Did the Soviet Union really invade Poland?

[Comrades Unite!]

http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

[James Connolly]

Are you asking a question or addressing the question you proposed?

It was also not an invasion. The Soviets simply occupied territory they viewed as their sovereign land(which they had lost in the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-21.) The territory to the East of the Curzon line was recognized, by the Soviets, as Western Ukraine and Belorussia. They also only occupied the territory after the Polish government went into exile in Rumania.

[Comrades Unite!]

It was simply a title.

[ComradeOm]

There are two types of people in the world. There are those who can read the below secret protocols from the Nazi-Soviet NAP and conclude that no agreement was reached by Berlin and Moscow to partition Poland and to rearrange borders elsewhere. Then there are people who are not rabidly insane Stalinist apologists


Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas
(With regards Article I, Lithuania fell into the Soviet 'sphere of influence' in the later German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/German-Soviet_Boundary_and_Friendship_Treaty_28_September _1939))

[James Connolly]

Comrade0m is just talking about the secret protocols in the case of war between Germany and Poland, but here is the actual German-Soviet pact.



"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.historyandtheheadlines.abc-clio.com/ContentPages/ContentPage.aspx?entryId=1148906&current...

Edit: LOL at the ultraleft. They'll agree to anything that attacks Stalin, even if taken out of context.

[Mr. Natural]

Comrade Om, as usual, correctly assesses the reality of an historic event. Comrades who doubt that Stalin and the Soviet Union carried out a most brutal invasion of Poland and a calculated extermination of its upper classes and intelligentsia are invited to read Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands (2010).

What's next? The Katyn Forest murders of many thousands of Polish officer POWs didn't occur? This now well-known event serves as a microcosm for Stalinist policy toward Poland as a whole.

DAMN!

[svenne]

As we all know, for example:

"The defendants in the famous "Moscow Show Trials" of 1936, 1937 and 1938 were not framed, but were guilty of at least those crimes to which they confessed.

Leon Trotsky too, an absent codefendant in each of these trials, did conspire with Germany and Japan to overthrow the Soviet government, put an end to the Comintern, and dismember the Soviet Union, and sabotage military defense during wartime, provided he got help to come to power."

Also, the use of ethnicity as an argument is making me somewhat weary. It moves the focus of imperialism from economic factors (to be honest, it was a couple of years since i read the Lenin book about it) to ethnical factors, which is a lot more ethno pluralism, and a lot less marxism-leninism.


And, even though the author criticizes postmodernist/poststructuralist authors - which usually puts words on the forefront of their argumentation, his arguments are based on the definition of words, and of how the states of the day saw the invasion/whatever of Poland from the east. There's a difference between the words of the state, and the material reality of the polish people when, suddenly, a lot of soldiers comes from the east - something Grover Furr seems to miss.

[James Connolly]

Comrade Om, as usual, correctly assesses the reality of an historic event. Comrades who doubt that Stalin and the Soviet Union carried out a most brutal invasion of Poland and a calculated extermination of its upper classes and intelligentsia are invited to read Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands (2010).

What's next? The Katyn Forest murders of many thousands of Polish officer POWs didn't occur? This now well-known event serves as a microcosm for Stalinist policy toward Poland as a whole.

DAMN!
You're just being a sectarian child... As I noted, Comrade0m simply posted additional protocols without posting the ACTUAL Non-Aggression Pact.

Also, please don't be a demagog. The "brutal invasion" was a readministration of Western Ukraine and Belorussia, which had been lost in the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-21, and which only occurred after the Polish government fled to Rumania.

The Katyn forest massacre was conducted by the Germans. Such claims have been defeated on numerous occasions, and continue to be defeated. The fact that the Germans admitted to the occurance at Nuremberg really defeats any legitimacy for it. If you want more information on it, I suggest reading Jerome Davis' Behind Soviet Power.

[Tim Cornelis]

Also, please don't be a demagog. The "brutal invasion" was a readministration of Western Ukraine and Belorussia, which had been lost in the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-21, and which only occurred after the Polish government fled to Rumania.

The "brutal invasion" by the Netherlands of Indonesia was a mere re-administration of territory lost to Japanese imperialism.

or

The "brutal invasion" by the Netherlands of Indonesia was a mere re-administration and re-assertion of sovereign territory lost to Japanese imperialism.


They'll agree to anything that attacks Stalin, even if taken out of context.

And apparently you deny anything critical of Stalin. Case in point:


The Katyn forest massacre was conducted by the Germans. Such claims have been defeated on numerous occasions, and continue to be defeated. The fact that the Germans admitted to the occurance at Nuremberg really defeats any legitimacy for it.

The fact that both the Soviet Union and the Russian government's official investigation lead to the conclusion of guilt by the Soviet administration says enough.

What you are referring to was the non-impartial Soviet military court, where the accused were not executed in exchange for admitting guilt.

[James Connolly]

The "brutal invasion" by the Netherlands of Indonesia was a mere re-administration of territory lost to Japanese imperialism.

or

The "brutal invasion" by the Netherlands of Indonesia was a mere re-administration and re-assertion of sovereign territory lost to Japanese imperialism.

And the poor and exploited Ukrainians and Belorussians living under the brunt of Polish Imperialism didn't have a voice and had no right to reunite with their home countries?

The issue at hand is the reunification of the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs with their sovereign lands that were brutally taken by the Polish regime, and not colonial imperialism. Of course an intellectually illiterate youth, as Tim Cornelis, cannot make the distinction.



And apparently you deny anything critical of Stalin. Case in point:
One of my favorite works is actually a critique of Stalin's economic policies, so I wouldn't rely on your hunches too much.



The fact that both the Soviet Union and the Russian government's official investigation lead to the conclusion of guilt by the Soviet administration says enough.
What, forged documents by Gorbachev's government? And what do you mean the Soviet regime? Have you ever heard of the Burdenko Commission?

[ComradeOm]

Also, please don't be a demagog. The "brutal invasion" was a readministration of Western Ukraine and Belorussia, which had been lost in the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-21, and which only occurred after the Polish government fled to Rumania.Let's get something straight first of all. The absence of the Polish government, ie via exile, makes not a whit of difference. The Polish state did not cease to exist and the location of its government was immaterial to the sovereignty of Poland. A big empty space did not suddenly open up on the map for the Red Army to waltz into

If this was the case then the Germans were entirely justified in seizing and annexing lands in France, Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, etc, where governments evacuated before the advancing Nazi armies

But hey, you like justifying Nazi crimes. You talk of "the poor and exploited Ukrainians and Belorussians living under the brunt of Polish Imperialism [having] no right to reunite with their home countries?" But would you have a problem with bringing the Volksdeutsche under one roof? Do you wring your hands over Nazi ethnic cleansing but applaud the mass deportations of ethnic Poles from Soviet territories? This is what happens when you jump into bed with Nazis: you end up defending them


The Katyn forest massacre was conducted by the Germans. Such claims have been defeated on numerous occasions, and continue to be defeated. The fact that the Germans admitted to the occurance at Nuremberg really defeats any legitimacy for itNo, they didn't. You're making this up. To quote from one account (Reginbogin et al's The Nuremberg Trials):

"The Soviets were given the opportunity to go forward and prove German culpability [for the massacre]. This proved to be a disaster for the Soviets. German defence lawyers had a field day with this accusation by mounting an effective defence... After much embarrassment, the Soviet prosecutors eventually agree to drop the Katyn incident from the proceedings and there is no mention of Katyn in the Nuremburg final judgements"

Other accounts that I've read are even more damning. The whole affair was a fiasco for the Soviet prosecutors

[James Connolly]

Let's get something straight first of all. The absence of the Polish government, ie via exile, makes not a whit of difference.
My point was that since the Polish government left the country, and there was no competent security to protect the Ukrainian and Belorussians in areas occupied by Poland, the only rational thing to do was for the Soviets to reestablish administrative authority over those areas(otherwise they would have fallen into Anarchy, or Nazi rule.)


But hey, you like justifying Nazi crimes. You talk of "the poor and exploited Ukrainians and Belorussians living under the brunt of Polish Imperialism [having] no right to reunite with their home countries?"Please... Just please explain how I justified Nazi crimes by supporting Ukrainians and Belorussians against Polish Imperialism.
That comment was also meant as a mockery of Tim Cornelis' comments, who was being a demagog.


Do you wring your hands over Nazi ethnic cleansing but applaud the mass deportations of ethnic Poles from Soviet territories? This is what happens when you jump into bed with Nazis: you end up defending themI'm not so sure that Poles were deported from Soviet territories. As you may know, there were hundreds of thousands of Poles living in the USSR prior to the dissolution of the Polish state. Such people were obviously allowed to stay if they so wished. Luckily, I also have a firsthand source (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=595075#p595075), who is a Comrade of mine from the Soviet-Empire forum.
He said his grandmother, who was Polish, wasn't deported out of Western Belorussia and Ukraine.



No, they didn't. You're making this up. To quote from one account (Reginbogin et al's The Nuremberg Trials):

"The Soviets were given the opportunity to go forward and prove German culpability [for the massacre]. This proved to be a disaster for the Soviets. German defence lawyers had a field day with this accusation by mounting an effective defence... After much embarrassment, the Soviet prosecutors eventually agree to drop the Katyn incident from the proceedings and there is no mention of Katyn in the Nuremburg final judgements"
I found that quote in an anti-Soviet section of the book, which is ironic when taking into account that it is supposed to be regarding German war crimes.


Other accounts that I've read are even more damning. The whole affair was a fiasco for the Soviet prosecutors
Thus far according to one source. My source of Jerome Davis can defeat such claims quite quickly.


All the evidence I secured showed that the Polish group in London was more interested in doing something against Russia than in doing anything for Poland. This made it easy to understand why they accepted and spread the Goebbels story about the murder of 10,000 Poles in Smolensk. Their unhesitating acceptance of this Nazi propaganda caused the Soviet government to sever relations with the Polish government-in-exile in 1943. It will be remembered that the Germans captured Smolensk on the night of July 15th 1941. Almost two years later Goebbels broadcast to the world that the Russians had killed 10,000 Polish prisoners there, and that their bodies had been found in the Katyn Forest. The Polish government-in-exile immediately gave credence to the Nazi allegation by asking the international Red Cross to investigate. It seemed a preposterous charge. If the Russians had really killed the Poles it would have been known by the people of Smolensk and the Germans would certainly have found out about it almost immediately. It was not the sort of thing that the Germans would have kept quiet about for two years. The Red Army retook Smolensk on September 25, 1943, and the Soviet government immediately instituted an investigation of a massacre.
I visited the Katyn Forest with American, British, Chinese, and French correspondents. Dr. Victor Prozorovsky, Director of the Moscow Institute of Criminal Medical Research, showed me about. The 10,000 bodies had been dug up, and the Russians were systematically examining everything found on them as well as performing autopsies. Eleven doctors were working continuously. I watched some of the autopsies, which were very thorough. The bodies, including the internal organs, were remarkably well preserved. The doctor said that this alone was sufficient to prove the falsity of the charge.
The Russians found letters on the bodies dated after the Germans occupied the city, thus proving that the victims could not had been killed at the time alleged. We talked with a Russian priest whose parish was in the Katyn Forest. He had been driven out of this church by the Germans, and then the building had been surrounded by barbed wire and SS men. The priest declared that the Germans had killed the Poles there. A Russian who had served under the Germans testified that the German authorities had ordered the death of the Polish prisoners. The diary of the Mayor who fled with the Germans contained clear evidence that the Germans had committed the murders. However, the fact which impressed me as much as any other, was that the corpses still had their fine leather boots. I had seen, traveling at the front, that it was general Russian practice to remove the boots of the dead. It seemed unlikely that they would have made an exception in this case, and left 10,000 pairs of good boots behind. Every correspondent who visited Katyn Forest came away convinced that it was another Nazi atrocity. Davis, Jerome, Behind Soviet Power, 1946, p. 99.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes they did and good on them.

