Stalin's Order No. 270

[apdst]

Hey, you know what guys? Some people argue that slavery was a good thing. Now, I'm not saying I agree. I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.

That's ****ing garbage.


But I am saying that the claim holds historical and factual evidence.

Yeah, that's not a scumbag.

Leftists are dangerous.

 

[apdst]

and neither are anywhere near the American political spectrum. they are only invoked in hyperbolic arguments by hyperpartisans.

as i said,

Whats that have to do with your original poat?

 

[APACHERAT]

I agree. But then comes the question what would happen if the USSR didnt proceed with quick and fast industrialization techniques?

Who was responsible for those "industrialization techniques" ?

 

[APACHERAT]

Still bemused why this thread derives so much attention, but not on the basis of being framed through a holocaust denial web site.

It seems to be, especially if you go to Wikipedia who makes that opinionated claim in the first paragraph (aka teaser.)

Going to Wiki's "talk page" on the IHR.

>"Neutrality of Accusations[edit]I ask this not because I support the subject of this article (I don't), but because wikipedia should be written an edited from an NPOV. In the first paragraph, it is stated of the subject of this article that "It is the world's leading Holocaust denial organization." However, the organization's response (as cited in the article) is quoted as "The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust.' Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II. All the same, the IHR has over the years published detailed books and numerous probing essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story, and highlight specific Holocaust exaggerations and falsehoods." In response to this, there are quotes from several critics essentially stating that IHR has indeed denied the holocaust as it is historically known to have happened, but these criticisms are not coupled with specific quotes to support the claims made. The article should either be expanded to include those quotes, or the aforementioned sentence should be changed to "It is widely criticized as the world's leading Holocaust denial organization." 24.46.236.102 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)"<

Talk:Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be honest, the other day to the best of my memory was the first time I ever came across this IHR website. < INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW -- >

The author of the IHR's, "Stalin's War Against His Own Troops" is Yuri Teplyakov which does give the article some historical credibility.

>"Yuri Teplyakov, born in 1937, studied journalism at Moscow State University. He worked as a journalist for the Moscow daily newspapers Izvestia and Komsomolskaya Pravda, and for the APN information agency. From 1980 to 1993 he worked for the weekly Moscow News. In writing this article, he expresses thanks to Mikhail Semiryaga, D.Sc. (History), "who provided me with considerable material, which he found in German archives. As for the documents of Soviet filtering camps, I shall go on with my searches." This article originally appeared in Moscow News, No. 19, 1990, and was reprinted by special arrangement in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 4), pages 4-10.'<

 

[Ben K.]

It seems to be, especially if you go to Wikipedia who makes that opinionated claim in the first paragraph (aka teaser.)

Going to Wiki's "talk page" on the IHR.

>"Neutrality of Accusations[edit]I ask this not because I support the subject of this article (I don't), but because wikipedia should be written an edited from an NPOV. In the first paragraph, it is stated of the subject of this article that "It is the world's leading Holocaust denial organization." However, the organization's response (as cited in the article) is quoted as "The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust.' Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II. All the same, the IHR has over the years published detailed books and numerous probing essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story, and highlight specific Holocaust exaggerations and falsehoods." In response to this, there are quotes from several critics essentially stating that IHR has indeed denied the holocaust as it is historically known to have happened, but these criticisms are not coupled with specific quotes to support the claims made. The article should either be expanded to include those quotes, or the aforementioned sentence should be changed to "It is widely criticized as the world's leading Holocaust denial organization." 24.46.236.102 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)"<

Talk:Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be honest, the other day to the best of my memory was the first time I ever came across this IHR website. < INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW -- >

The author of the IHR's, "Stalin's War Against His Own Troops" is Yuri Teplyakov which does give the article some historical credibility.

