The Stalin-Hitler pact

[Eat the Rich]

Source: marxist.com , it is kind of long but it is worth the read.





In the early hours of August 24 seventy years ago Germany and Soviet Russia signed a "non-aggression pact", which divided the states of Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet "spheres of influence", effectively slicing Poland into two halves. Ben Peck looks back at what happened and explains why such an incredible event could take place – and the price that was paid.


The Stalin-Hitler pact has gone down in history as a mark of the absolute cynicism of the bureaucracy. It was a treacherous agreement that involved the occupation and division of Poland, half to Stalinist Russia and half to Hitler’s Germany. Such a move was described by the Stalinists as “defensive”. The Pact did not prevent war between Germany and Russia, but certainly helped Hitler in his war aims. It caused confusion and demoralisation amongst honest communists around the world, who for years had been denouncing Hitler as the foremost enemy of the labour movement and a threat to world peace.
.

Unlike Stalin, who sought all kinds of diplomatic deals with the imperialist powers in accordance with the theory of ‘socialism in one country’, and cynically sacrificed the revolution in the west, for Lenin and the Bolsheviks the guiding principle was the promotion of the world socialist revolution. This was a principle based on very concrete considerations. For a backward country like Russia, encircled by the imperialist powers, the spreading of the revolution internationally was the key to its survival and development toward world socialism.


When out of necessity Lenin and Trotsky signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty in 1918 it meant a strengthening of German imperialism, allowing them to take the Ukraine. The idea of a workers state dealing with capitalist nations is not precluded by socialists – each case must be weighed and considered as to how it advances the cause of the workers on an international scale. The Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918 was forced upon the Soviet republic by Germany as its very survival was at stake. However Lenin and Trotsky saw such diplomatic manoeuvres as secondary to the only real saviour – the spreading of the revolution itself, starting with Germany.


The signing of the Stalin-Hitler pact must be seen in a different light. It marked a further break with the traditions of Bolshevism and the foreign policy of Lenin and Trotsky. As Trotsky said at the time, it was an “extra gauge with which to measure the degree of degeneration of the bureaucracy, and its contempt for the international working class, including the Comintern.”


Clearly, the rise of Fascism in Germany had had a devastating impact on the working class internationally. The mightiest and best organised labour movement in the world had allowed Fascism to triumph, as Hitler boasted, ‘without breaking a window.’ The reason for this catastrophe was the insane actions of the Stalinist Communist Parties.


By 1927 Trotsky and the Left opposition were being expelled from the Communist parties and its supporters were being hounded by the Stalinists. In face of the menace of Fascism, they raised the need for a United Front in Germany of socialist and communists. The Stalinists in Russia, having leant on the Right to defeat the Left Opposition, now proceeded to crush Bukharin and the enriched peasantry he represented. This was reflected by the ultra-left turn in the Communist International in 1928. This meant denouncing every group that was not the Communist Party as a variant of Fascism: “social-fascists”, “liberal-fascists”, and worst of all, the “Trotsky-fascists.” Such nonsense simply demoralised the workers and played into the hands of Hitler's gangs.
The utter bankruptcy of the leaders of the German CP was revealed when Hitler was made Chancellor. They dismissed it with the declaration: “first Hitler, then our turn”! The Nazis divided and paralysed the German working class, which finally led not only to the arrest and persecution of the Jews, but also the liquidation of communist and socialist parties and all independent workers’ organisations. After this disaster, which did not even cause a ripple in the Communist Parties, Trotsky realised that the Communist International was finished and could no longer be a tool that could be used to further the cause of the international working class. A new international was needed.


At this point it is questionable whether the Stalinist bureaucracy was actively seeking to sabotage the workers' movement as they later did in Spain in 1936, where it was clearly acting as a conscious and self-interested caste out to preserve its own position. The Spanish Stalinists acted on a line dictated from Moscow that demanded the sabotage of the revolution and the concentration of all effort on the civil war. The Stalinists were clear: “At present nothing matters except winning the war; without victory in the war all else is meaningless. Therefore this is not the moment to talk of pressing forward with the revolution… At this stage we are not fighting for the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are fighting for parliamentary democracy. Whoever tries to turn the civil war into a socialist revolution is playing into the hands of the fascists and is in effect, if not in intention, a traitor.”
This policy stemmed from their new policy of Popular Frontism, adopted in 1935 which represented a 180 degree turn. Rather than the United Front of worker organisations, the new Popular Front policy sought the unity of communists with socialists, liberals and “progressive”, “anti-fascist” capitalists. From mad ultra-leftism they swung to desperate opportunism. They abandoned all principles in order to ingratiate themselves with every “progressive” anti-fascist possible. It therefore meant the abandonment of any independent action of the working class - the only way to defeat Fascism.


At the level of international diplomacy Stalin sought to prove to the capitalist democracies that he was a reliable ally by selling out the Spanish revolution. In 1936 Stalin publicly announced that the USSR never had any such intentions of promoting world revolution, and that any such misconception was the result of a 'tragicomic' misunderstanding.
At this point the persecution of all opposition and political dissent inside the USSR reached fever pitch. The Purge Trials of 1936-38 drew a “river of blood” between the regimes of Lenin and Stalin. From August 1936 the world-wide Stalinist press was publishing on a daily basis resolutions from “workers meetings” speaking of the defendants as “Trotskyist terrorists” conducting their activities in league with the Gestapo!


Of the members of the Central Committee who met at the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1934, the overwhelming majority had been shot or disappeared by 1938. The Purges extended far and wide. Those shot included Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, members of the Politburo under Lenin. The Red Army was purged with leading military figures murdered such as Tukhachevsky, a military genius and hero of the Civil War. In total 90% of generals, 80% of colonels, and 35,000 officers were liquidated by Stalin. The Red Army was decapitated. This fact was well noted by Hitler, particularly after the Soviets‘disastrous campaign in Finland in 1939, which played a part in his calculation to attack Russia in 1941.


Lenin was fond of quoting the Prussian military theorist Clausewitz when he said that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” The one-sided Civil War conducted against those genuine communists who remained in the Soviet Union marked the full emergence of a conscious and self-aware bureaucracy. The possible success of the Spanish revolution would have rejuvenated the aspirations of the Russian workers and undermined the stranglehold of the bureaucracy. It was no coincidence that the Moscow Trials took place at this time. If Stalin had not moved to suppress the Russian workers in blood, he would have been removed.
War was coming. The western “democracies” were not keen on a deal with Stalin. Stalin, the pragmatist, therefore sought a deal with Hitler. This was the solution, or so he thought. After the British handed Hitler Czechoslovakia on a plate, Stalin urgently needed an agreement with Hitler – whatever the cost. Within a week, the Stalin-Hitler Pact was signed. Even the pliable leaderships of the Comintern were taken by surprise. In Britain, the general secretary of the CP, Harry Pollitt, did not jump fast enough and within a few days had fallen into disgrace and was removed on Moscow’s orders.


The pact provided the Nazis with raw materials which funded the Nazi war machine in Europe, later to be turned against the USSR itself. By 1940 Russia supplied Germany with 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100 tons of scrap iron, 500,000 tons of iron ore along with large amounts of other minerals. Soviet diplomats grovelled before the Führer in order to ingratiate themselves. In his cynical fashion, Stalin expelled each ambassador from the territories of the USSR as their countries were occupied by the Nazis armies.


In June 1941, to Stalin's complete surprise, Hitler invaded Russia, meeting little resistance on the way. Despite the obvious signs and clear warnings, the USSR was totally unprepared and suffered heavy losses. Stalin, on hearing the news, disappeared for more than a week, declaring “All that Lenin built is lost.”


Eventually regaining his nerve, resistance was organised. The Nazi attack on the USSR delighted the imperialists who hoped that the fight on the Eastern front would mutually exhaust both sides, after which they could move in and mop up. But they had miscalculated. They had not counted on the planned economy, which, despite the waste and mismanagement of the bureaucracy, managed to increase production and shoulder the burden of the war during its darkest days. The superiority of the plan, combined with the Russian masses hatred of Hitlerism, provided the Soviet Union with the invincible fire-power needed to defeat the Nazi armies, eventually throwing them back to Berlin.


The Second World War reduced itself in essence to a struggle between the USSR and Germany, with the Allies as bystanders. In 1943, Stalin wound up the Communist International as a sop to the imperialists, but they turned deaf ears to Russia's pleas for a Second Front. By 1945, the Red Army had shattered the Nazi war machine and defeated Hitler. This strengthened Stalinism for a whole period.


However, as Trotsky had warned, inherent within the ruling bureaucracy was a desire to restore capitalism in order to pass on their privileges to their offspring. It took 50 years for this prognosis to play out. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the leading bureaucrats, such as Yeltsin, embraced capitalism. The Stalinists, despite all the sacrifices of the Russian masses, had become the grave-diggers of the Russian Revolution.

[Bankotsu]

“Politicians should act in the interest of their state and their people”

August 23 marked 70 years since the singing of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union, which is more commonly known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In all likelihood, no other international treaty has evoked as many disputes and contradictory assessments. Numerous publications have been issued since then. Some historians, politicians, and representatives of the public anathematized Stalin and his entourage, whereas others tried to prove that the pact was necessary. Should Russia be ashamed of the pact? Is Russia justifiably criticized for signing it? Why was the pact signed and in what conditions? First Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs Yuly Kvitsinsky answers these questions in an interview with Oksana Buryak.

Oksana Buryak: Mr Kvitsinsky, is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a disgrace for Russia, or is it a victory of Soviet diplomacy?

Yuly Kvitsinsky: The pact was timely and essential. At the time, it was legitimate and realistic in terms of political strategy. It would be appropriate to revise the rash decisions of the Second Congress of Soviet People’s Deputies, which criticized it for being immoral and for violating international law. Both chambers of the Russian parliament should make relevant statements with more sober assessments.

By the late 1930s, especially after the Munich conspiracy, the U.S.S.R. had practically found itself in international isolation. This situation was dangerous for the U.S.S.R., all the more so since the Axis powers have started unleashing one armed conflict after another. For this reason, the pact was a brilliant step on Stalin’s part. It allowed the Soviet Union to reach many goals, and practically preordained the formation of the anti-Hitler coalition after Germany attacked the U.S.S.R. on June 22, 1944.

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.

OB: At the time when the pact was signed, was the threat to the U.S.S.R. real?

YK: The situation was threatening in the sense that Hitler’s determination to start a war against Poland was abundantly clear. Poland was not likely to receive help from the West. Hitler would approach the Soviet borders and try to extend his influence to the Baltic countries, thereby creating a powerful bridgehead for the start of hostilities against the U.S.S.R. He was not to be trusted, considering his strategic goal of destroying the Slavic Russian state, which was covered up by his statements about the need to put an end to Bolshevism. In reality, the struggle against Bolshevism was merely supposed to embellish the policy of “Drang nach Osten” and colonization of Eastern Europe.

OB: Who made the decision to sign a pact with Germany?

YK: All strategic decisions were made by the Politburo, which was the highest political authority in the Soviet Union. However, at that time Stalin was playing a very special role in the Politburo as well. He had the decisive and final say. If he had not been ready for the pact, it would have not been signed.

OB: Many Western historians believe that Stalin was not interested in ensuring Soviet security in cooperation with Britain and France, that Soviet rapprochement with Germany was prompted by the desire to expand its own sphere of influence, and that the U.S.S.R. is as responsible as Germany for unleashing World War II. Could you comment on these statements?

YK: From the viewpoint of international law, the pact did not add much to the Soviet Union’s relations with Germany. It had the 1926 Treaty of Neutrality and Non-Aggression, which remained in force. The pact was a political statement that neither Germany not the U.S.S.R. was going to enter into war against the other at that time. I have already spoken about the Munich Agreement and the impression it produced in Moscow. This agreement spotlighted Poland’s very dangerous role. Poland took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia...

OB: Do you mean the Tesin Region?

YK: Yes, the Tesin Region. Moreover, Polish intelligence documents bear out that in the event of war between Germany and Russia, Poland was supposed to become a natural ally of the German army, and cooperate with Germany in eliminating the Soviet state, which ostensibly fully corresponded to its national interests.

It is enough to visit museums in Minsk to see that the defenses that the U.S.S.R. was building on its western border in the 1930s were not aimed at Germany. They were built to guard against Poland, which was a source of a permanent military threat to us, and was involved in intrigues which jeopardized our security interests.

We are being told that we should have protected Poland and concerned ourselves with its security, but such accusations do not sound serious. Poland did not want to receive our aid. Poland reported to its allies that if the U.S.S.R. supported Czechoslovakia against Germany in 1938, it would be ready to move its army against us.

What happened to Poland is tragic because the interests of its people were trampled underfoot, but that was retribution for the actions of its foolish and opportunistic government at the time. It lost Poland’s sovereignty and Poland’s destiny. Stalin and other Soviet leaders believed that the elimination of a direct military threat near the Soviet border by a proxy was a very smart move, which could only be praised.

OB: Why did the U.S.S.R. bring its troops into eastern Poland on September 17, 1939?

YK: This operation pursued two objectives – to push the frontiers back before the start of an inevitable war, and to gain time. The secret protocol to the pact does not say that we occupy these territories. It says that this is a sphere of our interest. Warsaw was captured by the Germans. The Polish government fled to the south, and was no longer in control of anything. Without resorting to any armed actions, Soviet troops marched into Poland, but only into those territories – Western Belarus and Western Ukraine – which Poland had seized during the war with Russia under the 1921 Riga Treaty against the decisions of the entente. I’m referring to the Curzon Line [a demarcation line that determined Poland’s eastern border by decision of the Entente’s Supreme Council at the Paris Peace Conference in December 1919. The Curzon Line left almost all the lands with the predominant Polish population in the West, whereas non-Poles, that is, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Lithuanians, in the East. However, Poland ignored the Entente’s recommendations and attacked the U.S.S.R. The resultant 1921 Riga Peace Treaty gave Poland the territory with Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Lithuanian population, which had previously been part of the Russian Empire – Ed.]. Talking about injustice is not very appropriate. Later on, we even made some alterations to this border together with the Germans under the Boundary and Friendship Treaty of September 28, 1939. We withdrew from the strictly Polish regions which had fallen in into our sphere of influence, and exchanged them for Lithuania, in particular, Vilnius. We believed that we should ensure the security and territorial integrity of Lithuania, a traditional part of the Russian Empire, with which we had signed a Treaty of Military Union, and to meet the national aspirations of Lithuanians.

OB: This was followed by the incorporation of the Baltic countries.

YK: Judging by the available documents, we entered the Baltic countries because we could not be certain of their governments’ friendly attitude. We knew about the German plans to introduce troops to Latvia and Lithuania. They had to be thwarted by some pre-emptive step, which was manifest in the conclusion of the treaties on military cooperation with these countries, followed by their incorporation into the U.S.S.R. [After Hitler’s attack on Poland on September 1, 1939, Moscow proposed to the Baltic governments to sign mutual assistance pacts. On September 28, the U.S.S.R. signed such a pact with Estonia. It provided for the establishment of Soviet military bases and deployment of 25,000 troops on its territory. On October 5, a similar pact was signed with Latvia, and a 25,000-strong contingent was brought to its territory. A treaty on the transfer to the Lithuanian Republic of the city of Vilno (Vilnius) and the Vilno Region and on mutual assistance between the USSR and Lithuania was signed on October 10. It envisaged the introduction of 20,000 Soviet troops into Lithuania. Invigoration of pro-Nazi elements in the Baltic governments by mid-June 1940 created the threat of Hitler’s invasion. On June 14, the USSR sent an ultimatum to Lithuania, and on June 16 to Latvia and Estonia, demanding that they should install Soviet-friendly governments, and allow additional troop contingents on their territories. The terms were accepted. A month later, pro-communist forces won the elections in all three countries. The newly elected governments proclaimed the formation the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics, and adopted a declaration on joining the U.S.S.R. On August 3-6, 1940, the Baltic republics were accepted into the U.S.S.R. – Ed.]

OB: Let’s return to our time. Could you comment on the resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly which equated Stalinism with Nazism?

YK: Those who allege that the U.S.S.R. is to blame for the outbreak of World War II on a par with Nazi Germany do not have a clear conscience. Initially, the Nazi-occupied Europe did not offer any resistance to Germany. Its industry was working for the German army. Germany attacked us not only with its 152 divisions but also with 29 Romanian and Finnish ones.

The U.S.S.R. was the only force that could rout Nazism. A lightning defeat of France and Britain in 1940 bore this out. We routed Nazism, and for this reason equating us with Hitler’s Germany is simply ludicrous. If it had not been for the Eastern Front, where we destroyed hundreds of Nazi divisions at the price of huge losses, no American or British army would have dared enter Europe. They would have been smashed by the German army in a matter of weeks. If it had not been for the U.S.S.R. and its army, Europe could have had all the prerequisites for becoming a German colony, a Germanized SS association of states. This conformed to the Reich’s plans. In 1944, Germany started talking that protection of united Europe against communism by concerted effort of the European nations who would join SS legions was the supreme obligation of the “fighters for freedom.”

OB: Do you think grievances against the U.S.S.R. for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact could be addressed to modern Russia?

YK: These grievances have been voiced for a long time - since August 23, 1939, when Britain and France were hugely disappointed by this pact. It signified a total failure of their policy of urging Hitler to attack the U.S.S.R. Winston Churchill called it a huge diplomatic blunder, and he was absolutely right. He said with good reason that Stalin simply did not have another choice. Any Western politician would have done the same.

OB: Now some Russian human rights activists insist on condemning the pact, and apologizing to its victims. Should this be done?

YK: Those who say so should apologize to our war veterans and our country for such political stunts, or simply stupidity. We have nothing to apologize for. Any war is judged by the results it produced. The outcome of that war was in our favor. That war made us into a great world power. That war created a situation where not one single cannon was fired without Russia’s consent, as they said after the war against Napoleon. Lamenting what might have been done wrong and what could have been better is just foolish.

