinoviev was actually a betrayal.
I did, you just put you fat fingers in your oily ears and screamed "lalalala can't hear you". They exposed the intention of bolsheviks to organize military uprising which lead to Provisionary government having time to prepare for that.

Answer me this, if it wasn't a betrayal, why Lenin asked for them to be removed from CC after that? And they were removed. Was he an illiterate cripple like me or what?

>Also, redactor of "Novaya Zhizn" was Maxim Gorky was he a counterrevolutionary for allowing such to be printed in the newspaper?
He didn't do a good job obviously. Another try to deflect and shift goalposts.

>and the only time the one fake passport and magazine "Byulleten Opozicii" was mentioned was in my post here, lol
So apparentely there was evidence. You said before that there was absolutely none. So which is it? Or are you again just using whatever arguments that are suitable at the moment?

That guy is an idiot lib just like you. He is wrong there was a lot more than that. But you don't really care anyway.

>that I didn't talk at all about trials being bad for being open/closed, lol. that's what you were accusing me of ,moron. looks like you are lost in your own cretinism.
I will explain to you like i would to a slightly retarded toddler. Open trials are more legitimate than close trials because there are unaffilliated witnesses. So you can't rely on a conclusions of a closed trial made by perpetrators of a military coup but at the same time rekect any conclusions of an open trial conducted before representatives of a rival nations, who were professional lawyers. It's called double standards. You either apply same standard to every piece of evidence or to none at all. You just take some document that is suited for your position but reject those that don't, for example you say that moscow trials didn't have material evidence and only worked with testimonies, but you are completely fine using a testimony of Beria without any material evidence. You are not working from evidence to conclusion, you are working from conclusion to evidence. And it ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER if you mentioned the trials being closed or open, what matters is that you cherry pick your sources. You can only prove me wrong by providing specific standards of evidence that you use that would show Beria trial being more legitimate compared to Moscow trials.

In conclusion, you are a pseud.

I only recently finished reading "On The Opposition" by Stalin recently.
It documents all the CC meetings of 1924-1927 which were the years of the fight against the "Left Opposition" as Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were all still in the Central Committee.

You see Stalin er on the side of caution nonstop especially with the Oppositions use of French revolutionary language like "thermidor" etc.

Anyway… Even as far back as 1927 Trotsky/Zinoviev and Kamenev were hoping on an invasion to Soviet Union for them to come to power. These talks were public and the CC would've distributed these to all party members at the time. So you see even in public in 1927 (when they were still in the CC and not thrown out the party) the Left Opposition was inclined to foreign invasion of the USSR.

<Until now it was difficult to suppose that, low as it had sunk, the opposition would waver on the question of the unqualified defence of our country. Now, however, we must not only assume, but assert, that the attitude of the present leaders of the opposition is a defeatist one. How else is one to interpret Trotsky's stupid and absurd thesis about a Clemenceau experiment in the event of a new war against the U.S.S.R.? Can there be any doubt that this is a sign that the opposition has sunk still lower?

<Until now it was difficult to suppose that the opposition would ever hurl against our Party the stupid and incongruous accusation of being a Thermidor party. In 1925, when Zalutsky first talked about Thermidor tendencies in our Party, the present leaders of the opposition emphatically dissociated themselves from him. Now, however, the opposition has sunk so low that it goes farther than Zalutsky and accuses the Party of being a Thermidor party. What I cannot understand is how people who assert that our Party has become a Thermidor party can remain in its ranks.

<Until now the opposition tried "merely" to organise separate factional groups in the sections of the Comintern. Now, however, it has gone to the length of openly organising a new party in Germany, the party of those counter-revolutionary scoundrels Maslow and Ruth Fischer, in opposition to the existing Communist Party in Germany. That stand is one of directly splitting the Comintern. From the formation of factional groups in the sections of the Comintern to splitting the Comintern – such is the road of degradation that the leaders of the opposition have travelled.
Stalin, JOINT PLENUM OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE AND THE CENTRAL CONTROL COMMISSION OF THE C.P.S.U.(B.), July 1927

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/JPCC27.html
Can anyone elaborate on the context and meaning of the comment " Trotsky's stupid and absurd thesis about a Clemenceau experiment in the event of a new war against the U.S.S.R." ?

>>400642
Do you have an actual argument? They were professional lawyers quite respected in the field. My argument was that if as you claim the trial was conducted without any evidence whatsoever, you don't need a professional lawyer to see that it's a sham, but there were actually several of them present. How do you explain them not noticing this? "They were wrong" is not really an explanation, it's a cope.

>>400662
A deceit, yes.

