Trotskys supposed ties to fascism

Undoubtedly - It's the kind of thing you expect in any decent counterintelligence dance. The reverse also happened, though I don't remember where I read about it. All the cycles of baiting and reverse baiting, moles and reverse moles was part of why the Soviets were caught with their pants down in 1941 - no clear way to distinguish the signal through all the noise.

he seemed to get along well with Mussolini

Attached: Dfp3eVWUwAEwlxl.jpg:large.jpg (601x649, 97.99K)

...

I guess Lenin was a British Monarchist since he spent his exile in London.

...

The irony is Trotsky had been kicked out by the French government across the Italian border and didn't got there by choice and the Italians recieved him explicitly out of rivalry with France to show off how tolerant and liberal they are as a fuck you to the french.

"Our clandestine radio transmitter from eastern Prussia to Russia is creating an enormous sensation. It operates in Trotsky’s name, and is causing Stalin plenty of trouble"
That quote from Goebbels' diary is just another example of the stupidity of neo-Stalinists.

What Stalinists say happened

That’s not a fair accusation either. Pretty much everybody had non-aggression pacts with Germany, including the Poles. The part about carving up Poland if Germany invaded is justifiable on some level too, since it would give the Soviets breathing space from German territory.

Marx was literally hunted by the British police the whole time, he had to use a fake name and disguises. Same with Lenin.

pretty sure neither of those things are true.

Its not a case of 'breathing room' and it didn't really provide any such thing, but rather the territories the USSR 'occupied' following the German invasion of Poland were lithuanian, belorussian and ukrainian majority territories which the reactionary if not fascist polish government had subjugated in the Polish-Soviet war. Liberating the occupied territories of soviet republics and moreover preventing them from falling under Nazi occupation already in 1939 was unambiguously good.
As for Molotov-Ribbentrop, while it is true that most european countires had signed non-agression pacts with germany before and the USSR was the last and late to do so and only after their attempts to form an anti-fascist coalition with european states against germany failed, it is not the non-aggression treaty that is the biggest issue, but rather the immense quantity of food and essential resources which the USSR supplied to the nazis until (and even slightly after since the trains didn't stop running) the Nazi invasion of the USSR begun. Had the USSR not been feeding the German warmachine throughout the first years of the war in the hope that Hitler will be appeased by this and refrain from breaking the pact perhaps the damage the USSR suffered from the fascist hordes wouldn't have been so great.

They are though, jeez you are fucking stupid.

Holly fucking shit.

You wrote some good stuff, however is should be mentioned that Soviets were fighting against the Japanese since 1933 to 1939, and peace was achieved only after Molotov pact. In the meantime Soviets were aiding the Chinese and Spanish against the fascists.

Italy had one of the largest amounts of socialists in the world, the communist party was literally one of the largest parties in Italy. How does visiting this country make him fascist?

Still, they should have maybe called it quits with the trade after the fall of France in 1940. It was clear then that the imperialist powers would not wear each other out - Germany had effectively beaten the others.

But hindsight is 20/20. I can also see how they didn't want to risk confronting the Germans who beat the French and BEF with such ease after the sobering campaign in Finland. That must have been a chilling realization.

If that was the case then why did Marx live there for the rest of his life?

Marx lived peacefully in Britain and the British government outright refused to send Marx to Prussia when the Prussian government demanded he be extradited. No one in the British state gave a shit about him and he wasn't being chased down by police or any such nonsense.
As for Lenin he obviously used aliases from his time in Russia but its disingenuous to claim it had anything to do with his time in Britain which also didn't give a shit about him before the revolution.
Bourgeois states don't and haven't actually usually made sure to arrest every communist, theorist or fringe party leader. Even in Mussolini's Italy, a fascist regime that lasted over 20 years, most communists weren't actually in prison most of the time.

1. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact went far beyond simple non-aggression between the USSR and Germany.
2. Stalin's USSR accused Trotsky of collaborating with fascists, wanting to assassinate communists, and making secret deals with foreign powers. The USSR under Stalin's leadership did all of that.
3. To give a good example for the first point, look at pic related.
4. Finally, the neo-Stalinists like FinnishBolshevik hilariously accuse Trotsky of working against the Communist international. I say hilariously, because it was Stalin who disbanded the Comintern to appease his Western allies.

Attached: tooze_321.png (562x424, 34.54K)

'Trotsky is the whore of fascism' - Gramsci

Attached: thunking.jpg (601x649, 77.39K)

Of fug, one quote, fug guys im sorry worldview destroyed

actually gramshit is the whore of liberalism

How do you explain the Socialist Workers Party that created LaRouche and Bernie Sanders? Or how Trotskyite politics was seen by Hitler as a useful paradigm for underground infiltration of a targeted political milie with Hitler saying you can learn a lot about him, or how the CIA is funding Trotskyists in China to undermine the Chinese Government?

