Russia declassifies secret documents on Nazi-Soviet pact

[bellyscratch]

Russia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/russia) has declassified top-secret surveillance documents in an attempt to justify its occupation of Eastern Europe under the Nazi-Soviet pact, signed 70 years ago on Sunday.

The hidden protocols of the pact, in which Joseph Stalin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/joseph-stalin) and Adolf Hitler (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/adolf-hitler) agreed to carve up Poland and other sovereign states, were denounced by the Soviet parliament in 1989, shortly after they were revealed for the first time.

But the pact, which lasted until Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, is now being rehabilitated to chime with Kremlin ideology that claims a Russian sphere of interest in the "near abroad" former Soviet republics.

Hundreds of formerly secret spy documents have been published in a compendium by Lev Sotskov, a retired KGB major general working under the auspices of the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence service. The SVR said the files demonstrated the Soviet Union was left with no choice but to agree a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in August 1939 after Britain and France signed the Munich agreement appeasing Hitler's partition of Czechoslovakia the previous year.

The pact – signed by foreign ministers Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop – bought time for the Kremlin after the west had betrayed Stalin, Sotskov told reporters in Moscow. Declassified documents collected by the NKVD showed London and Paris wanted to "direct Hitler's aggression to the east" and were indifferent to the fate of the Baltics, he said, adding: "Now the thinking behind English politics is revealed: let Germany start a war with the USSR and then we'll see what happens."

Most contentious is likely to be Sotskov's claim that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania willingly acquiesced to Soviet domination. "There was no occupation," Sotskov said. Historians and politicians in those countries vehemently deny such claims, saying tens of thousands of people were killed or sent to the Gulag and puppet authorities installed to enable annexation.

Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, stressed after the war with Georgia last year that Russia has a "zone of privileged interests" in its "near abroad". Earlier this year he set up a commission to battle "falsification of history", saying neighbouring states were trying to distort Russia's past for political gains.

Pavel Felgenhauer, a military expert at the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, claimed Moscow was praising the Nazi-Soviet pact's secret protocol outlining a sphere of influence in Europe because "the Kremlin clearly wishes to re-enact it."

"In his understanding of realpolitik, [prime minister] Vladimir Putin does not diverge from the line set by Josef Stalin," military analyst Alexander Golts wrote in the online Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "Military force decides everything, and if there is an opportunity to grab a piece of someone else's territory, it should be taken."

Latvia's ex-president Vaira Vike-Freiberga said in a radio interview that Russia was "incapable of understanding the tragedy of our occupation". "We will have to battle to preserve our independence until the end of our days," she said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/21/russia-documents-nazi-soviet-pact

Not had chance to read through it yet as I've got a bus to catch but I thought people here would be interested :)

[Bankotsu]

Stalin didn't really have a choice in 1939 because in the first place, Britain didn't want to form an alliance with USSR in 1939.

Britain's policy was to let Germany go eastwards and attack USSR, so Stalin from a security point of view did the right thing to secure his western frontier against a German assault.

Britain's role in directing Germany eastwards to attack USSR is still suppressed in the west till this day.

It is still being covered up, not discussed, not debated. It must end, they can't go on and suppress real history forever.


Molotov “never regretted” signing pact with Nazis - grandson
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090821/155882370.html

The Soviet Union’s ‘short-sighted’ pact with the Nazis
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090821/155882600.html

Russia should be open about pre-war Nazi-Soviet pact
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090820/155869337.html

World War II: the Things the West Is Failing To Grasp
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2407

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Pro et Contra
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2403

The USSR: to Pay in Kind for the Munich Deal
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2399


Strangely enough even some left wing people here in this forum is reluctant to discuss Britain's role in setting Germany against USSR.

I encourage all people to actively discuss and debate the true role of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Hitler and propagate the truth.

Let's not suppress the truth in the west anymore.

[Bankotsu]

Western press criticises Russia on 1939 non aggression pact with Germany:


Pact that set the scene for war
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8212451.stm

When Russia's Intelligence Services Play At Politics
http://www.rferl.org/content/When_Russian_Intelligence_Services_Play_At_Politic s/1804760.html


Isn't that pure hypocrisy by the western press?

Because in 1939, from June to August 1939, Britain was pushing Germany to
sign the exact same non aggression pact!


See:

There can be no doubt that rumors about them reached the Russians in July 1939 and, by strengthening their ancient suspicions of Britain, made them decide to avoid any agreement with Britain and to take instead the nonaggression pact offered by Hitler.

