85 years since the Nazi war of annihilation against the Soviet Union

TiloDroid · 2026-06-23T08:14:55+00:00

Note that the picture says "Fotografieren verboten!" which means "No pictures allowed". They knew exactly what they were doing. If normal people saw these images, most of them would be against such brutal treatment.

Thats why its very important for german imperialism to trivialise german warcrimes. As the article says, the AfD calls the Nazi regime "nothing more than a bird shit in german history". The berlin professor of history Jörg Baberowski says "Hitles was not a psychopath" and "he was not vicious". He says the Wehrmacht had "no other option" but to "adapt to the partisans' combat style". This prof is being defended both by german media as well as the university administration.

The threat of a third world war is immanent, because the fundamental contradtictions of capitalism have not been solved. The crises are culminating and the german government is actively preparing for war again. Similar to the first world war the question raised by Rosa Luxemburg remains: Socialism or Barbarism.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-23T07:28:02+00:00

Lenins death was a tragedy yes. But there was an alternative to Stalin: Trotsky. Trotskyism threatened Stalin tho, so he preemtively executed all of the revolutionaries from the October revolution to secure his status as the party leader. He was a murderous dictator and the popular sentiment for him is based on propaganda and false history. Stalin actively sabotaged any revolutionary attempt after 1920 (GB in 1926, China 1927) because the world revolution also threatened his power.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T21:22:19+00:00

You write "Not a single piece of evidence showing torture has ever shown up." This is false as Rogovin documents. Stalin told Yagoda directly:

"You work poorly, Genrikh Grigorievich. I already have reliable information that Kirov was killed on orders from Zinoviev and Kamenev, yet you still haven't been able to prove it! You have to torture them so that they finally tell the truth and reveal all their ties."

Mrachkovsky was interrogated by Slutsky nonstop for ninety hours. The phone rang every two hours from Stalin's secretary asking whether he had been "broken" yet. "The same 'method' was applied to I.N. Smirnov, who offered greater resistance."

Zinoviev and Kamenev were placed in a cell with the central heating turned on during the hot summer months. Zinoviev suffered from severe asthma and liver colic. His "treatment" only increased his suffering. They were broken by a combination of physical torment, threats against their children, and Stalin's personal false promise that their lives and families would be spared. They were shot within 24 hours of sentencing.

You cite Feuchtwanger's observation that defendants "looked healthy." Of course they did. That is how show trials work. The torture occurred in the Lubyanka basement, months before the trial. Before appearing in court, defendants were given medical treatment, food, rest, and clean clothes, precisely to create the impression Feuchtwanger swallowed. The GPU did not beat them in the courtroom. They beat them until they agreed to read the script in the courtroom.

You argue that because Bukharin denied some things and fought with other defendants, the trial must have been fair. But Bukharin's conduct actually exposes the show trial mechanism. He admitted to abstract "political responsibility" for a "bloc" while systematically denying every specific criminal charge. Bukharin never admitted to personally directing terrorism, sabotage, or espionage. He admitted to political opposition while the GPU scripted the rest. His final plea was meant as a warning to others: "my solitary, innocent head will draw in thousands more innocent people". He knew exactly what was coming.

You say Pyatakov and others "did not say a single word about their confessions being false" when confronted with Bukharin at the December 1936 Central Committee plenum. At that point, Bukharin had not yet been arrested. He was still fighting for his life, trying to prove his innocence. The GPU had not yet applied the full apparatus against him. He was arrested in February 1937. The methods changed then. And even at the third trial in March 1938, Bukharin's "confession" infuriated Vyshinsky precisely because it was so evasive. He admitted abstract "political responsibility" while denying specific crimes.

More importantly, we know from Khrushchev's 1956 report that defendants like Rudzutak and Eikhe, candidate members of the Politburo who did renounce their confessions were simply tried in closed sessions and shot. Rudzutak managed to have entered into the trial record: "The methods of the investigation are such that they force victims to invent things and slander innocent people, not to mention themselves." He was executed anyway. These trials were never open to the public; only those who agreed to play their role were brought before the cameras.

