- 02 Oct 2004 13:13
#468813
Keep repeating that like a mantra, and maybe someday you'll convince someone other than yourself.
And it was the arrival of fresh troops from the Far East of Russia, transported thousands of miles within days, which saved Moscow. Those troops - 400,000 of them, and 1000 tanks and 1000 planes - were produced by the Soviet military-industrial comples, and were transported along Soviet infrastructure in Soviet trains. Those troops burst upon the Nazi Wehrmacht on the outskirts of Moscow and pushed them back. Those troops and tanks and planes were not conjured up by General Winter, but by the Soviet industrial capacity built up in the 1930s.
I was talking about Britain, not America. And the only difference in America is that the "lower order" are given the opportunity to become exploiters in their turn - an opportunity which is not often extended to the British masses. Each wave of immigrants in America would ruthlessly exploit the succeeding wave of immigrants in order to climb up the social ladder. That exploitation has now been extended out into the developing world, but the principle remains the same.
MosesWasALibertarian wrote:But what wore down the German army to give them the time to win the Battle of Stalingrad, but what kept the nazis from rolling right into Moscow when they were 15 miles away? And what gave the Soviets even the chance of giving an offense? The winter! It was the winter that saved them!
Keep repeating that like a mantra, and maybe someday you'll convince someone other than yourself.
And it was the arrival of fresh troops from the Far East of Russia, transported thousands of miles within days, which saved Moscow. Those troops - 400,000 of them, and 1000 tanks and 1000 planes - were produced by the Soviet military-industrial comples, and were transported along Soviet infrastructure in Soviet trains. Those troops burst upon the Nazi Wehrmacht on the outskirts of Moscow and pushed them back. Those troops and tanks and planes were not conjured up by General Winter, but by the Soviet industrial capacity built up in the 1930s.
One thing that changed in Russia after October 1917 was that the professions were thrown open for the working class. A man whose parents and grandparents had been factory workers and peasants could become a doctor or a nuclear physicist or even the leader of his nation. Compare that with Britain at the same period, where an aristocratic and privileged bourgeois class kept a stranglehold on the professions and the educational system, excluding the "lower orders" from achieving educational or professional advancement. October 1917 was a great victory for the working class and a defeat for the gang of parasites and exploiters we call the 'ruling class'. It shattered the old system of class privilege forever and created a society of equal citizens who fought side by side to defeat Hitler's fascist hordes. You may see that as a bad thing, but I do not.
And the US wasn't doing this for years? More than once had a man gone from rags to riches under the US flag.
I was talking about Britain, not America. And the only difference in America is that the "lower order" are given the opportunity to become exploiters in their turn - an opportunity which is not often extended to the British masses. Each wave of immigrants in America would ruthlessly exploit the succeeding wave of immigrants in order to climb up the social ladder. That exploitation has now been extended out into the developing world, but the principle remains the same.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)