[ComradeOm]

My point was that since the Polish government left the country, and there was no competent security to protect the Ukrainian and Belorussians in areas occupied by Poland, the only rational thing to do was for the Soviets to reestablish administrative authority over those areas(otherwise they would have fallen into Anarchy, or Nazi rule.)...and annex them. No, just no. That makes no sense whatsoever


Please... Just please explain how I justified Nazi crimes by supporting Ukrainians and Belorussians against Polish ImperialismIt should be pretty clear how framing territorial aggrandisement in terms of minority rights (ie, through reincorporation of those populations and lands into the homeland) echoes Nazi tactics


I'm not so sure that Poles were deported from Soviet territoriesYou're wrong. During 1939-41 between 400,000 and 600,000 Poles alone were arrested and deported from the newly occupied territories (Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings)


Thus far according to one source. My source of Jerome Davis can defeat such claims quite quickly.

Davis, Jerome., Behind Soviet Power., 1946, p. 99.You are aware that nothing in that passage copied refers to the Nuremberg Trials and the supposed "confession" of the Germans? You know, that thing that you were supposed to prove? It really shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that the Nuremberg court found the Nazis guilty of this crime, if that's what's happened. Instead you've provided something from a Stalinist apologist

Let's try again, shall we? A more detailed account from a thesis (http://stevenwarran.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/nuremberg-trials-as-seen-from-above.html):

"The German defense attorney produced testimony from other members of the German commission that their findings had not been made under German intimidation. Even more embarrassing for the Allies, there voluntarily appeared at Nuremberg Colonel Ahrens, the former commander of the German communications unit--the 537th Signal Regiment--accused of performing the Katyn Massacre by the Soviets. He quickly and convincingly denied the Soviet charges of his guilt, proving that he was not commanding the unit or even in the area at the time of the killings alleged by the Soviets. When the Soviets then tried to accuse his predecessor, Colonel Bedenk, that gentleman also promptly appeared to deny and refute his guilt with equal alacrity. The only alternative to the Germans being guilty for Katyn was embarrassingly obvious, and, significantly, Katyn was omitted from the list of Nazi war crimes in the final Nuremberg judgement"

Now remember: you're trying to assert that "the Germans admitted to the occurance at Nuremberg"

[Sir Comradical]

^ Who cares. Invading Poland expanded Soviet power and that's all that matters.

[James Connolly]

You're wrong. During 1939-41 between 400,000 and 600,000 Poles alone were arrested and deported from the newly occupied territories (Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings)
Yeah... That's not a source I will accept...


Instead you've provided something from a Stalinist apologist
Since you won't accept evidence from the former American Ambassador to the USSR, I'll provide evidence from a Nazi himself.

September 29, 1943

Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us.
We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU, for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from ahead are gruesome. The Führer has also given permission for us to hand out a drastic news item to the German press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of the propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks.
-Goebbels' Diaries

[Igor]

Goebbels' Diaries

...but, Goebbels is basically saying there that GPU murdered them and Soviets are just blaming it on the Nazis, I'd really read that shit over again if I were you. That's evidence ok, but really not the kind of evidence you probably thought it'd be.

[ComradeOm]

Yeah... That's not a source I will accept...Then go away. Which is the nicest possible way of saying that

You are asking us to accept claims that you have entirely failed to substantiate. Your only source being a noted Stalinist apologist. Yet when it's been put to you that you are dead wrong, you just put your fingers in your ears. 'Why no, I won't accept sources that claim that the Germans didn't admit to Katyn and, no, I won't accept articles from a leading academic in the field'

You don't have a leg to stand on, you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you can't support your own arguments. In short, you're not willing to engage with other posters and there's nothing that you can contribute to the thread. So go away. Preferably to rethink why you insist on such idiocy


Since you won't accept evidence from the former American Ambassador to the USSR, I'll provide evidence from a Nazi himself.

September 29, 1943

-Goebbels' DiariesThis really takes the biscuit for sheer dishonestly. What you've done here is conflate two different quotes and rearranged them. It should read:

14 April 1943:
We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU, for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from ahead are gruesome. The Führer has also given permission for us to hand out a drastic news item to the German press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of the propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks

29 Sept 1943
Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us

The obvious inference (note the inverted commas around 'find') being that in April the Nazis began a propaganda campaign around the "12,000 Polish officers murdered by the GPU" but in Sept they "had to give up" as the advancing Soviet echelons would 'find' the graves and begin their own operations

Even by twisting the words, as Igor points out, those quotes don't make the case that you want it to. But even when being intellectually bankrupt enough to try and manipulate them you still got them wrong. This is just a walking omnishambles

[GoddessCleoLover]

I see no reason for revolutionary leftists to defend the actions of the Stalin regime in Poland and/or Katyn. We ought to be about promoting the empowerment of the 21at century working class.

[Invader Zim]

Davis, Jerome, Behind Soviet Power, 1946, p. 99.

Written before 1990. Hardly a 'modern' analysis based on what are now declassified files, is it?


September 29, 1943
Quote:
Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us.
We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU, for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from ahead are gruesome. The Führer has also given permission for us to hand out a drastic news item to the German press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of the propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks.
-Goebbels' Diaries

Which, amusingly enough, utterly contradicts your claim. Who do you think Goebbels is refering to when he states that the soldiers were murdered by the "GPU"?


Such claims have been defeated on numerous occasions, and continue to be defeated.

I think you need to catch up with modern historiography. No serious scholars (and no, Grover Furr is not a serious scholar, at least not of modern history) seriously doubts that the Soviet Union was responsible for the massacre, and nor have they done for over two decades.

And here is why:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://law.case.edu/lectures/files/2010-2011/20110204_KatynSiberia_docs.pdf

Now, I wait with baited breath for whatever nonsense you can find on Grover Furr's website, the Stalin Society or some obscure Russian nationalist's website to contend that the documents are fake, or whatever.

[James Connolly]

You don't have a leg to stand on, you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you can't support your own arguments. In short, you're not willing to engage with other posters and there's nothing that you can contribute to the thread. So go away. Preferably to rethink why you insist on such idiocy

Sorry, but you are the one who needs to disprove my more than infallible claims. Unlike you, I've got firsthand sources, meaning that these people were on the ground when the even in question occurred. I will explain in the Old Bolshevik thread why your book has issues.

As for your insults, which I've made it an objective to address, they are really baseless. They are representative of a gentlemen lacking in competent sources, and who'll have to lower their standards by contradicting the words of the former Ambassador of the USA to the USSR. His excellency is a far greater source than some subjective loser that printed nearly 60 years after the event in question.


Written before 1990. Hardly a 'modern' analysis based on what are now declassified files, is it?
Firsthand accounts mean nothing?


I think you need to catch up with modern historiography. No serious scholars (and no, Grover Furr is not a serious scholar, at least not of modern history) seriously doubts that the Soviet Union was responsible for the massacre, and nor have they done for over two decades.
Why don't you share this supposed trove of knowledge that contradicts my points, rather than using abstract sources.
Thus far I've sourced Jerome Davis, which I pointed out was an infallible source.


Now, I wait with baited breath for whatever nonsense you can find on Grover Furr's website, the Stalin Society or some obscure Russian nationalist's website to contend that the documents are fake, or whatever.
Actually, I already proved that the Katyn massacre was conducted by the Germans while using first hand sources. You've yet to defeat anything thus far, and I suggest reading Jerome Davis' book. I even set it to the page he talked about it in my earlier post.

[ComradeOm]

Sorry, but you are the one who needs to disprove my more than infallible claimsWhich I have. Or have you somehow managed to find proof that the Germans took responsibility for Katyn at Nuremberg?

And I don't think you know the meaning of the word "infallible"


As for your insults, which I've made it an objective to address, they are really baseless. They are representative of a gentlemen lacking in competent sources, and who'll have to lower their standards by contradicting the words of the former Ambassador of the USA to the USSR. His excellency is a far greater source than some subjective loser that printed nearly 60 years after the event in questionI am very impressed by your faith in US officials. Do you believe that "first hand" pronouncements by current serving US diplomats? What would it take for you to elevate say, Paul Bremer's, statements on Iraq to the level of "infallibility"?

But then it appears that you also lack a basic understanding of how historians work*. Here's the thing: sources tend to improve as time goes by. In this case you are comparing an historian who has drawn from archive sources and documentation (including the NKVD's written records) to a diplomat who... what? Had lunch with Molotov and was assured that everything was okay? The mere fact that it's a primary source does not elevate it above all else

Now I can say that the level of documentation, and importantly time, that lies behind Wheatcroft's figures makes them pretty solid. Or at least I have confidence in them. If you're to challenge that then you're going to have to provide something more than a "first hand" account that consists of a American Stalinist questioning helpful Red Army doctors

*Given that you have rendered the entire discipline redundant by dismissing the possibility that anything "printed nearly 60 years after the event in question" could be of value. Sorry medievalists, we're just going to direct people to chronicles from now on!

[James Connolly]

Which I have. Or have you somehow managed to find proof that the Germans took responsibility for Katyn at Nuremberg?
Your skewed sources did not satisfy a certain standard I have put into place with my "infallible" source of Jerome Davis. Why is he infallible? Because as an objective source, it is impossible to contrast anything he says.


Now I can say that the level of documentation, and importantly time, that lies behind Wheatcroft's figures makes them pretty solid.
Yet I defeated them?

Or at least I have confidence in them.
Very nice, Comrade0m recognizes the legitimacy of Wheatcroft.


If you're to challenge that then you're going to have to provide something more than a "first hand" account that consists of a American Stalinist questioning helpful Red Army doctors
As noted, Davis is an objective source, and his claims cannot be contested for that reason.

[Psy]

^ Who cares. Invading Poland expanded Soviet power and that's all that matters.
No what matter is the USSR's defensive line in which Stalin failed to entrench their military positions in Poland to stone wall the Wehrmacht advance, Stalin didn't have units on high alert and never used the time Molotov-Riptoven Pact bought to prepare to turn east Poland into a meat grinder for the Wehrmacht when the Nazi invaded like digging tank traps and burying anti-tank mines all across east Poland.

[James Connolly]

No what matter is the USSR's defensive line in which Stalin failed to entrench their military positions in Poland to stone wall the Wehrmacht advance, Stalin didn't have units on high alert and never used the time Molotov-Riptoven Pact bought to prepare to turn east Poland into a meat grinder for the Wehrmacht when the Nazi invaded like digging tank traps and burying anti-tank mines all across east Poland.
Actually, the Soviets only wanted the territories in question as a buffer against a German invasion. Ian Grey noted how Stalin believed that the Soviets couldn't be on equal footing with the Germans until 1943, and it was in that exact year that the Soviets begun the advance on the Germans.
I believe I also read that they had taken out economic interests from their Western Republics starting in 1940(really after the fall of France, signalling an inevitable war in the East.)

So basically the tactic was to allow those buffers to "bore the brunt" of war while the main country developed its capabilities.

[Psy]

Actually, the Soviets only wanted the territories in question as a buffer against a German invasion. Ian Grey noted how Stalin believed that the Soviets couldn't be on equal footing until 1943, and it was in that exact year that the Soviets begun the advance on the Germans.
I believe I also read that they had taken out economic interests from their Western Republics starting in 1940(really after the fall of France, signalling an inevitable war in the East.)
Yet it was irrelevant because the USSR didn't put significant drain on the Wehrmacht as it advanced through east Poland as USSR troops were not on alert also the USSR did not invest in building entrenchments in east Poland so main USSR forces could pull back from fortification to fortification making the Germans pay a high price for advancing while pulling back (also being able to pull back slow enough that the German's can't encircle or break through thus always fighting the bulk of the USSR army as it pulls back).

Also putting tank traps and mines all through out east Poland would have meant the USSR would shaken the moral of the Wehrmacht as it advanced into east Poland. Nothing breaks the confidence of a army like troops seeing their tank fall into a 10 foot deep water pit requiring a heavy recovery vehicle that gets blown up by a anti-tank mine.