The outburst of public rage at Russia for doing this by Britain and America now seems singularly inappropriate in view of the fact that the British government was trying to do the same thing at the same time and the fact that France had signed what Russia regarded as a nonaggression pact with Germany on December 6, 1938. Indeed, Sir Nevile Henderson, who undoubtedly was more extreme than some of his associates, went so far as to condone an alliance between Britain and Germany, on August 28, 1939....

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#46


Britain's secret talks with Germany aiming at non aggression pact:


Memorandum of German Ambassador in London Dirksen regarding regarding Wohlthat's Conversations with Wilson and Hudson (July 21 1939)

http://books.google.com/books?id=8XXVVQCSpVMC&pg=RA1-PA239&dq=secret+anglo+german+talks+1939+wilson&sig=lXrEqXsNEx1VI4XpZklSvcUMKx8#PRA1-PA239,M1


World War II: London and Berlin Plotted Second “Munich Agreement”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14780


All of the west's history regarding appeasement policy, munich agreement events of 1938-39 etc are all based on lies and falsehoods. We must expose their lies.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Stalin didn't really have a choice in 1939 because in the first place, Britain didn't want to form an alliance with USSR in 1939.

Britain's policy was to let Germany go eastwards and attack USSR, so Stalin from a security point of view did the right thing to secure his western frontier against a German assault.
I agree that the Hitler-Stalin pact was probably the right thing to do from the point of view of the security of the Russian nation-state. It's just that it also exposes the laughable hypocrisy of the obvious lie that the murderous old swine had any kind of anti-fascist principles whatsoever.

Strangely enough even some left wing people here in this forum is reluctant to discuss Britain's role in setting Germany against USSR.

I encourage all people to actively discuss and debate the true role of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Hitler and propagate the truth.

Let's not suppress the truth in the west anymore.
Like who? Everyone knows that Britain and the US appeased Hitler and were hostile to the USSR. If anyone is hostile to discussing it (and I'm not sure I believe this claim), it's only because there's not much point in a discussion that goes "Chamberlain appeased Hitler." "Yup, he did." "That's what happened."

Were you not around in 2002/3 during the drive to invade Iraq? You couldn't move for right-wingers bringing up Chamberlain then. Hardly suppressing the truth.

[Bankotsu]

Truth still being suppressed even as we speak, the mainstream media in the west still insists on producing rubbish history and covering up the deeds of Neville Chamberlain, very disgusting and disturbing:


The Big Question: Was Neville Chamberlain really the failure portrayed by history? Chamberlain's plan was simple – to keep Hitler from causing trouble for Britain by giving him what he wanted – in this case, the Sudetenland (which six months later became all of Czechoslovakia). He and the French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier, persuaded the Czechs not to make a fuss while a big chunk of their country was given away to one of history's vilest figures. Chamberlain had a name for his policy: appeasement. In his mind it seemed like a rational way of avoiding conflict...

The answer, really, is because of his naivety. He was naïve in thinking that Hitler would keep his promise to make no more territorial grabs – der Führer gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia a mere six months later, and then turned to Poland, and even appeasement could not stop him then. But Chamberlain made a great parade of his naïve belief in Hitler's goodwill...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-was-neville-chamberlain-really-the-failure-portrayed-by-history-1774449.htmlTrue history:




And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism...

In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia; (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...

This was nothing but the appeasement program of Chamberlain and Halifax—that concessions should be made to Germany to strengthen her on the Continent and in Eastern Europe, while Britain should remain strong enough on the sea and in the air to prevent Hitler from using war to obtain these concessions. The fear of Hitler’s using war was based not so much on a dislike of force (neither Lothian nor Halifax was a pacifist in that sense) but on the realization that if Hitler made war against Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, public opinion in France and England might force their governments to declare war in spite of their desire to yield these areas to Germany. This, of course, is what finally happened...

The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia. This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain...

All of this evidence and much more would seem to support the theory of a “Munich plot”—that is, the theory that the British government had no intention or desire to save Czechoslovakia in 1938 and was willing or even eager to see it partitioned by Hitler, and only staged the war scare of September in order to make the British people accept this abuse of honor and sacrifice of Britain’s international position. The efforts which the British government made after Munich to conceal the facts of that affair would support this interpretation...

It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was, apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html
Generally speaking, most of the public in the west have no clue whatsoever about the real agenda of Why Chamberlain appeased Hitler to go eastwards.

They don't understand that it was part of a grand strategy to bring about a war of mutual annihilation between Germany and Russia.

