• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Literally bandit kingdom under an absolute leader

    Classic imperialist shite of “spreading freedom” no better than any other imperialist. DOobetter.

    The USSR was the only nation to provide any support to the Republic, and it was the anarchists that fucked up by being unable to organize any kind of national army and just letting the fascists roll up their ‘independent’ cities one by one. Saying “it was Stalin’s fault” is the anarchist stab-in-the-back myth.

    You can lie to yourselves all you want. Anarchists remember the backstabbing very well and the real reason why they couldn;t fight back efficiently. I’m not here to discuss with tankies though. Plenty has been written about this stalinist revisionism already.

    A fascist counterrevolution, Hungary was an Axis power and it was a mere eleven years after WW2 - for “”“worker’s councils”“” they sure lynched a lot of Jewish people! Read this.

    Ah yes, everything USSR wanted to conquer or quiesce is “counterevolution”. Kronstadt too. Same exact bullshit every imperialist nation cooked up to invade and take over. Y’all ain’t foolin’ anyone you know.

    So I can say that I am sectarian, because revolution is a problem that has a correct answer - there’s the answer that saved hundreds of millions of lives from fascism,

    Lol, where? Show me one ML nation which is not totalitarian right now, or didn’t fall back into capitalism and fascism as soon as it inevitably collapsed from the mortally defective ideology of leninism.

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You can lie to yourselves all you want. Anarchists remember the backstabbing very well and the real reason why they couldn;t fight back efficiently. I’m not here to discuss with tankies though. Plenty has been written about this stalinist revisionism already.

      My dude, the vast majority of Republican tanks were provided by the Soviet Union. Let’s take a look at the Wikipedia article about tanks in the Spanish Civil War shall we: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tanks_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War#Tanks_supplied_by_foreign_powers

      Locally produced tanks: 24-32

      Soviet tanks: 331

      French/Polish tanks: 64

      Paraguayan tanks: 1

      So out of the 420-428 tanks deployed by the Republicans, more than 75% came from the Soviet Union. This is not “backstabbing.” If the Republicans didn’t want the Soviet Union to “interfere” with their civil war, they could have fun with their 89 tanks versus the Francoists’ 280 tanks. Yes, when you accept material aid from another country, that country has a say in the trajectory of your political project. That’s literally how all aid works. The Soviet Union was not a charity. If the Republicans did not want the Soviet Union to interfere with their political project, they could’ve just rejected the material aid. But to accept the substantial material aid and then cry about Soviet interference is called being ungracious. It’s called biting the hand that feeds you.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Lol the soviets are not a charity. Omg the fact that you post that imperialist drivel unironically is just the cherry on top. I don’t have to add anything here.

        • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I haven’t even gone over how some of the colonized Moroccans sided with the Francoists while none of them sided with the Republicans. You would think that the side with the socialists and anarchists would be on board with decolonization, but I guess it’s horizontally organized society for white people, brutal colonial regime for brown people. The white people can own the means of production while the brown people can labor with them.

          • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            this is a ridiculous mischaracterization, the Moroccans didn’t ‘side’ with Franco, the only Moroccans left with guns were the comprador regiments after 7 years of slaughtering the independence movement. it was still militarized and patrolled by those fuckers. You wanna talk about Popular Fronts being pro-colonial, look at France’s not supporting decolonization, the Spanish one had no grasp or opportunity. if they’d somehow dropped some rifles into Morocco, if the people had the spirit to rise up at all the French would’ve bombed them to keep it from getting into their bit of Morocco