OB: So, we should not get defensive when the pact is discussed, should we?

YK: By no means. Politicians should act in the interests of their state and their people. Otherwise they would be committing a crime.

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

[Die Rote Fahne]

good stuff

[The Bear]

let the tendency war begin...

[The Idler]

Socialism or Your Money Back mentions (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/08/birds-of-feather-russo-german-bombshell.html);


One feature of the situation which has received less attention than it deserves is the trade agreement which preceded the German-Russian Pact. The Manchester Guardian's Moscow Correspondent (August 22nd) states that the trade agreement, under which Germany advances Russia a trade credit of £16,000,000, was delayed because Russia insisted on being supplied by Germany with "equipment of a strictly military nature " in return for Russian exports to Germany.

[Woland]

What an insanely idiotic, disgusting, and slanderous article.

For what supposed to be an historical analysis of the Non-Aggression Treaty, it's so completely lacking in history, that the person who wrote it had to squeeze in completely irrelevant pieces about Trotsky, the purges, ''bureaucracy'' and ''Stalinism'' practically in every sentence. Clearly not written for people who like to think critically, or even think at all- just accept the 'facts' and numbers and whine about ''Stalinism'' one more time.


It was a treacherous agreement that involved the occupation and division of Poland, half to Stalinist Russia and half to Hitler’s Germany.

The regions ''occupied'' by USSR was that of western Ukraine and Belarus, lost in the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-21.


Tukhachevsky, a military genius and hero of the Civil War.


-You are an anti-semite, then, I said to him. Why? -- The Jews brought us Christianity. That's reason enough to hate them. But then they are a low race. I don't even speak of the dangers they create in my country. You cannot understand that, you French, for you equality is a dogma. The Jew is a dog, son of a dog, which spreads his fleas in every land. It is he who has done the most to inoculate us with the plague of civilization, and who would like to give us his morality also, the morality of money, of capital. -- You are now a socialist, then? -- A socialist? Not at all! What a need you have for classifying! Besides the great socialists are Jews and socialist doctrine is a branch of universal Christianity. ... No, I detest socialists, Jews and Christians.

I won't comment on the whole 'military genius' thing- it's beyond ridiculous.
-

In total 90% of generals, 80% of colonels, and 35,000 officers were liquidated by Stalin[...]


1. In 1937 for political reasons (arrested, removed from VKP(b)) — 15 578, or 85% of all officers dismissed in 1937.

2. In 1938, for the same reasons — 8612, or 52% of all officers dismissed in 1938, i.e. almost twice as less as in 1937.

To compare the complete number of people dismissed in 1936-1937, 24 335 officers, with the number dismissed in 1938-1939, 18 240, then we get that, in the first two years (1936-1937), 8,6% of all officers were dismissed, and in 1938-1939 — 3,9% of all officers.[...]

In the total number of officers dismissed in 1936-1937 and in 1938-1939, there was a large number of officers who were arrested and dismissed unfairly. The People's Commissariat of Defense, the Central Committee of the VKP(b) and c. Stalin all received a large number of complaints from the dismissed officers. In August 1938, I established a commission to handle these complaints, which carefully examined the materials given for the dismissals, through talks with the officers, sending agents of the commission, questioning of the party organizations and individual Communists and the commanders who knew the dismissed through the organs of the NKVD, etc.

The commission reviewed about 30 thousand complaints, petitions and statements. As a result, the total amount of officers who returned was:[graph]

From the dismissed in 1937: 4661
From the dismissed in 1938: 6333
From the dismissed in 1939: 184

Total: 11178

[...]

This way, the actual losses from the Army Command are as follows:

1. In 1936-37 - 19 674 people; or 6,9% of all officers [...]

2. In 1938-39 - 11 723 people; or 2,3% of of all officers [...], i.e. almost three times as less as in 1936-37.

As a result of this work, the army has been largely cleared of spies, conspirators, foreigners lacking political trust, alcoholics and idlers, and the unfairly dismissed returned to the army.

April 1940

E. Shchadenko, Chief of the Office for commanders and supervisors of the RKKA.

That is about 30,000 officers in total, who were dismissed in 1936-39, for all reasons, including alcoholism, death, disability, and illness.

Source is the Russian State Military Archive, translation by me.
-

The Red Army was decapitated[...]


The commanding structure of the army currently has 206 thousand officers

On june 15, 1941, the number of officers in the RKKA was 439.000, not counting the Air Force, the Fleet, and NKVD.
-

This fact was well noted by Hitler[...]


The conference of the Reichsleiters and Gauleiters followed.... The Führer recalled the case of Tukhachevskii and expressed the opinion that we were entirely wrong then in believing that Stalin would ruin the Red Army by the way he handled it. The opposite was true: Stalin got rid of all opposition in the Red Army and thereby brought an end to defeatism.


When -- I believe it was in 1937 or 1938 -- the great show trials took place in Moscow, and the former czarist military cadet, later Bolshevik general, Tukhachevskii, and other generals were executed, all of us in Europe, including us in the [Nazi] Party and in the SS, were of the opinion that here the Bolshevik system and Stalin had committed one of their greatest mistakes. In making this judgment of the situation we greatly deceived ourselves. We can truthfully and confidently state that. I believe that Russia would never have lasted through these two years of war -- and she is now in the third year of war -- if she had retained the former czarist generals.
-

The pact provided the Nazis with raw materials which funded the Nazi war machine in Europe, later to be turned against the USSR itself. By 1940 Russia supplied Germany with 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100 tons of scrap iron, 500,000 tons of iron ore along with large amounts of other minerals.

Just a small note (completely countering this statement would take a whole new post):


Ritter said that he would only talk of the major issues. He is interested in the supply of iron and iron ore, associated with large supplies to the Soviet Union of equipment that contains a lot of metals. Initially, the German side has requested 4 million tons of iron ore and 0.5 million tons of scrap. Then it turned out that the amount of metal that will be required will be much greater than envisaged earlier, due to the large amount of orders. The Soviets gave us 3 million tons of iron ore containing 38.42% iron. This iron content does not satisfy the German side.

Ritter asked for half million ton of iron ore with 50% iron. In addition, 200 tons of pig iron and 200 tons of scrap. He argues that the supplied iron and pig iron will be returned to the Soviet Union as manufactured goods.

c. Stalin replied that the Soviet side could not meet the requirements of the Germans, because our steel industry does not have the technology to enrich the ore and that the Soviet industry consumes all the iron ore with high iron content. A year later, the Soviet side, perhaps, will be able to deliver iron ore with high iron content, but in 1940 this feature is not available. The German side has good technology for iron ore enrichment and can consume iron ore containing 18% Iron

This is how the Germans found out that they were tricked by Stalin.
-


In June 1941, to Stalin's complete surprise

On June 14, 1941 the Red Army General Staff ordered, and on June 18, Zhukov repeated the orders to bring into combat readiness the navy and the first groups of troops stationed on the border- but in Belarus, for example, this order was not obeyed.


Stalin, on hearing the news, disappeared for more than a week, declaring “All that Lenin built is lost.”

This story mainly comes from Khruschev, and as always, it's a complete lie. Interestingly enough, Khruschev never even met Stalin during that time, and in his memoirs says that it was Beria who told him this story. Which is a lie aswell, since Beria would never have said this.


They say that in the first week of the war Stalin was supposedly so confused that he could not even speak on the radio and instructed his speech to Molotov. This statement is untrue. Of course, in the early hours Stalin was confused. But he soon went back to normal and worked with great energy, however, also showing unnecessary anxiety, which often took us out of working conditions.

This is somewhat funny, since at that time Zhukov and Stalin were arguing bitterly and throwing insults back and forth, until Zhukov actually started crying(!) and left his office, after which he demanded that Stalin get out of his office to let him study the maps and battle plans (as recalled by both Molotov and Mikoyan).


In Stalin's office are Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, Malenkov ...

- A surprising calmness, firmness, confidence, in Stalin and all the others.

- Editing a government statement which will be said by Molotov on the radio.

- Give orders to the army and navy.

- meetings for mobilization and military situation.

- Preparing an underground space for the CC of VKP(b) and the General Staff


I asked about June 22, 1941: ''Was Stalin confused? They say he didn't see anyone?'' - ''Lies! We both had been there.... That night we met with Stalin, and Molotov met Schulenburg. Stalin gave each of us a task - to me, transport, to Mikoyan - supply.''

I could also quote lenghy statistics from the notebooks of Stalin's secretaries, which show with exactly whom Stalin met that whole week, but it would take hours to translate.

[Random Precision]

Wow. Again? This is getting as bad as the "Was Stalin always evil?" threads.

Just a couple of quick points. First, I think the case for the Soviet leadership making a non-aggression pact with Germany is pretty solid regardless of what I personally think of Stalin, Molotov etc., since it's pretty obvious that Britain and France wanted things both ways.

But, there are things that just don't make sense if this was just a non-aggression pact. For example, why were a bunch of German Communists handed over to the Nazis as a goodwill gesture*? And, why did Pravda and the rest of the Soviet press simply forget that Germany was an aggressive, imperialist power, practically suspend all criticism or even public mention of the Nazis, and paint the Allies as the sole aggressors in the new war?

I think asking questions like this get to the nature of the pact much better than endless, cyclical debates involving Stalin and Hitler being in evil collusion, or the reverse, a virtuous Stalin with his back up against a wall trying to buy time for his country at all costs. :rolleyes:

* Although, given the fate of most German and other communist exiles in the USSR, perhaps giving them to the Nazis actually did them a favor.

[Prairie Fire]

So, a member of an organization that is literally a part of the social-democratic party in my country (in some parts of Canada, the line between "Fightback" and the NDY organization is practically indistinguishable), is going to repeat bourgeois disinformation about the Second world War. :rolleyes:

As the saying goes, "birds of a feather flock together".

Okay, let's dissect this:

Eat the Rich

In the early hours of August 24 seventy years ago Germany and Soviet Russia signed a "non-aggression pact", which divided the states of Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet "spheres of influence", effectively slicing Poland into two halves.

A common lie,but a lie none the less.

In response to that, here is an excerpt from Shunpiking Magazine, featuring a reprint of the pamphlet "Causes and Lessons of the Second world War" by Hardial Bains (My emphasis added):




...There were no secret "deals" between Hitler and the Soviet Union on any question, especially not in relation to Poland. What there was, was the non- aggression pact, signed between Germany and the Soviet Union, on August 23, 1939, which stipulated that Germany would not attack the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union would not attack Germany. Its text read as follows:

"The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, guided by the desire to strengthen the cause of peace between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and taking as a basis the fundamental regulations of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926, between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, have reached the following agreement:

"Article 1. The two Contracting Parties bind themselves to refrain from any act of force, any aggressive action and any attack on one another, both singly and also jointly with other Powers.

"Article 2. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties becoming the object of warlike action on the part of a third Power, the other Contracting Party shall in no manner support this third Power.

"Article 3. The Governments of the two Contracting Parties shall in future remain continuously in touch with one another, by way of consultation, in order to inform one another on questions touching their joint interests.

"Article 4. Neither of the two Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers which is directly or indirectly against the other Party.

"Article 5. In the event of disputes or disagreements between the Contracting Parties on questions of this or that kind, both parties would clarify these disputes or disagreements exclusively by means of friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, by arbitration committees.

"Article 6. The present Agreement shall be concluded for a period of ten years on the understanding that, insofar as one of the Contracting Parties does not give notice of termination one year before the end of this period, the period of validity of this Agreement shall automatically be regarded as prolonged for a further period of five years.

"Article 7. The present Agreement shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement takes effect immediately after it has been signed."

http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-HB-causesofWW2.htm

Not only was there no mention of "dividing of countries into spheres", but in fact the first two articles of the agreement are on the basis of no aggression against a third party(Poland, etc.).

One could argue that this was just a paper declaration, that it didn't reflect the actual intentions of the signatories (and in the case of the Third Reich, it didn't,).

However, in order to make that argument, you would first need to abandon your current non-argument, that this pact cemented the division of Europe.Unfortunately the text of the agreement not only doesn't confirm that assertion, but it openly contradicts it.



The Stalin-Hitler pact


The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact . "Stalin-Hitler" is an invention of sensationalists who have something to gain from equating the two.



The Stalin-Hitler pact has gone down in history as a mark of the absolute cynicism of the bureaucracy.


Aside from silly Trotskyist buzz-words (Oh no! The bureacracy! Flee the village!), let us analyze this.

The "Cynicism", they say.

So, this action was cynical, perhaps a lack of faith in the working class of the European countries, or perhaps opportunistic advancing of the Soviet Agenda to take over Europe (even though we kind of debunked that thesis allready).

Either way, the actions of Soviet Union here are seen as being non-essential.

This is a continuation of the long Trotskyist tradition of wishful thinking taking the front-seat over analysis of actual material conditions.

So first of all, in order to understand the non-aggression pact, there are factors that need to be taken into consideration.

1. Before the non-aggression pact, the USSR had been putting the bulk of their diplomacy into forming a United Front with Britain, Poland and other states against German fascism.

(My emphasis added)

... The Soviet Government, however, did not want to miss a single opportunity to reach agreement with other powers for joint counteraction to Hitler aggression. Without the least delay it presented to the British Government its counter-proposal, which was: first, that the Soviet Union, Britain and France should mutually undertake to render one another every immediate assistance, including military, in the event of aggression against any one of them; secondly, that the Soviet Union, Britain and France should undertake to render every assistance, including military, to the states of Eastern Europe situated between the Baltic and the Black Sea and bordering on the Soviet Union in the event of aggression against these states; thirdly, that the Soviet Union, Britain and France should undertake to determine without delay the extent and forms of military assistance to be rendered to each of these states in both the above-mentioned cases.

Those were the most important points of the Soviet proposal. It will be easily seen that there was a fundamental difference between the Soviet and the British proposals, inasmuch as the Soviet proposal provided for really effective measures for joint counteraction to aggression.

For three weeks no reply to that proposal came from the British Government. This caused growing anxiety in Britain, owing to which the British Government felt constrained in the end to resort to a manoeuvre in order to deceive public opinion.

On May 8, the British reply, or, to be more exact, the British counter-proposals, were received in Moscow. It was again proposed that the Soviet Government should make a unilateral declaration in which it "would undertake that in the event of Great Britain and France being involved in hostilities in fulfilment of these obligations" (to Belgium, Poland, Rumania, Greece and Turkey) "the assistance of the Soviet Government would be immediately available if desired and be afforded in such manner and on such terms as might be agreed."

Once again the Soviet Union was expected to assume unilateral obligations. It was to commit itself to render assistance to Britain and France, while they assumed no obligations whatever toward the Soviet Union with regard to the Baltic Republics. Britain was thus proposing to put the U.S.S.R. in a position of inequality -- a position unacceptable to and incompatible with the dignity of any independent state.

It was easy to see that the British proposal was really addressed not so much to Moscow as to Berlin. The Germans were being invited to attack the Soviet Union, and were given to understand that Britain and France would remain neutral if only the Germans attacked through the Baltic States.

On May 11, the negotiations between the Soviet Union, Britain and France were still further complicated by a statement made by the Polish Ambassador in Moscow, Grzybowski, to the effect that "Poland does not regard it possible to conclude a pact of mutual assistance with the U.S.S.R...."

It goes without saying that a statement of this kind could only have been made by the Polish representative with the knowledge and approval of the ruling circles of Britain and France.





In answer to the British inquiry, the Soviet Government suggested that a conference be called of representatives of the most interested states -- namely, Great Britain, France, Rumania, Poland, Turkey and the Soviet Union. In the opinion of the Soviet Government such a conference would offer the best opportunity to ascertain the real state of affairs and determine the position of each of the participants. The British Government, however, replied that it considered the Soviet proposal premature.

Instead of a conference, which would have made it possible to come to agreement on concrete measures to combat aggression, the British Government, on March 21, 1939, proposed that it and the Soviet Government, as well as France and Poland, should sign a declaration in which the signatory government would obligate themselves to "consult together as to what steps should be taken to offer joint resistance" in case of a threat to "the independence of any European state." In arguing that this proposal was acceptable, the British Ambassador laid particular emphasis on the point that the declaration was couched in very non-committal terms.

It was quite obvious that such a declaration could not serve as an effective means of averting the impending threat of aggression. Believing, however, that even so unpromising a declaration might constitute at least some step toward curbing the aggressor, the Soviet Government accepted the British proposal. But already on April 1, 1939, the British Ambassador in Moscow intimated that Britain considered the question of a joint declaration as having lapsed.

After two more weeks of procrastination of the British Foreign Secretary, Halifax, through the Ambassador in Moscow, made another proposal to the Soviet Government: namely, that it should issue a statement declaring that "in the event of an act of aggression against any European neighbour of the Soviet Union, who would offer resistance, the assistance of the Soviet Government could be counted upon if desired."

The underlying meaning of this proposal was that in the event of an act of aggression on the part of Germany against Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or Finland, the Soviet Union would be obliged to render them assistance, without any commitment on the part of Britain to come to their aid. In other words, the Soviet Union was to go to war with Germany singlehanded. As to Poland and Rumania, whom Britain had given guarantees, the Soviet Union was to render assistance to them too against an aggressor. But even in their case Britain refused to assume any joint obligation with the Soviet Union, leaving herself a free hand and a field for any manoeuvre, not to mention the fact that, according to this proposal, Poland and Rumania, as well as the Baltic States, were to assume no obligations whatever toward the U.S.S.R.

http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-Non-agres-USSR-ger.htm




As far as the Polish government of the day is concerned, in 1938-39, it was an imperialist government, of the semi-fascist type.