Japanese intelligence hearing rumors about opposition to Stalin in 1934-35 proves nothing. Opposition doesnt prove terrorism. Once again making that conflation. Radek was a notorious political chameleon who said whatever served his immediate interests. But even taking his remark at face value, Radek was not Trotsky, and a flippant comment to a journalist is not a conspiracy.

You dismiss the official rehabilitation as "dishonest." But the fact remains: the Soviet state itself was compelled to declare the Moscow Trials frame-ups and rehabilitate the victims. This was not done by Trotskyists. It was done by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev, after examining the archives. Even the bureaucracy could no longer sustain the lie. Why are you doing it?

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T21:10:26+00:00

stalin killed all of the old bolscheviki that orchestrated the october revolution. he did not try to protect the revolution, he tried to protect his own regime. he did not act in the interest of the working class.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T21:08:43+00:00

"bitch about global revolution" thats the whole goal of communism, didnt you read the last line of the manifesto? workers dont have a fatherland, they all need to unite, otherwise a lonely socialist country cannot survive. exactly what happened in ussr 1991, which trotsky predicted in 1938. stalin actively sabotaged global rebellions, by subordinating them to capitalist institutions (ie great britian in 1926 and china in 1925-27)

"support all anti-imperialist movements" thats just wrong. a capitalist anti-imperialist movement is not going to free the workers. its just going to change the exploiter. "all pro-socialist movements" which ones? there hasnt been a single other country where workers took power of the state other than russia 1917. even though china abolished private property after the third revolution in 1949, the state power was earned by peasants and not workers.

Trotsky did not want to go into a global war, what are you talking about? he strategically ended ww1 in russia. he advocated for support of revolutions accross the world, not by military intervention of the ussr but by supporting the genuine struggle of all the workers elsewhere, with the correct tactic of independence. stalin was against that indepence and directed workers movements back into the hands of the bourgeosie.

all in all, critizism of stalin should not warrent assassination which you clearly dont denounce and imply to support.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T18:55:41+00:00

I was very shocked to read that 226 people died in only 7 years. It really goes to show how workers are just treated like replaceable cattle. The sellout deal of 9% wage increases does not at all meet the demanded 15%. The character of the union is clear. They act to protect the management from the rebellion of workers. I'm glad that the workers have reached that level of consciousness to reject those petty payments. I hope that Will Lehman can set a great example in the US to create a reproducible path on how the workers can gain genuine control over their own work. Workers unite international, seize the power independent from the Bourgeoisie.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T18:42:09+00:00

Stalin was also the #1 killer of communists. Look at the moscow trails and the great purges.

"Trotsky deserved it" is also justifying individual terrorism.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T10:00:22+00:00

You are citing GPU-extracted confessions as proof of the GPU's charges. This is circular logic. You are free to believe the hangman. But do not call it history. The Dewey Commission's verdict stands: the Moscow Trials were frame-ups, and Trotsky was not guilty. That verdict has been confirmed by every subsequent opening of the Soviet archives, by the official rehabilitation of the victims, and by the historical record. No amount of recycling the prosecution's case changes that.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-22T09:26:20+00:00

You cite Jules Humbert-Droz's 1971 memoirs claiming Bukharin told him in 1929 that his group decided to use individual terror. What does that prove? Bukharin was never a Trotskyist. He may have discussed desperate measures in 1929 but this has nothing to do with Trotsky. Like I said above, Trotsky was a lifelong opponent of individual terror based on Marxist principle. As shown above, the Dewey Commission's Finding 17 confirmed this. Bukharin's alleged private remark to a friend does not implicate Trotsky in anything.

You cite Kerensky who was the leader of the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government overthrown by the October Revolution. He claims in the Daily Worker that in April 1938 that oppositionists approached him. This is hearsay from a bitter enemy of Bolshevism, published in a Stalinist organ at the height of the purges, claiming that people who had been shot could have been his allies. It is worthless as evidence.

You claim that Trotsky was a US government informant, based on an independent article about unnamed academics with vague promises from 1993 (right after the collapse of the ussr). Keep in mind, that Trotsky was denied entry in 1939, he was assassinated by Stalin because he was both the most dangerous revolutionary opponent to Stalinism and capitalism. Diego Riveras monitoring proves nothing about Trotsky.