[James Connolly]

Yet it was irrelevant because the USSR didn't put significant drain on the Wehrmacht as it advanced through east Poland as USSR troops were not on alert also the USSR did not invest in building entrenchments in east Poland so main USSR forces could pull back from fortification to fortification making the Germans pay a high price for advancing while pulling back (also being able to pull back slow enough that the German's can't encircle or break through thus always fighting the bulk of the USSR army as it pulls back).
From what I understand, the Soviet strategy was to exhaust the Germans by forcing them to occupy Russian buffer territories(this coming from Molotov.) While the German state slowly destroyed itself from the inside, the Soviet state would still be able to develop.

And what do you mean it was irrelevant? Is that tactic not better than a quick German campaign against Leningrad and Moscow, which would have sent the country into Anarchy if taken?


Also putting tank traps and mines all through out east Poland would have meant the USSR would shaken the moral of the Wehrmacht as it advanced into east Poland. Nothing breaks the confidence of a army like troops seeing their tank fall into a 10 foot deep water pit requiring a heavy recovery vehicle that gets blown up by a anti-tank mine.Do you know how expensive such a program would be? Did you know the Maginot line alone nearly bankrupted France?

[Psy]

From what I understand, the Soviet strategy was to exhaust the Germans by forcing them to occupy Russian buffer territories(this coming from Molotov.) While the German state slowly destroyed itself from the inside, the Soviet state would still be able to develop.

And what do you mean it was irrelevant? Is that tactic not better than a quick German campaign against Leningrad and Moscow, which would have sent the country into Anarchy if taken?

There was not enough resistance to put pressure on the Wehrmacht, this is why after WWII the USSR military vowed never to let Operation Barbarossa happen again as it viewed it as a humiliating disaster that could have been avoided with better preparation.



Do you know how expensive such a program would be? Did you know the Maginot line alone nearly bankrupted France?
Dirt cheap, Imperial Japan did with a fraction of its war budget since tank traps are just holes in the ground engineered so tanks can't get out with a wooden bridge engineered to collapse when a tank crosses it with camouflage so tank crews think they are driving on solid ground.

Tank traps are not like the Maginot line as they are cheap and the enemy is not suppose to know they exist till it is too late.

Anti-tank mines are a bit more expensive but still very cheap compared to the value of a tank they can potentially take out. They were heavily used in the Spanish Civil-War and proved a very powerful weapon for the Republican forces as they used it to also take out convoys to make ambushes against convoys way more effective when done on narrow roads where the convoy couldn't easily get off the mine road.

[James Connolly]

There was not enough resistance to put pressure on the Wehrmacht, this is why after WWII the USSR military vowed never to let Operation Barbarossa happen again as it viewed it as a humiliating disaster that could have been avoided with better preparation.
Nonsense. As noted, the buffers were used for their intended purposes. There was no "grave humiliation," just an acknowledgement that the Soviets did as best they could with what they had.

Here is a good quote:


Despite all his miscalculations[of believing the invasion would occur in 1942-JC], Stalin was not unprepared to meet the emergency. He had solidly armed his country and reorganized its military forces. His practical mind had not been wedded to any one-sided strategic dogma. He had not lulled the Red Army into a false sense of security behind any Russian variety of the Maginot Line, that static defense system that had been the undoing of the French army in 1940. He could rely on Russia's vast spaces and severe climate. No body of men could now dispite his leadership. He had achieved absolute unity of command, the dream of the modern strategist.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 461

That quote should have also addressed your tank trap idea.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Let's get something straight first of all. The absence of the Polish government, ie via exile, makes not a whit of difference. The Polish state did not cease to exist and the location of its government was immaterial to the sovereignty of Poland. A big empty space did not suddenly open up on the map for the Red Army to waltz into

If this was the case then the Germans were entirely justified in seizing and annexing lands in France, Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, etc, where governments evacuated before the advancing Nazi armies

But hey, you like justifying Nazi crimes. You talk of "the poor and exploited Ukrainians and Belorussians living under the brunt of Polish Imperialism [having] no right to reunite with their home countries?" But would you have a problem with bringing the Volksdeutsche under one roof? Do you wring your hands over Nazi ethnic cleansing but applaud the mass deportations of ethnic Poles from Soviet territories? This is what happens when you jump into bed with Nazis: you end up defending them

No, they didn't. You're making this up. To quote from one account (Reginbogin et al's The Nuremberg Trials):

"The Soviets were given the opportunity to go forward and prove German culpability [for the massacre]. This proved to be a disaster for the Soviets. German defence lawyers had a field day with this accusation by mounting an effective defence... After much embarrassment, the Soviet prosecutors eventually agree to drop the Katyn incident from the proceedings and there is no mention of Katyn in the Nuremburg final judgements"

Other accounts that I've read are even more damning. The whole affair was a fiasco for the Soviet prosecutors
If the national sovereignty is the highest principle for you, than I guess it was horrible that the USSR invaded Poland. As a communist, and Trotskyist, I would have given military support to the Soviets against capitalist Poland. Of course, many of the comrades here would deny that the USSR at the time was any kind of a workers' state. Trotsky argued that the spread of the socioeconomic system of the USSR into Poland was historically progressive. And he compared what happened in the areas taken by the Soviets versus the areas taken by the Germans.

[Psy]

Nonsense. As noted, the buffers were used for their intended purposes. There was no "grave humiliation," just an acknowledgement that the Soviets did as best they could with what they had.

Here is a good quote:


Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 461

That quote should have also addressed your tank trap idea.

After de-Stalinization USSR military schools viewed it as a grave humiliation for the USSR, this is why when it came to facing NATO the USSR military brass kept saying the USSR would never again allow large sections of the Red Army to collapse leading to wide encirclement by the enemy like happened in 1941.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

OP, yes the Soviet Union invaded Poland. The idea that Stalin actually had a plan to fight the Germans, and that things progressed according to this plan, is very farfetched. Did they plan to barely hold on in Stalingrad? Was part of the plan to lose 20 million Soviet citizens? Because of the reach of the Comintern, Stalin had unprecedented espionage at his disposal. The "Red Orchestra" was very accurately reporting the timing and scope of the German invasion (they had operatives in the fucking German General Staff). Stalin refused to accept it, and the armed forces in the USSR were not prepared for the German advance. Fortunately, the Germans did not prepare for the Russian winter, and the heroic peoples of the USSR managed to barely beat back the Germans, before going on an offensive that ultimately smashed the Wehrmacht. Fans of Stalin must kid themselves into thinking how well thought out forced collectivization of the peasantry went. Or the murder of most of the highest ranking officers on the eve of WWII. Now that's planning.

Besides nationalism and bureaucratism, the hallmark of Stalin, was lack of foresight, followed by frenzied reactivity when crises occurred.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Your skewed sources did not satisfy a certain standard I have put into place with my "infallible" source of Jerome Davis. Why is he infallible? Because as an objective source, it is impossible to contrast anything he says.

How is a personal account "objective"?

[James Connolly]

After de-Stalinization USSR military schools viewed it as a grave humiliation for the USSR, this is why when it came to facing NATO the USSR military brass kept saying the USSR would never again allow large sections of the Red Army to collapse leading to wide encirclement by the enemy like happened in 1941.
That doesn't mean very much.

This is from Molotov Remembers:


Chuev: All the history books say that Stalin miscalculated
the beginning of the war.
Molotov: To some extent, but it was impossible not to
miscalculate. How could you know when the
enemy would attack? We knew we would have
to deal with him, but on what day or even what
month [...]
Chuev: It is known there were fourteen dates.
Molotov: We are blamed because we ignored our intelligence.
Yes, they warned us. But if we had
heeded them, had given Hitler the slightest excuse,
he would have attacked us earlier.
We knew the war was coming soon, that we
were weaker than Germany, that we would have
to retreat. The question was, retreat to where –
to Smolensk or to Moscow, that’s what we discussed
before the war.
We knew we would have to retreat, and we
needed as much territory as possible. We did
everything to postpone the war. And we succeeded
– for a year and ten months. We wished
it could have been longer, of course. Stalin
reckoned before the war that only in 1943 would
we be able to meet the Germans as equals.
But there were the intelligence reports [...]
What is written about this is contradictory. From
my point of view, there couldn’t have been another
beginning for the war. We delayed it and,
in the end, we were caught asleep; It turned out
to be unexpected. I think we could not have relied
on our intelligence. You have to listen to
them, but you also have to verify their information.
Intelligence agents could push you into
such a dangerous position that you would never
get out of it. Provocateurs everywhere are innumerable.
That’s why you cannot trust intelligence
without constant and scrupulous checking
and rechecking.
Some naïve people, philistines, have written in
their reminiscences: the intelligence agents
spoke out, deserters from the enemy crossed the
border [...]
You couldn’t trust such reports. But if you were
too distrustful you could easily go to the other
extreme.
When I was the Predsovnarkom I spent half a
day reading intelligence reports. The only thing
missing was the date of the invasion! And if we
had trusted these reports [and gone on a war
footing] the war could have started much earlier.
The task of intelligence was to report in a timely
manner.
On the whole everyone expected the war would
come and it would be difficult, impossible for us
to avoid it. We delayed it for a year, for a year
and a half. If Hitler had attacked us half a year
earlier, you know, bearing in mind our situation
then, it would have been very dangerous. So it
was impossible to begin obvious preparations
without revealing to German intelligence that
we were planning serious measures. We took
many serious steps, but still not enough. We
didn’t have time to finish very much. Some
think Stalin should have to answer for all this.
But there was the people’s commissar for defense,
the chief of the general staff [...]
How is a personal account "objective"?
I was just trying to find a way to end the discussion that would also leave me in a favorable position.


OP, yes the Soviet Union invaded Poland. The idea that Stalin actually had a plan to fight the Germans, and that things progressed according to this plan, is very farfetched. Did they plan to barely hold on in Stalingrad? Was part of the plan to lose 20 million Soviet citizens? Because of the reach of the Comintern, Stalin had unprecedented espionage at his disposal. The "Red Orchestra" was very accurately reporting the timing and scope of the German invasion (they had operatives in the fucking German General Staff). Stalin refused to accept it, and the armed forces in the USSR were not prepared for the German advance. Fortunately, the Germans did not prepare for the Russian winter, and the heroic peoples of the USSR managed to barely beat back the Germans, before going on an offensive that ultimately smashed the Wehrmacht. Fans of Stalin must kid themselves into thinking how well thought out forced collectivization of the peasantry went. Or the murder of most of the highest ranking officers on the eve of WWII. Now that's planning.

Besides nationalism and bureaucratism, the hallmark of Stalin, was lack of foresight, followed by frenzied reactivity when crises occurred.
I defeated this gentlemen's claims in my quote from Molotov Remembers.

In regards to collectivization, it managed to turn state owned farmland from 15%, in 1929, to 97%, in 1940.

In regards to high ranking officers, there were roughly 30,000 arrested, of which 40% were released, according to Voroshilov- the Commissar for Defense. He went further to say there were a total of 206,000 officers in the Red Army.

In regards to Nationalism, it was a crime to make displays of National Superiority.

In regards to Bureaucracy, Stalin was very anti-Bureaucracy. In fact the Great Purge of the CPSU was a campaign against Communist careerists.

[officer nugz]

^ Who cares. Invading Poland expanded Soviet power and that's all that matters.at least you are honest.


He said his grandmother, who was Polish, wasn't deported out of Western Belorussia and Ukraine.ladies and gentleman, conclusive proof that the soviets didn't deport ethnic Poles!

[Psy]

That doesn't mean very much.

This is from Molotov Remembers:

Molotov doesn't address the large issues USSR military history books raised about 1941.

That Stalin ordered the Red Army to stand down during the initial attack allowing them to be overrun, when Stalin finally acknowledge the USSR was at war he ordered them to counter-attack which the Red Army couldn't do at the time thus the end result was over 2 million Russian troops getting over taken by the Wehrmacht.

And the USSR was not alone most military schools around the world teach officers that the USSR's preparations for WWII is a prime example of how not prepare for war, by having forces lacking both fortifications or mobility thus can't fight or run as even the railways were not utilized to evacuate the 3 million Russian troops on the border with Germany (so they could live to fight another day) along with material so artillery and tanks are not lost due to Stalin not allowing the Red Army to regroup to positions it can actually defend.