It considered Britain and France to be its allies, and the Soviet Union its avowed enemy. It refused the Soviet request to make transport routes running across Polish territory available to the Red Army, to become a forward line of defence from which crushing blows could have been unleashed against the aggressor.

Hardial Bains, Causes and Lessons of the Second World War

Britain refused to commit to such a pact, and Poland refused to allow any Soviet troops to pass through their territory in the event of a German attack.

Any attempts at forming a United front against fascism failed.


2. The US, Britain and France (the other major powers of the time) all signed non-aggression treaties with the third Reich first (in addition to the heavy investment and re-armament of Germany by these powers).

(My emphasis added)

... The fact remains that, at Munich, Britain and France signed a four-power pact with Hitler Germany and fascist Italy, as part of their policy of diverting Hitler eastward, against the Soviet Union. The betrayal of Czechoslovakia on the part of Britain and France can only be considered as payment in advance for the attack which they hoped Hitler would make on the Soviet Union.


The Americans pursued a policy of deliberate and systematic rebuilding of Germany, both economically and militarily, and attempted to destroy the socialist Soviet Union.

A massive propaganda campaign was unleashed against the "red menace" and, during the period 1918 to 1920 some 14 imperialist countries sent their armies against Soviet Russia, which were defeated by the Red Army.

Evidence emerged in the 1930's that the governments of Britain, France, the U.S., Germany and others were planning another joint invasion of the Soviet Union for 1930, with the German army playing a major role. The stock market crash of 1929, however, put those plans on hold.

Even after the rise to power of Hitler, the U.S. continued to finance Germany's economic and military reconstruction. In Nazi Germany, the U.S. saw its pistol to terrorize and dominate all of Europe and destroy the socialist Soviet Union. U.S. financial and military support for Nazi Germany continued right up to the entrance of the U.S. into the war. The evidence also proves that the British government, faced with the choice of building up fascism against socialism at the risk of their own destruction, or of making a military alliance with the U.S.S.R., which would strengthen both Britain and the U.S.S.R., chose the former course. This is the course the British and French pursued until it became evident that Hitler had no intentions of sparing them either, in his aim to conquer the world. British loans to rebuild Germany were not unsubstantial, and the Federation of British Industries was negotiating a commercial agreement with the Reichsgruppe Industrie in Dusseldorf, even after the invasion of Czechoslovakia.


Hardial Bains,Causes and lessons of the second world war

(American investment in Nazi Germany):
http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-CH-ammoney2nazi.htm

* * * * * * * * *
Both of these measures isolated the USSR (that was the point). While even the smallest states (such as Poland) had alliances of mutual defense in place with the major powers, should they be invaded by Germany, the USSR had no such mutual defense pacts, and their attempts to forge them were rejected.

Now the USSR was isolated, and Hitlers armies were moving eastward.

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_sub/mapNaziExpansion-sm.jpg


With the annexation of Austria and Czechoslavakia in 1938-1939, it was not difficult to see Hitlers intentions to Move east (which were allready stated clearly in Mein Kampf, a book that he wrote in 1923).

With no chance at a mutual-assistance pact or a United Opposition to the third Reich, the USSR made concessions, if only to buy time. At no time was mutual assistance or military aggression against other states discussed or agreed upon with the Nazis.

This non-aggression pact was actually not unprecendented in Soviet history, as it echoed the earlier Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany.

Brest-Litovsk, in this case, becomes an excellent example of the fundamental difference between the baseless idealism of Trotsky and the level-headed materialism of Lenin and Stalin:

(In regards to the earlier treaty of Brest-Litovsk, My emphasis added)


"The German High Command knew that the Russian Army was demoralized, and that the new Soviet government would have to accept German terms of peace.

The Soviet proposal for an armistice was quickly agreed to by the Germans, and signed at Brest-Litovsk on December 2. Negotiations for peace began in earnest on December 9. Trotsky then headed the Soviet delegation. He had come to make fullest use of revolutionary propaganda, and he fervently believed that revolution was imminent in Germany and elsewhere. At times he dominated the conference. His country in chaos, its Army mutinous and demoralized, and its new government desperately clinging to power, he was negotiating from a position of weakness against professional diplomats backed by a strong and victorious Army.

Trotsky's furious sallies made no impression on his German opponents. They knew the weakness of his position. Suddenly, on January 18, they produced a map of eastern Europe, showing the new frontiers, which deprived Russia of extensive territories. The ultimatum enraged Trotsky. He swore that he would break off negotiations. Then, having received a telegram, signed 'Lenin-Stalin,' instructing him to return to Petrograd for discussions, he agreed to an adjournment until January 29.
...

...Leaving Brest-Litovsk on January 6, Trotsky reached Petrograd. He now worked out his peace formula of 'no peace no war.' He would announce the end of the war and the demobilization of the Russian Army, while refusing to sign a treaty of peace. He was confident that the Germans would be unable to renew their offensive, because their troops would refuse to obey orders, and there would be revolution inside Germany. The formula would inspire the proletarians of Europe. He clung to the idea that revolution was imminent in Germany, Austria, and elsewhere.

In Petrograd, Trotsky argued forcefully for his new approach. Lenin was unconvinced. Stalin stated bluntly that there was no evidence of immediate revolution in western Europe and that Trotsky's formula was not a policy. After heated debate in the Central Committee, the decision emerged that Trotsky should prolong the negotiations and, when faced with a showdown, apply his no-peace-no-war formula.

The German delegation returned to Brest-Litovsk, determined to force an early peace. Their intention was first to sign a separate peace with the Ukrainian Rada, which would presumably compel Trotsky to come to terms. When the conference resumed on January 28 (1918), Trotsky vehemently rejected the separate Ukrainian peace. Again the Germans were unimpressed. With special ceremony on February 9, 1918, the treaty was signed by the Ukrainian representatives in Brest-Litovsk...

The conference was nearing a crisis. Trotsky decided to make his announcement. On February 10 he delivered a scathing indictment of imperialism. The delegates, having heard it several times already, took it to be a face-saving preliminary to the acceptance of the German terms. Then he proclaimed his formula: 'We are removing our armies and our peoples from the war... but we feel ourselves compelled to refuse to sign they peace treaty.' He followed this statement with stirring appeals to the working masses of all countries to follow the example of Russia.

The German and other delegations sat in silence, as Trotsky withdrew from the conference room. They were staggered by the preposterous declaration. On the same evening Trotsky returned to Petrograd with his delegation. He was delighted with his performance, and confident that the Germans would not dare to renew their offensive. To his colleagues he reported that he had won a diplomacy victory. Lenin, however, was far from persuaded. Six days later his fears proved well founded. The German government declared that the armistice would end on February 18, and on that day the German Army began advancing on a broad front.

In Petrograd the Central Committee frantically debated what to do. Lenin made it clear from the start that peace negotiations must be renewed without delay. The no-peace-no-war formula had not only failed but had endangered the Soviet government and the Revolution. Trotsky stubbornly argued that they should wait on the German proletariat, who were surely on the point of revolution. Lenin finally won a bare majority of support from the Committee.

A message was sent in the early hours of February 19, 1918, that under protest the Council of People's Kommissars accepted the German terms. The German reply came four days later. As Lenin had feared, the new peace terms were far harsher. The Central Committee reacted with fury. Bukharin shouted hysterically that they must fight, must wage a holy, revolutionary war to the last man, and most of those present echoed his demands.

Lenin remained calm in the midst of this emotional outburst. When he spoke, he repeated the hard facts of their predicament. He demanded that the peace treaty be signed, and he added the dire threat that 'if this is not done I resign from the government!' The significance of his threat was hardly noticed, as the members continued their debate. Finally Lenin's demands were approved. Bukharin voted against them. Trotsky, unable to accept that his negotiations had failed or to realize the gravity of the situation, abstained. Stalin supported Lenin...

After stormy meetings the Petrograd Soviet and the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets voted to accept the German peace conditions in order to save the Revolution...."

(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp 106-109.)

In this case, as with the contemporary Trotskyist critiques of the actions of the USSR in the beggining of the second world war,Trotsky's idealism and wishful thinking took precedent over sober analysis of actual conditions, and lead to blunders that almost brought the death of the USSR.

This line that Trotsky held(without foundation), that Germany was on the verge of revolution and the German army would surely disobey any order from their own officers, were beliefs that he carried over into his critiques of the second world war as well:



"Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . . The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold. . . . The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit."

-1940, Leon Trotsky, "On the Future of Hitler's Armies"
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40)
(NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 113.

While it certainly would have been nice if the German armies of both world wars had turned on their officers and become revolutionary armies dedicated to emancipating the working class of all the world, this is not what happened in the time period of both of these negotiations,and the visions of German revolution that danced in Trotskys head (at the time of these negotiations,) don't seem to be based on anything except wishful thinking.

From this standpoint of sanctimoniously "revolutionary" wishful thinking, Trotsky bungled the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and criticized the initial non-aggression pact between the third reich and the USSR.

It is from this un-founded idealism that the contemporary students of Leon Trotsky refer to the non-aggression pact as "cynical", and therefore deny the historical context or the pressing threat to socialism in the Soviet union.

Eat the Rich

It was a treacherous agreement that involved the occupation and division of Poland, half to Stalinist Russia and half to Hitler’s Germany.

No such text was in the agreement, and I challenge you to produce otherwise.



Such a move was described by the Stalinists as “defensive”.


When? Where?
Source?



The Pact did not prevent war between Germany and Russia, but certainly helped Hitler in his war aims.


How so?

This is pure bourgeois narrative, actually blaming the USSR for giving the Third Reich a free-hand in Europe.

On the contrary, it was the so-called "appeasment", the Munich agreement, massive influx of American capital and the constant knudging of the imperialist powers that set the stage for the Hitlerite conquest of Europe.

Czechoslavakia, Austria and Ethiopia all fell to fascism beneath the careful watch of the imperialist powers, at a time when every call for collective-action and mutual assistance raised by the USSR was opposed, stalled and rejected by the diplomats of these same imperialist nations.

To blame the USSR for the fall of europe is vulgar falsification of history and apologism for the deliberate actions of Britain,France, the US and their proxies.

What the pact did do was provide the USSR with two years to industrialize, prepare their armed forces for war, move their industrial base into the interior, etc. The German march across Europe was a foregone conclusion at this point, thanks to the diplomatic sabotage of Soviet efforts to offer opposition, so the only choice left to the USSR was to to brace for the impact of the inevitible.


It caused confusion and demoralisation amongst honest communists around the world, who for years had been denouncing Hitler as the foremost enemy of the labour movement and a threat to world peace.

Even during the time of the non-aggression pact, the Comintern of the the USSR didn't budge from it's condemnations of the Third Reich.

At no point did the USSR spread any illusions aboth the third reich.

Eat the Rich

Unlike Stalin, who sought all kinds of diplomatic deals with the imperialist powers in accordance with the theory of ‘socialism in one country’,

Not in accordance with "Socialism in one country", but in accordance with reality.

From the moment that Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 (with the implicit permission of Britain and France, via the Strasser agreement), the USSR began to push for measures to contain, confront and undermine imperialist aggression (especially on the part of rising fascist states).

The USSR pushed for a strong definition of "aggression" by the League of Nations, to include:

a.) Declaration of war
b.)Invasion by armed forces
c.)Naval attacks
4.)Naval blockade
5.) Support for Armed bands within a territory

In 1935, the USSR called for condemnation of Italian aggression in Ethiopia, imposed sanctions on Italy(despite the negative effects on their own economy), and criticized the mild sanctions against Italy by the rest of the league.

The other "Cynical" diplomatic deals with the imperialist countries involved trying to prevent/delay any impending invasions on the USSR, and especially trying to prevent the formation of an anti-Soviet Coalition of powers.

To this end, they signed non-aggression pacts with most of their neighbouring states (not just Germany) , but these pacts were usually undermined by the actions of the imperialist powers (ie. the Anglo-German naval agreement).

We've allready talked about the attempts by the USSR to form a United front against German fascism, as we have also talked about the necesity of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement to building the defenses of the USSR.

The "Prolier-than thou" attitude of the Trot who is criticizing Stalin here is ahistorical, completely divorced from the material conditions of the time (which, incidently, are important to Marxists) and generously rationalized with visions of revolutions that never materialized.

In this sense, Stalin is a callous opportunist for making deals with the imperialists... and so is Lenin (for Brest-Litovsk).:rolleyes:

If Stalin was acting in the interests of "Socialism in one country", than Trotsky was acting in the interests of socialism in no countries, because part of a revolution is defending said revolution from encroaching hands.

Eat the Rich


and cynically sacrificed the revolution in the west,


I love criticisms that imply wrong-doing, but make no actual reference to specific events.

By "the West", what country are we talking about here?

Finland? Hungary? Those revolutions were crushed by Whites and external imperialists in 1918 and 1919 respectively.

Germany? I know that this was Trotskys wet dream, his El Dorado on the horizon that never quite took off.

Following the end of the first world war, yes, there was a short lived revolution in Germany, that was succesful and defeated at various points (ultimately defeated, 1919).

What exactly were the Soviets supposed to do for Germany during this time? They were still fighting the aftermath of their own revolution.

If you are saying that the Soviets should have supported German workers and communists during the time of Hitler, when the communist party and workers organizations were outlawed, and the communist party rounded up and murdered, again what do you expect the Soviets to do? March across Europe through hostile territories to liberate their comrades?

By the West, perhaps you mean the USA? The USSR and the comintern did support a revolution in the US as much as they could (materially was not an option, as the USSR was still industrializing).

Britain? France? Trade Union strikes (while potentially explosive) are not the same thing as revolutions.

The fact of the matter is that the USSR couldn't create revolutions were there were none. Capitalism developes at different paces in different countries, and hence so did the revolution.

In areas where there was a revolution in progress, however, the USSR did provide support to the best of their ablities:

"In total (the) USSR provided Spain with 806 planes, 362 tanks, and 1,555 artillery pieces"
Academy of Sciences of the USSR, International Solidarity with the Spanish Republic, 1936-1939 (Moscow: Progress, 1974), 329-30

It becomes a kind of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation for the USSR, because the same Trots who criticize the Soviets for "not doing anything" to aid revolutions (which were not in progress), are the same Trots who criticize the USSR for every border that they crossed.

So, by criticizing the soviets for interfering, while simultaneously criticizing them for not interefering, what you mean to say is " I have an irrational hatred of Stalin".

Eat the Rich


for Lenin and the Bolsheviks the guiding principle was the promotion of the world socialist revolution.


Ignore the historical fact that "socialism in one country" saw the greatest proliferation of world revolution, especially succesful ones.

Eat the Rich


This was a principle based on very concrete considerations.


But Trotsky's idealist clown-tactics were not (see above).

Eat the Rich

For a backward country like Russia, encircled by the imperialist powers, the spreading of the revolution internationally was the key to its survival and development toward world socialism.


And that is exactly what happened (just not with Trotsky at the helm, therefore the spread of revolution is somehow invalid).

Eat the rich

When out of necessity Lenin and Trotsky signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty in 1918

We allready talked about this. Trotsky was too deep in never-never land to approach the situation logically, and he was opposed to signing the treaty at every turn.

The author aknowledges that this treaty was necesary, but denies the necesity of Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Don't try and follow their logic, because there is none.

Eat the Rich


it meant a strengthening of German imperialism, allowing them to take the Ukraine.


Again, it wasn't anything that the Germans wouldn't have taken anyways. The point of the Peace treaty was to preserve the new workers state in the USSR.

May I also remind you that the Ukrainian Rada signed a seperate peace with the Germans first.

Eat the rich

The idea of a workers state dealing with capitalist nations is not precluded by socialists – each case must be weighed and considered as to how it advances the cause of the workers on an international scale.

Too bad that the authors affinity for the dominant historical narrative is preventing him from doing this in regard to Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Eat the rich


The Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918 was forced upon the Soviet republic by Germany as its very survival was at stake.


There was a point in the history of the USSR where it's survival wasn't at stake?

And apparently 1939, with the Wermacht rolling over Eastern Europe, was that point?

Eat the Rich

However Lenin and Trotsky saw such diplomatic manoeuvres as secondary to the only real saviour – the spreading of the revolution itself, starting with Germany.


(Note: For the remainder of this post, the historical figure of Leon Trotsky will be refered to as "Peter Pan", in reference to his complete divorce from the realities of the time)

Nooooo....

Peter pan was waiting for a revolution to come in Germany (with no material evidence that such a revolution was on the horizon).

In contrast, Lenin was trying to preserve the workers state that they had just fought and shed blood for in Russia, and was becoming increasingly frusterated with Pan's theatrics and bungling of the diplomatic process with the Germans.

Eat the Rich

The signing of the Stalin-Hitler pact must be seen in a different light. It marked a further break with the traditions of Bolshevism and the foreign policy of Lenin and Trotsky.

Erm, how so?

I have allready pointed out at least one example of how Lenin and Pan were often at odds with each other in terms of political tactics, specifically in relation to the handling of the Brest-Litovsk, so first of all it is historically incorrect to refer the "foreign policy of Lenin and Trotsky", as the two were not in concurrance with one another.

The policies of Lenin and Stalin, on the other hand, were more frequesntly in line with one another, specifically on the Brest-Litovsk issue.

Now, more importantly, the issue with this bold statement becomes what were the practical differences between Brest-Litovsk and Molotov-Ribbentrob?

In terms of the advancing military threat to the socialist state, both of these agreements were contextually the same.

The author makes bold statements, as Trots do, without follow up.

Eat the rich

As Trotsky said at the time, it was an “extra gauge with which to measure the degree of degeneration of the bureaucracy, and its contempt for the international working class, including the Comintern.”

Yes, how contemptuous of the international working class, to protect the lone bastion (aside from Mongolia) of workers power in the world.

Again, a non-aggression pact seems to be deliberately confused with a military or economic alliance.

