Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Items of historical significance.

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby stripe66506 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:45 pm

The Comrade wrote:and america was a floundering first world power that only dragged itself out of the gutter because of world war 2. we were on the express lane to becoming another argentina.

the same is true of the USSR. stalin only pulled russia out of the 19th century because of the necessity of hitler's invasion, and the inertia of that military buildup and industrialization carried the USSR along until his death, where more capable leaders took over. the war was the best thing that happened to the USSR.


Gorbachev, Yeltsin more capable? Are you kidding? Putin is a different story, not the most democratic man but he at least knows what he's doing.

The major industrialization efforts were taking place when Hitler was ranting about the betrayal of Germany in beer halls. Unless you really think that the USSR modernized at the same time as nearly all able bodied young men and many women were at the front.

The USSR probably would be around today if it wasn't for the war. And the people would've had a higher standard of living too. For starters they wouldn't have had to deal with the vitual destruction of their major industrial centers and loss of 20 million people. Also there probably wouldn't have been a Cold War which cost the Soviets billions and forced them to maintain European client states and a huge military.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
stripe66506
Citizen
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 10 times
Political Leaning: Communist

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby The Comrade » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:58 pm

and nicholas II was building factories as well. only his attempts didn't destroy agriculture, cause famines, ruin cultures, disappear people who couldn't meat unrealistic goals, or focus on making raw materials for the sake of making raw materials.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 18094
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1828 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby stripe66506 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:03 am

The Comrade wrote:and nicholas II was building factories as well. only his attempts didn't destroy agriculture, cause famines, ruin cultures, disappear people who couldn't meat unrealistic goals, or focus on making raw materials for the sake of making raw materials.


Nicholas wasn't building factories he oversaw an authoritarian empire which was mostly argrairian and not industrialized. There was a huge famine under his reign in 1891 that lasted for about two year. His ineffectiveness when it came to dealing with this desaster led to increasing opposition to the Monarchy. The Tsar didn't have the Gulag but he did have the Katorga (penal farm) which was the predecessor of the Gulag. Many people went there.

Raw materials were not made for their own sake. They needed to industrialize to defend the coutry from invasion and build a genuine socialist economy. (They pulled off the former with much effort and help through Lend-Lease, they feel short on the later.)
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
stripe66506
Citizen
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 10 times
Political Leaning: Communist

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby The Comrade » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:13 pm

i didn't say nicholas industrialized russia, i said he was building factories, slowly but undeniably. secondly, his famine was caused by natural disasters, not lysenkoism and the destruction of agrarian workers way of life. one was natural, one was man made. to even suggest that stalin's f**k ups when it came to the famines weren't his fault is ridiculous.

and his first two five years plans? those were to stop an invasion? that's interesting because they happened well before barbarossa when there was no one to fight. much of the heavy industry stalin was attempting to gear the economy towards WAS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS TO FIX THE DESTRUCTION HE CAUSED. of course this is before the war, which really transformed the soviet economy, but again, any nation would have fared as well. the US for example? that's not to say that stalin's idiocy and megalomania didn't almost lose them the war. between the purges and countering his offcers ideas constantly it's amazing hitler didn't push right into moscow.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 18094
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1828 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby stripe66506 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:23 pm

The Comrade wrote:i didn't say nicholas industrialized russia, i said he was building factories, slowly but undeniably. secondly, his famine was caused by natural disasters, not lysenkoism and the destruction of agrarian workers way of life. one was natural, one was man made. to even suggest that stalin's f**k ups when it came to the famines weren't his fault is ridiculous.


Then what's your point with Tsar Nick?

The cause of the famine was multi-variant. Weather played a role, outright sabatoge by kulaks (which I can really understand), and the transition to mechanized farming. In soviet agriculture we basically saw within a few years what happened over a century in the West. The marginalization of the small farmer for industrial farming and collective farming. It is worth nothing that the only famine experienced in the USSR after collectivization was due to the war. There were no more famines and the modernization of agriculture had a lot to do with that. As for the number of deaths we will never truly know. The “Neo-Stalinists” understate, the reactionaries inflate…. the real number is probably in between. Lysenkoism had nothing to do with the famine.

“His first two five years plans? those were to stop an invasion? that's interesting because they happened well before barbarossa when there was no one to fight.


Yes an invasion!
“We are 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us!” Josef Stalin, speech to the Fourth Plenum of Industrial Managers, Feb. 4, 1931.
Keep in mind, Soviet leaders were fearing invasions from Western Powers since the end of the Civil War. In fact, many Western Countries did not even recognize the Soviet government until the mid-30s. There were voices in the West that favored an invasion, which is one reason why so many concessions were made to Hitler in the early years. (They thought that he was going to strike the USSR.)
much of the heavy industry stalin was attempting to gear the economy towards WAS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS TO FIX THE DESTRUCTION HE CAUSED. of course this is before the war, which really transformed the soviet economy, but again, any nation would have fared as well. the US for example?