[James Connolly]

That Stalin ordered the Red Army to stand down during the initial attack allowing them to be overrun, when Stalin finally acknowledge the USSR was at war he ordered them to counter-attack which the Red Army couldn't do at the time thus the end result was over 2 million Russian troops getting over taken by the Wehrmacht.
The Khrushchevites said that, and they lied.

"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."
-Zhukov
"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.'"
-Kaganovich

And it is highly unlikely that 2 million Soviet soldiers were "overtaken," as that would have been against Soviet strategy, which was to retreat(the Kiev pocket is another story).

In reality, the Red Army was well prepared for the challenge, at least according to Molotov- a man who was a main decision maker.

[ComradeOm]

Your skewed sources did not satisfy a certain standard I have put into place with my "infallible" source of Jerome Davis. Why is he infallible? Because as an objective source, it is impossible to contrast anything he saysI don't think you know the meaning of the word "objective" either...

So break it down for us. What is it about the "objective" Davis that makes it impossible to take issue with his account? Why is he assumed to be entirely objective, infallible and generally beyond reproach?

And finally, nothing that you've posted from Davis suggests that the Germans admitted to Katyn at Nuremberg. You can't defend that claim by posting entirely unrelated material


Yet I defeated them?No. You said, and I paraphrase, 'Your sources aren't good for some unspecified reason while mine are infallible for other vague reasons'

I don't know what standards that you're used to but this is not to engage in a discussion. So I suggest that you make up your mind quickly as to what you're looking for from this thread. If it's just stonewalling then, as I say, just go away


Trotsky argued that the spread of the socioeconomic system of the USSR into Poland was historically progressiveAnd Trotsky was wrong on that one. He should have stuck to his earlier line of the futility of trying to carry revolution abroad on the points of the Red Army's bayonets

But then the charge of "historically progressive" is just another excuse for imperialism, a variation of the civilising mission. The conquest and annexation of small nations by great ones is a simple and blatant denial of the formers' right to self-determinsation

[Ostrinski]

James Connolly please have the maturity and judiciousness to understand that you've failed to communicate and enforce your position. Time to pack up and leave.

[Grenzer]

Jeezus.. he actually cited Molotov's memoirs.

It's def. Havee for sure now.

[Psy]

The Khrushchevites said that, and they lied.

"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."
-Zhukov
"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.'"
-Kaganovich

If Stalin was not confused then why was there was the Red Army in such distress in 1931 when Trotsky was able to keep the Red Army organized under the much darker days of the Russian civil-war.



And it is highly unlikely that 2 million Soviet soldiers were "overtaken," as that would have been against Soviet strategy, which was to retreat(the Kiev pocket is another story).

Yes, pretty much all military historians conclude that the USSR lost around 2 million troops in 1941 due to being over run by the Wehrmacht, the exact number is 2,335,482 USSR troops missing in action and another 1,256,421 wounded. Most personal accounts by soldiers was there was no retreat ordered by Stalin, they started to pull back when it became hopeless and they started a desperate march eastward in hopes to find friendly defensive lines in which they never found as not even Moscow had any defences in 1941.



In reality, the Red Army was well prepared for the challenge, at least according to Molotov- a man who was a main decision maker.
Then explain losing the entire standing army of the Eastern front in just half a year? Even the British and French did far better against the Germans in 1940 it just Paris didn't have Russia vastness.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Molotov and Stalin's basic approach was to in hindsight say, "but we meant to do that!" Gee they only murdered 30,000 officers. How the hell can one use the word "only" in that sentence? Stalin and his coterie almost lost the war with their lack of planning and denial of the German offensive. "Duh, we couldn't prepare for an attack, otherwise they would have attacked us earlier." Very convincing, comrade.

Because of the boneheaded way collectivization was done, as a REACTION to an emerging crisis (predicted by the Left Opposition), agriculture was set back by about a decade (in terms of crops) and about three decades (livestock). Totally unnecessary. But since you guys live in a parallel universe where Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, Tomsky, Preobrazhinsky, Kamenev, et al. were agents of US and the Mikado I guess we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[James Connolly]

James Connolly please have the maturity and judiciousness to understand that you've failed to communicate and enforce your position. Time to pack up and leave.
What is defeat? I don't know the word...

The standard I originally set has not been untethered, nor has it been challenged by any means, so I will keep going until I judge I've exhausted it.

And, in all the time I've been on these forums olde Comrade Brospierre, I've yet to see an actual argument in which you've taken part. So tell me Comrade, how can you judge me in such a way?


Jeezus.. he actually cited Molotov's memoirs.

It's def. Havee for sure now.

Oh sorry, I should have sourced some Western kook.

"Hitler and Stalin were allies who invaded Poland and then had tea and crumpets while arguing who killed more. Over the course of a few months, Hitler and Stalin became good friends, as they both went to Atheist church together. Hitler and Stalin both wanted to exterminate religion from the world, and they both killed trillions of Christians and Jews. Then Hitler and Stalin agreed to start a war against one another so they could purge their countries of Christians(just like Stalin did in the Great Purge, which killed billions of Christians) and to steal American taxpayer dollars with the lend-lease program that the Liberal pro-Communist president FDR enacted. Luckily, America, with the help of Jesus, landed in Normandy, and gave democracy to Europe. Then Stalin died and eventually the US gave Democracy to Russia. Now back to the Saracens and Bush's campaign to bring Democracy to the Middle East...."
Horowitz, David. Stalin's Wild Ride. Pg. 6899112

[James Connolly]

If Stalin was not confused then why was there was the Red Army in such distress in 1931 when Trotsky was able to keep the Red Army organized under the much darker days of the Russian civil-war.
Being confused and struggling to mobilize forces aren't exactly equal.

Perhaps the issue you are barking upon can be answered with the fact that Stalin hadn't been elected to be Commissar of Defense until one month after the invasion. So to be frank, Stalin had no authority over the military during the time in question, except as a member of the Politburo.

I remember reading a book that said Stalin was able to mobilize the Red Army, when he became Commissar of Defense, faster than the Brits. I'll have to remember which(could have just been Molotov).


Yes, pretty much all military historians conclude that the USSR lost around 2 million troops in 1941 due to being over run by the Wehrmacht, the exact number is 2,335,482 USSR troops missing in action and another 1,256,421 wounded. Most personal accounts by soldiers was there was no retreat ordered by Stalin, they started to pull back when it became hopeless and they started a desperate march eastward in hopes to find friendly defensive lines in which they never found as not even Moscow had any defences in 1941.
I'm assuming you got those numbers from Wikipedia. Yeah I know about the article about Operation Barbarossa, and that was the exact article I was referring to when I said I'd like some more objective sources.

Just as a note, I reviewed some of their numbers regarding Operation Barbarossa. They, for example, said 750,000 Red Army soldiers died in Moscow(and that is wrong.) The only battle where the Soviets lost over a million soldiers(and anywhere near 1,000,000) was Leningrad(and that lasted for over 3 years.)


My source Grigoriy Krivosheyev however said that 3 million died total from 1941-42, while in 1943 2.3 million, and from 1944-45 2-3 million.

I will however accept that 8.6 million were killed in action during the war from the Red Army. While 6.4 million axis soldiers were killed in the Eastern Front.


Then explain losing the entire standing army of the Eastern front in just half a year? Even the British and French did far better against the Germans in 1940 it just Paris didn't have Russia vastness.As noted, they didn't. The Soviet commands were to retreat, as Molotov said, while using the buffers as defense against the Germans. I'm not going to accept nonsense that contradicts Molotov, who was by far the 2nd most powerful figure in the country.
So Wikipedia said it. Big whoop, I already found issues in Wikipedia's number formulations.

[James Connolly]

Molotov and Stalin's basic approach was to in hindsight say, "but we meant to do that!" Gee they only murdered 30,000 officers. How the hell can one use the word "only" in that sentence?

Himmler actually commented on how beneficial the army purges where for the Soviets.

"When... the great show trials took place in Moscow, and the former czarist military cadet, later Bolshevik general, Tukhachevsky, and other generals were executed, all of us in Europe, including us in the 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... if she had retained the former czarist generals. "


Because of the boneheaded way collectivization was done
Yeah, because Trotsky's plans for collectivization were going to be better. Stalin's was actually more generous, as the Peasants would still be able to keep their land, and that took out 2 million.

[Ostrinski]

And, in all the time I've been on these forums olde Comrade Brospierre, I've yet to see an actual argument in which you've taken part. So tell me Comrade, how can you judge me in such a way?Well Have33 I don't try to charade as if I have an argument when I in fact don't. A skill you've yet to develop.

[James Connolly]

A skill you've yet to develop.
Your one to talk. As noted, I've never actually seen an argument from you. You just senselessly go from thread to thread and write one-liners. It's really old...

[Ostrinski]

Your one to talk. As noted, I've never actually seen an argument from you. You just senselessly go from thread to thread and write one-liners. It's really old...Like I said, I don't manufacture artificial arguments in the absence of having an actual one. You should learn the trade of being responsible enough to acknowledge when you've been put in your place.

Now, my one liners might be old to you, but they're of higher quality than the lap dancing you've been doing for Stalin in this thread, and I'm afraid you'll have to learn to cope with your frustrations as you'll probably be gone before any board action is taken against my one liners.

Now, my original comment was a respectful suggestion to you, from one poster to another. Seeing that I offended you, I apologize for my actions.

[Psy]

Being confused and struggling to mobilize forces isn't exactly equal.

Perhaps the issue you are barking upon can be answered with the fact that Stalin hadn't been elected to be Commissar of Defense until one month after the invasion. So to be frank, Stalin had no authority over the military during the time in question, except as a member of the Politburo.

The issue is the Trotsky even when the Bolshviks were facing a much grim situation was able to keep the Red Army effectively fighting due to utilizing the railway to give the Red Army greater mobility then the White Army.

This didn't happen during Operation Barbarossa, if did the Wehrmacht would have been unable to encircle the Red Army as the Wehremacht couldn't advance in the mud faster then trains could move troops in clear tracks.



I remember reading a book that said Stalin was able to mobilize the Red Army, when he became Commissar of Defense, faster than the Brits. I'll have to remember which(could have just been Molotov).

Why would the Red Army need to be mobilized in 1941 if the Red Army was already prepared for war? The Red Army had enough manpower and fight the Wehremacht and hold them inside east Poland, this is why the Red Army laughed at NATO's defensive line because it was about a thin as Stalin's defensive line in east Poland prior to Operation Barbarossa while the Red Army learned from Stalin's incompetence and actually prepared for proper defence in depth after de-Stalinization.

Stalin made no such plans, there was defence in depth strategy. If he did the Wehrmacht would have been encircled way before he reached Russia itself.



I'm assuming you got those numbers from Wikipedia. Yeah I know about the article about Operation Barbarossa, and that was the exact article I was referring to when I said I'd like some more objective sources.

Just as a note, I reviewed some of their numbers regarding Operation Barbarossa. They, for example, said 750,000 Red Army soldiers died in Moscow(and that is wrong.) The only battle where the Soviets lost over a million soldiers(and anywhere near 1,000,000) was Leningrad(and that lasted for over 3 years.)

Don't buy that bull.

If it is bull where did those men and material go? The USSR started the war with more men and material then Nazi Germany then all of a sudden Stalin had to rebuild, what happened?



As noted, they didn't. The Soviet commands were to retreat, as Molotov said, while using the buffers as defense against the Germans. I'm not going to accept nonsense that contradicts Molotov, who was by far the 2nd most powerful figure in the country.
So Wikipedia said it. Big whoop, I already found issues in Wikipedia's number formulations.
You seem to miss the point of defence in depth, the point is to encircle the enemy by giving up your own territory. This didn't happen if it did the Wehrmacht wouldn't have gotten as far as it did as you don't need that much space to encircle.

[James Connolly]

You should learn the trade of being responsible enough to acknowledge when you've been put in your place.
Is there a basis from which to judge that one has been "put in their place."


Now, my one liners might be old to you, but they're of higher quality than the lap dancing you've been doing for Stalin in this thread, and I'm afraid you'll have to learn to cope with your frustrations as you'll probably be gone before any board action is taken against my one liners.
My so-called "frustrations" regarding RevLeft are nonexistent to my knowledge. Perhaps that wasn't good word choice.