We can't criticize Stalin for making a secret pact with the Nazis, but Trotsky is free game even when the evidence is extremely tendentious? If you think the Molotove-Ribbentrop Pact was necessary, it's certainly arguable, but the Trotsky/Hitler "connection" is nothing but slander.

look everyone, BO is back
and is still a fucking fag

Didn't Grover Furr say he did it because the Soviet Archives said so?

The only two things that Trotsky ever created was Fascism and Neocons, which are Jewish Fascists.

Just gonna lead this here

internationalstalinsociety.wordpress.com/trotsky-the-anti-communist/

are you entirely braindead?
a bunch of quotes of ad homs against trotsky, the goebbels thing which proves nothing about Trotsky or trotskyism except that 'it exists' and this retard claiming that 'trotsky refuting the slanders of bourgeois racists against stalin, is actually trotsky totally being a racist against stalin'.
Bottom of the barrel shitlib-tier criticism.

I'm sure the reason there are so many Trot groups in the West and supporting NATO Imperialism and terrorist groups created by Turkey to balkanize Syria has nothing to do with TRUE TROTSKYISM

Attached: Trot.png (960x520 60.54 KB, 91.96K)

They have nothing to do with Trotsky personally, and those positions are not universal among Trotskyists anyway.

If you want to point to later groupuscules claiming Trotsky's legacy as evidence of his views or what they must lead to, you might as well say Gorbachev represents the natural evolution of Stalin's views.

The ICL is not the 'fourth international' which hasn't existed for about as long as the third you drooling retard and I can pull up some fringe Italian MLs who have the exact same 'anti-imperialist' hot take on ISIS, which is neither a standard trot position nor a standard ML position.

Attached: scuderi.JPG (3116x294, 122.9K)

Blatant censorship of the reality of who Stalin was: A counter-revolutionary, murderous, abetting thug.

We can, should, and will continue to do so.
Honestly, how are ☭TANKIE☭s even still a thing? They've proven over and over again that they're either total dupes or utterly treacherous.

Attached: Screenshot 2018-12-13 at 4.22.18 PM.png (267x261, 86.1K)

Attached: Follow Your Leader.png (1220x822, 432.75K)

Attached: Trot was a Nazi.png (407x550, 84.35K)

“In the interests of the political situation the activities of Trotsky and his supporters abroad in the 1930s are said to have been propaganda only. But this is not so. The Trotskyists were also involved in actions. Making us of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence . They organized a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937.

“At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz, was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris.” English translation from Gen. Pavel Sudoplatov, The Intelligence Service and the Kremlin, Moscow 1996, p. 58:

llco.org/who-and-what-are-trotsky-cons/

The Poles were waaaaaaaaay more than just having a non-aggression pact

Attached: poland didu nuffin was a good boy 2.jpg (601x729, 136.42K)

Brilliant argument faggot, lol.

If you read the full articles and not just shitty extracts you'd realise that the supposed contradiction is nothing of the sort. In the first case Trotsky is criticising the backlog of incomplete industrial goods which could be solved to the benefit of the USSR if it were more open to foreign trade in the 1932 logic of socialism in one country, in the 1923 extract he still considers the path of the USSR to be world revolution and merely the transitional period. The first is a strategy being pursued by the USSR under Stalin, the second one preceding that strategy.

So now the POUM (which was not exactly trotskyist, but bukharinist-trotskyist-any other leninist who didn't follow the comintern-ist, also they worked most closely with the CNT-FAI and were denounced by trotsky from the start) is also apparently german backed, i guess the anarchists were also german backed because the NKVD claimed it.

so this is the power of ☭TANKIE☭ dialectics? I guess projecting your failures on your eternal boogeyman is what you're reduced to.
also
the absolute state

The bizarre extrapolation that Trotsky is a Nazi is barely even worth responding to. Right off the bat, Hitlerian autarky and advocating a temporary economic policy with the goal of spurring industrialization in the largely undeveloped Soviet Union are distinct. Pic is from Theses on Industry immediately after the quote in your pic. That is not what somebody who supports autarky would say, you fucking halfwit. Also pay close attention to the difference in dating of the two writings cited. The USSR was at a very different level of development in 1932 than in 1923.

Literally an ex-NKVD officer who was placed in charge of assassinating Trotsky. Maybe try citing independent historians and not police spies? Oh I forgot that nobody in academia supports your frankly outlandish view. (Grover Furr doesn't count!)