>"Yuri Teplyakov, born in 1937, studied journalism at Moscow State University. He worked as a journalist for the Moscow daily newspapers Izvestia and Komsomolskaya Pravda, and for the APN information agency. From 1980 to 1993 he worked for the weekly Moscow News. In writing this article, he expresses thanks to Mikhail Semiryaga, D.Sc. (History), "who provided me with considerable material, which he found in German archives. As for the documents of Soviet filtering camps, I shall go on with my searches." This article originally appeared in Moscow News, No. 19, 1990, and was reprinted by special arrangement in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 4), pages 4-10.'<

The Wikipedia article is actually supported by referencing. And they are not the only accusations against IHR (try clicking more than the first link). The credentials of the article author say very little about his expertise (journalism) and even if he were a professor of history, references would be required to take any article they wrote seriously. Saying that they talked to another guy who has access to the records is not enough to make one credible.

 

[Helix]

Whats that have to do with your original poat?

because assholes like Stalin have given hyperpartisans fuel to attack anyone who supports anything left of laissez faire. it doesn't matter that these hyperpartisans have no argument and don't even understand the political spectrum, nuance, or that the choices aren't monochromatic. it's sort of like if i said to you, since you are to the right of me, that you are promoting Hitler-esque policies every time we disagreed.

the rest of my posts, which you have been ignoring, deal with the fact that the political spectrum is not monochromatic. it's not even left / right. there are a lot of options for the US, and none of them are Stalinesque. Stalin is basically a comic book supervillain like Hitler. for example, addressing our health care problems is not "Stalinesque." likewise, developing a new military plane is not "Hitleresque." anyone who invokes either of these leaders in an argument needs to refine his or her debating technique.

 

[APACHERAT]

The Wikipedia article is actually supported by referencing. And they are not the only accusations against IHR (try clicking more than the first link). The credentials of the article author say very little about his expertise (journalism) and even if he were a professor of history, references would be required to take any article they wrote seriously. Saying that they talked to another guy who has access to the records is not enough to make one credible.

You should know by now if you are familiar with me, I rarely except Wikipedia as being a reliable and credible source.

From what little research I have done on the IHR, I see to many copy and paste from the Wikipedia article. Even the radical leftist hate mongering :laughat: SPLC did a copy and paste from Wikipedia.

Have you ever gone to Wiki's disclaimer and read it ?

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

>"Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information..."<





Remember to wash your hands after using Wikipedia.

>"The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."<

From Wikipedias own study. -> Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have the message then you have the messenger. In this case the messenger isn't really the IHR but Yuri Teplyakov.

 

[apdst]

because assholes like Stalin have given hyperpartisans fuel to attack anyone who supports anything left of laissez faire. it doesn't matter that these hyperpartisans have no argument and don't even understand the political spectrum, nuance, or that the choices aren't monochromatic. it's sort of like if i said to you, since you are to the right of me, that you are promoting Hitler-esque policies every time we disagreed.

the rest of my posts, which you have been ignoring, deal with the fact that the political spectrum is not monochromatic. it's not even left / right. there are a lot of options for the US, and none of them are Stalinesque. Stalin is basically a comic book supervillain like Hitler. for example, addressing our health care problems is not "Stalinesque." likewise, developing a new military plane is not "Hitleresque." anyone who invokes either of these leaders in an argument needs to refine his or her debating technique.

Left wing policies don't work. Take away the 100 million murders and Socialism still fails. Socialism got a bad name all on it's own.

 

[Helix]

Left wing policies don't work. Take away the 100 million murders and Socialism still fails. Socialism got a bad name all on it's own.

Right wing policies don't work. Take away the seven million murders, and fascism still fails. Fascism got a bad name all on its own.

now that we've done that, are you a little more familiar with nuance, or are you still sticking to your monochromatic views?

 

[apdst]

Right wing policies don't work. Take away the seven million murders, and fascism still fails. Fascism got a bad name all on its own.

now that we've done that, are you a little more familiar with nuance, or are you still sticking to your monochromatic views?

Facism is just a different brand of Socialism.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Facism is just a different brand of Socialism.

Fascism is traditionally placed on the far right of the traditional left-right spectrum.

 

[Helix]

Facism is just a different brand of Socialism.

fascism is just a different brand of totalitarianism, which has no credible advocate on the American political spectrum.

 

[apdst]

Fascism is traditionally placed on the far right of the traditional left-right spectrum.

Both are socialism.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Institute for Historical Review? The premiere Nazi war crime denialist web-site?