Eat the Rich


Clearly, the rise of Fascism in Germany had had a devastating impact on the working class internationally. The mightiest and best organised labour movement in the world had allowed Fascism to triumph, as Hitler boasted, ‘without breaking a window.’ The reason for this catastrophe was the insane actions of the Stalinist Communist Parties.


Unsurprisingly, the bourgeois ideologue blames the socialists, wether or not history confirms this thesis.

As I've exhaustively pointed out allready, the USSR manouvered feverishly to stop the third reich, but was diplomatically blocked by the great imperialist powers and their client states at every turn.

As for the communists in Germany itself, the historical failure of the German communists can no-more be attributed to the USSR, than the success of the Albanian communists can.

The Comintern could only provide a guide to action, and the USSR could only provide so many guns and bullets. In the end, the political leadership of each communist party had to stand on their own two feet, evaluate the situation scientifically, and proceed on the basis of this analysis.

Also, to say that fascism triumphed "without breaking a window" is pure bullshit.

For the German fascists to rise, several "windows" needed to be broken, including all of the German communist movement being rounded up, imprisoned, exiled and murdered. In essence, the political leadership of the German working class had to be destroyed first,in order to immobilize them for what was to come.

After the vanguard lay in shambles, the other organizations of workers power could be smashed with impunity:

"The most significant change of all, is the change that has come over the organization of German industry, whereby trade unions have been abolished as being in antagonism to employers, and brought into one organization, and all parts having a share in government of industry."
Diary of MacKenzie King (Prime minister of Canada),June 28, 1937

Anyways, the point that the author is trying to make here is a historical falsification, blaming the USSR and their fraternal parties (which manouvered to deal with fascism from the very beggining) for the fascist states that the imperialist powers armed, financed, made deals with and encouraged to go east.

It is not the fault of so-called "stalinist parties" that fascism arose in Germany. The so-called "Stalinists" of any country didn't provide the fascists with a single gun,bullet or Deutsche Mark, nor did they sign any agreements with them until the international situation made any other option impossible.

To blame the communist parties of the time for the rise of fascism is to absolve the bourgeoisie of Germany and of the imperialist countries of their role in creating and nourishing this monster, as well as to deny the USSR it's role in putting it to death.

Eat the Rich

In face of the menace of Fascism, they raised the need for a United Front in Germany of socialist and communists.

Which is the current strategy of Fightback, is it not?:lol:

Eat the Rich

The Stalinists in Russia, having leant on the Right to defeat the Left Opposition, now proceeded to crush Bukharin and the enriched peasantry he represented.

So here we have "communists" in favour of "enriched peasants". By enriched peasants, you mean Kulaks, I presume? You mean the agricultural petty-bourgeoisie?

And yes, it certainly would be right-wing to oppose Buhkarin, who advocated the NEP indefinately. :rolleyes:

Eat the Rich


This was reflected by the ultra-left turn in the Communist International in 1928.


In the sentence before this, the author refers to the "stalinists" as "right", but now refers to their Comintern as"Ultra-left".

Make up your mind.:lol:

This is the Trotskyist paradox: Stalin and those who uphold his line are whatever you want them to be, even having contradictory qualities simultaneously.

Also, opposing second-international trash is not "ultra-left". If that is the case, than Lenin and all of the Bolshevik party were also "Ultra-left", for splitting with the Mensheviks.

Anyways,to blame the Comintern for the German communists not joining with the Social-dems ignores the fact that the Social dems didn't want to join with the German communists either. You can't join forces with those who won't join forces with you.

I suppose that I am also Ultra-left, as are all of the others in the Canadian left (including most Canadian Trotskyists) who call your organization a joke for becoming an appendage of the NDP.

Eat the rich

This meant denouncing every group that was not the Communist Party as a variant of Fascism: “social-fascists”, “liberal-fascists”, and worst of all, the “Trotsky-fascists.” Such nonsense simply demoralised the workers and played into the hands of Hitler's gangs.


In the case of some Trotskyist organizations( POUM), there is clear evidence that they had ties to German intelligence. Maybe "Trotsky-fascist" wasn't that far off of the mark.

Also, liberals in many counties, even to the present day, have aided and encouraged the growth of fascist organizations, and many liberal capitalist states now are moving towards fascism in many aspects.

I think it is kind of amusing to assume that workers as a whole become "demoralized" and would stray from socialism at the drop of a hat, and I would be interested to know how, exactly, this aided "hitlers gangs" (The SA?).

Eat the rich

The utter bankruptcy of the leaders of the German CP was revealed when Hitler was made Chancellor. They dismissed it with the declaration: “first Hitler, then our turn”! The Nazis divided and paralysed the German working class, which finally led not only to the arrest and persecution of the Jews, but also the liquidation of communist and socialist parties and all independent workers’ organisations.

Yes....

Eat the Rich

After this disaster, which did not even cause a ripple in the Communist Parties,

I suppose that the internationalist brigades in Spain and all of the various Soviet measures towards countering Germany that I mentioned above are not worthy of mentioning as "ripples".


Trotsky realised that the Communist International was finished and could no longer be a tool that could be used to further the cause of the international working class. A new international was needed.

Coincidently, under the leadership of Trotsky :lol:.

Eat the Rich


At this point it is questionable whether the Stalinist bureaucracy was actively seeking to sabotage the workers' movement as they later did in Spain in 1936, where it was clearly acting as a conscious and self-interested caste out to preserve its own position.



Acting as the greatest source of material aid and war materials to the Spanish republicans, at a time when they were still industrializing and building their own country, certainly was only in their own self-interests.:rolleyes:

A Trotskyist accusing others of sabotaging the workers movement is a case of the pot and the kettle, anyways.

Eat the rich

The Spanish Stalinists acted on a line dictated from Moscow that demanded the sabotage of the revolution and the concentration of all effort on the civil war.

Aside from the irony of who sabotaged the revolution, this sentence is kind of strange.

They see the revolution as seperate from the civil war?

This is that Troskyist idealism taking precedent over reality that I keep talking about. It is also the reason that Spanish Trotskyists and anarchists, for the most part, were thumped in that conflict. They were too busy trying to build a social-revolution in the middle of a war.

Now, one could argue that during the second world war to defend the USSR, the Soviets didn't pay enough attention to revolutionary transformation, and this is true.

However, when the bullets are flying past your head, the top priority is to pick up a gun and fire back. Anyone who argues otherwise is a hopeless idealist, ridiculously divorced from reality.

Eat the Rich

The Stalinists were clear: “At present nothing matters except winning the war; without victory in the war all else is meaningless. Therefore this is not the moment to talk of pressing forward with the revolution… At this stage we are not fighting for the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are fighting for parliamentary democracy. Whoever tries to turn the civil war into a socialist revolution is playing into the hands of the fascists and is in effect, if not in intention, a traitor.”


I'd like to see a source for this quote, but even if it is genuine, they are not wrong that ultimately winning the armed struggle was paramount.

After the Spanish fascists and the threat of encroaching fascism was defeated, the Spanish bourgeois democracy could be dealt with. In the meantime, the revolution would mean nothing if it was crushed by Franco and his allies in Germany and Italy.

Again, sanctimonious idealism doesn't trump empirical reality.

Eat the Rich


This policy stemmed from their new policy of Popular Frontism, adopted in 1935 which represented a 180 degree turn. Rather than the United Front of worker organisations, the new Popular Front policy sought the unity of communists with socialists, liberals and “progressive”, “anti-fascist” capitalists.


This was never a "new" policy. It had always been the policy of Leninism to mobilize the broadest strata of forces (under the leadership of the working class and the party, of course).

What the author fails to mention is that the Popular front was not intended for countries that were not facing an encroaching threat of fascism.

Different situations call for different tactics.

Eat the Rich


From mad ultra-leftism they swung to desperate opportunism.
They abandoned all principles in order to ingratiate themselves with every “progressive” anti-fascist possible. It therefore meant the abandonment of any independent action of the working class - the only way to defeat Fascism.


As I said, the issue when the bullets start flying is to pick up the gun and fire back.

After the fascist threat was defeated, the revolution could finally come into being. Until the fascist threat was defeated though, the revolution could not be safe or secure.

To defeat the fascists, it would be foolish to wage the struggle seperately from the bougeois democrats for no reason aside from revolutionary street cred.

Eat the Rich


At the level of international diplomacy Stalin sought to prove to the capitalist democracies that he was a reliable ally by selling out the Spanish revolution.


Bold statement without explanation.

Eat the Rich


In 1936 Stalin publicly announced that the USSR never had any such intentions of promoting world revolution, and that any such misconception was the result of a 'tragicomic' misunderstanding.



I've read the actual quotation. It had more to do with non-interference in the affairs of soveriegn countries than the denouncing or abandonment of revolutionary forces in said countries.

Besides, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Soviet "stalinists" in providing aid and encouraging revolution in Spain, in China, Albania,Yugoslavia, Korea, China, Vietnam,and Eastern Europe, is a reality that stands in contrast to any statement by Stalin or others.

Eat the Rich

At this point the persecution of all opposition and political dissent inside the USSR reached fever pitch. The Purge Trials of 1936-38 drew a “river of blood” between the regimes of Lenin and Stalin.

Vivid use of language, but the author has not provided a specific reference to a historical incident, or elaborated on this assertion.

Eat the Rich

From August 1936 the world-wide Stalinist press was publishing on a daily basis resolutions from “workers meetings” speaking of the defendants as “Trotskyist terrorists” conducting their activities in league with the Gestapo!

Well, considering Trosky's coup aspirations, it isn't that far from the truth to call his adhaerants "terrorists" if they advocated the overthrow of the party CC by any means necessary (including individual action):

(My emphasis added)

"Shortly before they left for Russia, Trotsky's emissaries, Konon Berman-Yurin and Fritz David, were summoned to special conferences with Trotsky himself. The meetings took place in Copenhagen toward the end of November 1932. Konon Berman-Yurin later stated:

'I had two meetings with him [Trotsky]. First of all he began to sound me on my work in the past. Then Trotsky passed to Soviet affairs. Trotsky said: 'The principal question is the question of Stalin. Stalin must be physically destroyed.' He said that other methods of struggle were now ineffective. He said that for this purpose people were needed who would dare anything, who would agree to sacrifice themselves for this, as he expressed it, historic task. . . .

In the evening we continued our conversation. I asked him how individual terrorism could be reconciled with Marxism. To this Trotsky replied: problems cannot be treated in a dogmatic way. He said that a situation had arisen in the Soviet Union which Marx could not have foreseen. Trotsky also said that in addition to Stalin it was necessary to assassinate Kaganovich and Voroshilov. . . .

During the conversation he nervously paced up and down the room and spoke of Stalin with exceptional hatred. . . . He said that the terrorist act should, if possible, be timed to take place at a plenum or at the congress of the Comintern, so that the shot at Stalin would ring out in a large assembly.'"

(Kahn, A. E., and M. Sayers. The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1946., pp. 248-49.)

Eat the Rich

Of the members of the Central Committee who met at the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1934, the overwhelming majority had been shot or disappeared by 1938. The Purges extended far and wide.

As my Comrade Ismail points out here, the allegation that the "old bolsheviks" were hit the hardest is not historically true:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1525033&postcount=22


Eat the Rich

Those shot included Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, members of the Politburo under Lenin.

Seniority counts for little, when the policies of these "comrades" comes to light.

Kamenev and Zinoviev voted against the uprising in Petrograd in the first place, and squealed about it to the bourgeois press on the eve of the impending revolution.

Buhkarin,as I said, was for extending the NEP indefinately (ie. capitalism).

Eat the Rich

The Red Army was purged with leading military figures murdered such as Tukhachevsky, a military genius and hero of the Civil War. In total 90% of generals, 80% of colonels, and 35,000 officers were liquidated by Stalin.

I would like to see a source for this allegation, but considering the extent to which Trotsky incorporated white army officers into the red army during the civil war (many of which became openly treasonous in combat,), there was more than enough cause I think for this.

Also, consider the role of Soviet officers in the rise of Kruschev and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

Military officers and Commanders have been known to be a problem in many countries during the 20th century, especially those who don't follow orders from the civilian authority. Even the USA had a few problem generals.

Eat the Rich


The Red Army was decapitated. This fact was well noted by Hitler, particularly after the Soviets‘disastrous campaign in Finland in 1939, which played a part in his calculation to attack Russia in 1941.


Such is one of the realities of creating a socialist armed forces, and a socialist state in general. The old bourgeois power structure can't be left intact.

Eat the Rich


Lenin was fond of quoting the Prussian military theorist Clausewitz when he said that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”
The one-sided Civil War conducted against those genuine communists who remained in the Soviet Union marked the full emergence of a conscious and self-aware bureaucracy.


Of course the purges were a continuation of politics. They were a continuation of class war, of the consolidation of the party and political power itself into the hands of the working class.

As for the "Bureacracy" jab, I'm not going to deny that at a point a bureacracy did emerge within the CPSU, but to blame "the bureacracy" for the change in property relations in the USSR is class vague. The "bureacracy", during the Kruschev era, represented exploiter elements that had made their way into the party. In essence, the bourgeoisie.

This was a manifestation of the class struggle within the party, and the purges were a part of that struggle as well.

Also, while "bureacracy" is a mainstay of the over-all rationalization of Trotskyism , no Trotskyist organization has ever presented a practical program of combatting bureacracy to this day.

Eat the Rich


The possible success of the Spanish revolution would have rejuvenated the aspirations of the Russian workers and undermined the stranglehold of the bureaucracy.


The author of this piece must have inherited Trosky's crystal ball. :lol:

Like Pan himself, this clairvoyant seems to have the ability to gaze into the future and see revolutions on the distant horizon, even when there are no signs of a revolution in the material realities of the present.

Again, this is that idealism that I keep talking about.

Eat the Rich


If Stalin had not moved to suppress the Russian workers in blood, he would have been removed.



He may have been removed, but not by the working class.

Also, who are these "workers" that Stalin suppressed? Of course, the author shouldn't feel like he has to elaborate on his hack positions.

Eat the Rich

War was coming. The western “democracies” were not keen on a deal with Stalin.

At least the author recognizes this much. Thank Hoxha for small favours.

Eat the Rich


Stalin, the pragmatist, therefore sought a deal with Hitler.


A deal that would guarantee the safety of the USSR a little while longer, while preparations were made.

Stalin had no illusions that the third Reich honoured their promises, nor any other illusions about the fascist enemy:

(My emphasis added)

"In the pact of August 23rd, 1939, they [the Soviet government] secured: (a) a breathing space of immunity from attack; (b) German assistance in mitigating Japanese pressure in the Far East; (c) German agreement to the establishment of an advanced bastion beyond the existing Soviet frontiers in Eastern Europe; it was significant that this bastion was, and could only be, a line of defence against potential German attack, the eventual prospect of which was never far absent from Soviet reckonings. But what most of all was achieved by the pact was the assurance that, if the USSR had eventually to fight Hitler, the western powers would already be involved"
(E.H. Carr, From Munich to Moscow: II, in Soviet Studies, Vol I, October 1949, p.103).

Eat the Rich


This was the solution, or so he thought.


WRONG.


"Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not ignore these ominous developments. There is no doubt that any war, however small, started by the aggressors in any remote corner of the world constitutes a danger to the peace-loving countries. All the more serious then is the danger arising from the new imperialist war, which has already drawn into its orbit over 500 million people in Asia, Africa and Europe. In view of this, while our country is unswervingly pursuing a policy of maintaining peace, it is at the same time working very seriously to increase the preparedness of our Red Army and our Red Navy."
J.V. Stalin, report to the 18th congress of the CPSU(B) on the work of the central comittee,March 1939.

Eat the Rich

After the British handed Hitler Czechoslovakia on a plate, Stalin urgently needed an agreement with Hitler – whatever the cost. Within a week, the Stalin-Hitler Pact was signed.

The author makes it sound as though the USSR was desperate for allies.

As I have said, it was time that the USSR was depsperate for.

Eat the Rich

The pact provided the Nazis with raw materials which funded the Nazi war machine in Europe, later to be turned against the USSR itself. By 1940 Russia supplied Germany with 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100 tons of scrap iron, 500,000 tons of iron ore along with large amounts of other minerals. Soviet diplomats grovelled before the Führer in order to ingratiate themselves. In his cynical fashion, Stalin expelled each ambassador from the territories of the USSR as their countries were occupied by the Nazis armies.

Again, I would love to see a source for any of these allegations, but if they are true it is not scandalous in the least.

I said that the Soviets needed to buy time. In real terms, perhaps this literally meant buying time, with tribute.

Certainly words on paper were not enough to stall the fascist beast. Perhaps this was the only way to delay an invasion.

I say "perhaps", because I have yet to see a reference for these allegations though.

Eat the Rich


In June 1941, to Stalin's complete surprise, Hitler invaded Russia, meeting little resistance on the way.


Again, this is a lie.

This is another manifestation of the Trotskyist Paradox, where Stalin is simultaneously both Cunning and an idiot, depending on what they need him to be in each particular argument.

I have allready pointed out that in March of 1939, before the pact was signed with Germany, Stalin was allready aware of the possibility of a German invasion, and preparing for it, at the time of the 18th congress.

Yet, somehow, in 1941, two years later, Stalin was completely dumbfounded by the German invasion?

In 1939, the Soviets were well aware of German intentions, but only two years later they had completely forgotten and were caught with their pants down?

Don't waste my time.

Eat the Rich


Despite the obvious signs and clear warnings, the USSR was totally unprepared and suffered heavy losses.


For once the Trotskyist pays attention to actual material conditions and indicators of impending storm.

So, again, the USSR was prepared for invasion in 1939, but unprepared only two years later?

Just because they lost battles, doesn't mean that they wern't prepared.

Eat the Rich:

Stalin, on hearing the news, disappeared for more than a week, declaring “All that Lenin built is lost.”

"Dissapeared"? Perhaps it is possible that he went to work, no?