Oh good, this website again. First, most of this article is speculation about Trotsky's motives which we can dismiss straight away as it is not only useless, but unknowable. Second, the citations are a joke. There are twenty two. Two of those are from Prison Planet. Five of them are from Bob Avakian and one of them is from the Maoist International Movement. These (literally) incredible citations are shoved in the back which I would guess is deliberate because anybody who sees them will rightfully dismiss this page as a joke. However, I will, unlike the author of that article, refrain from speculating.

Attached: Screenshot 2018-12-27 at 1.55.39 AM.png (1245x172, 54.1K)

So the person who tried to save the World from Trotsky is less of a credible source than actual literal CIA funded academia who are dedicated towards maintaining Capitalism?

Lol, yeah you have an airtight research methodology there.
I explicitly asked you to cite independent historians, so no.

as we all know from *checks notes* hoi4, trotsky was single-handedly plotting the overthrow of stalin from his mexico office

Gotta love it when ☭TANKIE☭s degenerate into Zig Forums tier hysteria saying “100% of all academics except Grover Furr are party of a global bourgeois plot to slander Stalin”.

Translation?

Dude, you're being hugely dishonest. Ofc most of the claims of foreign collaboration during Stalin's time are bullshit, but that doesn't line up with your point here. There is a HUGE difference between allying with foreign powers to destroy the SU, and allying with them to secure a position favorable to it. Stalin did the former.

The Stalin government repeatedly tried to form an anti-German Entente with the West but negotiations broke down over Soviet troops having to move through Romania and Poland so, facing diplomatic isolation, the Nazi-Soviet pact was the only option on the table to buy the USSR time. Stalin still expected he would probably have to fight Hitler sooner or later.

Your criticism of him allying with the West is baffling for reasons I don't even have to explain. Although he did want friendly relations with the West, historically he did not ally with them by choice. He just happened to be on the same side as them after Germany ended up declaring war on all three countries. Should the CCCP just have declared war on every country simultaneously just to be consistent communists or whatever?

Correction: Germany did declare war on the US and SU, but not the UK.

In fairness, those aren't 1:1 comparable. Don't have much time for Trotsky, but:
Autarky is stupid, but there do come times in economic management where restrictions on imports (and in this case note he says [when] "they are not absolutely necessary") are necessary for one reason or another, even under capitalism. Even under a capitalism, with a fixed exchange rate there can come times when import controls are preferable to devaluation. So long as it isn't in pursuit of the farcical idea of complete self sufficiency, it's not autarky. Similarly, Import Substitution Industrialisation is not autarky and is certainly not fascism. The operating principle of ISI is to control imports until domestic industry is strong enough to compete, then open up to freer trade on more equal terms.

You seriously don't think for a second that the reason that there is no Communist uprising in the USA isn't because the CIA has taken control of the Academia the same that they made the USA become a Fascist Corporatist State? I mean, the USA is completely devoid of actual culture because of marketing.

The USA funded Hitler along with the UK, Franco was literally sent into Spain by MI5 and The Duce was given paychecks by the UK.

This was done because they wanted to combat Stalin and then they recovered their losses by "invading" them.

The CIA funded Trotskyism to combat Marxist-Leninism.

marxismoleninismos.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/ludo-martens-trotskyism-in-the-service-of-the-cia-against-the-socialist-countries-ludo-martens-el-trotskismo-al-servicio-de-la-cia-contra-los-paises-socialistas/

Porky fears Actual Marxist-Leninst thought which is why they have spent so much time fighting it. Or they corrupt it like Zizek.

They have spent all their days trying to combat this. They funded Right-Wing Death Squads, they funded all sorts of nasty shit to combat Communism. You seriously think they haven't tried to combat it at home?

(1) Robert Fulford's column about the CIA's covert cultural sponsorship (The National Post, April 25, 2000)

robertfulford.com/CIA.html.

… It began in the early years of the Cold War, when many European intellectuals admired the Soviet Union more than the United States. In Paris, even in Stalinist days, it was considered eccentric to be passionately anti-communist; if you were also pro-American, you were considered an outright loon. In England, things weren't all that different. A soon-to-be-famous journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge, said that the New Statesman magazine had somehow established "the proposition that to be intelligent is to be Left, whereas almost the exact opposite is true."

Muggeridge urged the Americans to get into high-level propaganda. …

The intellectuals who turned up at CIA-sponsored conferences and appeared in CIA-sponsored magazines were usually democratic socialists. That could never have been explained to Senator Joseph McCarthy and his sympathizers. But the CIA, its budget a black hole, was the one agency that never had to explain anything.

