LeniX

I honestly thought this could not get more embarrassing. Holy shit… Like, do you not know history at all? I can’t… I just… There’s a million things to say about this, I don’t even know where to start.

Death to Banderite Nazis. Death to Ze. Death to America.

Any scenario of an Ukraine that will be aligned with the west is long gone now.

Good.

Sure thing. I don’t exactly remember where I got that from, it’s been cited in different articles. But here’s one of the places you can find it, it’s down there in the Reference section - number 12

You got it

No. I’m sorry, I’ll just stop here. It would be better to finish this conversation, I don’t like the way it is going.

I don’t, please don’t presume what I know. Please explain yourself, in good faith

All I said was that we needed to learn Khruschev’s side of the story and then you started arguing against historical research. Bravo.

Another strawman. I didn’t argue against historical research, all I said was memoirs alone aren’t enough to give you a full picture. In any case, the analyses do take into account Khrushchev’s memoirs.

You’re still not pointing out where I did that.

I did, several times. You did it here: …So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev and, therefore, you don’t know Khruchev’s own argument, just your own personal strawman of the man, for all you know… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it even though he was known for getting a lot of shit wrong during this era lol…

You criticize me “taking Mao’s word” and “not reading Khrushchev’s own argument”, implying that is the sole reason why I criticize Khrushchev by creating a caricature of him and criticizing that caricature. I did not do that, I repeated multiple times where my viewpoint comes from.

You’ve changed the topic several times.

You do realize that the entire thread is publicly visible. I don’t understand what you are doing here.

memoirs alone are not a reliable source

The point doesn’t stand because we don’t know that due to the difference in character.

What is it that we don’t know (due to the difference in character)? I am genuinely lost. What does that mean?

You’re not pointing out where the strawman is; you just vaguely alluded to my supposed strawman.

I did. Right here: “…So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…” - this implies that what you are saying is this - my views on Khrushchev derive solely from Mao’s opinion, and thus it is wrong to just take Mao’s word on it. I never implied that my views on Khrushchev are based on Mao’s views, thus your criticism (this one - “…So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…”) attacks a distorted version of my reasoning. The real reason I criticize Khrushchev is not because Mao or whoever, but because of historical analysis of the specific policies that were enacted under his leadership, and of the consequences we’re witnessing today.

So far, you’ve managed to divert the discussion.

Let’s see… The post was about Khrushchev, you centered around the Sino-Soviet split. When I pointed out Khrushchev’s responsibility for it, you brought up the Russian Revolution as though that somehow excuses him and not merely explains the ideological school of his. Then when I pointed out that Mao was right in harshly criticizing Khrushchev’s revisionism (as history proved us) - you started attacking Mao as though the fact it was “late Mao” somehow made him wrong, even though,again - history proved it with USSR being overthrown. Then I explained point by point what Mao said, and compared that to the actualities of USSR’s history. You then used an “ad hominem” argument here - “Have you read Khruschev or are you just quoting Mao here?”. Suddenly my words are discredited because I didn’t read Khrushchev, as though I was obliged to. Then it is me who created a strawman.

Is it really me who is constantly diverting the discussion?

Okay, but Khruschev’s not Gorby.

The point stands - memoirs alone are not a reliable source, his or Gorby’s. Conceptually