There's not even any references.

I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt of simply being ignorant of source checking, rather than being a Nazi sympathiser.

Thank you for mentioning this pesky fact. This stuff turns my stomach.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You're spewing inhuman BS in the name of oppression.

Call it what you want.

You're claiming that some people are subhuman.

Nope. Thats not what im claiming at all.

You're supporting tyranny and the slaughter of millions of people.

Apparently you still cant read.
No im not.

I have rarely encountered a position so vile and devoid of humanity. I'm sure the KKK would be proud.

And you still cannot read or understand my position. Apparently you should go read post # 38, or you can just resort to using my avatar as some sort of debatable issue...

 

[ecofarm]

Call it what you want.

Did, don't need your permission, thanks.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The Brits feeding intel to the Soviets is on of the biggest factors that led to a Soviet victory. It's the main reason they won The Battle of Kursk.

The point about the intelligence was about Operation Barbarossa

 

[Oozlefinch]

There has never been any such thing.

Actually, here I have to agree with the Red.

Sometimes, being a "brute" is what is required. Was Lincoln being a brute when he tried to force the Southern States not to leave the Union? Was Truman being a brute when he forced integration upon the country? I can bring up many examples of when being a "brute" was required, even if not popular at the time.

Very much open for debate, but yes, sometimes such an action is needed. I reserve any opinions if what Stalin did was needed to others.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Actually, here I have to agree with the Red.

Sometimes, being a "brute" is what is required. Was Lincoln being a brute when he tried to force the Southern States not to leave the Union? Was Truman being a brute when he forced integration upon the country? I can bring up many examples of when being a "brute" was required, even if not popular at the time.

Very much open for debate, but yes, sometimes such an action is needed. I reserve any opinions if what Stalin did was needed to others.

Stalin's inhumane modernization was crucial to winning the war though. If the Soviet Union progressed under what Trotsky and others advocated, it would have been surely defeated. The only reason why the Soviet Union won was through its sheer industrial strength and total mobilization. Although Stalin's method was much more extreme and senseless, in the end, it proved to be crucial.
Besides that I can't think of anything Stalin did to help win the war.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The image of Soviet troops being forced to advance by threat of machine gun fire is largely a myth.

Penal battalions (shtrafbats) were created in the Soviet army by Order 227 (July 1942) to place men who have committed some sort of infraction, committed a crime or displayed cowardice. These battalions were mostly used to send into more dangerous situations than regular units (clearing minefields, leading assaults and taking dangerous positions, etc.).

Penal battalions were guarded by SMERSH units. SMERSH was an organization - three organizations, actually - whose purpose was to handle counterintelligence activities on the front line, and included not just the apprehension of suspected spies but deserters as well. One division of SMERSH was under NKVD control, and these groups would police the penal battalions to ensure that they were doing their job. SMERSH had the authority, under Order 270, 227 and others, to apprehend suspected spies and deserters, and in some instances execute deserters on the spot. It also must be added that it was possible for those in penal battalions to perform their duties and be "repatriated" back into normal units.

So normal units were disciplined by the fear of being placed in penal battalions, and penal battalions were disciplined by the fear of being arrested or killed by NKVD SMERSH detachments.

It should be kept in mind that Order 270 was issued in August 1941, with Order 227 following in July 1942 and quietly being withdrawn towards the end of 1942 for its ineffectiveness, though the penal battalions remained. SMERSH wasn't officially created until April 1943 (though existed in some form in late 1942).

Total penal battalion convictions from 1942 to 1945 were 427,910, less than 2% of the 34.5 million who served in the Soviet military. So the definite fact is that, should the popular narrative be true, it would have affected a very small portion of the Soviet military.

Now, the question as to whether or not SMERSH rear-guard units forced penal battalions to advance into suicidal situations with threats of being gunned down from behind by machine gun detachments, it is certainly probable. Penal battalions were given very dangerous jobs, and many probably did desert in the face of such danger. In the case of desertion, SMERSH units would summarily execute deserters on the battlefield. In many cases, though, where desertion was not actually in battle, SMERSH would arrest deserters for trial.