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"

not only that as a strawmen it doesnt even works as they got massive suplies from the alied with out they would have lost

That there is somehow enough people in Russia to both starve to death AND fight off literally most of Europe invading them.

Single famine

lmao

yes

who said single?