The Sacred War (instrumental)

No description available.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• The
• Saint
• War
• instrumental
• holy
• war
• sacred
• union
• of
• soviet
• socialist
• republics

[Ilyasviel33]

@fantasy7004 Why are you such a gigantic faggot?

[Ilyasviel33]

@fantasy7004 Good answer! This is exactly what makes you a gigantic , flaming faggot.

[RichardAndewSwayne]

@superturkeylegs I was only joking.

[superturkeylegs]

@RichardAndewSwayne The French didn't quite surrender, they established the French Resistance as well as marked collaborators by cropping hair, telling who the collaborators are, and other things. Plus, the French have a much tougher army now.

[spanish111japan]

@YoshiTheBlue OH FUCK YOU PLAY ROBLOX TOO?

[spanish111japan]

@YoshiTheBlue Yes, of course they did work, but were too brutal to be morally acceptable. It would have been a better leade depending of how you think good leaders are for your interests, it depends. Stalin helped at WWII a lot, and industrialized the country, it was good, but what was not good is the cost for the industrialization. Who knows? Maybie Trotsky would have turned repressive or had strong policies.

[YoshiTheBlue]

@spanish111japan I'm not denying he was corrupt or anything. I'm hardly a fan of Stalin or his policies. Still, you can't deny that, as brutal as they were, many of them did work. I just doubt that Trotsky would have been much better. Even if Trotsky wasn't as brutal as Stalin, it was mainly Stalin's brutality that helped the USSR develop industrially, which helped them fight off the Nazis. Without Stalin's rapid industrialization, WWII might have turned out very differently, in Hitler's favor.

[spanish111japan]

@YoshiTheBlue He wasn't stupid, he knew how to keep power. It got rid from enemies, but also innocent people, suspects without proof who were executed. Trotsky would not have done such policy of agressive lead. It can be seen with his speeches and his being. Lenin said about Stalin and how he would destroy real Communism, but he was ignored by the Commitee. Stalin was a farsant and a corrupt leader, check this

socyberty DOT c o m /history/how-did-stalin-become­-the-leader-of-the-soviet-unio­n/

[YoshiTheBlue]

@spanish111japan

It can't be justified, and I'm not trying to justify it, but it still helped him from a purely pragmatical point of view. Even out of war, it helped him maintain his power in the face of growing unrest in the USSR. The Terror got rid of potential enemies and made most too afraid to even try to oppose Stalin. Given the political climate of the USSR, Trotsky would either have had to achieve a similar affect, or risk losing power.

[spanish111japan]

@YoshiTheBlue No, don't assume. It was Trotsky. I've even checked it as I was not sure, and before the death of Lenin, Trotsky had more skills to lead a nation.

It would had been better if Stalin led the red army and Trotsky the USSR, they were in the wrong position.

A general would do basicly what he did. He killed any suspicious, that's how it was done in war time

The terror helped in the war, but it was more time out of war than in war. How can that be justified?

[YoshiTheBlue]

@spanish111japan I'm assuming that first instance of Stalin in your second paragraph was meant to be Trotsky. Anyways, the whole point of that was that Stalin had more opportunities to be a brutal monster than Trotsky did. Stalin wasn't really much of a general, considering the fact that he murdered most of his good officers in the Terror. The Terror itself was a good move politically. It let him eliminate anyone who could pose a threat to his power, which helped maintain stability in the war.