As political leader of the USSR, I would think that when your country is under attack, that would be "go time" as far as policy direction is concerned. Also, is it uncommon to move leadership to undisclosed locations in times of military threat?

As for the "all that Lenin built is lost," quote, while I've given up on any hopes of this author presenting sources or a bibliography, I would like to point out the conspicuous lack of both of those things(notice that my reply is full of my sources,).

Eat the Rich

Eventually regaining his nerve, resistance was organised. The Nazi attack on the USSR delighted the imperialists who hoped that the fight on the Eastern front would mutually exhaust both sides, after which they could move in and mop up. But they had miscalculated. They had not counted on the planned economy, which, despite the waste and mismanagement of the bureaucracy, managed to increase production and shoulder the burden of the war during its darkest days. The superiority of the plan, combined with the Russian masses hatred of Hitlerism, provided the Soviet Union with the invincible fire-power needed to defeat the Nazi armies, eventually throwing them back to Berlin.



As with much Trotskyist analysis, they spew bourgeois falsifications in paragraphs, and then at the end of the paper insert the obligatory lip-service to Marxism.

The above paragraph, while it is generally correct, is an example of that obligatory lip service and obligatory recognition of history (after ignoring it for the entire length of the paper up until this point) that Trots are forced to make in order to keep up appearances.

Anyways, at least they recognize this much.

Eat the Rich


The Second World War reduced itself in essence to a struggle between the USSR and Germany, with the Allies as bystanders. In 1943, Stalin wound up the Communist International as a sop to the imperialists, but they turned deaf ears to Russia's pleas for a Second Front. By 1945, the Red Army had shattered the Nazi war machine and defeated Hitler. This strengthened Stalinism for a whole period.


So, after giving the usual run-down about how Stalin was making "alliances" with Nazis, Poland was being divided, Stalin was making conciliations to imperialist countries and selling out workers and raping your mother, blah blah blah...

All of the sudden, at the end of the paper this Trot wraps things up by suddenly recognizing the material conditions behind the actions of the USSR?

All of the sudden, in this paragraph and the one before it, This Trot recognizes that:

- The USSR was ignored in it's diplomatic pleas by the advanced imperialist powers

- The Imperialist powers were hoping to use the third reich against the Soviet union

-The Red army fought a war of self-defense, rather than a war to "divide up Europe"

So this Trot recognizes the material conditions of the times, and yet still comes to the conclusion that the Soviet leadership were naive, were conciliating without principle, were scheming to divide up europe, and where trying to be in league with the imperialists or the fascists?

Somewhere between the dominant (bourgeois) narrative of events, and the historical realities of how events actually played out, there is contradiction. Unfortunately, Trots never seem to see it, and when they analyze events, the whole thing comes out as a self-defeating jumbled mess, this article being a case in point.

Eat the Rich


However, as Trotsky had warned, inherent within the ruling bureaucracy was a desire to restore capitalism in order to pass on their privileges to their offspring. It took 50 years for this prognosis to play out. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the leading bureaucrats, such as Yeltsin, embraced capitalism.


True, but this is the same bureacracy that Stalin had been trying to combat, especially in those purges that Trots find so distasteful.

It was this same bureacratic tendency that revolutionaries of various countries encountered and tried to combat. The difference between them and Pan, is that these revolutionaries actually proposed programs and concrete steps to combat bureacracy.

To Trotskyists, on the other hand, "Bureacracy" is a quick explanation for why socialist states that they dislike are wrong/failed.

Don't expect a Trotskyist to present a program to combat bureacracy (other than vague "We need to give power to the workers themselves" sentiments), or expect them to actually analyze how it is possible to have a centrally planned economy without organization and organizers of some sort.

Also, the USSR didn't start going back to capitalism in 1991. It started going back to capitalism in the late fifties:

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

The Trotskyist in-ability to discern a clear difference in terms of economic organization, social organization and political lines and policies between the USSR pre-Kruschev and post-Kruchev is what leads to statements like this one:

Eat the Rich


The Stalinists, despite all the sacrifices of the Russian masses, had become the grave-diggers of the Russian Revolution.


So, in this analysis, the "Stalinists" were (somehow) responsible for bringing down socialism in the USSR (Perhaps the author is refering to the actions of die-hard "Stalinists" like Nikita Kruschev, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin :rolleyes:).

Ignore the fact that central planning and a socialist economic model were kept intact (and expanded) during the period when Stalin was general secretary of the Soviet Union.

Ignore various social experiments towards collective ownership (ie. the free bread offered at one point in the USSR) during this time period also.

Ignore practical programs at combatting bureacracy.

Ignore a completely different military policy in the USSR at this time.

Ignore a completely different aid policy towards other countries.

Ignore the absence of later anti-Marxist theories that sprung up in the USSR ("peaceful coexistance with capitalism", "party of the whole people", etc)

Above all else, ignore the proliferation of succesful revolutions around the world during this time period as well. Stalin was for "socialism in one country", and that's that. Ignore that "socialism in one country" does not mean that socialism does not ever expand outside of the borders of that country, or aid other countries aiming to achieve socialism.

Ignore all of this. All Soviet Premiers and bureaucrats post-Stalin, from Kruschev to Yeltsin (and Putin as well, I presume :rolleyes:) were Stalinists, despite no similarities in their political, social or economic policies.

"I said that they are Stalinists, and that will be the end of it. No more discussion, and empirical reality be damned!"

Whatever.

Anyways, I took the time (many hours) to sit down,do the research, and counter this, because unfortunately it is a common allegation not restricted to Trotskyist use.

This idea that Stalin and Hitler were allies (or, at least, equals in terms of goals and actions) is very widespread, depsite being historically inaccurate on every level.

It is bourgeois falsification of history, with the denial of tangible socialist models as it's goal. By denying that the USSR circa 1924-1954 was genuinely socialist, the capitalists deny that socialism is attainable, let alone succesful and triumphant.

Meanwhile, the super-revolutionaries of "Fightback" latch onto the social-democratic NDP like a leech latches onto a swimmers leg, and spead illusions that a thoroughly bourgeois party (invented as the CCF, to disorient the workers at the time of the Canadian Communist Party's greatest proliferation) is actually a workers party, and it can be changed by a handful of rouges within it ( A fightback member in Edmonton even refered to the NDP as a "mass movement" at one point).

So here we have "red" social-democrats, shunned even by most other Canadian Trotskists, and an appendage of the NDP scabs, that are accusing other historical figures of selling out the revolution and the working class.:lol:

I don't know how to end this, but like so many of my posts, it's dark outside by the time I'm finished. I' m tired and I need a cigarette.

I guess I'll sign off by saying of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that if you don't want to believe the words of an evil Stalinist (me), then believe the words of the bourgeois narrative that you are so sympathetic to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

-Prairie Fire

[LeninKobaMao]

That was one epic post Prarie Fire.

[Bankotsu]

All of the history that is presented in the west about the diplomacy taken by Britain and France towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s, appeasement policy etc is all based on falsehoods.

What you learn in history textbooks in school, what you see on television documentaries, what you read in the newspapers, all of it is untrue.

The truth was that Britain had undertaken a strategy back in 1936 to forge an alliance with Hitler's Germany to counter Bolshevism in europe. They wanted to make peace with Hitler in the west and to direct German aggression eastwards to destroy communism in the Soviet Union.

If you don't learn this fact of history, then you understand nothing at all about political and diplomatic history of the 1930s.

This is a fact.

So are there sources that we can turn to; to learn the facts of history without the western falsehoods?

Yes there are.

Learn true history by reading below sources:

History of political, diplomatic events in europe in 1930s:

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/06.html#16
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050616080438/agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1948_falsifiers_of_history.php

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html#SECTION001210000000000000000

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Time-Chamberlain-Hitler-Collusion/dp/0853459991
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Appease.html
http://cleibovi.shawbiz.ca/chd/index.html


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7149
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Spy-Chief-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304367184

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=AobnW_ouxn0C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=lord+lothian+germany+bolshevik&source=bl&ots=5wwZH3SmbG&sig=BQr77gKJvjQTV7N87Vp0Didk1Ns&hl=en&ei=JBJsSpi8NIaOtAOg7KyXBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=lord%20lothian%20germany%20bolshevik&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA88&dq=Burnett+Bolloten+our+task+is+to+win#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA168&dq=Burnett+Bolloten+stalin+undoubtedly+saw#v=onepa ge&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA650&dq=Burnett+Bolloten+if+britain+and+france+refraine d#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Some may ask: Isn't that old communist propaganda designed to smear the west?

Yes. Communists and USSR did try to sell this as propaganda to present a negative view of the west.

But the propaganda is true.

The story, the narrative that they are selling is not false propaganda but truthful propaganda.

It's the truth.

[The Idler]

I agree the proper term is the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and that factual assertions about Stalin should be considered unproven until sources are given. And that the pact is sometimes used by capitalist imperialists with an axe to grind.

However Prarie Fire is regurgitating some of what was said in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1411345&postcount=21) to which I responded to here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1411833&postcount=42). However, this time, avoiding mentioning the joint victory parade between the Red Army and the Wermacht (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-nazi-joint-t106190/index.html) held at Brest, Poland on September 23, 1939. Discussing the Allies is a smokescreen to make the Soviet's look more antifascist than their actions would suggest.
Blaming Trotsky for the occupation of Poland (for not providing a good alternative) is a bit rich. You can disagree with occupying Poland and not be a Trot you know.

Lest we forget who the communists turned their guns on in the Barcelona May Days. Here's a clue, it wasn't the fascists.

As for Bankotsu's confident assertions what you read in the newspapers is all untrue, reminds me of Hoxhaists response to the joint victory parade that it never happened, the Katyn massacre was perpertrated by the Nazis, then that the parade was POWs or Russian Nazis.

There's a teleological argument that Stalin was an anti-imperialist so occupying half of Europe couldn't possibly be imperialist (provided the definition and characteristics of imperialism are applied differently).

[Woland]

the joint victory parade between the Red Army and the Wermacht (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-nazi-joint-t106190/index.html) held at Brest, Poland on September 23, 1939.

From that thread:


Simultaneously, some words must be said about the event so loved by the present exposers of totalitarianism, the notorious “joint Soviet-German parade” in Brest, which took place on September 22, 1939. The background of this event (by the way, in spite of all the myths, this was the only event of such kind) was such: In the course of military actions on September 14, the city, and on September 17 the Brest fortress, were occupied by the 19th motorized group of the Wehrmacht, under the command of General Guderian. However, according to the Soviet-German agreements, this city had to go to the USSR. Thus, there had to be a ceremony of its transfer into Soviet hands. Guderian actually wanted to conduct a complete joint parade; however, he then agreed to the procedure proposed by the commander of the 29th tank brigade, S. M. Krivoshein: “At 16 hours, parts of your corps, in a marching column, with the standards in front, leave the city, my corps, also in the marching column, enter the city, stop on the streets where German regiments are passing, and with their banners salute the passing regiments. Orchestras perform military marches”. As we see, actually this was not a joint parade, but a solemn withdrawal of German troops.

[Pogue]

I don't see what is so suprising about the Stalin-Hitler pact. Its not as though Stalin was particularly principled, like most bourgeois dictators. This is similar to when US patriots find out that the US government funded the TalIban. (Hey cannot understabd or believe it so try to deny or justify it, but they can't, as they do not realise bourgeosie states such as the USA and the USSR do not act on principle or ideology but on ruthless swlf-interest. Hence Stalin (an anti-semite himself) would see no problem siding with Nazism/Hitler because it served the interests of the ruling class of the USSR.

[rednordman]

I don't see what is so suprising about the Stalin-Hitler pact. Its not as though Stalin was particularly principled, like most bourgeois dictators. This is similar to when US patriots find out that the US government funded the TalIban. (Hey cannot understabd or believe it so try to deny or justify it, but they can't, as they do not realise bourgeosie states such as the USA and the USSR do not act on principle or ideology but on ruthless swlf-interest. Hence Stalin (an anti-semite himself) would see no problem siding with Nazism/Hitler because it served the interests of the ruling class of the USSR.Good point there, but was that really the case? Stalin as i see it didnt trust anyone. Why would he have made honest pacts with the nazis to appease his lackeys that where probably only opportunists anyhow. He would have picked up on this early on surely...But on the other hand, if he really did trust hitler, He must have been extremely naive and short sighted. This is why I think that this pact was a strictly strategic one.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

So the moral of the story is you can cut a deal with a jew-murderuing homosexual-hunting maniac if you get a piece of the pie and he promises not to fuck with you.

Got it.

History is long, and fuck this topic.


(and while we're at it, fuck lenin/trotsky/stalin/che. Writing was developed in Sumeria 5,000 years ago. Let's talk about something else between now and then once in a while.)

[The Author]

Agreed. We had this same exact topic I believe just a month ago and I'm fucking sick of it. We could be talking about social structure in ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom, or how Mayan Civilization collapsed, or the effects of the Black Death of 1348 on economic relationships between kingdoms and feudal estates, how matriarchal societies became patriarchal, etc. Instead it's "Stalinism," "Worker's Control," Kronstadt, Spain 1936, another point of view of the October Revolution, and so on. We've done these topics a million times and nothing is accomplished except a rehash of the same old sectarian shit.

At least this time, we got a very nicely detailed response from Prairie Fire who dissected point by point the OP with a lot of detailed information and the opportunity to finally get some information from the Russian Archives themselves thanks to the efforts of Woland- information sorely needed for a long time, especially for English-speaking users such as myself who do not have the privilege of visiting the archives of the former USSR, let alone knowing the Russian language without use of an Internet web translator. Maybe people will take the time to read their posts and stop starting a new thread on "The Pact." God only knows when we'll this same thread yet again next month. (...)

[chimx]

This has been discussed before, and documents are available now that "absolve" Stalin. See this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-documents-emerge-t92643/index.html?t=92643

Stalin was committed to moving troops to stop Hitler, but France and England would not jump on board, probably out of fear that the Soviets were vying for control of Poland as suggested by Invader Zim in the above thread.

[Bankotsu]

Stalin was committed to moving troops to stop Hitler, but France and England would not jump on board, probably out of fear that the Soviets were vying for control of Poland as suggested by Invader Zim in the above thread.

No. That is incorrect. Both France and USSR wanted to form the triple alliance, but Britain did not.

Britain was in last ditch talks with Germany to sign a non aggression pact that was to allow Hitler to drive eastwards into Russia.

See the sources I gave in above posts for complete story.



France and Russia were both pushing Britain to form a Triple Alliance, but Britain was reluctant. Churchill and Lloyd George were pushing in the same direction, but Chamberlain fought back on the floor of the House, refusing to "help to form or to join any opposing blocs." He also refused to send a cabinet minister to negotiate in Moscow, and refused Eden's offer to go....

In the light of these facts the British efforts to reach a settlement with Hitler, and their reluctance to make an alliance with Russia, were very unrealistic. Nevertheless, they continued to exhort the Poles to reopen negotiations with Hitler, and continued to inform the German government that the justice of their claims to Danzig and the Corridor were recognized but that these claims must be fulfilled by peaceful means and that force would be inevitably be met by force. On the other hand, they argued, a German agreement to use negotiation would ultimately bring them the possibility of a disarmament agreement, colonial acquisitions, and economic concessions in a settlement with England...

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

[Invader Zim]

No. That is incorrect. Both France and USSR wanted to form the triple alliance, but Britain did not.

Britain was in last ditch talks with Germany to sign a non aggression pact that was to allow Hitler to drive eastwards into Russia.

See the sources I gave in above posts for complete story.

The sources you provided above, by and large are a joke. The primary one is Carroll Quigley, whose expertese did not lie in the 1930s but in the construction of civilisation, and whose works were written before the bulk of the sources regarding appeasement were made available to historians. I note you also cite Leibovitz, whose work is a joke.

There isn't really a lot to say about that work that wasn't said by the review articles that ripped it to shreds at the time, to quote one:

"Leibovitz is concerned to establish the fact (usually it appears as The Fact) that Chamberlain made a deal with Hitler to give him 'a free hand to pursue his aggressive ambitions in Eastern Europe'. This notion is a wee bit difficult to square with the policies of a government that issued unprecedented guarantees to Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey in the spring and summer of 1939, but no matter. And it does seem a matter of fact that it was Stalin, not Chamberlain, who made a deal with Hitler, but again no matter. Leibovitz suggests, in his obscurely written preface, that the reader need only to consult Chapter 1 to witness the validity of The Fact. So I took him at his word and read no further. The chapter makes no plausible case for a deal with Hitler, stops at Munich, bases its findings solely on excerpts from Documents on British Foreign Policy, and introduces the phenomenon of appeasement 'knowese', apparently a special language used by appeasers to cloak their true intentions. It is all madcap. And therein lies the pity of it: a new study of British conservative attitudes to the Soviet Union, to Eastern Europe, and to Hitler's notion of lebensraum would be welcome."

Wesley K. Wark, 'Appeasement Revisited', The International History Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 560-561.

My emphasis.

So do you have anything to offer that is actually worth reading, that isn't a nonsensical conspiricy theory in utter contrast to the facts, or written after the facts were made available to historians?

[ComradeOm]

So do you have anything to offer that is actually worth reading, that isn't a nonsensical conspiricy theory in utter contrast to the facts, or written after the facts were made available to historians?Not to dismiss your point, but I suggest that you offer more than the opinion of a reviewer who stopped reading after the first chapter

[Bankotsu]

The sources you provided above, by and large are a joke. The primary one is Carroll Quigley, whose expertese did not lie in the 1930s but in the construction of civilisation, and whose works were written before the bulk of the sources regarding appeasement were made available to historians. I note you also cite Leibovitz, whose work is a joke.


There's no use in denying truth.

Chamberlain's plot to instigate a German-Soviet war is a fact of history.

Carroll Quigley's narrative and interpretation is correct.