Now, my original comment was a respectful suggestion to you, from one poster to another. Seeing that I offended you, I apologize for my actions
You must really hold yourself in high regard if you think petty one-lines(as I've already ridiculed) affect me in anyway that couldn't easily be brushed-off.

[Ostrinski]

Is there a basis from which to judge that one has been "put in their place."nah but it's plain for everyone to see. ComradeOm deconstructed your argument in a very real way.



My so-called "frustrations" regarding RevLeft are nonexistent to my knowledge. Perhaps that wasn't good word choice.by frustrations I was referring to your expressed disgruntledness toward my one liners



You must really hold yourself in high regard if you think petty one-lines(as I've already ridiculed) affect me in anyway that couldn't easily be brushed-off.then stop talking to me

[James Connolly]

The issue is the Trotsky even when the Bolshviks were facing a much grim situation was able to keep the Red Army effectively fighting due to utilizing the railway to give the Red Army greater mobility then the White Army.
The Nazis were more tactical than petty renegading peasants. Heh?

"The 18th Party Conference of February 1941 was devoted almost entirely to defense matters.... Stalin proposed that in 1941 industrial output should increase by 17-18 percent. That did not seem unrealistic. In 1940, for instance, defense output had increased by 27 percent compared to 1939.... The people knew a war was coming and that they would have to perform the impossible. By the time of Hitler's invasion, 2700 airplanes of a new type and 4300 tanks, nearly half of them a new model, had been built."
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 374

A month before the German attack, Stalin, speaking to a close circle, said, 'The conflict is inevitable, perhaps in May next year.' By the early summer of 1941, acknowledging the explosiveness of the situation, he approved the premature release of military cadets, and young officers and political workers were posted, mostly without leave, straight to units which were below full strength. After much hesitation, Stalin also decided to call up about 800,000 reservists, bringing up to strength 21 divisions in the frontier military districts....
On 19 June 1941 troops were ordered to begin camouflaging aerodromes, transport depots, bases and fuel dumps, and to disperse aircraft around airfields. The order came hopelessly late, and even then Stalin was reluctant in case 'all these measures provoke the German forces'.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 393

The training schools increased their intake of new officer trainees. The technological threshold still moved slowly forward. The system of fortifications begun in the 1920s along the whole western frontier-the Stalin Line-continued to be constructed and extended. Most important of all, the modernization and expansion of the Soviet heavy industrial base continued, and with it the large proportion allocated to military production. Without the economic transformation, the Red Army would have been a feeble force in 1941, relying on a vast base of peasant manpower. The industrial changes of the 1930s provided the planners, the scientists, engineers, and skilled labor necessary to cope with the demands of total mobilization made after the German invasion in 1941. Whatever the weaknesses exposed by the modernization drive, it is inconceivable that the Soviet Union could have withstood the German attack without it.
Overy, R. J. Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow. New York: TV Books, c1997, p. 51


Why would the Red Army need to be mobilized in 1941 if the Red Army was already prepared for war?
At the beginning of WWII, France had 600k soldiers on the ground, while Britain had 200k. While the Red Army was far bigger than either of those two armies, the Germans sent some 179 divisions, while the Rumanians and Finns sent a combined 26.
That would, of course, mean a grand mobilization was in order for the Red Army, which according to the source I was earlier referring to, they got more to join than either the British or French managed(percentage wise).

So no, the Soviets would have had no chance at all against the Germans even if they themselves begun the war. Although Molotov said they would have intervened in the case of a prolonged Franco-German war.


while the Red Army learned from Stalin's incompetence and actually prepared for proper defence in depth after de-Stalinization.
Again, you have yet to demonstrate Stalin's "incompetence." As Molotov said, they did as best they could with what they had. The Revisionists building an empire is not equivalent to building competent security.


If it is bull where did those men and material go? The USSR started the war with more men and material then Nazi Germany then all of a sudden Stalin had to rebuild, what happened?
Nonsense. I direct you to my earlier claim that the Germans sent 179 divisions, while the Romanians and Finns sent 26. The size of the Red Army(which had been partially split in half due to the threat from Japan) was a fraction of the Wehrmarcht.

[James Connolly]

nah but it's plain for everyone to see. ComradeOm deconstructed your argument in a very real way.
No, he just kept reassessing boring sources. I admit that I've only read a single book that touched on the topic, but he played the game of "whoever has read more, regardless of content, wins."

F--k that.



by frustrations I was referring to your expressed disgruntledness toward my one linersAnnoyed would have been more appropriate, although the feeling dissipated rather quickly.


then stop talking to me
You should know by now that such a thing doesn't happen with me.

[Psy]

The Nazis were more tactical than petty renegading peasants. Heh?

You mean the tactical geniuses that let the British evacuate their forces from Dunkirk then let up on attacking military targets in the Battle of Britain to attack civilian targets that had far less effect. Then we get into not providing the German troops with equipment capable of dealing with Russian mud and winters.




"The 18th Party Conference of February 1941 was devoted almost entirely to defense matters.... Stalin proposed that in 1941 industrial output should increase by 17-18 percent. That did not seem unrealistic. In 1940, for instance, defense output had increased by 27 percent compared to 1939.... The people knew a war was coming and that they would have to perform the impossible. By the time of Hitler's invasion, 2700 airplanes of a new type and 4300 tanks, nearly half of them a new model, had been built."
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 374

A month before the German attack, Stalin, speaking to a close circle, said, 'The conflict is inevitable, perhaps in May next year.' By the early summer of 1941, acknowledging the explosiveness of the situation, he approved the premature release of military cadets, and young officers and political workers were posted, mostly without leave, straight to units which were below full strength. After much hesitation, Stalin also decided to call up about 800,000 reservists, bringing up to strength 21 divisions in the frontier military districts....
On 19 June 1941 troops were ordered to begin camouflaging aerodromes, transport depots, bases and fuel dumps, and to disperse aircraft around airfields. The order came hopelessly late, and even then Stalin was reluctant in case 'all these measures provoke the German forces'.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 393

The training schools increased their intake of new officer trainees. The technological threshold still moved slowly forward. The system of fortifications begun in the 1920s along the whole western frontier-the Stalin Line-continued to be constructed and extended. Most important of all, the modernization and expansion of the Soviet heavy industrial base continued, and with it the large proportion allocated to military production. Without the economic transformation, the Red Army would have been a feeble force in 1941, relying on a vast base of peasant manpower. The industrial changes of the 1930s provided the planners, the scientists, engineers, and skilled labor necessary to cope with the demands of total mobilization made after the German invasion in 1941. Whatever the weaknesses exposed by the modernization drive, it is inconceivable that the Soviet Union could have withstood the German attack without it.
Overy, R. J. Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow. New York: TV Books, c1997, p. 51


At the beginning of WWII, France had 600k soldiers on the ground, while Britain had 200k. While the Red Army was far bigger than either of those two armies, the Germans sent some 179 divisions, while the Rumanians and Finns sent a combined 26.
That would, of course, mean a grand mobilization was in order for the Red Army, which according to the source I was earlier referring to, they got more to join than either the British or French managed(percentage wise).

So no, the Soviets would have had no chance at all against the Germans even if they themselves begun the war. Although Molotov said they would have intervened in the case of a prolonged Franco-German war.


Again, you have yet to demonstrate Stalin's "incompetence." As Molotov said, they did as best they could with what they had. The Revisionists building an empire is not equivalent to building competent security.


Nonsense. I direct you to my earlier claim that the Germans sent 179 divisions, while the Romanians and Finns sent 26. The size of the Red Army(which had been partially split in half due to the threat from Japan) was a fraction of the Wehrmarcht.
No the Red Army had way more divisions then the Wehrmarcht if you include all of the USSR as they had around 174 divisions in the western theatre of operations alone.

[James Connolly]

No the Red Army had way more divisions then the Wehrmarcht if you include all of the USSR as they had around 174 divisions in the western theatre of operations alone.


Could you source that?

I'll source mine.

"Already almost all the nations of Europe had gone down like ninepins.
The decision of Hitler...to turn eastward after the conquest of Europe, will probably go on permanent record as the greatest blunder in military history....
Two hundred and sixty divisions from Germany and her allies, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Spain, and Finland, swept eastward. There is nothing in the history of warfare with which to make comparison of the striking power of these forces against a single country."
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 220

"One hundred seventy-nine German divisions, 22 Rumanian divisions, 14 Finnish divisions, 13 Hungarian divisions, 10 Italian divisions, one Slovak division, and one Spanish division, a total of well over 3 million troops, the best armed and most experienced in the world, attacked along a 2000 mile front, aiming their spearhead directly at Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad."
Franklin, Bruce, Ed. The Essential Stalin; Major Theoretical Writings. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1972, p. 31

[Psy]

Could you source that?

I'll source mine.

"Already almost all the nations of Europe had gone down like ninepins.
The decision of Hitler...to turn eastward after the conquest of Europe, will probably go on permanent record as the greatest blunder in military history....
Two hundred and sixty divisions from Germany and her allies, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Spain, and Finland, swept eastward. There is nothing in the history of warfare with which to make comparison of the striking power of these forces against a single country."
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 220

"One hundred seventy-nine German divisions, 22 Rumanian divisions, 14 Finnish divisions, 13 Hungarian divisions, 10 Italian divisions, one Slovak division, and one Spanish division, a total of well over 3 million troops, the best armed and most experienced in the world, attacked along a 2000 mile front, aiming their spearhead directly at Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad."
Franklin, Bruce, Ed. The Essential Stalin; Major Theoretical Writings. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1972, p. 31

Show me a non-partisan source by a historian that didn't care about Stalin and just reported the facts. Most war historians (which are not trying to credit or discredit Stalin) put the force balance between Germany and the USSR about equal in 1941 in the western front, with the USSR having more manpower outside the theatre.

[James Connolly]

Show me a non-partisan source by a historian that didn't care about Stalin and just reported the facts. Most war historians (which are not trying to credit or discredit Stalin) put the force balance between Germany and the USSR about equal in 1941 in the western front, with the USSR having more manpower outside the theatre.
I read a few years ago that the Red Army grew by 5 times from the mid-'30s to 1941.

Besides that, I can't affirm or disaffirm anything you're saying.

I haven't invested too much time in WW2 history, seeing that it is hard to find objective books. For example, some American historians like to claim that the Soviets only continued to exist thanks to the lend-lease program(which always gives a good chuckle.)

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Himmler actually commented on how beneficial the army purges where for the Soviets.

"When... the great show trials took place in Moscow, and the former czarist military cadet, later Bolshevik general, Tukhachevsky, and other generals were executed, all of us in Europe, including us in the 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... if she had retained the former czarist generals. "


Yeah, because Trotsky's plans for collectivization were going to be better. Stalin's was actually more generous, as the Peasants would still be able to keep their land, and that took out 2 million.
Yeah, well Himmler wasn't going to say that even given the benefit of the purges, the Wehrmacht fucked things up. It was an excuse, comrade. Are we next going to quote Mussolini on entry tactics into labor parties?

As for the LOs plans for collectivization, Preobrazhinsky was probably more involved in such formulations than Trotsky. We can't say for sure if they would have been better -- but it is highly unlikely they could have gone worse. Because Stalin was wed to Bukharin for a while, he denied the coming crisis of peasants withholding grain, which exploded in 1928. Where the harvest was excellent, but the grain was withheld by the peasants because they were not getting a good price for it and their were not enough manufactured goods to purchase with money they received. This was predicted years earlier by the Left Opposition. Instead of moving in an organized and calculated way toward collectivized agriculture, Stalin panicked and did it all at once in a brutal fashion. The human and monetary costs were far beyond what was necessary. And you had such stupidities as a bunch of huge collective farms with no freaking tractors or mechanized anything that could not produce anything efficiently.