>>400663
>Show me where he explicitly agrees to that.
here
https://istmat.info/node/22301
and here
https://istmat.info/node/22146

when asked about who send him to the job in the mussavatist counterinteligence, he isn't able to name anyone. he being an asshole english agent might as well be a Khruschevite fantasy, but it only shows that Krushchev utilised very well his experience from 1937/38 when he was a dindunuffin fighter against trotskyites :)

>I did, you just put you fat fingers in your oily ears and screamed "lalalala can't hear you". They exposed the intention of bolsheviks to organize military uprising which lead to Provisionary government having time to prepare for that.
you didn't explain anything. you put your fat fingers in your oily ears and screamed "lalalala can't hear you" and ignored the fact that there were the already mentioned "July days" and that the bolsheviks were never hiding that they want to overthrow the provisional government. you also failed to prove how is saying "there are comrades who want a violent uprising" giving an echo to government?

>NOOOOO YOU MOVE THE GOALPOSTERINOS!!!!1
<LOL, DO YOU ACKSHUALLY THINK LENERINO WAS STUPID?
I don't give a shit about his intelligence, unlike you I am not a retarded cultist :)

>the only evidence brought to the court were a magazine and a false passport. this however doesn't prover the sabotages, the assasinations, the collaborations with foreign powers like Nazi Germany
<LOL, XDDD ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR POSITIONS??? THIS EVIDENCE TOTALLY PROVES A TROTSKO NAZI CONSPIRACY!!1 CHECK MATE
retard

>mucho texto about open trials
don't care. didn't read. keep talking about your open trials, I've already told you I don't care. but it is futile to explain you this, you are a fat cripple

>In conclusion, you are a pseud.
In conclusion you have down syndrome

>>400679
>They were wrong" is not really an explanation, it's a cope.
"They liked the court" is not really a proof of anything, it's a cope when you can't prove that the whole trotsko-nazi conspiracy is a made up shit.

>>401183
>https://istmat.info/node/22301
<Между тем Вам хорошо известно, что в мусават[ист]скую разведку я был послан партией и что вопрос этот разбирался в ЦК АКП(б) в 1920 году в присутствии Вас, т. Стасовой, Каминского, Мирза Давуд Гусейнова, Нариманова, Саркиса, Рухулла Ахундова, Буниатзаде и друг. (В 1925 г. я передал Вам официальную выписку о решении ЦК АКП(б) по этому вопросу, которым я был совершенно реабилитирован, т. к. факт моей работы в контрразведке с ведома партии был подтвержден заявлениями тт. Мирза Давуд Гусейнова, Касум Измайлова и др.) Тов. Датико, который передаст Вам это письмо, расскажет подробности.

>https://istmat.info/node/22146
<В 1920 году в адрес бывшего в то время секретаря ЦК КП(б) Азербайджана Каминского поступило заявление о моем сотрудничестве в контрразведке в пользу мусаватистов. Это заявление было предметом специального разбора на Президиуме ЦК АКП(б), и я был реабилитирован.
<По совету Гуссейнова я подал заявление начальнику контрразведки об увольнении с работы и был уволен беспрепятственно. Истинной причиной моего ухода из контрразведки являлось то, что эта контрразведка стала полностью муса-ватистской.

Do you even read the stuff that you post? You do you just hope that everybody here is as much of an illiterate brainlet as you and will just take you at your word? He was there literally at the behest of the party Hummet (which later became part of the soviet government) and left after it became fully musavatist.

>ignored the fact that there were the already mentioned "July days" and that the bolsheviks were never hiding that they want to overthrow the provisional government.
I already said that it is a completely different thing. Warning the enemy of the imminent military uprising is a betrayal, clear and simple.

Again i will ask you, if it wasn't a betrayal why were they removed from CC after that? Why was Lenin angry with them if it was an allright thing to do? You tried to deflect this question because you have no answer.

>didn't read.
We already established that.

You have been btfod on every position that you held. You refusal to admit that matters about as much as flatearther's or creationist's rejection of science.

>>401185
>"They liked the court" is not really a proof of anything
The fuck is "liking the court" has anything to do with it? The question is why unaffiliated and hostile people with experience in this field did not notice such a glaring flaw in the trial like lack of any material evidence whatsoever? How do you explain that without making them retards or crypto stalinists?

>>398757
Because liberals can't stop crying and Stalin is making them asshurt yet again because they have the legal and political understanding of the trials of amoebas.

>>383476
It was a formal event of the Germans abiding by the updated treaty of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and handing over areas that were agreed upon as belonging under Soviet influence. They marched out and the USSR marched in.
A formality of diplomatic agreement for the sake of PR, nothing more.

>>383457
The Soviet delegation with the Nazi delegation is seeing off the German forces and LATER the incoming Soviet forces, this is neither a parade nor is it a united action, but a formal diplomatic posturing of the area being passed from German hands to Soviet hands.

>>382524
>1.7 million deserters
Where the hell did you get that number? The collective collaborationist military forces under German service didn't even reach half a million

>>381323
That is why https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact is being made