The evidence is conclusive.

Facts are facts.

If anyone wants to criticise Carroll Quigley's interpretations, please cite precise passages from the source.

Anyway, Britain's agenda to direct German aggression against Russia is common knowledge, it's silly to deny it.

[Bankotsu]

Putin's interview to Polish newspaper (on WWII issue)

...Thus, today we are expected to admit without any hesitation that the only "trigger" of the Second World War was the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939. However, those who advocate such a position neglect simple things - did not the Treaty of Versailles which drew the bottom line of the First World War leave a lot of "time bombs", the main of which was not only the registered defeat of Germany but also its humiliation.

Did not the borders in Europe begin to crumble much earlier than 1 September 1939? What about the Anschluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia being torn to pieces, when not only Germany, but also Hungary and Poland in fact took part in the territorial
repartition of Europe. On the very day when the Munich Agreement was concluded, Poland send its ultimatum to Czechoslovakia and its army invaded Cieszyn and Freistadt regions concurrently with the German troops.

And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

Finally, what was the military and political echo of the collusion that took place in Munich on 29 September 1938? Maybe it was then when Hitler finally decided that "everything was allowed". That neither France nor England would "lift a finger" to protect their allies. "The strange war" on the Western front and the tragic fate of Poland left without help demonstrated, regrettably, that his hopes were met...

http://secure.hospitalityclub.org/hc/forum.php?action=DisplayMessage&StartMessageId=282194&language=ukr

[Invader Zim]

Not to dismiss your point, but I suggest that you offer more than the opinion of a reviewer who stopped reading after the first chapter

I rather think that is a testiment to the quality of the work as opposed to the quality of the review. Anyway, Wark certainly is not alone in his destruction of the book.


There's no use in denying truth.

Chamberlain's plot to instigate a German-Soviet war is a fact of history.

Carroll Quigley's narrative and interpretation is correct.

The evidence is conclusive.

Facts are facts.

I see you are strong on assertion and weak on substance. Try again.

[Bankotsu]

I see you are strong on assertion and weak on substance. Try again.

Weak on substance? How?

What is strong on substance then?

[yuon]

The evidence is conclusive.

Facts are facts.
Funny thing about history, even people who were there at the time tell different stories. Your tautology that "facts are facts" is irrelevant. In the case of history, it is a matter of deciding first, what is a fact, and second, what it means.

I personally don't have the interest to go through manuscripts written in a language I don't understand (neither Russian or German). Nor even the interest to look at all the evidence available in English (including translated documents).

Me, I just have to take on board what others have wrote. And then, because the issue is not particularly important in the grand scheme of things (err, yes it is important, but, not for most people), not form an opinion.

I suggest that unless you are willing to read wider than just one source, that you don't claim that this one source has all the answers. Especially if it is a secondary source, who (apparently) didn't even have access to all the primary material.

So yeah, if you really want to know the facts, you have to do a lot more reading.


Oh, and sorry, what was the thread topic about again? Something about some evil bastards who no sane person wants to emulate?

[ComradeOm]

I rather think that is a testiment to the quality of the work as opposed to the quality of the review. Anyway, Wark certainly is not alone in his destruction of the bookI've yet to see any reputable review endorse Leibovitz's claim but that review you sampled is absolutely ridiculous and completely without value. If he hasn't read the book then he is in no position to criticise it. Period. If it has been so "destroyed" then it should not be difficult to find reviews where the reviewer actually did his job and read the damned thing

[Bankotsu]

So yeah, if you really want to know the facts, you have to do a lot more reading.


I've been reading on this topic for about ten years mate. You are the one who is ignorant of facts and history.

Don't deny truth please.

How much research did you do on this issue? As much as me? 10 years of research?

[Invader Zim]

Weak on substance? How?


You didn't say anything than re-iterate your erronious views, and proclaim those same erronious views to be 'facts'. Yet you offer nothing to substanciate these 'facts'.

[Bankotsu]

For crying out loud, even some british writers also admit to the facts:


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.

Stanley Baldwin, who preceded Chamberlain, was fairly frank. In 1936, he told Tory MPs alarmed about Hitler, that it would not 'break his heart' if the tensions in Europe led to 'the Nazis fighting the Bolshies'.

The diaries of Foreign Office chief Sir Alexander Cadogan, shine a light on Chamberlain's outlook...

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

[Bankotsu]

Yet you offer nothing to substanciate these 'facts'.I gave a lot of sources mate.

History of political, diplomatic events in europe in 1930s:

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/06.html#16
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050616080438/agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1948_falsifiers_of_history.php

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html#SECTION001210000000000000000

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Time-Chamberlain-Hitler-Collusion/dp/0853459991
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Appease.html
http://cleibovi.shawbiz.ca/chd/index.html


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7149
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Spy-Chief-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304367184

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=AobnW_ouxn0C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=lord+lothian+germany+bolshevik&source=bl&ots=5wwZH3SmbG&sig=BQr77gKJvjQTV7N87Vp0Didk1Ns&hl=en&ei=JBJsSpi8NIaOtAOg7KyXBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=lord%20lothian%20germany%20bolshevik&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA88&dq=Burnett+Bolloten+our+task+is+to+win#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA168&dq=Burnett+Bolloten+stalin+undoubtedly+saw#v=onepa ge&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA650&dq=Burnett+Bolloten+if+britain+and+france+refraine d#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Bankotsu]

Come mon, even the british prime minister also did not deny the basic intent of british policy:



Heath: I think the Soviet Union has a lot of troubles. They are facing domestic economic difficulties and agricultural predicament, and there are also differences within the leadership, over questions of tactics and timing, not over long-term strategy.

Mao: I think the Soviet Union is busy with its own affairs and unable to deal with Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, China and the Pacific. I think it will lose.

Heath: However, its military strength is continually augmented. Although the Soviet Union has encountered troubles at many places in the world, its strength is continuing to grow. Therefore, we deem this to be the principal threat. Does the Chairman think the Soviet Union constitutes a menace to China?

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


That's Edward Health, former british prime minister to Mao.

[Bankotsu]

And BOTH Russia and Poland agree on this too:

Putin of Russia:


And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

http://secure.hospitalityclub.org/hc/forum.php?action=DisplayMessage&StartMessageId=282194&language=ukr
Adam Daniel ROTFELD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland:


We are told sometimes that the criminal plot of the two dictatorships – Stalin’s and Hitler’s – was legitimate under the international law of the time. What’s more, it constituted a justified or even essential defense in view of the Munich Agreement concluded in September 1938 among Nazi Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France. That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward. True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.

http://www.polandun.org/templates/statementRotfeld09may.html
That's Russia and Poland agreeing on one aspect of WWII history.

[Bankotsu]

And let's not forget Henry Kissinger, not even he can deny such basic facts of history that is unfortunately suppressed in the west:


Beijing, February 18, 1973, 2:43–7:15 p.m.

Talks between Chou En-lai, Premier of China and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:

PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.

Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.

PM Chou: At Munich.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders. They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion. Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his point of view he gained himself the essential time.

PM Chou: But there was one weak point, that they were not sufficiently prepared.

Dr. Kissinger: That is right.

PM Chou: They did make preparations but they were not entirely sufficient. And in Zhukov’s memoirs he also touched upon this. Have you read this?

Dr. Kissinger: Yes. And they deployed their forces too far forward.

PM Chou: Also scattered in three directions.

Dr. Kissinger: So, but the basic point that I want to make is not to debate history but to say the lessons of both wars are that once a big war starts its consequences are unpredictable, and a country which encourages a big war in the hope that it can calculate its consequences is likely to produce a disaster for itself. The Germans had made very careful plans in World War I, and they had exercised them for 30 years, but when the war . . .

PM Chou: You mean after the Pact of Berlin?

Dr. Kissinger: World War I—1914—the Schlieffen Plan.

PM Chou: You mean after the Treaty of Berlin.

Dr. Kissinger: Oh, after 1878, yes, that’s right. But they had exercised the Schlieffen Plan every year after 1893, for 21 years, and they had calculated everything except the psychological strain on a commander under battle conditions. So they thought they were starting a 6-months war and they wound up with a 4-year war. Not one European leader in 1914, if he had known what the world would look like in 1918, would have gone to war. And nor would Hitler in 1939. Let us apply it to the current situation, these observations. If one analyzes the problem of pushing the Soviet Union toward the East, or maybe you trying to push it towards the West . . .

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/



That's good old Henry with Zhou En Lai, PRC Premier.

[Bankotsu]

Some statements by british politicians and MPs:



Two weeks after Munich, Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life


There is one danger, of course, which has probably been in all your minds - supposing the Russians and Germans got fighting and the French went in as allies of Russia owing to that appalling pact they made, you would not feel you were obligated to go and help France, would you? If there is any fighting in Europe to be done, I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it...

- British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, July 1936

http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMXHWtCeAUC&pg=PA183&dq=There+is+one+danger,+of+course,+which+has+proba bly+been+in+all+your+minds+-+supposing+the+Russians+and+Germans+got+fighting+a nd+the+French+went+in+as+allies+of+Russia+owing+to +that+appalling+pact+they+made,+you+would+not+feel +you+were+obligated+to+go+and&sig=-Tbur7sRqO_wXGxBVXtKo1b3QkU


Henry "Chips" Channon MP put it this way: "we should let gallant little Germany glut her fill of the Reds in the East and keep decadent France quiet while she does so"...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=8tJuB2AEDogC&pg=PA3&dq=little+germany+glut+her+fill+of+the+reds+in+the +east&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0cRpKb7kH0wISHuKGs1yZr4xDK_Q


Letter from Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, St John's Newfoundland, Canada to WSC, on the European situation. Commenting that Britain should make a strong western pact with France and Germany, and allow Germany to "settle" the Soviet Union and Bolshevism "in her own way". Stating that Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia, and it would take years before her to be in a position to make war again. "Russia deserves what is coming to her as she will never stop undermining capitalistic governments in every way she can." Commenting that if left alone Russia would be the stongest power on earth in 10 years, and may be a more dangerous enemy than Germany...


Letter from WSC to Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, thanks for letter on the European political situation. Commenting that a strong and growing section of Conservative opinion agreed with Tudor that Britain should form a strong Western Alliance with France and Germany, leaving Germany free to deal with the Soviet Union...


http://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA52&dq=tudor+wrote+on+4+august+1936&sig=tHxdxYsrTs_EaknIMD8WiiCx2rk



On 6 May 1935, William Dodd, US ambassador to Berlin, made the following notation in his diary regarding a letter he had received from Lord Lothian, influential British statesman and diplomat: "He indicated clearly that he favors a coalition of the democracies to block any German move in their direction and to turn Germany's course eastwards.''

And in an article in the Daily Mail entitled "Why Not a Franco-British Alliance?" Viscount Rothermere, one of the British press lords, wrote: "The new bond between France and Britain would have another effect of inestimable importance. It would turn Germany's territorial ambitions in the direction where they can do least harm and most good — towards the east of Europe.''

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA88&vq=the+popular+front+our+task&dq=william+dodd+lothian+german+east+soviet&source=gbs_search_s&sig=A8sifFD2Te-baY2a1HesbZVqYhc#PPA91,M1


Eden noted in his diary after talks with Hitler:"Only thing Hitler wants is Air Pact without limitation. Simon much inclined to bite at this....I had to protest and he gave up the idea.... Simon toys with the idea of letting Germany expand eastwards. I am strongly against. Apart from dishonesty it would be our turn next"(cited in Dutton 1994, 50)...


http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=eden%27s+diary+1935+hitler+simon+&source=web&ots=A58iIH7xr6&sig=IChZUDHy4vJ-mJ8C112mq56Mfks&hl=en

As he declared in July 1937, if Britain 'could get on terms with the Germans I would not care a rap for Musso' because 'the best way of countering the...Ultimately, this meant direct negotiations with Germany 'to find out what she wants', while

'deciding ourselves the direction in which we can best afford to let her expand at the expense of others if we are willing to let her expand at all'...


http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=rCQ7s9MjkkwC&pg=PA367&dq=neville+chamberlain+four+power+pact+1938&client=firefox-a&sig=PmbRKmNRJwwL3VGVDaT1ef1NhCw#PPA278,M1

On 7 November 1935, Vansittart wrote to Lord Wigram, private secretary to King George V:

...Any attempt at giving Germany a free hand to annex other people's property in central or eastern Europe is both absolutely immoral and completely contrary to all the principles of the League which form the backbone of the policy of this country. Any British Government that attempted to do such a deal would almost certainly be brought down in ignominy and deservedly...Any suggestion that a British Government contemplated leaving, let alone inviting, Germany to satisfy her land hunger at Russia's expense would quite infallibly split this country from top to bottom."

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=Any+attempt+at+giving+Germany+a+free+hand+to+an nex+other++people%27s+property+in+central+or+easte rn+Europe+is+both++absolutely+immoral+and+complete ly+contrary+to+all+the+principles++of+the+League+w hich+form+the+backbone+of+the+policy+of+this++coun try.+Any+British+Government+that+attempted+to+do+s uch+a+deal++would+almost+certainly+be+brought+down +in+ignominy+and+deservedly&source=web&ots=kMNUG9qZiS&sig=4EhRpqwl1hSFKRvBI5NmtMFWkyc&hl=en&ei=hwyeSf70CJj07AO7x5y9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA94,M1

[Invader Zim]

I've yet to see any reputable review endorse Leibovitz's claim but that review you sampled is absolutely ridiculous and completely without value. If he hasn't read the book then he is in no position to criticise it. Period. If it has been so "destroyed" then it should not be difficult to find reviews where the reviewer actually did his job and read the damned thing


but that review you sampled is absolutely ridiculous and completely without value.

Leibovitz wrote that only the first chapter was necessary to prove beyond doubt the validity of his argument; thus according to Leibovitz it is only necessary to read the first chapter. He failed his own test.


If it has been so "destroyed" then it should not be difficult to find reviews where the reviewer actually did his job and read the damned thing

And indeed it isn't. In a short search and I found a review in the Canadian Journal of History, Vol. 29, Issue 2 (Aug, 1994), that stated, "At first glance, it appears a respectable piece of historical writing; it quotes in extenso from the published diplomatic record and cites secondary authorities liberally. Unfortunately, closer inspection reveals polemic rather than scholarship."

Indeed the most positive reference to the work I have found is in Sidney Aster's interesting historiographical article, in which he summarises the work and declared it to be "curious". And indirectly noted, through comparison to the historian Michael Carley who wrote on a similar theme, that its author is "inexperienced" and is difficult to be taken "seriously".

Sidney Aster, 'Appeasement: Before and After Revisionism', Diplomacy and Statecraft, 19 (2008), p. 459.

[Bankotsu]

Russian Foreign Intelligence Service declassifies Munich Agreement papers

"The documents received after the Munich conspiracy are particularly valuable. They analyze the post-Munich situation in Europe and clearly show that Britain was trying to draw Germany and the Soviet Union into active hostilities," Sotskov emphasized in an interview with RIA Novosti.

Later, on November 25, Grippenberg reported his conversation with a British government member who assured him that Britain and France would not interfere in Germany's eastward expansion.

"Britain's position is as follows: let's wait until Germany and the U.S.S.R. get involved in a big conflict," the document reads...

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.html



Munich 1938: new facts about old secrets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Fo1X7s9qs&feature=channel

Munich secrets: declassified
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gH2raI-AiE&feature=channel

Seventy years of the Munich Agreement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt0JGgsznW8&feature=channel



Russia declassifies secret documents on Nazi-Soviet pact

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/21/russia-documents-nazi-soviet-pact

[Bankotsu]

And indeed it isn't. In a short search and I found a review in the Canadian Journal of History, Vol. 29, Issue 2 (Aug, 1994), that stated, "At first glance, it appears a respectable piece of historical writing; it quotes in extenso from the published diplomatic record and cites secondary authorities liberally. Unfortunately, closer inspection reveals polemic rather than scholarship."



Not all of Leibovitz's conclusions are correct. The part about Chamberlain giving up the policy of appeasing Hitler after 31 March 1939 is obviously wrong.

But the general thesis of Chamberlain wanting to form an alliance with Hitler against USSR is correct.

Chamberlain NEVER gave up on the policy of appeasing Hitler from March to August 1939.

This is a fact.

He only pretended to resist Hitler.

That extremely important point, often falsified in western history is explained here:


The events of 1939 do not require our extended attention here, although they have never yet been narrated in any adequate fashion. The German seizure of Bohemia and Moravia was not much of a surprise to either the Milner or Chamberlain groups; both accepted it, but the former tried to use it as a propaganda device to help get conscription, while the latter soon discovered that, whatever their real thoughts, they must publicly condemn it in order to satisfy the outraged moral feelings of the British electorate. It is this which explains the change in tone between Chamberlain’s speech of 15 March in Commons and his speech of 17 March in Birmingham. The former was what he thought; the latter was what he thought the voters wanted...

The efforts of the Chamberlain group to continue the policy of appeasement by making economic and other concessions to Germany and their efforts to get Hitler to agree to a four-power pact form one of the most shameful episodes in the history of recent British diplomacy. These negotiations were chiefly conducted through Sir Horace Wilson and consisted chiefly of offers of colonial bribes and other concessions to Germany. These offers were either rejected or ignored by the Nazis...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html

This idea of bringing Germany into a collision with Russia was not to be found, so far as the evidence shows, among any members of the inner circle of the Milner Group. Rather it was to be found among the personal associates of Neville Chamberlain, including several members of the second circle of the Milner Group.

The two policies followed parallel courses until March 1939. After that date the Milner Group’s disintegration became very evident, and part of it took the form of the movement of several persons (like Hoare and Simon) from the second circle of the Milner Group to the inner circle of the new group rotating around Chamberlain.