And the nationalism is the calling card of all Stalinists, from the man himself, to Ho, Castro, Mao, and even Hoxha. That means that they put their own country's immediate needs (or rather their own bureaucracies needs) ahead of the international proletariat's. So Mao was clinking toasts with Nixon while the US bombed Hanoi. The CIs minions in Spain were jailing and killing revolutionary anarchists in the interest of appeasing the French and English during the Spanish civil war. Brezhnev and Gorby abandoned Afghanistan to the Mullahs. All of this is the opposite of Leninism.

[Grenzer]

All of this is the opposite of Leninism.

Not really.

The first thing to bear in mind that even the term "Leninism" is really a formulation of Stalin. Key to Stalin's conception of 'Leninism' is the 'vanguard party' as a sort of narrow bureaucratic sect which bars open discussion and debate. All followers of 'Leninism' and even the Left Communists which advocate what they believe to be Lenin's conception of the vanguard are in reality echoing Stalin's theses in the Foundations of Leninism. Your beloved Spartacists are certainly no exception, who have organized the party on the basis of a narrow sect run top-down by a bureaucratic clique which actively persecutes dissidents and despises even the notion of free and open debate.

While Lenin did make many valuable contributions to Marxism, he made some big fucking mistakes too. This isn't something that people who take an actual scientific view should bury their head in the sand over. Lenin's support of Ataturk comes to mind, to name one. The cult of Lenin is anti-Marxist and reminiscent of the nascent culture of Stalinism.

[l'Enfermé]

Not really.

The first thing to bear in mind that even the term "Leninism" is really a formulation of Stalin. Key to Stalin's conception of 'Leninism' is the 'vanguard party' as a sort of narrow bureaucratic sect which bars open discussion and debate. All followers of 'Leninism' and even the Left Communists which advocate what they believe to be Lenin's conception of the vanguard are in reality echoing Stalin's theses in the Foundations of Leninism. Your beloved Spartacists are certainly no exception, who have organized the party on the basis of a narrow sect run top-down by a bureaucratic clique which actively persecutes dissidents and despises even the notion of free and open debate.

While Lenin did make many valuable contributions to Marxism, he made some big fucking mistakes too. This isn't something that people who take an actual scientific view should bury their head in the sand over. Lenin's support of Ataturk comes to mind, to name one. The cult of Lenin is anti-Marxist and reminiscent of the nascent culture of Stalinism.
Indeed. Lenin was an Erfurtian from up to bottom. Lenin's only major contribution to Marxism was his theory of imperialism, to which all the "Leninists"(and by this I mean those who consider their sect's god-figure the true inheritor and heir of Lenin and his legacy - Stalinists, "Trotskyists"(and I put Trotskyists in quotation marks because Trots don't really seem to adhere to Trotsky's believes), Maoists and Hoxhaists) don't even adhere to. Case in point: our Hoxhaist and Maoist friends complain about the imperialism of the "revisionists", in say, Afghanistan, even though the Soviet War in Afghanistan was an example of what only the vulgarists and anarchist types call "imperialism" - a strong country attacking a weaker, less developed country. This doesn't fit into Lenin's definition of Imperialism. What does fit into his definition of Imperialism is the war reparations extorted from East Germany by Soviets under Stalin - I believe around 35 percent of the East German industrial capacity was just simply relocated to the USSR on rail. This had such a severe effect on the East German economy that I believe around 2-3 million skilled East German workers fled to Western Germany where they were paid lower wages than "native" West Germans. This greatly reinforced West German capitalism and further undermined the position of the Warsaw Pact countries, so I guess you could say that Stalin shot himself in the foot with that bullshit.

Anyways, this thread is fucking ridiculous. The USSR never invaded Poland you say? Why, because Soviet apologists would tell you that the Polish State no longer existed on Sept 17 when the Soviet Union invaded(actually they didn't invade, you see, the Red Army just decided to take a stroll and somehow ended up on the other side of the Polish-Soviet War and before long inexplicably conquered 200,000 square kilometers of new land for the Soviet Empire)? That's a crock of shit. On September 17, after several appeals from their Nazi allies, about 800,000 Soviet men, with 5,000 tanks and 3000 warplanes, crossed the Polish border after a de facto declaration of war was presented by Molotov to the Polish ambassador in Moscow, to face the 650,000 - 750,000 men still serving in the Polish army, which still had control of 140,000 square kilometers of land. I guess if Poland and the USSR were never at war, it's really damn odd that the USSR captured 230,000 prisoners of war. Did those just wander off into NKVD concentration camps by accident while mass-hiking or something? What of the tens of thousands of Polish wounded and killed? Were they all filthy aristocratic Polish noble-officers that accidentally fell on their swords(because they were startled by the comradely Soviets strolling into their country perhaps?)? Did all the Soviet dead stumble upon bear traps during their strolling in Poland?

140,000 square kilometers of territory under it's control and up to 750,000 men in it's army, and the Polish state didn't exist! That's more territory than Greece or Portugal have; tell me, comrade, are Greece and Portugal fake countries too? Someone must inform them, immediatelly, lest they get caught unaware "not getting invaded"(:rolleyes:) by Turkey and Spain, respectively.

[James Connolly]

Because Stalin was wed to Bukharin for a while,

Ian Grey begs to differ.

"In the congress Stalin bluntly condemned both municipalization and nationalization and proposed as a 'temporary' expedient what he called distributism, which meant seizing and sharing out the land directly among the peasants. This was what they wanted and this alone would win their support. Lenin and others attacked his proposal, but he stood his ground, maintaining that it was the obvious practical policy. He argued further that in fostering rural capitalism his proposal was in accordance with Marxist doctrine and a logical advance towards the socialist revolution. And in 1917 his policy, by then endorsed by Lenin, produced the slogan 'All land to the peasants,' which gained the party wide support on the land and was a major factor in its victory."
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. p. 56.

he denied the coming crisis of peasants withholding grain, which exploded in 1928.Is that why quotas were lowered in 1929 and 1930?
And as far as I'm aware, collectivization didn't really begin until 1929.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrades, hear! Hear! The Bolshevik appropriation of the SR agricultural programme was no such thing! No, the originator of the Bolshevik agricultural programme was Stalin!

[ComradeOm]

No, he just kept reassessing boring sources. I admit that I've only read a single book that touched on the topic, but he played the game of "whoever has read more, regardless of content, wins."And that's a game that I know well. But not one employed this time. I think I only needed to produce what, two, three sources to discredit your claims? That's not a mountain of evidence

Where you are right is in that you took refuge in your ignorance: refusing to accept that the one book you've read might be wrong (how can you claim it's infallible when it's the only one on the subject you've read?) while unjustly rubbishing those that you haven't. It's not just about your ignorance - and the idea that there should be a level playing field between those who are speaking from ignorance and those who aren't is laughable - but the way in which this shapes your responses: generally evasive and nonsensical

All you had to say was, "My mistake, the Germans didn't admit to Katyn at Nuremberg, after all". That would have saved a lot of time otherwise spent posting unrelated material, manipulating quotes, questioning sources and generally failing to support the point you made

I honestly don't mind idiots or the misinformed but I've little time for those who glory in their ignorance and don't even see the need to back up their arguments. How can you engage with someone like that?

[Psy]

I read a few years ago that the Red Army grew by 5 times from the mid-'30s to 1941.

Right and in the mid '30s the Red Army had around 100 divisions across the USSR.



Besides that, I can't affirm or disaffirm anything you're saying.

I haven't invested too much time in WW2 history, seeing that it is hard to find objective books. For example, some American historians like to claim that the Soviets only continued to exist thanks to the lend-lease program(which always gives a good chuckle.)
I'm mostly talking about Russian historians true they wrote after de-stalinization but they raise good points like the USSR had no problem defending the eastern front from Japan in the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol in thus summer of 1939 that was using the simular tactics to Nazi Germany the difference is Zhukov ignored only having 57,000 troops to Japan's 75,000 and used artillery, armour and air-power to just pound the Japanese northern strike force while having less infantry.

In short artillery is where the real might of the Red Army came from, and it was possible for Stalin to have deployed enough artillery to at least slow down Nazi Germany's advance so more forces could evacuate to better defended positions also hit and run artillery tactics were well known by 1941 due to such tactics being widely used in the Spanish Civil-War.

_xHcpgaPuPQ

[James Connolly]

In short artillery is where the real might of the Red Army came from, and it was possible for Stalin to have deployed enough artillery to at least slow down Nazi Germany's advance so more forces could evacuate to better defended positions also hit and run artillery tactics were well known by 1941 due to such tactics being widely used in the Spanish Civil-War.

_xHcpgaPuPQ
As noted earlier, Stalin wasn't Commissar of Defense at that time, so he didn't have much authority to order deployment of anything. I believe Molotov said the previous Commissar of Defense was at a movie theater at the time of the invasion(or something like that).

Artillery pieces also weren't cheap and weren't in large supply, and they certainly couldn't be deployed in numerous fronts on short notice. Remember the Red Army wasn't very strong and quite spread out- at least not in comparison to the massive hordes that had been making strategical plans for a long time(even assuming your claims of the Red Army size are true.) Sending any resistance to the invasion would have just caused the Germans to get their hands on Soviet equipment(which weren't anywhere near the border no matter what Bourgeois historians claim.)
A retreat was the best plan, and to allow occupied territories to be used as a buffer while the Soviets expanded their capabilities.

To be frank, if I were in Stalin's shoes I'd have likely pulled a Bonnie Prince Charlie and screamed "every man for himself" as I fled the country.

[Invader Zim]

Firsthand accounts mean nothing?

Certainly. They mean that Davis reported back what he saw - i.e. what the Soviets presented him after manufacturing a cover up. It doesn't prove that the Nazis did it, it proves that Davis uncritically believed what the Soviets told him.

And as the documentary evidence proves and explicitly admits, the Soviets engaged in an extensive cover up.



Why don't you share this supposed trove of knowledge that contradicts my points, rather than using abstract sources.
Thus far I've sourced Jerome Davis, which I pointed out was an infallible source.

I presented you with a collection of 19 declassified Soviet documents from the Soviet archives. Including this one:

'Note by Shelepin to Khrushchev, 3 March 1959, Proposing to Destroy the
Documents of the Operation Sanctioned by the Politburo on 5 March 1940'

3 March 1959, Moscow
Special File
Top Secret
No. 632-sh[elepin]

"Since I940, records and other materials regarding prisoners and interned officers, policemen, gendarmes, [military] settlers, landlords and so on, and persons from former bourgeois Poland who were shot in that same year have been kept in the Committee of State Security of the Council of Ministers, USSR. On the basis of the decision by the special Troika of the NKVD USSR, a total of 2I,857 persons were shot; of these, 4,421 [were shot] in the Katyn Forest (Smolensk Oblast), 3,820 in the camp of Starobelsk, close °to Kharkov, 6,311 in the camp of Ostashkov (Kalinin Oblast), and 7,305 persons were shot in other camps and prisons of western Ukraine and western Belorussia.

The whole operation of liquidating the above-mentioned persons was carried out on the basis of the decision of the CC CPSU of 5 March 1940. All of them were sentenced to the highest order of punishment according to the files started for them as POWs and internees in 1939. From the time when the above-mentioned operation was carried out, that is, from 1940, no information has been released to anybody relating to the case, and all of the 21,857 files have been stored in a sealed location.

All these files are of no operational or historical value to Soviet organs. It is also highly doubtful whether they could be of any real value to our Polish friends. On the contrary, any unforeseen incident may lead to revealing the operation, with all the undesirable consequences for our country, especially since, regarding the persons shot in the Katyn Forest, the official version was confirmed by an investigation carried out on the initiative of the organs of Soviet authorities in 1944, under the name of the "Special Commission to Establish and Investigate the Shooting of Polish Prisoner-of-War Officers in Katyn Forest by the German-Fascist Aggressors."

According to the conclusion of that commission, all the Poles liquidated there are considered to have been killed by the German occupiers. The materials of the inquiry were extensively covered in the Soviet and foreign press. The commission's conclusions became firmly established in international public opinion."

So yeah, Davis' view was entirely fallible - he was wrong.

[Psy]

As noted earlier, Stalin wasn't Commissar of Defense at that time, so he didn't have much authority to order deployment of anything. I believe Molotov said the previous Commissar of Defense was at a movie theater at the time of the invasion(or something like that).