Eventually, a member of Congress began to expose the program. In 1964 Congressman Wright Patman, analyzing tax-free foundations, discovered that some were mainly mail drops. Journalists finally picked up on this a couple of years later, and by 1967 the secret was out. In the 1970s the CIA abandoned culture entirely (so far as we know). Melvin J. Lasky, who had started the whole program in 1950 and co-edited Encounter from 1958, kept the magazine flickeringly alive till 1991. When it died, hardly anyone mourned; the real Encounter had been gone a long time.

The story is still not entirely known (the CIA seldom obeys the Freedom of Information Act) but over the years it has emerged slowly from the shadows.

The most thorough history has recently appeared: Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (Granta), by Frances Stonor Saunders. Aside from offering a vigorously researched account of these remarkable events, she delivers great lashings of gossip, some of which may fall into the too-good-to-be-true category. She tells us, for instance, that the CIA acquired the right to make George Orwell's Animal Farm into a film by promising his widow an introduction to Clark Gable. …

(2) 'The CIA and the Cultural Cold War', by Frances Stonor Saunders

MONTHLY REVIEW Volume 51, Number 6 November 1999 www.monthlyreview.org The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited by James Petras

Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War by Frances Stonor Saunders, (London: Granta Books), £20.

This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA « projects, » and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publiclyexposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.

U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the « Democratic Left » and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell {end}

More at monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm.

3) Carroll Quigley on Walter Lippman:

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time, Macmillan New York 1966

{p. 938} More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam," and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went "radical." There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International.

The best example of this alliance of Wall Street and Left-wing publication was The New Republic, a magazine founded by Willard Straight, using Payne Whitney money, in 1914. Straight … became a Morgan partner … He married Dorothy Payne Whitney … the sister and co-heiress of Oliver

{p. 939} Payne, of the Standard Oil "trust." …

The New Republic was founded by Willard and Dorothy Straight, using her money, in 1914, and continued to be supported by her financial contributions until March 23, 1953. The original purpose for establishing the paper was to provide an outlet for the progressive Left and to guide it quietly in an Anglophile direction. This latter task was entrusted to a young man, only four years out of Harvard, but already a member of the mysterious Round Table group, which has played a major role in directing England's foreign policy since its formal establishment in 1909. This new recruit, Walter Lippmann, has been, from 1914 to the present, the authentic spokesman in American journalism for the Establishments on both sides of the Atlantic in international affairs. His biweekly columns, which appear in hundreds of American papers, are copyrighted by the New York Herald Tribune which is now owned by J. H. Whitney. It was these connections, as a link between Wall Street and the Round Table Group, which gave Lippmann the opportunity in 1918, while still in his twenties, to be the official interpreter of the meaning of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points to the British government. {end}

More at tragedy.html.

Walter Lippmann for World Government: wells-lenin-league.html.

Walter Lippmann on Wilson and House: lippmann.html.

It's from this, ignore all the autistic Jew hating and Aryan crap.
mailstar.net/cia-infiltrating-left.html

I mean, ussr was just as desperate for advanced machinery and tooling and automation tech as the german were for raw resources and food. It was basically a "we hate each other guts, but we're both way too weak to and isolated to go at each other throat like the liberals wants right now, so let's make a mutually beneficial agreement and the first who's ready have the first shot"

T.rot

Attached: ok retard.jpg (720x597, 70.18K)

Anarchism is literally Feels > Reals the same as Fascism so it makes sense that the Nazis would support Anarchists.

I mean it makes sense for cia to promote anti su leftism, doesn't mean the stupid trots were aware that they were on the cia payroll

Wew lad. Also you should probably know that the FBI funded ML groups inside the US as agent provocateurs. I guess American MLs are feds then.

You're retarded. That's literally liberal horseshoe theory tier reasoning. Next you're going to tell me that Plato was a fascist. If reactionary forces supported anti-soviet leftists its purely because they saw them as useful to undermine the Soviets, not because there is any ideological affinity between them. It also doesn't prove Marxism-Leninism was the best theory either (is say this as an ML), only that it was the ideology of America's strongest enemy. It's pure realpolitik, and suggesting its anything more than that (like saying Trots/demsocs/anarchists are reactionaries) is seriously retarded.

Original fascism literally hatched out from anarchism.

Also even if that were true (it's not) that would have literally nothing to do with Trotskyism.

Attached: viper.jpg (1200x1200, 167.67K)

...

Mussolini and Sorel literally weren't anarchists tho. Mussolini was a marxist, Sorel was a statist syndicalist who loved Lenin.