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html
John Simon was one of those who wanted to direct Germany eastwards. This is proven in Eden's diaries:



Eden noted in his diary after talks with Hitler:"Only thing Hitler wants is Air Pact without limitation. Simon much inclined to bite at this....I had to protest and he gave up the idea.... Simon toys with the idea of letting Germany expand eastwards. I am strongly against. Apart from dishonesty it would be our turn next"(cited in Dutton 1994, 50)...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=eden%27s%20diary%201935%20hitler%20simon%20&source=web&ots=A58iIH7xr6&sig=IChZUDHy4vJ-mJ8C112mq56Mfks&hl=en#v=onepage&q=eden%27s%20diary%201935%20hitler%20simon&f=false


More details here:


This Round Table Group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks like D'Abernon in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted. Relationships between the two groups were very close and friendly, and some people, like Smuts, were in both.

The anti-Bolsheviks, including D'Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany. Their point of view can be found in many places, and most emphatically in a letter of August I l, 1920, from D'Abernon to Sir Maurice (later Lord) Hankey, a prot้g้ of Lord Esher who wielded great influence in the inter-war period as secretary to the Cabinet and secretary to almost every international conference on reparations from Genoa (1922) to Lausanne (1932). D'Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain "with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviet." As ambassador of Great Britain in Berlin in 1920-1926, D'Abernon carried on this policy and blocked all efforts by the Disarmament Commission to disarm, or even inspect, Germany (according to Brigadier J. H. Morgan of the commission).


http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42

[Invader Zim]

Oh God, I've set Bankotsu, our resident one trick pony off again. Bankotsu, first off get rid of that hideous underlined red lettering. Second, write individual posts, not half a dozen.


For crying out loud, even some british writers also admit to the facts:



I see we can draw a line of progression through your sources, you start with inexpert historians writing before the historical evidence became available for analysis, you then progress to the work of a physicist moon-lighting as a historian while sipping cool-aide and constructing laughable conspiricy theories. Last but by no means least you cite the Daily Mail as a source. Need i say more? Who next, A. L. Rowse?


Two weeks after Munich, Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same".Two points, firstly baldwin retired in 1937. What he had to say after that time is irrelevent. Secondly that quote comes from Middlemas and Barnes, Baldwin: A Biography (1969), p. 1047. It is unreferenced, so we have not only to take the biographers word for it, but we also have to take Hinchingbrooke's word for it. Third the context of the comment came immidiately after Munich during which time Baldwin feared for the destruction of Britain, and his comment to Hinchingbrooke appears as a throw away comment spurred by the light of events, hardly an analysis of government policy.

And who do we have next, Henry Channon. An MP who was never, in two decades as an MP, never once held a positon in government. back-bench MPs do not drawup government policy Bankotsu. Furthermore, Sir Hugh Tudor was never a British politican or MP, rather he was, by the crisis of the 1930s, a retired soldier living on the otherside of the world. Like backbench MPs retired soldiers do not draw up government policy.



On 6 May 1935, William Dodd, US ambassador to Berlin, made the following notation in his diary regarding a letter he had received from Lord Lothian, influential British statesman and diplomat: "He indicated clearly that he favors a coalition of the democracies to block any German move in their direction and to turn Germany's course eastwards.''Nothing new in this. it doesn't imply that the British government had a set policy to cause a war between Germany and the USSR. It implies that certain members of that government had sympathy with German eastward ambition, which included anschluss.


Simon toys with the idea of letting Germany expand eastwards.I take it this must refer to John Simon. But what do you suppose it implies? It can only have been made in 1935 or earlier, before Hitler's military ambitions and re-armament efforts were truly understood.



'deciding ourselves the direction in which we can best afford to let her expand at the expense of others if we are willing to let her expand at all'...What do you suppose this implies? Other than the fact that we all know, that Chamberlain was willing to use concilliatory policies, including allowing Germany to expand its borders, in order to try to prevent a war?

So, despite all these quotes, you have proved nothing. Like i said, you are strong in asserion but weak in substance. As we see here:

"But the general thesis of Chamberlain wanting to form an alliance with Hitler against USSR is correct.

Chamberlain NEVER gave up on the policy of appeasing Hitler from March to August 1939.

This is a fact."

No, that is an assertion. If it is a fact, why is it not seen in Chamberlain's personal papers? Why does it not appear in the cabinet minutes? Indeed, why is the only evidence you can muster for this policy from sources either not in government or from before Chamberlain came to office as Prime Minister?

[Bankotsu]

A lot of denials from you Invader Zim.

Denying all the facts, denying all the sources, denying all the documentation, denying all the sources, sticking to your propagandist drivel history.

Carroll Quigley made a great analysis of the story and the best you can come up with is some crap about him being "inexpert" historian. It shows you know nothing about his work, trying to discredit him with rubbish statements.

Deny all the statements made by british politicians and statesman.

Deny the words of Putin, foreign minister of Poland, Henry Kissinger and the british former prime minister Edward Health.

The truth hits you square in the face and you just deny all of it.

Dismiss all of it.

Reject all the evidence.

Ya ya, go all, deny everything, stick to your western propagandist filth that you call "history".:lol:

I was a fool to think that a brit would listen to reason on this topic.

Silly me.

[Bankotsu]

I see we can draw a line of progression through your sources, you start with inexpert historians writing before the historical evidence became available for analysis, you then progress to the work of a physicist moon-lighting as a historian while sipping cool-aide and constructing laughable conspiricy theories. Last but by no means least you cite the Daily Mail as a source. Need i say more? Who next, A. L. Rowse?

What sort of bullshit is that? What inexpert historian? What poppy shit about historical evidence not being available? Most of the relevant documents were available from 1948 onwards.

You disagree with the source, just quote and criticise, don't make rubbish statements.

[Bankotsu]

I know that evidence and quotes don't mean much to some people here, but frankly speaking the agenda of the british conservative appeasers of Hitler is quite simple as one put it to Churchill:



Tudor wrote to Churchill on 4th August 1936:

The situation in Europe certainly seems to be getting worse. Spain is a new complication.

If the rebels win the Fascist group will be strengthened in Europe, and Spain may line up with Italy and Germany.

If the red government wins Bolshevism will come very near us. With Spain Bolshie, France half Bolshie, and Russia subsidising our communists are we going to line up with them and Russia?

I know how important even vital our friendship with France is, but I feel many in England would rather make a strong western pact with Germany and France and let Germany settle Russia and Bolshevism in her own way.

No doubt Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia but in the meantime we and France would have time to get our defences right; and it would take years before Germany would be in a position to make war again, nor do I suppose she would want to having got a satisfactory expansion. Even Germany cannot like war.

Russia deserves what is coming to her as she will never stop undermining capitalistic governments in every way she can. If she is left alone, in 10 years or so she would be the strongest power on earth and she may want to take in India and may be a more dangerous enemy than Germany.

Churchill's reply on 16 August 1936:

I have as you divine, been much perturbed in my thoughts by the spanish explosion. I feel actuely the weight of what you say... I am sure it represents the strong and growing Conservative opinion, and events seems to be driving us in that direction.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA52&dq=tudor+wrote+on+4+august+1936&sig=tHxdxYsrTs_EaknIMD8WiiCx2rk
Hugh Dalton, labour minister, papers:




Start of Diary Entry for 30 November 1937

"Jacques Kayser who is very close to Chautemps came to see me this morning. I always find him very clear-headed and sensible on international questions. He said that Chautemps and Delbos were well satisfied with their visit. It was the first time that Chautemps had met Cahamberlain. They had made a tour of the world with British Ministers and it was true to say that "complete agreement had been reached", but rather on the problems to be studied than on the solutions to be proposed. He was assured, however, that The Times and its adherents had been defeated. Their propaganda had been too strong. I told him of the activities in this country of Sir Neville Henderson and of the Cliveden gang..."

Folio 40 of the same diary volume is headed:


'Straws in the wind, latter half of November 1937' and begins:

"I made a note at the time of my talk with Neville Henderson. There is a lot going on of which his visit here and Halifax's to Berlin are outward signs. The movement in influential quarters here to come to some kind of Anglo-German agreement, even if this means making large "concessions" to Germany, either at our own or other people's expense, is formidable. German strength and determination are impressive; the weakness and unreliability of others not less so. Who knows what is happening in Russia or what will happen to-morrow, or what she would be worth if war came, or whether she would really be willing to march or fly at all. "

http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/fabian_economic_series_two_parts_1_to_3/Publishers-Note.aspxNote: "Cliveden gang" was a secret political lobby group within the british government in the 1930s and Pro. Carroll Quigley uses the term "Milner group" to refer to them.



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.

This idea of bringing Germany into a collision with Russia was not to be found, so far as the evidence shows, among any members of the inner circle of the Milner Group. Rather it was to be found among the personal associates of Neville Chamberlain, including several members of the second circle of the Milner Group. The two policies followed parallel courses until March 1939. After that date the Milner Group’s disintegration became very evident, and part of it took the form of the movement of several persons (like Hoare and Simon) from the second circle of the Milner Group to the inner circle of the new group rotating around Chamberlain. This process was concealed by the fact that this new group was following, in public at least, the policy desired by the Milner Group; their own policy, which was really the continuation of appeasement for another year after March 1939, was necessarily secret, so that the contrast between the Chamberlain group and the inner circle of the Milner Group in the period after March 1939 was not as obvious as it might have been.

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...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html
Or if anyone prefers western propaganda crap history, ignore everything I posted above.

Reason Chamberlain appeased Hitler was because he was naive, he was "tricked" by Hitler; nothing whatsoever to do with hatred of communism and directing Germany eastwards to destroy USSR at all.

[Bankotsu]

http://premier.gov.ru/media/2009/8/29/5332/image.jpeg

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin:


And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.htmlRussia urges West to condemn all pre-WWII deals with Nazis
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090901/155990521.html


Let us make peace, and learn to accept facts as they stand.

When is the west going to end the suppression of the true history of origins of WWII?

When?

When are they going to tell the real story of why Neville Chamberlain let Hitler expand eastwards?

Is the west going to turn a blind eye to facts of history forever as Putin said?


In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html


Come mon, let us prove Putin wrong.

We can all accept facts, learn a proper lesson from it and move on.

[chimx]

I was a fool to think that a brit would listen to reason on this topic.

classy...

[Invader Zim]

What sort of bullshit is that? What inexpert historian? What poppy shit about historical evidence not being available? Most of the relevant documents were available from 1948 onwards.

You disagree with the source, just quote and criticise, don't make rubbish statements.

As we can see, you don't even understand the basic historiography of this topic. You were quoting a historian (Quigley) who, in writing on this topic, not only diviated away from his area of expert knowledge (which was social evolution) but was writing before the sources on this topic were made available for study because many were governed by the Official Secrets Act and the then 'Fifty Year Rule'. Prior to 1958 the government had no legal obligation to make official documents public. In 1958 the 'Fifty Year Rule' was established to allow eventual release of government documents. In 1967 this rule ws ammended down to 30 years, and documents of that age or older were then made available for study. Quigley published Hope and Tragedy in 1966.

The fact is you can't prove anything you claim to be fact. All you seemingly can do is parrot irrelevent quotes, most of which don't go anyway way is proving that there was a deliberate and coherant policy within the Chamberlain government to engineer a war between Russia and Germany. All they are, are the postulations of individuals who, for the most part, were not even in government during the period making off hand remarks about potential geo-political developments, and comments suggesting that they would rather German expansion to East as opposed to West. Where are the Cabinet Minutes outlining this stratagy? Where are the orders to the SIS applying this policy? Where are the references in Chamberlain's personal papers, in which is was typically candid?

Are you going to prove your claims or are you just going to ignorantly blather on making inane assertions and xenophobic comments?



Come mon, let us prove Putin wrong.

You are confused. it is not our job to prove Putin right, or wrong, it is his task to back up his assertions.

[Invader Zim]

I've been reading on this topic for about ten years mate. You are the one who is ignorant of facts and history.

Don't deny truth please.

How much research did you do on this issue? As much as me? 10 years of research?

Uh-Hu. Which is why you rely upon panned conspiricy theory moonlighting as history, historians delving out of their field and writing before they had the facts available to them, and produce quotes that don't go any way to proving your "mad-cap" conspiricy theory?

If your garbage is really the best you can show from 10 years of research I suggest you cut your losses and move into another topic, you have failed on this one.

[Bankotsu]

You win. you win.

Chamberlain appeased Hitler due to his naivety and because he was tricked by the cunning Hitler.

No hidden agendas, no plots, no direct German eastwards to destroy communism.




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 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/txt/w24.htm)
PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.

Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.

PM Chou: At Munich.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders. They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion. Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his point of view he gained himself the essential time.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/)Britain's policy of letting Hitler go east has nothing whatsoever to do with a plan to set Germany against Russia.

Whoever talks about that is a complete moron and conspiracy theorist.

The true reason why Britain appeased Hitler was due to naivety, a love for peace and Hitler's charm to trick and fool people.



This idea of bringing Germany into a collision with Russia was not to be found, so far as the evidence shows, among any members of the inner circle of the Milner Group. Rather it was to be found among the personal associates of Neville Chamberlain, including several members of the second circle of the Milner Group. The two policies followed parallel courses until March 1939. After that date the Milner Group’s disintegration became very evident, and part of it took the form of the movement of several persons (like Hoare and Simon) from the second circle of the Milner Group to the inner circle of the new group rotating around Chamberlain....

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html


Eden noted in his diary after talks with Hitler:"Only thing Hitler wants is Air Pact without limitation. Simon much inclined to bite at this....I had to protest and he gave up the idea.... Simon toys with the idea of letting Germany expand eastwards. I am strongly against. Apart from dishonesty it would be our turn next"(cited in Dutton 1994, 50)...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=eden%27s%20diary%201935%20hitler%20simon%20&source=web&ots=A58iIH7xr6&sig=IChZUDHy4vJ-mJ8C112mq56Mfks&hl=en#v=onepage&q=eden%27s%20diary%201935%20hitler%20simon&f=false
In France, as in Britain, there were changes in the foreign policies of the Right and the Left after Hitler came to power in Germany (1933). The Left became more anti-German and abandoned Briand's policy of conciliation, while the Right, in some sections, sought to make a virtue of necessity and began to toy with the idea that, if Germany was to become strong anyway, a solution to the French problem of security might be found by turning Germany against the Soviet Union. This idea, which already had adherents in the Right in Britain, was more acceptable to the Right than to the Left in France, because, while the Right was conscious of the political threat from Germany, it was equally conscious of the social and economic threat from Bolshevism...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/06.html

Two weeks after Munich, Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life)

Henry "Chips" Channon MP put it this way: "we should let gallant little Germany glut her fill of the Reds in the East and keep decadent France quiet while she does so"...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=8tJuB2AEDogC&pg=PA3&dq=little%20germany%20glut%20her%20fill%20of%20the %20reds%20in%20the%20east&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0cRpKb7kH0wISHuKGs1yZr4xDK_Q#v=onepage&q=little%20germany%20glut%20her%20fill%20of%20the% 20reds%20in%20the%20east&f=false
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.

Stanley Baldwin, who preceded Chamberlain, was fairly frank. In 1936, he told Tory MPs alarmed about Hitler, that it would not 'break his heart' if the tensions in Europe led to 'the Nazis fighting the Bolshies'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066952/Andrew-Alexander-Its-just-rich-risk-bank-meltdowns.html#ixzz0Q0hhq1RG


I know how important even vital our friendship with France is, but I feel many in England would rather make a strong western pact with Germany and France and let Germany settle Russia and Bolshevism in her own way.

No doubt Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia but in the meantime we and France would have time to get our defences right; and it would take years before Germany would be in a position to make war again, nor do I suppose she would want to having got a satisfactory expansion. Even Germany cannot like war.


Churchill's reply on 16 August 1936:

I have as you divine, been much perturbed in my thoughts by the spanish explosion. I feel actuely the weight of what you say... I am sure it represents the strong and growing Conservative opinion, and events seems to be driving us in that direction.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA52&dq=tudor%20wrote%20on%204%20august%201936&sig=tHxdxYsrTs_EaknIMD8WiiCx2rk#v=onepage&q=tudor%20wrote%20on%204%20august%201936&f=falseOne point that is clear: Britain when it appeased Hitler had NOTHING whatsoever to do with anti-bolshevism or a wish to see Germany get into a war with Russia.



The author, Richard Bassett, found some very interesting documents that helps to explain the peace negotiations that went on between the two governments. Bassett shows that in July, 1938, a powerful group from within Nazi Germany that included Canaris, were on the verge of overthrowing Hitler because they feared war with Britain and France. The British government became aware of this plot. However, they were determined that Hitler should not be removed from power. The reason, they were expecting Hitler to destroy communism in the Soviet Union...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7149
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304367184/sofa-20/ref=nosim

As he declared in July 1937, if Britain 'could get on terms with the Germans I would not care a rap for Musso' because 'the best way of countering the...Ultimately, this meant direct negotiations with Germany 'to find out what she wants', while

'deciding ourselves the direction in which we can best afford to let her expand at the expense of others if we are willing to let her expand at all'...

- British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, 1937

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=rCQ7s9MjkkwC&pg=PA278&dq=As+he+declared+in+July+1937,+if+Britain&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=As%20he%20declared%20in%20July%201937%2C%20if%20 Britain&f=false

'Straws in the wind, latter half of November 1937' and begins:
"I made a note at the time of my talk with Neville Henderson. There is a lot going on of which his visit here and Halifax's to Berlin are outward signs. The movement in influential quarters here to come to some kind of Anglo-German agreement, even if this means making large "concessions" to Germany, either at our own or other people's expense, is formidable. German strength and determination are impressive; the weakness and unreliability of others not less so. Who knows what is happening in Russia or what will happen to-morrow, or what she would be worth if war came, or whether she would really be willing to march or fly at all. "

This continues for 4 pages; on the third page (folio 42), half way down, Dalton continues:
"...In the Sunday press of November 28th there is a great barrage in favour of concessions to Germany. "Scrutator" in the Sunday Times

http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/fabian_economic_series_two_parts_1_to_3/Publishers-Note.aspx

The Yorkshire Post, owned by Mrs. Eden's family, did its best to sabotage Lord Halifax's visit. It was rebuked by the London Daily Telegraph (which is close to Mr. Chamberlain) for printing rumors that "There exist and are known to Germany to exist in this country a "certain number of people—not all of them obscure [Halifax & friends]— who would be prepared to welcome a German campaign of territorial expansion in the East [Austria, Czechoslovakia, Russia]...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758455,00.html
In the meantime the British government, especially the small group controlling foreign policy, had reached a seven-point decision regarding their attitude toward Germany:

1. Hitler Germany was the front-line bulwark against the spread of Communism in Europe.

2. A four-Power pact of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany to exclude all Russian influence from Europe was the ultimate aim; accordingly, Britain had no desire to weaken the Rome-Berlin Axis, but regarded it and the Anglo-French Entente as the foundation of a stable Europe.

3. Britain had no objection to German acquisition of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Danzig.

4. Germany must not use force to achieve its aims in Europe, as this would precipitate a war in which Britain would have to intervene because of the pressure of public opinion in Britain and the French system of alliances; with patience, Germany could get its aims without using force.

5. Britain wanted an agreement with Germany restricting the numbers and the use of bombing planes.

6. Britain was prepared to give Germany colonial areas in south-central Africa, including the Belgian Congo and Portuguese Angola if Germany would renounce its desire to recover Tanganyika, which had been taken from Germany in 1919, and if Germany would sign an international agreement to govern these areas with due regard for the rights of the natives, an "open-door" commercial policy, and under some mechanism of international supervision like the mandates.

7. Britain would use pressure on Czechoslovakia and Poland to negotiate with Germany and to be conciliatory to Germany's desires.


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



The projects of the anti-Bolsheviks and the "three-bloc-world" supporters were too dangerous to admit publicly, but they were sufficiently well known in Berlin to lead to the belief, even in moderate circles, that Britain would never go to war for Poland.

For example, Weizsไcker, the German secretary of state, chided Nevile Henderson in June 1939 for abandoning his often-repeated statement that "England desired to retain the sea; the European Continent could be left to Germany." However, these two groups, although still active in 1939, and even in 1940, had not originally envisaged the complete destruction of Czechoslovakia or Poland. They had expected that Hitler would get the Sudentenland, Danzig, and perhaps the Polish Corridor and that he would then be stabilized between the "oceanic bloc" and the Soviet Union, with contact with the latter across the Baltic States.

It was expected that a rump Czechoslovakia and a rump Poland would be able to survive between Germany and Russia, as Holland or Switzerland could survive between the oceanic bloc and Germany. Moreover, the "three-bloc-world" supporters never wanted Hitler to drive southward either to the Adriatic or to the Aegean.

Accordingly, although divided in respect to Romania and the Black Sea, they were determined to support Turkey and Greece against both Germany and Italy...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.htmlhttp://premier.gov.ru/media/2009/8/29/5332/image.jpeg


And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

- Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister

http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.html)
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service declassifies Munich Agreement papers

"The documents received after the Munich conspiracy are particularly valuable. They analyze the post-Munich situation in Europe and clearly show that Britain was trying to draw Germany and the Soviet Union into active hostilities," Sotskov emphasized in an interview with RIA Novosti.

Later, on November 25, Grippenberg reported his conversation with a British government member who assured him that Britain and France would not interfere in Germany's eastward expansion.

"Britain's position is as follows: let's wait until Germany and the U.S.S.R. get involved in a big conflict," the document reads...

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.htmlMunich 1938: new facts about old secrets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Fo1X7s9qs&feature=channel

Munich secrets: declassified
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gH2raI-AiE&feature=channel

Seventy years of the Munich Agreement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt0JGgsznW8&feature=channel



Russia declassifies secret documents on Nazi-Soviet pact

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/21/russia-documents-nazi-soviet-pact
At the same time, Stalin spoke with great insight to Zhukov:

`The French Government headed by Daladier and the Chamberlain Government in Britain have no intention of getting seriously involved in the war with Hitler.

They still hope to incite Hitler to a war against the Soviet Union.

By refusing in 1939 to form with us an anti-Hitler bloc, they did not want to hamper Hitler in his aggression against the Soviet Union.

Nothing will come of it. They will have to pay through the nose for their short-sighted policy.'

G. Zhukov, The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov (London: Jonathan Cape, 1971), p. 171.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html



A British amateur diplomat tried to make a peace deal with Germany in World War II, National Archive files reveal.

Old Etonian James Lonsdale-Bryans travelled to Italy to meet German diplomat Ulrich von Hassell.

He proposed to him that Germany could have a "free hand" in Europe while Britain ran the rest of the world.

MI5 files released under the Freedom of Information Act show that security service officials knew of the Rome trip but did not try to stop it.

Mr Lonsdale-Bryans wrote to the then Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax with his plans.

The files reveal MI5 was [B]unsure as to how much backing Mr Lonsdale-Bryans had from Lord Halifax...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7589251.stm

As soon as this had died down, secret efforts were made through R.S. Hudson, secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, to negotiate with Helmuth Wohlthat, Reich Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, who was in London to negotiate an international whaling agreement.

Although Wholthat had no powers, he listened to Hudson and later to Sir Horace Wilson, but refused to discuss the matter with Chamberlain.

Wilson offered:

(1) a non-aggression pact with Germany;

(2) a delimitation of spheres among the Great Powers;

(3) colonial concessions in Africa along the lines previously mentioned;

(4) an economic agreement.

These conversations, reported to Berlin by Ambassador Dirksen in a dispatch of 21 July 1939, would have involved giving Germany a free hand in eastern Europe and bringing her into collision with Russia...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html


Memorandum of German Ambassador in London Dirksen 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




Three years ago, Aberconway belatedly unburdened himself of a 60-year-old guilty secret. He told a Tory historian, Andrew Roberts, that as a 26-year-old he had been one of seven British businessmen dispatched secretly by Neville Chamberlain's pro-appeasement government to try to stop an Anglo-German war over Poland...

With the private blessing of Hitler and the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, a meeting between Goering and his advisers and the group of seven British businessmen was arranged in a farmhouse on the German Baltic island of Sylt.

The seven made their separate ways to Sylt for the meeting. Their purpose was to offer a "second Munich" - a four-power agreement involving Britain, Germany, France and Italy - to make further concessions to German demands for lebensraum (room for living) on condition that the Nazis did not invade Poland...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927661990.html


If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it.

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. For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia, Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland.

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html
http://premier.gov.ru/media/2009/8/29/5332/image.jpeg


And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

- Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister

http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.html)

[Invader Zim]

Chamberlain appeased Hitler due to his naivety and because he was tricked by the cunning Hitler.

I never said that Chamberlain was naive, the appeasement policy was designed to avert war, but it also was used as a tool to buy time and re-arm. That is hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, hardly naive.

As for the rest of the garbage in your post, like I've said before you still haven't proven anything. As i also said, where are the cabinet minutes that prove Chamberlain's intentions? Where are his private documents? Where are the records from the SIS and GC&CS? Instead of providing evidence to support your idiotic conspiricy theory, you cite youtube links and quoting Putin. A total fucking joke.

[Bankotsu]

As i also said, where are the cabinet minutes that prove Chamberlain's intentions? Where are his private documents? Where are the records from the SIS and GC&CS? Instead of providing evidence to support your idiotic conspiricy theory, you cite youtube links and quoting Putin. A total fucking joke.

And Hitler didn't order the killing of Jews too.

No cabinet minutes.:lol:




Instead of providing evidence to support your idiotic conspiricy theory, you cite youtube links and quoting Putin.Someone better go tell Edward Health and Kissinger that it was nothing but conspiracy theory.

I mean come on, british prime minister buying into a conspiracy theory?



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 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/txt/w24.htm)


PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.

Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.

PM Chou: At Munich.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders. They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion. Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his point of view he gained himself the essential time.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/)
And what's up with the Polish foreign minister talking nonsense; a conspiracy theory before the General Assembly of the United Nations.



Adam Daniel ROTFELD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland:

We are told sometimes that the criminal plot of the two dictatorships – Stalin’s and Hitler’s – was legitimate under the international law of the time. What’s more, it constituted a justified or even essential defense in view of the Munich Agreement concluded in September 1938 among Nazi Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France. That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward. True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.

http://www.polandun.org/templates/statementRotfeld09may.htmlEdward Health, Henry Kissinger, Polish foreign minister at UN, who's next the pope?

All bunch of morons talking about rubbish conspiracy theory.

[Bankotsu]

And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

- Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister

http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/3514.html)
A British amateur diplomat tried to make a peace deal with Germany in World War II, National Archive files reveal.

Old Etonian James Lonsdale-Bryans travelled to Italy to meet German diplomat Ulrich von Hassell.

He proposed to him that Germany could have a "free hand" in Europe while Britain ran the rest of the world.

MI5 files released under the Freedom of Information Act show that security service officials knew of the Rome trip but did not try to stop it.

Mr Lonsdale-Bryans wrote to the then Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax with his plans.

The files reveal MI5 was unsure as to how much backing Mr Lonsdale-Bryans had from Lord Halifax...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7589251.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7589251.stm)And are we to turn a blind eye to the backstage secret anglo-german talks to turn Germany eastwards as Putin said?

Putin won't be pleased if everything is just denied and ignored about the secret moves to direct Germany eastwards.

He won't approve.

Putin pissed at cover up of secret anglo-german talks to direct German aggression eastwards:

http://premier.gov.ru/media/2009/8/29/5332/image.jpeg

Keep talking about German-Soviet non aggression pact but not a word about anglo-german talks about non aggression pact at the same time in 1939, no wonder the grim face.

Memorandum of German Ambassador in London Dirksen regarding Wohlthat's Conversations with Wilson and Hudson (July 21 1939)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8XXVVQCSpVMC&pg=RA1-PA239&dq=secret%20anglo%20german%20talks%201939%20wilson&sig=lXrEqXsNEx1VI4XpZklSvcUMKx8#v=onepage&q=secret%20anglo%20german%20talks%201939%20wilson&f=false

[Bright Banana Beard]

I love it when it "rubbish" while Bankotsu provide plenty of evidences including from Poland and Russia source. You really need to back up your source beside name calling on us.

[Invader Zim]

I love it when it "rubbish" while Bankotsu provide plenty of evidences including from Poland and Russia source. You really need to back up your source beside name calling on us.

As it happens, i just lost a rather large post due to computer crash. But the fact of the matter bakotsu, despite your claims otherwise, hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support his assertions. And, also contrary to your belief that I haven't backed up my position, I went through one of bankotsu's longest posts source by source pointing out why his quotes prove nothing.

But to paraphrase my lost post, because I'm not going to spend another 2 hours writing it, the main purpose of the appeasement policy was, as is oft said, to try to avert war. However it also had the duel purpose of being able to buy Britain time to prepare should it fail at avoinding war in the long run. The point being that when Chamberlain came to power, Britain was in dire trouble militarily speaking. Chamberlain was told by his Chiefs of Staff that,

“we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time … We cannot exaggerate the importance from the point of view of Imperial Defence of any political or international action which could be taken to reduce the number of our potential enemies and to gain the support of potential allies.”

Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (London, 1976), p. 290.

And as Chamberlain himself said, "No state … ought to make a threat of war unless it was both ready to carry it out and prepared to do so.”

Fuchser, Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement: A Study in the Politics of History (London, 1982), p. 136.

The fact is there is no evidence to suggest that the primary goal of the appeasement policy was deigned to cause a war between Germany and the USSR, and there is plenty that suggests it was because Chamberlain wanted to avoid war at almost any cost, and that he also wished to use the time it bought to plan for the worst.

[The Idler]

The British pact with Stalin was recently described as "shameful", the promised defence of Poland "worthless" and Hitlers aspirations on Britain as lacking in any evidence. Sound like a disgruntled British Trotskyite criticism? It was made today in the Daily Mail by (former Trot) Peter Hitchens (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/09/anniversary-waltz-with-michael-white.html).

Let me make this point again. There is no evidence, in word or deed, that Hitler had any special interest in the British Empire, or in destroying it. Sad as it is to acknowledge it, Britain did not figure greatly in his calculations or seem to be much of an obstacle to his plans. If we had 'given' him Poland (which we actually had no power either to give or withhold) as we had 'given' him the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia (which we also had no power to give or withhold) what was the 'more' he would have come back for? Would our willingness to let him seize chunks of Central Europe, where we had no interest or possessions, have somehow fuelled a German desire for Burma, Malaya or Nyasaland? Hitler wanted a German Land Empire stretching into the east, into Ukraine for the wheat, and the Caucasus for the oil - probably something like the territory seized by the Kaiser at the 1917 Brest-Litovsk Treaty. I don't follow the logic that leaving Hitler to fight his twin, Stalin, would have fuelled in him a desire to seize Delhi or Nairobi. The threat to the British Empire came from the USA, which wanted it broken up, and from Japan, which wanted to steal large chunks of it. Though Japan was powerless as long as we and France were militarily strong in the Far East.

[Bankotsu]

The point being that when Chamberlain came to power, Britain was in dire trouble militarily speaking. Chamberlain was told by his Chiefs of Staff that,

“we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time … We cannot exaggerate the importance from the point of view of Imperial Defence of any political or international action which could be taken to reduce the number of our potential enemies and to gain the support of potential allies.”

Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (London, 1976), p. 290.


Reducing tensions in europe and gaining more allies was a key foreign policy goal of Chamberlain when he became prime minister. That is well known to all students of his foreign policy.

So do you support Chamberlain's plans for forming a four power pact between Britain, France, Italy and Germany to secure peace in western europe?



Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain promised in the House of Commons this week, as he asked approval for armed forces expenditure this year of $1,758,750,000 (see p. 18). In his house at No. 10 Downing Street, meanwhile, he had given swift impetus last week to negotiations for the Four-Power Pact which Britain, Germany, France and Italy will try to make (TIME, March 7), possibly admitting Poland to make it a Fiver.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759275,00.html





LONDON, April 17. – With the Anglo-Italian agreement safely signed and almost universally approved, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrived in the far north of Scotland this morning to spend a vacation of almost a week as the guest of the Marquess of Londonderry. The Prime Minister is staying near Brora, a little seashore town in Sutherlandshire at the castle of Viscount Chaplin, Lady Londonderry’s brother.


The holiday will not only give Mr. Chamberlain a few days of fly-fishing but also enable him to prepare the next stage of his diplomatic effort toward a four-power settlement in Europe. In particular, Lord Londonderry may prove useful to the prime Minister in helping to revive the Anglo-German conversations begun by Viscount Halifax last November.

Lord Londonderry is probably the only influential Englishman who has direct private access to Field Marshal Hermann Goering and Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. In the past he has corresponded frequently and frankly with Nazi leaders, and although he was shocked by the German seizure of Austria, he is still convinced that Great Britain must make a “deal” with Germany.

If the Prime Minister wishes to sound out the Germans discreetly on the possibility of an Anglo-German understanding, he can hardly do so more easily than by means of a letter from Lord Londonderry. There is not a particularly close personal friendship between Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Londonderry, and Mr. Chamberlain could have found more congenial fishing companions if fishing were all he had in mind.

The outlines of Mr. Chamberlain’s plans remain a mystery for the moment and may still be hidden after he returns to London. It is still difficult to visualize any Anglo-German bargain that would not give Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe and would not therefore be bitterly unpopular with a large section of opinion here and in France.

But there can be little doubt that the Prime Minister hopes to resume contact with Germany, perhaps without waiting for the completion of pending Franco-Italian negotiations. In the past few days there has been a sudden revival of talk and hope among those pro-Germans here who helped to arrange Lord Halifax’s mission last Autumn. It would seem that they have had some new encouragement from Mr. Chamberlain or from Lord Halifax now that the shock of the Anschluss had begun to wear off.

The motives behind Mr. Chamberlain’s persistent effort are not at all obscure. The first is the obvious motive of trying to check the worldwide armaments race and stave off war. In the words of Lord Halifax, “if you can relieve tension anywhere you relieve it everywhere.”...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003445/postsAnglo-German diplomatic efforts to form the four power pact and to resolve differences in anglo-german relations began with Lord Halifax's visit to Berlin in November 1937, the transcripts of talks:



Record of a Conversation between the Fuhrer and Reichskanzler and Lord Halifax, in the presence of the Reichsminister of Foreign Affairs, in Obersalzberg, Nov. 19, 1937

...If Germany and England were to succeed in reaching an understanding or even in approaching nearer to such an understanding, it would be necessary, in the English view, that those countries which stood politically close to Germany and England should be at the appropriate time brought into our discussions.

One should mention in this context Italy and France, to whom it must be made clear from the beginning that an Anglo-German rapprochement would not mean an attempt to divide France and England.

The impression should not be given that the Berlin-Rome axis or the good relations between London and Paris would be prejudiced by an agreement between England and Germany. After the ground had been prepared by agreement between England and Germany, the four Great Powers of Western Europe must together create the basis upon which a lasting European peace would be built. In no case should one of the four Powers be left outside this collaboration for in that case the situation of insecurity which would arise would never find an end...

...All other questions could be characterized as relating to changes in the European order, changes that sooner or later would probably take place. To these questions belonged Danzig, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.England was only interested that any alterations should be effected by peaceful evolution, so as to avoid methods which might cause far-reaching disturbances, which were not desired either by the Führer or by other countries...

http://books.google.com/books?id=8XXVVQCSpVMC&pg=RA1-PA129&dq=lord+halifax+began+by+saying+that+he+welcomed&lr=#v=onepage&q=lord%20halifax%20began%20by%20saying%20that%20he %20welcomed&f=false