Artillery pieces also weren't cheap and weren't in large supply, and they certainly couldn't be deployed in numerous fronts on short notice. Remember the Red Army wasn't very strong and quite spread out- at least not in comparison to the massive hordes that had been making strategical plans for a long time(even assuming your claims of the Red Army size are true.) Sending any resistance to the invasion would have just caused the Germans to get their hands on Soviet equipment(which weren't anywhere near the border no matter what Bourgeois historians claim.)
A retreat was the best plan, and to allow occupied territories to be used as a buffer while the Soviets expanded their capabilities.

To be frank, if I were in Stalin's shoes I'd have likely pulled a Bonnie Prince Charlie and screamed "every man for himself" as I fled the country.
As I said hit and run tactics with artillery were widely used in the Spanish civil-war, were artillery positions were quickly setup they fired off rounds then quickly packed up and moved before the enemy mobilized against their position, the North Vietnamese Army during the Vietnam war perfected this tactic of lobbing artillery rounds into American bases then being long gone before US aircraft napalmed their positions. So why didn't the "brilliant" Stalin also clue into the fact artillery can lob rounds from tens of kilometres away thus can relocate and hide before the enemy reaches them?

If I where in Stalin's shoes from back in the mid 30's I would have told engineers to give me artillery that could out range any artillery gun on the planet at the time and mass produce it. When the Nazi's invade have the guns fire from tens of kilometres away with the Red Airforce keeping the Luftwaffer off them, and moving them when where things got too hot for them, use tank traps and mines to clump up the Wehrmacht up so they become easy picking for artillery. Pull back but only to encircle the Wehrmacht so artillery and dive bombers can rip their convoys to shreds.

[James Connolly]

So why didn't the "brilliant" Stalin also clue into the fact artillery can lob rounds from tens of kilometres away thus can relocate and hide before the enemy reaches them?

If I where in Stalin's shoes from back in the mid 30's I would have told engineers to give me artillery that could out range any artillery gun on the planet at the time and mass produce it. When the Nazi's invade have the guns fire from tens of kilometres away with the Red Airforce keeping the Luftwaffer off them, and moving them when where things got too hot for them, use tank traps and mines to clump up the Wehrmacht up so they become easy picking for artillery. Pull back but only to encircle the Wehrmacht so artillery and dive bombers can rip their convoys to shreds.

Do you know how absurd this comment is? What, was he supposed to wish for more capabilities? Was he supposed to use resources that would have otherwise been invested in development for a war with Germany(that only existed in his mind)? Oh yeah, but then people like you turn around and criticize Hoxha for making pre-war preparations by building a bunker for every family. If you can understand why China doesn't senselessly increase spending on military to match American spending, you can likely understand why the Soviets didn't either.

And I direct you to that earlier quote which I posted after your tank trap idea.

[James Connolly]

I presented you with a collection of 19 declassified Soviet documents from the Soviet archives. Including this one:

'Note by Shelepin to Khrushchev, 3 March 1959, Proposing to Destroy the
Documents of the Operation Sanctioned by the Politburo on 5 March 1940'

3 March 1959, Moscow
Special File
Top Secret
No. 632-sh[elepin]

"Since I940, records and other materials regarding prisoners and interned officers, policemen, gendarmes, [military] settlers, landlords and so on, and persons from former bourgeois Poland who were shot in that same year have been kept in the Committee of State Security of the Council of Ministers, USSR. On the basis of the decision by the special Troika of the NKVD USSR, a total of 2I,857 persons were shot; of these, 4,421 [were shot] in the Katyn Forest (Smolensk Oblast), 3,820 in the camp of Starobelsk, close °to Kharkov, 6,311 in the camp of Ostashkov (Kalinin Oblast), and 7,305 persons were shot in other camps and prisons of western Ukraine and western Belorussia.

The whole operation of liquidating the above-mentioned persons was carried out on the basis of the decision of the CC CPSU of 5 March 1940. All of them were sentenced to the highest order of punishment according to the files started for them as POWs and internees in 1939. From the time when the above-mentioned operation was carried out, that is, from 1940, no information has been released to anybody relating to the case, and all of the 21,857 files have been stored in a sealed location.

All these files are of no operational or historical value to Soviet organs. It is also highly doubtful whether they could be of any real value to our Polish friends. On the contrary, any unforeseen incident may lead to revealing the operation, with all the undesirable consequences for our country, especially since, regarding the persons shot in the Katyn Forest, the official version was confirmed by an investigation carried out on the initiative of the organs of Soviet authorities in 1944, under the name of the "Special Commission to Establish and Investigate the Shooting of Polish Prisoner-of-War Officers in Katyn Forest by the German-Fascist Aggressors."

According to the conclusion of that commission, all the Poles liquidated there are considered to have been killed by the German occupiers. The materials of the inquiry were extensively covered in the Soviet and foreign press. The commission's conclusions became firmly established in international public opinion."

So yeah, Davis' view was entirely fallible - he was wrong.

You were caught with your head half way up your ass when you presented this argument to the user Камо́ Зэд. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=65800) I'm surprised you keep using it.

Now I'm not an expert on this topic, as I've only read one book on it, but you seriously need to revisit this crap before you post it, lest you be challenged again like that again.

And, as I noted to another user, I only used the word "infallible" to be rude, as the user ComradeOm (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=10834) has an issue that I explained to Brospierre.

[Psy]

Do you know how absurd this comment is? What, was he supposed to wish for more capabilities? Was he supposed to use resources that would have otherwise been invested in development for a war with Germany(that only existed in his mind)?

Investing in artillery rather then the Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship would have given the USSR a powerful army at the cost of not building obsolete battleships.



Oh yeah, but then people like you turn around and criticize Hoxha for making pre-war preparations by building a bunker for every family. If you can understand why China doesn't senselessly increase spending on military to match American spending, you can likely understand why the Soviets didn't either.

The USSR by 1945 built a military much larger then not only Nazi Germany but the rest of allies which is why plans by Britain and the USA to attack the USSR in 1946 was scrapped.



And I direct you to that earlier quote which I posted after your tank trap idea.
But later in the war the USSR did dig tank traps and by crude methods, so how is it that digging giant holes (or trenches) in the ground, covering them up and camouflaging them expensive?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J31396,_Berlin,_Bau_von_Panzergrt%C3%A4ben_am_Stad trand.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J31396,_Berlin,_Bau_von_Panzergrt%C3%A4ben_am_Stad trand.jpg

[James Connolly]

Investing in artillery rather then the Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship would have given the USSR a powerful army at the cost of not building obsolete battleships.
Arguments like that aren't very compelling. Many considerations have to be made, and investing in a single military Orthodoxy isn't going to be as tactical as you might imagine. Balanced policies always have the best outcomes.



The USSR by 1945 built a military much larger then not only Nazi Germany but the rest of allies which is why plans by Britain and the USA to attack the USSR in 1946 was scrapped.
Yeah... That's because countries at war generally increase their military size...

And don't look too much into Operation Unthinkable. The Americans had designs to nuke Beijing during the Korean war, yet that never amounted to anything.


But later in the war the USSR did dig tank traps and by crude methods, so how is it that digging giant holes (or trenches) in the ground, covering them up and camouflaging them expensive?
Oh yeah, because digging in the progress of war is equivalent to digging before a war(which would be a massive waste of labor power.)

[Psy]

Arguments like that aren't very compelling. Many considerations have to be made, and investing in a single military Orthodoxy isn't going to be as tactical as you might imagine. Balanced policies always have the best outcomes.

What did the Bismark do for Nazi Germany? Not much and the USSR had less of a reason to invest in battleships because in the 1930's the threats to the USSR pointed to the need of a strong army and air force. Even the battleship Yamato didn't do much for Japan as carriers and subs proved far more cost effective making such massive ships obsolete and just a waste of resources.

The Sovetsky Soyuz was a result of Stalin's administration not understanding the changes in military naval technology as the battleship arms race by then was only a race for losers.



Yeah... That's because countries at war generally increase their military size...

As do countries gearing up for war.



Oh yeah, because digging in the progress of war is equivalent to digging before a war(which would be a massive waste of labor power.)
Why? Holes and trenches doesn't require much maintenance to keep working as tank traps.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Ian Grey begs to differ.

"In the congress Stalin bluntly condemned both municipalization and nationalization and proposed as a 'temporary' expedient what he called distributism, which meant seizing and sharing out the land directly among the peasants. This was what they wanted and this alone would win their support. Lenin and others attacked his proposal, but he stood his ground, maintaining that it was the obvious practical policy. He argued further that in fostering rural capitalism his proposal was in accordance with Marxist doctrine and a logical advance towards the socialist revolution. And in 1917 his policy, by then endorsed by Lenin, produced the slogan 'All land to the peasants,' which gained the party wide support on the land and was a major factor in its victory."
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. p. 56.
Is that why quotas were lowered in 1929 and 1930?
And as far as I'm aware, collectivization didn't really begin until 1929.
To which congress are you referring? This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that Stalin fought Lenin on "land to the tiller" being part of the Bolshevik program. I'm not sure what it has to do with Stalin's temporary lash-up with Bukharin in the mid 1920s or the price of Rye in Uzbekestan. Bukharin was a better speaker and writer than Stalin -- Stalin used him as a weapon against the Left Opposition. Then, when he no longer needed him, Stalin turned on poor Nikolai. Stalin's left turn in the late 20s gave hope to some in the LO that he was going to implement their program of industrialization and agrarian collectivization. A number actually "confessed their crimes" and crawled back. Their hopes for a renewal of party democracy and a return to the road of Marx and Lenin were certainly dashed. In fact, later, along with Bukharin and the rest, they were lined up and shot.

And yes collectivization began in 1929 because of the crisis with the 1928 grain harvest. People in the cities were threatened with starvation. What is your point about the quotas being reduced? My point was that the crises had been predicted years earlier, but Stalin was implementing Bukharin's pro peasant program, building socialism "at a snail's pace." So instead of using the resources of the USSR to rationally plan and prepare for collectivization, it was done almost all at once in a panic, haphazardly, at a tremendous and unnecessary cost to the USSR.

[James Connolly]

To which congress are you referring?
It was actually pre-revolution, although I can't remember when exactly(I'll have to revisit the book). The quote was meant to defeat your claims that Stalin was a drone of Bukharin's, and that he actually had such views long before Bukharin's thesis.

Edit: It was in 1906 at the Stockholm congress.

[Invader Zim]

You were caught with your head half way up your ass when you presented this argument to the user Камо́ Зэд. I'm surprised you keep using it.

Except, Kamo, unlike you, possessed the intellectual honesty to admit that his position - which was the claim that these documents were forged - was weak, lacked proper foundation and retracted it.

If you want to make that same contention, as indeed did Grover Furr, then be my guest. Provide some evidence or go play elsewhere.


Now I'm not an expert on this topic, as I've only read one book on it, but you seriously need to revisit this crap before you post it, lest you be challenged again like that again.

Why do I need to 'revisit' the document and why are they 'crap'? Thus neither you, Kamo or, Grover Furr for that matter, have been able to present a single piece of serious evidence which casts doubt on the authenticity of the documents released in 1990.

You're dishonest to try and dismiss evidence that doesn't suit your view, but worse you do it in a crass, transparent and foolish manner. So why don't you take your ignorant ass to a library, read some books then come back to me. That way you might at least be approaching a position in which you can make a serious contribution to this thread. Right now, you are just wasting Om's and my time.

[James Connolly]

Except, Kamo, unlike you, possessed the intellectual honesty to admit that his position - which was the claim that these documents were forged - was weak, lacked proper foundation and retracted it.
In other words he was tired of arguing with a buffoon that mass posted random articles from google.


Why do I need to 'revisit' the document and why are they 'crap'?
As noted, you seem to post them without double checking the legitimacy of your source. "Crap" was just a term I used to describe the general quality of sources that go unchecked.

As for my source, Jerome Davis, he was the American ambassador to the Soviet Union, he was the only American correspondent to get two interviews with Stalin, and the man had been traveling throughout the country for a good portion of his life.