Not the case. The main emphasis of the plan was on heavy industry. Steel, coal, etc. they needed to step up oil extraction, electrify the country, build roads, install water systems, and build housing to meet the demand (which increased dramatically with the modernization of agriculture). The war-time situation of the USSR and USA cannot be compared the two nations operated with completely different realities.
that's not to say that stalin's idiocy and megalomania didn't almost lose them the war. between the purges and countering his offcers ideas constantly it's amazing hitler didn't push right into moscow.

Again Stalin did not counter his generals (unlike Hitler).
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
stripe66506
Citizen
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 10 times
Political Leaning: Communist

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby The Comrade » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:09 pm

stripe66506 wrote:Then what's your point with Tsar Nick?

The cause of the famine was multi-variant. Weather played a role, outright sabatoge by kulaks (which I can really understand), and the transition to mechanized farming. In soviet agriculture we basically saw within a few years what happened over a century in the West. The marginalization of the small farmer for industrial farming and collective farming. It is worth nothing that the only famine experienced in the USSR after collectivization was due to the war. There were no more famines and the modernization of agriculture had a lot to do with that. As for the number of deaths we will never truly know. The “Neo-Stalinists” understate, the reactionaries inflate…. the real number is probably in between. Lysenkoism had nothing to do with the famine.


there were famines throughout the USSRs pre-war history especially under stalin. are you kidding when you say there weren't any? it's well established they were the result of policy, not natural disasters.


stripe66506 wrote:Yes an invasion!
“We are 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us!” Josef Stalin, speech to the Fourth Plenum of Industrial Managers, Feb. 4, 1931.
Keep in mind, Soviet leaders were fearing invasions from Western Powers since the end of the Civil War. In fact, many Western Countries did not even recognize the Soviet government until the mid-30s. There were voices in the West that favored an invasion, which is one reason why so many concessions were made to Hitler in the early years. (They thought that he was going to strike the USSR.)


yes they wanted to catch up with the west, that's undeniable. only the focus was on heavy industry, and those industries were churning out raw steel, tractors, rail, etc. you don't win a war with that.

stripe66506 wrote:Not the case. The main emphasis of the plan was on heavy industry. Steel, coal, etc. they needed to step up oil extraction, electrify the country, build roads, install water systems, and build housing to meet the demand (which increased dramatically with the modernization of agriculture). The war-time situation of the USSR and USA cannot be compared the two nations operated with completely different realities.


the fact is the war is what brought both economies back, because both forced heavy industrialism. the USSR may have had different goals in mind, but being forced to churn out thousands of tanks not only boosted the economy, but brought about the industrialism that stalin wanted.

stripe66506 wrote:Again Stalin did not counter his generals (unlike Hitler).


stalin aruged all the time with his officers, even zhukov. he wrote about it in his memoirs. and yes, zhukov had to bow to stalin's authority more than once on military matters. it is known.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 18094
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1828 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Should we have attacked China head on in the Korean War?

Postby stripe66506 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:46 pm

The Comrade wrote:there were famines throughout the USSRs pre-war history especially under stalin. are you kidding when you say there weren't any? it's well established they were the result of policy, not natural disasters.


Typo on my part (Typing quickly, I'm at work).

Should read:
"There were no more famines post-collectivization and the modernization of agriculture had a lot to do with that. As for the number of deaths we will never truly know. The “Neo-Stalinists” understate, the reactionaries inflate…. the real number is probably in between. Lysenkoism had nothing to do with the famine."

And it's clear that the cause was multi-variant.


yes they wanted to catch up with the west, that's undeniable. only the focus was on heavy industry, and those industries were churning out raw steel, tractors, rail, etc. you don't win a war with that.

The point was not just to catch up for its own sake. The Soviet leaders from the very moment they won the Civil War were expecting a capitalist invasion from somewhere. They wanted to be prepared.
Those are all war materials when you look at the big picture. The same heavy industry that was used to build tractors was later used to build tanks. The same industry that allowed them to build damns, bridges, roads, clothes, and houses allowed them to produce rifles, transport troops to the front, uniforms, helmets, etc. Had that not been there the USSR would’ve been as well prepared as Poland prior to the invasion.
the fact is the war is what brought both economies back, because both forced heavy industrialism. the USSR may have had different goals in mind, but being forced to churn out thousands of tanks not only boosted the economy, but brought about the industrialism that stalin wanted.

They did not have the man power to develop the heavy industrialism AFTER Barbarossa. What they accomplished prior to it and with Lend-Lease assistance afterwards is what made the difference.


stalin aruged all the time with his officers, even zhukov. he wrote about it in his memoirs. and yes, zhukov had to bow to stalin's authority more than once on military matters. it is known.

I’ve read Zhukov’s memoris and don’t remember reading that. Can you give some specific examples?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
stripe66506
Citizen
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 10 times
Political Leaning: Communist

Previous

Return to History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron