Message from @(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ doom clit ♥
Discord ID: 604076212301594624
After 80 years...
and not without opposition from its own citizens
was the amazon rainforest man made @Deleted User
@(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ doom clit ♥ nigger there was a regime change
russia fell
Not just that
but wtf really
Are you dense?
you even cnodidering the eecconomics of the collectivisation effords
it was so fucked for the ppl they ran out of food
No you are dense
They wanted Russia to fall right away, the 80 years later was unrelated to the aforementioned.
ecconomics is not just stock pruces
So you are indeed dense.
No not 80 years later
are you even reading what i said
collectivisation was part of tone of the first plans
it caused starvation which is ecconomic decline
millions of ppl starved
almost every one list their pruvate farms
So into a new topic. So they lacked so much food they were able to win a world war, and fight several other proxy wars with a sustainable population?
ecconomic structures cuased distribution of food to fail causing many starvations
Wining a world war or not is strawmen
like it has nothing to do wuth what i djust said
>Wining a world war or not is strawmen
That's literally not what a strawman even is.
Strawmen is when i put words into your mouth.
Please at least learn your logical fallacies.
let me correct
But my point still stands.
using winning a war as strawmen to the ecconomics not being effected by the regime change is retarded
They at the same time were starving, but also fought off a European Empire under the control of Germany.
How is that a point
How is that relating to ecconomics being effected in other ereas
>How is that a point
you are dense.
And wining that war was done by simply killing tons of russians
What you said does not make sense.
And the two points cannot coincide with each other.
It is not a point to ecconomics being effected to the point of starvation
what does a single famine have to do with the country "falling"