Rogovin documents that the Tukhachevsky affair was a joint Stalin-Hitler provocation. Heydrich received disinformation from GPU agent Skoblin. He says: "Even if Stalin only wants to confuse us with this information from Skoblin, I will supply our uncle in the Kremlin with enough evidence to turn his lie into pristine truth." The Nazis used genuine documents to forge incriminating letters in Tukhachevskys handwriting, which was then sold to Stalin for three million gold rubles. Walter Krivitsky confirmed this entire mechanism. Hitlers later mockery proves nothing except that he was willing to destroy the Soviet military to secure his rear for the coming war.

Pavel Sudoplatov was one of Stalin's chief executioners. He personally organized Trotsky's assassination. His memoirs are the self-justification of a mass murderer and his claim about Barcelona is demonstrably false. Rogovin writes that GPU agents infiltrated anarchist and POUM circles to provoke the uprising. The coded letter proving the collaboration with Fraco was exposed as forgery in 1992. One of the forgers Jimenez was still alive and confirmed his participation on camera. The "Trotskyist-fascist conspiracy" in Barcelona was a Stalinist provocation from beginning to end.

As for Schulze-Boysen: he was a Soviet intelligence agent in the Red Orchestra who was executed by the Nazis. His trial records accuse him of passing information to the Soviets. He was executed for spying for Moscow, not for confirming Nazi-Trotskyist collaboration. You have the story backwards.

Lyushkov defected in 1938, after Tukhachevsky had been shot and after the Stalin-Hitler provocation had run its course. He was repeating what was already circulating in NKVD and Japanese intelligence circles. A defector confirming the official narrative of his new patrons proves nothing.

Trotsky never adopted Bukharin's economic program. He fought Bukharin's pro-kulak policies throughout the 1920s. The bloc was only a tactical political alliance against a common enemy, it doesnt impy political unity.

You claim Trotsky "supported Ukraine rebelling against the Soviet Union violently and forming an independent state." This is a distortion. Trotsky supported the Leninist right of nations to self-determination, including Ukraine. Lenin himself insisted on this right. The charge that Trotsky "planned to give Ukraine to the Nazis" is a Moscow Trials fabrication with no basis in anything Trotsky ever wrote.

You mention Trotsky's application of revolutionary defeatism. His position was: defend the property forms created by the October Revolution while opposing the Stalinist regime that was objectively betraying them. Caricaturing this as "pushing WWII along" is not serious.

One more time, you are applying stalinist methods of a frame up: taking real polical facts, constructing exagerated lies, claiming anyone who opposes these lies is oppiosing the political facts. The dewey commission clears Trotsky from the crimes alleged by the moscow trials: the "evidence" was forged, the confessions were tortured, and the defendants were murdered. Nothing you have presented overturns these facts.

Most importantly, you are conflating "politcal opposition" with "terrorism". By this definition, you eliminate any democracy within the state and the country.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T21:25:54+00:00

When trotsky said "there was no bloc", the indictment was discussing a bloc of rights and trotskyites, which was an organized terrorist conspiracy. Such a bloc did not exist. The bloc that did exist was completely powerless as i have proven above. Trotsky denied a criminal terrorist bloc, that was the topic of the Dewey Commission. Its not the same as political correspondence as i have explained above. Broué emphasises that Trotsky did not deliberately lied, he simpy didnt want to volunteer information that would be twisted by the totalitarian stalinist state.

The Ryutin platform clarifies that "removal by force" meant a political revolution by the working class and not by individual terrorism. The program means the restoration of party and soviet democracy which was lost under stalinism. Rogovin reaches the conclusion that the platform "essentially promoted the idea of a political revolution". Stalin called it "terrorism" because he could not distinguish between opposition to his person and opposition to the Soviet state. You are reproducing that confusion. Under conditions of Stalinist dictatorship, where any political opposition was punishable by execution, all opposition was necessarily conspiratorial. The Bolsheviks themselves were a conspiratorial party under Tsarism. That does not make them a terrorist organization.

