Swim to CUBA for your communist paradise, idiot.Hector12, I'm going through your capitalist-imperialist claptrap, point by point.
First, you claim that Lenin never worked in a factory a day in his life, which somehow disqualifies him from representing the proletariat. This is a weak ad hominem attack. Lenin's role was not to be a factory worker but to be an intellectual and revolutionary leader. His deep understanding of Marxist theory, his strategic brilliance, and his leadership skills were far more crucial to the proletarian revolution than working on an assembly line. Lenin's entire life was dedicated to studying, organizing, and leading the working class. He didn't need to work in a factory to understand the exploitation workers faced under capitalist employment (i.e. "exploiment", a word I just made up expressing the exploitation of capitalist employment); he spent years advocating for their cause and ultimately led a revolution that changed the course of history.
And let's not forget the hypocrisy in your ad hominem attack against Lenin, being that Donald Trump and his children have never worked in a factory, yet claim to champion the interests of working-class America. It's absurd to disqualify Lenin on such grounds while giving a pass to capitalist leaders who do the exact same shit.
Regarding the Kronstadt Rebellion, it's often misrepresented by critics of the Bolsheviks. The rebellion happened during an incredibly tough time for the Soviet state. They were dealing with external threats, a civil war, and economic collapse. While the sailors of Kronstadt had legitimate grievances, their rebellion threatened to destabilize the Soviet government at a critical moment. The rebellion included anarchists and anti-Bolshevik elements, which made the situation even more complicated. The Bolsheviks saw the rebellion as a counter-revolutionary threat, supported by White forces (i.e. The pro-Tsarist, capitalist armies) and the international capitalist powers that had invaded Soviet Russia, namely the US, UK, France, and ten other countries.
Suppressing it was seen as necessary to preserve the revolution. This was a difficult decision, but in any revolutionary process, tough decisions are inevitable. The priority was to protect the revolution from internal and external enemies, even if it meant making unpopular choices.
Your point about Stalin executing his military high command because the Gestapo convinced him of a plot is a mix of fact and speculation. Yes, Stalin did conduct purges of the military leadership in the late 1930s, and yes, it temporarily weakened the Soviet military. However, the idea that the Gestapo manipulated Stalin is speculative at best. The purges were part of a broader campaign to eliminate perceived enemies of the state, and while they did have damaging effects, the Soviet Union's eventual victory in World War II shows that the Red Army was able to rebuild and effectively respond to the German invasion.
Despite the initial setbacks caused by the purges, the Soviet Union adapted and successfully defended itself against the Third Reich, ultimately triumphing and playing a crucial role in the Allied victory.
As for your claim that communist oppression caused many Soviet citizens to initially welcome the Germans as liberators, you're oversimplifying a very complex situation. Yes, some Soviet citizens initially welcomed the Germans, but this was often out of desperation during the hardships of war, not because they supported Hitler.
The widespread Soviet partisan resistance against the German invaders is evidence that the majority of Soviet citizens opposed the occupiers. The Soviet Union's ability to mobilize its population in the fight against Hitler's Germany, despite the initial hardships, reflects the deep-rooted commitment to defending its homeland and the socialist state. Western narratives often exaggerate the extent of collaboration in the Soviet Union to discredit communism, but the reality is that Soviet citizens played a crucial role in the defeat of Germany. The war was essentially one between National Socialists because in many ways Stalin was a type of Socialist Nationalist, similar to Hitler, minus the racism. Stalin was a "NazBol".
Lastly, you claim that the Soviet Union was invited to join the Marshall Plan but refused. This is another oversimplification being that the requirements were for the USSR to essentially open itself to American companies and markets. Nice try, but no, we'll remain socialists.
Despite the challenges, the Soviet Union successfully rebuilt its economy after World War II without Marshall Plan aid. By 1970, it had become the second-largest economy in the world, demonstrating its capacity for self-sufficiency and the effectiveness of its socialist economic policies.
So, while you're quick to throw out these criticisms, it's clear that your understanding of Soviet history is shaped by a narrative that oversimplifies and distorts the complexities of that period. The Soviet Union, despite its flaws, achieved significant successes, especially in rebuilding after World War II, advancing in science and technology, and defending itself against its mortal enemies. Reducing these complex historical events to simplistic criticisms only serves to ignore the broader context and the achievements of the Soviet state. Nice try, but you failed again. Go read a book.