Also Sorel wasn't a fascist, a lot of the foundations of fascism came from elite theory of Michels: which is inherently statist. You're just chatting shit mate.

It wasn't. Pretty much all the leftists who later became fascists were some stripe of statist socialist. You'd have to be braindead to honestly think that an ideology that preaches the absolute supremacy of the state as its own end is compatible with one that sees the state as an inherent part of class society and the root of all social evil.

Proudhon was a petty-bourgeois and the harbinger of Fascism. Mussolini and d'Annunzio were influenced by Max Stirner.

The Nazi Party's Feder who got Hitler into the Nazi Party was a fanboy for Market Anarchists who were in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

Anything that is Feels > Reals becomes Fascism because people can't handle the contradictions.

As Mussolini said

Lamo wot?
Mate that man was influenced by everyone and their nan, there isn't a single strain of European philosophy you cannot find in his thought.
Citation needed, also the BSR was not "Market-Anarchist"
And let me guess your specific brand of ML is the only REALS there is?
Wow, you gonna cite Solzhenitsyn on the GULAGs now too?

J. Salwyn Schapiro who said this about Fascism

Wrote in 1945 that Proudhon, the founder of Anarchism, was the harbinger of Fascism. He literally wrote an article about it with that exact name.

Gottfried Feder and Silvio Gesell were both keynote speakers of the Deutschsozialistische Partei, go look on Google Books Feder's praising of Gesell.

First of all I doubt that, post proofs. Max Stirner's philosophy is completely at odds with Fascism. Even if Mussolini managed to somehow get fascist ideas from it that doesn't make anarchism compatible with fascism. The guy was a retard after all.
So Hegel, Plato, every theologican, Descartes, Nietzsche, Foucault, etc are all Fascists to you?
Just because he wrote it doesn't mean its true. Even if it were, saying that mutualism led to fascism and saying that anarchism as a whole led to fascism are very different things. How could anarcho-communism possibly result in fascism? Its literally the polar opposite in every possible respect. Also you're deliberately conflating the truth here, since "evolved out of" isnt the same thing as equivalent to. If it were then Marxism would be fascist since plenty of Fascists were former Marxists and their ideas evolved in part from socialism.

and yet he signed his own name in the british library?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2000x617, 2.64M)

Proudhon:

Bakunin:

Anarchists should feel ashamed.

Marx literally thought that the entirety of Jewish identity was wrapped up with bourgeois ideology and capitalism. He basically wrote that the generalization of bourgeois culture brought about by capitalism was the generalization of Jewish values. These attempts to tie anarchism to fascism are just grasping at straws. It’s also confusing since this thread was about Trotskyism.

Read a fucking book, my god

Exactly, Marx was right. He didn't write the anti-semite trash that your heroes wrote.
Don't deflect, we are bullying you now.

If idealism is fascism then so are all the people I named.

I’m not an anarchist, and I’m not deflecting anything. Antisemitism isn’t fascism, and suggesting that anarchism is connected to fascism is nonsensical. Not a single good argument to that effect has been made.

Philosophical idealism is not "feels > reals"!

I would agree, but it’s prettu obvious that when stacheposter was talking about “feels > reals” they were referring to idealism and it’s related political movements, like anarchism.

How well did the CIA funding Anti-Soviet Left go now that all the SucDems in Europe are going away to Fash or Classical Liberal parties made up of former Nazis.

From Maurice Cranston:

Don't Know Don't Care.
But srsly Trotskites are honestly more of a problem than Trotsko

They aren’t. They’re seeing somewhat of a resurgence actually (Labour, France Insoumise), and if they are struggling it’s because they are too neoliberal and not socdem enough.
You played yourself.

The USSR exported raw materials in exchange for machinery and other stuff. The Germans got very little compared to what they acquired from their Western corporate friends.
This is a bullshit myth. The ones feeding the German machine in the first years of the war was almost primarily corporations, like Ford, Texaco Oil, Krupp, Standard Oil, GM IBM etc. They all provided far more support. And it was hardly useful when the German supply lines were so over-stretched that the British could have cut off their advance by simply using basic fucking strategy. So if it wasn't for the fact that the Brits and French were fucking incompetent, the Germans would have lost regardless.
That wasn't the hope at all. The idea was to delay Hitler's attack in time to finish re-armament of the armed forces. Stalin didn't expect France to fall in a few days, instead reckoning that it would take a year or so. The French army was just as large, if not larger, the British was an additional ally, and their weapons were roughly on par with one another. The only reason France fell was due to sheer incompetence.