They are being fed lies by their media.

How long is the western media going to continue to spread lies about origins of WWII and suppress the truth?

We have to do something, organise something to force them to reveal the truth to the general public.

[OneNamedNameLess]

They are being fed lies by their media.

How long is the western media going to continue to spread lies about origins of WWII and suppress the truth?

We have to do something, organise something to force them to reveal the truth to the general public.

Yeah, ok. However most people don't go around thinking about Britain's strategy towards Germany and the USSR before WWII. The truth will be revealed in time. Think about what has been uncovered from the US plot to oust Allende from power in Chile in recent years and install Pinochet as military dictator. Everyone knows the truth and people didn't really care. That's just one example. The truth will be exposed. In fact, it has been already, it is just overlooked. It was in Britain's interests to pit Germany and the USSR against each other as they were ideologically different from herself. There is plenty we can say about Stalin and his foreign policy. He was not an innocent little lamb.

[Bankotsu]

It was in Britain's interests to pit Germany and the USSR against each other as they were ideologically different from herself.

TIME magazine quote:



In private, many Britons, like Americans, have made no bones of saying that they hoped Germany and Russia would annihilate each other, that both could go to hell.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,795497,00.html

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Truth still being suppressed even as we speak, the mainstream media in the west still insists on producing rubbish history and covering up the deeds of Neville Chamberlain, very disgusting and disturbing...

They are being fed lies by their media.

How long is the western media going to continue to spread lies about origins of WWII and suppress the truth?

We have to do something, organise something to force them to reveal the truth to the general public.


TIME magazine quote:
Doesn't the fact that TIME magazine covered that story sort of undermine your claim that the mainstream western media never ever say anything about it? Time's pretty mainstream.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Bankotsu, i'm sorry, i'm not being argumentative or anything, but where are you going with this? If we were to tell the world of Briatain's motives they would probably approve. How would most Americans respond if they were told big bad Britain planned to manoeuvre Germany and the USSR into destroying each other? Would they be truly outraged? I imagine they would support a war which annihilated the commies and Nazis. I just don't know what you are getting at here. No offense.

[Bankotsu]

Doesn't the fact that TIME magazine covered that story sort of undermine your claim that the mainstream western media never ever say anything about it? Time's pretty mainstream.

That was TIME in 1941.

But during the cold war period and continuing to the present, most mainstream press in the west usually pushes the "naive" Chamberlain story instead of laying out the agenda of directing Hitler eastwards to destroy USSR.

During 1930s, 1940s it was common of TIME to point out these british motives but during the cold war, the propaganda changed.



No sooner had the German-Russian pact been hailed as thwarting the foul design of British Tories to direct German expansion to the East than the German Army did what (in the Russian view) Tories had failed to accomplish—i.e., directed German expansion to the East.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,761966,00.html


Russia was still vulnerable, and the greatest, most imminent threat to her security was Germany. To the Kremlin, in the tense summer of 1939, it looked as if Great Britain and France were trying to sic Hitler on Russia. While Britain stalled and dragged out the treaty negotiations, meanwhile trying to appease Hitler over Poland, Russia also turned to Germany...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,777378-4,00.html Of course from time to time, you do get someone that points out the facts:




Severely weakened by the Great Depression and in no position to make military threats, Chamberlain and Daladier hoped to push Hitler's ambitions eastward.

The one unifying belief all four leaders shared was their fanatical hatred of the Soviet Union and anything remotely related to International Communism. A strong and well-armed Nazi regime in Central Europe, they believed, was a necessary buffer to Soviet power. And with their own domestic economic crises and their labor unions going communist, France and England focused their attention not on the threat of fascism but on the growing influence of the Soviet Union. (Their positions on the Spanish Civil War bear this fact out.)

France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. It didn't work out that way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/george-w-bush-and-appease_b_102039.html

[Bankotsu]

Bankotsu, i'm sorry, i'm not being argumentative or anything, but where are you going with this?

What is frustrating is that on the whole, in general, the true story is still suppressed. I mean after 70 years since these events happened, the truth is still not widely known as compared to the secret protocols in german-soviet non aggression pact.

Of course there are some british people who do admit the facts, but on the whole no:



Andrew Alexander in the Daily Mail:

A key factor in Britain and France's attitude towards Hitler was a desire to steer his ambitions eastwards and into war with Russia. In that way, it was hoped, the two perils could eliminate each other...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066952/Andrew-Alexander-Its-just-rich-risk-bank-meltdowns.html


Labour MP Tony Benn:


JOHN CLEARY: Yes, your trip to Iraq has been portrayed by those who wanted to caricature you as as foolish as Chamberlain’s to see Hitler.