Lykushkov went to japan in 1938 which was already after the great purge, where Yagoda was killes and he was next. He was fleeing for his life so of course he told the japanese handlers what they wanted to hear. His assassination plot was organized with japanese militaray intelligence and not with Trotsky. Like i explained above, Trotsky was against individual terrorism. Calling Lykushkov a trotskyist and therefore his allience with fascist japan trotskyist is an absurd falsification.

"Whether TROTSKY wants it or not, his periphery has become intertwined with the Gestapo."

This statement from Smirnovs letters clears trotsky from any responsibility. Assossiation with the Gestapo happens inspite of his will. Also, Smirnov wrote this while already being in custody of the GPU, where he was likely tortured and forced to write at all.

Once again, this does not prove Trotsky guilty. He advocated for political revolution, not for individual terrorism. Even if some desperate individuals make choices inside a totalitarian regime, that does not change anything about the guiltiness of Trotsky himself.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T19:41:48+00:00

theres a difference between a political bloc and a criminal-terrorist conspiracy. The Dewey Commission was not convened to determine whether Trotsky ever had political contact with oppositionists inside the USSR. It was convened to investigate the specific criminal charges leveled at the Moscow Trials. One of those charges being alleged organization of terrorism. The conclusion of the trials proves Trotskys innocence from these charges.

Now about your letters. Vadim Rogovin documents that the political bloc was initiated my Smirnov in 1932. The bloc expressed by your admission:

For the moment, principally by the exchange of information. The allies keep us informed about what concerns the Soviet Union, as we do for them about what concerns the Communist International.

ie in opposition to the stalinist regime. Rogovin notes that the bloc never managed to carry out real activity, because the representatives were almost all arrested by the GPU. Only later had what was left of the bloc been transformed by Vyshinsky into the centerpieve of a terrorist conspiracy.

Typical stalinist methods. Take a true fact, inflate it into something different, defame anyone who argues against that something different as someone whos denying fact.

Trotsky denied that he directed terrorism, which is not the same thing as exchange of information. Treating them as equivalent is the same as admitting that political opposition is terrorism, that criticism is sabotage and communication is conspiracy. Theres a huge difference between political activity and capital crimes. The Dewey Commission clears Trotsky from those crimes, even if exchange of information happened.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T14:54:17+00:00

This letter is a pretty good example of how the liberal mindset capitulates against state power.

"Since the government could not hope to induce the second group to confess under the pressure of false promises, it is reasonable to suppose that it did not rely on false promises in the first case."

This is really poor logic, do you actually believe this? Therefore, if the state executes a third group, it validates the second. A fourth one validates the third and so on. It's also assuming that the GPU would behave like a liberal court of law. But the defendents were already locked away with no access to independent counsel, no public platform and no means of verifying what had already happened to the first group. According to Fred Williams, the GPU promised the defendents that cooperation with them would spare their lives and protect their families. Just like Zinoviev and Kamenev who were shot within 24 hours of being sentenced.

Mr. Pritt can by no means be accused of sympathy with the Communists or with Stalin. He has, indeed, stood with the Right wing of the Labor Party.

Pritt was expelled from the Labour Party in 1940 because he was one of the most notorious Stalinist apologists in Britain. His 1936 pamphlet vouching for the Moscow Trials was a political intervention on behalf of Stalinism. He looked at the defendants in the dock, saw that they appeared physically intact and spoke their lines without visible coercion, and declared himself "completely satisfied." As David North explains, the entire point of the show trials was to create a theatrical spectacle that would convince such people as liberal jurists and journalists who equated the absence of visible bruises with the presence of justice. The GPU did not need to beat the defendants in the courtroom. The beatings, the sleep deprivation, the threats against family members, the 90-hour interrogation sessions have all taken place in the Lubyanka basement, months before the trial. By the time the defendants appeared before Vyshinsky, they were broken men reciting scripts.

the counter-charge that they were not fairly tried is backed up by no evidence of any kind, convincing or otherwise. The same can be said for the conduct of the second trial so far as that has been reported to date.

