Message from @(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ doom clit ♥
Discord ID: 604076829904732221
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
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?
which other famines
There were more then one
there was like 1 major famine
ow so theer were more then one
nice of you to backpeddal on that
where did you imply there were multiple
all of which killing ppl causing ecconomic collaps
the economy didnt collapse