TONY BENN: Yes but that’s a load of rubbish, because in the case of Chamberlain and Hitler, Chamberlain supported Hitler. I’ve got hold and have got at home the captured German Foreign Office documents reporting what Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary, said on behalf of Chamberlain to Hitler. He said, ‘I’ve come, Herr Chancellor, to congratulate you on destroying Communism in Germany and acting as a bulwark against Communism in Russia.’

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1087072.htm


Tony Benn:

The official account which we are all expected to accept is that, although Neville Chamberlain may have been a bit weak and rather slow to appreciate the full significance of the German military build-up, he was just a good and simple man of peace doing his best to avert war.

The truth is very different and this book brings it out in a way that is completely convincing, for it draws on all the sources to prove conclusively that there was a great deal of sympathy among the British establishment for what Hitler and Mussolini were doing.

Indeed the essence of the appeasement policy was to persuade Hitler to abandon any plans he might have for an attack on the Western Front and to give him a very broad hint - if not an outright assurance - that if he turned East he could have a free hand...

http://cleibovi.shawbiz.ca/chd/intrbenn.html


British prime minister Edward Health:


Mao: We are prepared for it to come, but it will collapse if it comes. It has only a handful of troops, and you Europeans are so frightened of it! Some people in the West are always trying to direct this calamity toward China. Your senior, Chamberlain, and also Daladier of France were the ones who pushed Germany eastward.

Heath: I opposed Mr. Chamberlain then.

http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/txt/w24.htm

[rednordman]

Generally speaking, most of the public in the west have no clue whatsoever about the real agenda of Why Chamberlain appeased Hitler to go eastwards.

They don't understand that it was part of a grand strategy to bring about a war of mutual annihilation between Germany and Russia.

They are being fed lies by their media.

How long is the western media going to continue to spread lies about origins of WWII and suppress the truth?

We have to do something, organise something to force them to reveal the truth to the general public.I have got to agree with this. As a kid, i was never told that Britain had no problems enticing two nations to war, that would cause suffering and deaths of millions. And to be fair neither have many other people either.

A rather big thing to be discussing in my opinion. One thing about discussing history with people from any nation: No-one likes to be told that they where in the wrong at all. The general exception being the losers, as they do not have a choice.

[Bankotsu]

A rather big thing to be discussing in my opinion. One thing about discussing history with people from any nation: No-one likes to be told that they where in the wrong at all.

Quite true. I tried to propagate the truth on Chamberlain's appeasement agenda on some english forums and was swiftly banned.

They simply won't listen to reason and insist on holding onto their falsified version of history.

They have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the false propaganda that they simply can't accept truth when it stares it at their face.

They just want to deny everything and refuse to accept facts.




OB: Did the Munich conspiracy contribute to the conclusion of the pact?

YK: I think so. Britain and France were so eager to come to terms with Hitler at the expense of other countries, and to encourage Hitler and his troops to approach the Soviet borders, that it was pointless to mark time any longer.

Stalin tried to hold military talks with Britain and France up to the summer of 1939, but they did not produce any results. It was clear that both countries were dragging out the talks in the hope of an outbreak of a Soviet-German war, which would allow them to guarantee their own security and be a happy third party...

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090824/155906602.html

[rednordman]

Quite true. I tried to propagate the truth on Chamberlain's appeasement agenda on some english forums and was swiftly banned.Now that is interesting. I have lived in the UK for most of my life, and have to say that this sort of thing is not discussed much at all. In fact if you go away from what we get taught at school, people generally look at you in disbelief, in the same way as im sure American citizens get looked at for ever questioning thier own history. Like how dare you think that anything other than that we are heroes of the world?

A good example of this is when people discuss the history of the British Empire. Sure ALOT of people on this forum will obviously point out that it was wrong, and the British are definitly responsible for atrocites, but if you actually take this out of this arena and talk about it outside, people are not so intruigued to say the least.

Alot of people actually think that it was a great thing that took alot of these nations from "primevil Backwardness" to more modern standards. Even to the point where they cannot understand why people whos families have originated from the colonies, think that it was very bad imperialism.

Not everyone thinks that of course, just there is a very varied response. BUT people here do tend to condone in some way in the end, even if they disagree with its anatomy. Nationalism for you I guess? It manifests itself in many ways.