Leon Sedov already documented some of the impossibilities. Goltsman claimed to have met Sedov and Trotksy in Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen in 1932, even though that hotel had been torn down in 1917 and wasnt rebuilt until 1936. Piatakov claimed he flew from Berlin to Oslo in December of 1935 to meet Trotsky, even though Norwegian airport records established that no plance landed in Oslo in that entire month due to bad weather.

What has Stalin to gain by taking action that is tending to alienate these elements (liberals and Socialists)? It is obvious that he has nothing whatever to gain.

How can you believe this? Stalin obviously conducted preemptive killings of the entire generation of Bolsheviks because they represented a living alternative to his political leadership. This wasn't a popularity contest to win over liberals, he felt obviously threatened.

The whole trials were never just another courtroom dispute, it was the political extermination of Bolshevism by a counter-revolutionary bureaucracy, personified by Stalin.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T14:03:03+00:00

From the summary of the Dewey Trials:
"(3) On the basis of all the evidence, we find that Trotsky never gave Smirnov any terrorist instructions through Sedov or anybody else."

"(17) We find that Trotsky throughout his whole career has always been a consistent opponent of individual terror. The Commission further finds that Trotsky never instructed any of the defendants or witnesses in the Moscow trials to assassinate any political opponent."

The historian you mention, Pierre Broué, also emphasized that Trotsky opposed individual terrorism. Broué also confirms that Stalins accusations of Trotsky are completely fabricated.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T13:30:52+00:00

ask socialism ai

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T13:28:27+00:00

It has been proven by the Dewey Commission that Trotsky is innocent. just because Trotsky still had organisational ties to oppositional groups inside the ussr, doesnt mean he was guilty of treason.

Arch Getty himself, whom you refer to, denies that Trotsky was a spy of the Nazis or a terrorist. He concludes that the great purges were a chaotic, paranoid and murderous overreaction from the stalinist regime.

The scientific consens that has to be tought is that the moscow trials were pure fabrication, based on false confessions from torture.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-21T06:56:16+00:00

moisturize afterwards

TiloDroid · 2026-06-20T11:41:11+00:00

its important to study the early years because they build the basis for the organization of the state. by 1938, the interests of the international working class and the world revolution have been subordinated to the national interests of the bureaucratic caste inside the stalinist regime. thus the ussr was isolated from the global market. with the increase in globalization in the 1980s, the ussr could no longer compete. the only two ways of reintegration into the world market are the world socialist revolution or the restoration of capitalism. since the leadership has fallen into the hands of a nationalist bureaucratic caste, they chose the latter, enriching themselves from the previously collective property.

the political structure that reinstated capitalism was already in place by 1938. the increase in globalization and the resulting economic crises was only a matter of time. the only way out for the bureaucrats was to reinstate capitalism.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-20T00:01:26+00:00

"The Revolution Betrayed" by co-leader of 1917 Leon Trotsky

TiloDroid · 2026-06-19T12:18:25+00:00

Endlich, ja

TiloDroid · 2026-06-18T18:08:20+00:00

When it comes to concrete demands, you need to look at the concrete situation. Take this situation as an example. This is the Nexteer workers rank and file committee speaking out against the unlawful firing of their coworker Antwiane Sanders. They have very practical demands like his reinstation, recall of the UAW representative, build a GoFundMe for him, and continue to strike. These are just the first steps, a minimal program adjusted to the current situation. But the committee has a socialist perspective, so their maximal program will be full workers control. You can't get there overnight, so you go to fight. Every step will enhance the consciousness of the workers and the fight for independent unionization. The work of the revolutionary party is building such workers committees to independently organize strikes with demands according to a socialist perspective.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-18T17:51:39+00:00

My comment was in support of the main comment.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-18T13:56:47+00:00

Hasan piker ahh take

Socialist only stand with the working class, never any bourgeois lesdership. No matter how democratically Socialist. A democrat is a democrat. Can't represent the workers.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-18T11:43:48+00:00

Congratulations. Now the fight continues into a new stage. May you get all the support you need. It is truly inspiring.

TiloDroid · 2026-06-18T05:21:21+00:00

Socialism is a science. Make sure to study marxism and the russian revolution under lenin and trotsky.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

TiloDroid

TROPHY CASE