Thus neither you, Kamo or, Grover Furr for that matter, have been able to present a single piece of serious evidence which casts doubt on the authenticity of the documents released in 1990.

Kamo's type-face claim seemed quite interesting.


So why don't you take your ignorant ass to a library, read some books then come back to me.That way you might at least be approaching a position in which you can make a serious contribution to this thread.
Oh the irony... :laugh:

[ComradeOm]

As for my source, Jerome Davis, he was the American ambassador to the Soviet Union...Wait, what? That's who you were referring to as the American ambassador? Jerome Davis? The Americans have a quaint phrase for this: LOL

Jerome Davis was never ambassador to the USSR. Never. You may be thinking of Joseph E Davies, ambassador from 1936-38. Did you even read that one book that you claim to have?

[James Connolly]

Jerome Davis was never ambassador to the USSR. Never. You may be thinking of Joseph E Davies, ambassador from 1936-38. Did you even read that one book that you claim to have?
Oh yeah, sorry. Apparently Joesph Davies wrote the introduction to the book, which I had disregarded and mistook for Jerome Davis back when I read it.

Anyway, here (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;size=100;id=mdp.39015014821030;page= root;seq=15;num=3) is the introduction I'm referring to.

[Psy]

Oh yeah, sorry. Apparently Joesph Davies wrote the introduction to the book, which I had disregarded and mistook for Jerome Davis back when I read it.

Anyway, here (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;size=100;id=mdp.39015014821030;page= root;seq=15;num=3) is the introduction I'm referring to.

Oh man the Stalin jumps right off the page, saying Stalin is most responsible for winning WWII and I guess men like Zhukov and those under his command who was actually in Rzhev turning the tide of war to stop the Nazi advance to Moscow were just insignificant compared to Stalin.

[Invader Zim]

In other words he was tired of arguing with a buffoon that mass posted random articles from google.

Shit son - even if I had only employed the resources of Google, I'd be leagues better informed than you are now. However, as you might note had you bothered to read the thread, the bulk of the material cited is from book unavailable for examination online. So you are, in fact, lightyears behind.


As noted, you seem to post them without double checking the legitimacy of your source. "Crap" was just a term I used to describe the general quality of sources that go unchecked.

You're funny. The documents I cited have appeared, either in the form of transcriptions or at, a minimum, citation, in every scholarly treatment published on the subject for the last two decades. They have been under the eye of every historian who has published a major book on the subject. So, if they are good enough for the world's leading authorities on the topic, then forgive me if I consider them good enough for you.


As for my source, Jerome Davis, he was the American ambassador to the Soviet Union, he was the only American correspondent to get two interviews with Stalin, and the man had been traveling throughout the country for a good portion of his life.

And one of the documents in the pack I produced for you, in which Beria suggested the execution of thousands of the Katyn victims, has Stalin's signature on it.


Kamo's type-face claim seemed quite interesting.

Perhaps if you have never darkened the door of an archive. Anybody who has trawled through thousands of documents knows full well that even the basic premise of the claim is beyond nonsense.


Oh the irony...

Apparently irony, like research, is a concept beyond your meagre understanding.

[James Connolly]

Shit son - even if I had only employed the resources of Google, I'd be leagues better informed than you are now. However, as you might note had you bothered to read the thread, the bulk of the material cited is from book unavailable for examination online. So you are, in fact, lightyears behind.
Don't refer to me as 'son.' Why I'm likely old enough to be your father, you squabbling child.

The fact that you cite Gorbachevized garbage and refer to it as "archival evidence" should more than show what your intimate knowledge on the subject is.


And one of the documents in the pack I produced for you, in which Beria suggested the execution of thousands of the Katyn victims, has Stalin's signature on it. This is a common trait of yours. You point to obscurities and hold it as a standard from which objectivity is derived.

This is really childish to be frank, especially when 3 pages were forged.

But hey, you don't need to look at such issues, because it has "Stalin's signature" which means I'm wrong(which is why there is no point to discussing this topic more intimately with you.)


Perhaps if you have never darkened the door of an archive.Oh... At the thought of you actually reading half the stuff you post. :laugh:
You've been spewing garbage on these forums for years, at a rate that even Ismail refuses to respond to anything you post.
At a rate that only you can bask in the sheer idiocy that radiates off your posts.

Now people on these forums regard me as a "Zionist" for some of the issues that I support. It is for that reason that people have been purpose-mindedly giving me negative reputations, which caused me to hide my reputation count.

It is no surprise to me why you do the same, as, like all the trash that finds its way on these forums, you've managed to isolate yourself from the pact so to say.

[Invader Zim]

Don't refer to me as 'son.' Why I'm likely old enough to be your father, you squabbling child.

Going on 13?


The fact that you cite Gorbachevized garbage and refer to it as "archival evidence" should more than show what your intimate knowledge on the subject is.


Documents, the majority of which were produced in 1940, in the months surrounding Gorbachev's ninth birthday, are 'Gorbachevized garbage' are they? Too funny.


This is a common trait of yours. You point to obscurities and hold it as a standard from which objectivity is derived.

I'm not entirely sure how you consider the considerable documentary evidence 'obscure'.


This is really childish to be frank, especially when 3 pages were forged.

So Kamo claimed - yet he provided no credible evidence. Somehow I doubt a racist zionist piece of shit like you going to do any better.


But hey, you don't need to look at such issues, because it has "Stalin's signature" which means I'm wrong(which is why there is no point to discussing this topic more intimately with you.)

The reason you should stop trying to discuss this issue, with anybody and not just me, is because you don't know a single fucking thing about it - as Om, and then myself, have proven time after time in this thread.

But, of course, doubtless this discussion won't last long given that I give it about 24 hours before the admins reban you.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It was actually pre-revolution, although I can't remember when exactly(I'll have to revisit the book). The quote was meant to defeat your claims that Stalin was a drone of Bukharin's, and that he actually had such views long before Bukharin's thesis.

Edit: It was in 1906 at the Stockholm congress.
Comrade, the period of the "duumvirate" was in the mid 20s. What on earth does a quote from the Stockholm congress have to do with anything? Stalin was not allied with Bukharin until 1925 after he split with Zinoviev and Kamenev with whom he formed the Triumvirate. He used Bukharin as a weapon against Zinoviev and Trotsky. So he freely murdered comrades that had been close political allies with aplomb. I think had Lenin lived, Stalin would not have been able to kill him, because Stalin would have been stamping passports in Irkutsk.

[James Connolly]

Invader Zim, thanks for the comment under the negative feedback. It really showed the peak of your maturity.

"Trolol elsewhere, you zionist dog turd"

Gave me a good chuckle.

I don't plan on reading anymore of your crap.


Comrade, the period of the "duumvirate" was in the mid 20s. What on earth does a quote from the Stockholm congress have to do with anything? Stalin was not allied with Bukharin until 1925 after he split with Zinoviev and Kamenev with whom he formed the Triumvirate. He used Bukharin as a weapon against Zinoviev and Trotsky. So he freely murdered comrades that had been close political allies with aplomb. I think had Lenin lived, Stalin would not have been able to kill him, because Stalin would have been stamping passports in Irkutsk.
Well it had been Stalin that had originally supported Zinoviev and Kamenev against Trotsky after the revolution when they told of Bolshevik plans to a newspaper.
"At the meeting of the committee on October 17, Trotsky advocated stern action against Kamenev and Zinoviev and branded them as traitors. He was not influenced by the fact that Kamenev was his brother-in-law; indeed, he was demonstrating that loyalty to the party stood far above personal relationships. Other members supported the case for severe punishment. It was Stalin who brought the note of moderation into the fury of the discussion."
Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. p. 97


The purpose of the quote was to prove that Stalin had a pro-Collectivization stance even before Bukharin could 'influence' him.

If Lenin hadn't died, he'd have likely purged Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky. His testament was a direct attack against each one of those individuals, and although he didn't call for any of them to be expelled from the party, it is more reasonable to reach conclusions that neither of them would retain their posts if Lenin did in fact impose his will upon those gentlemen.

[Psy]

Invader Zim, thanks for the comment under the negative feedback. It really showed the peak of your maturity.

"Trolol elsewhere, you zionist dog turd"

Gave me a good chuckle.

I don't plan on reading anymore of your crap.


Well it had been Stalin that had originally supported Zinoviev and Kamenev against Trotsky after the revolution when they told of Bolshevik plans to a newspaper.
"At the meeting of the committee on October 17, Trotsky advocated stern action against Kamenev and Zinoviev and branded them as traitors. He was not influenced by the fact that Kamenev was his brother-in-law; indeed, he was demonstrating that loyalty to the party stood far above personal relationships. Other members supported the case for severe punishment. It was Stalin who brought the note of moderation into the fury of the discussion."
Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. p. 97


The purpose of the quote was to prove that Stalin had a pro-Collectivization stance even before Bukharin could 'influence' him.

If Lenin hadn't died, he'd have likely purged Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky. His testament was a direct attack against each one of those individuals, and although he didn't call for any of them to be expelled from the party, it is more reasonable to reach conclusions that neither of them would retain their posts if Lenin did in fact impose his will upon those gentlemen.
I highly doubt Lenin would have purged Trotsky, Trotsky was far too useful as leader of the Red Army for Lenin. Lenin also had many opportunities to assign Trotsky far away from the action (like assign Trotsky to Vladivostok to lead the Red Army in the east) and didn't showing Lenin still saw Trotsky as a valuable asset.

[l'Enfermé]

If Lenin hadn't died, he'd have likely purged Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky. His testament was a direct attack against each one of those individuals, and although he didn't call for any of them to be expelled from the party, it is more reasonable to reach conclusions that neither of them would retain their posts if Lenin did in fact impose his will upon those gentlemen.
I'm interested as to how you suggest Lenin would have "purged" either of those, since Lenin consider the party a democratic institution and didn't posses the dictatorial tendencies of Stalin.

And no, Lenin's last testament("Letter to Congress") was an attack on Stalin only. Bukharin was called a most "outstanding figure" of the party, a "most valuable and major" theorist of the party, and an "outstanding and devoted Party worker" whose "one-sidedness" could be easily remedied if he finds an occasion to enhance his knowledge. Also it was said that he is "rightly the favourite of the whole Party".

Of Zinoviev and Kamenev, he said that although the "October episode"(Zinoviev's and Kamenev's opposition to the armed insurrection against the provisional government)was "no accident", the blame cannot be placed "upon them personally".

Trotsky, he said, is the "most outstanding man in the present C.C." and is distinguished by his "outstanding ability". His only failing is his "excessive self-assurance" and the that he has "shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work", which is hardly a real "attack" against him.

On the other hand, of Stalin, Lenin said: He is not "tolerant" enough, not "loyal" enough, not "considerate" enough, not "polite" enough, too "capricious" and Lenin fears that Stalin will not always be capable of using his "authority with sufficient caution".

So yeah, Stalin is accused of disloyalty, intolerance, rudeness, capriciousness, and of being arbitrary, while Trotsky is accused of being too self-assure and being too committed to adminstrative work and of being the most capable of the entire C.C., Zinoviev and Kamenev are absolved of personal blame for their October episode, and Bukharin is showered with praise. How, then, is Lenin's Last Testament, an attack on anyone except for Stalin?

:blink:

[Czesio]

I want to refer to few questions mentioned here long time ago.


The "brutal invasion" was a readministration of Western Ukraine and Belorussia, which had been lost in the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-21, and which only occurred after the Polish government fled to Rumania


And the poor and exploited Ukrainians and Belorussians living under the brunt of Polish Imperialism didn't have a voice and had no right to reunite with their home countries?

The issue at hand is the reunification of the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs with their sovereign lands that were brutally taken by the Polish regime, and not colonial imperialism. Of course an intellectually illiterate youth, as Tim Cornelis, cannot make the distinction.

If USSR wanted to reunite Belarussians and Ukrainians with their "home countries", why didn't it "readministrate" also other areas of Poland inhabited by East Slavs like f. e. Western Bieszczady Mts and Low Beskids, mostly inhabited by East Slavonic Lemkos and Boykos, whom may be treated as Ukrainians?


I'm not so sure that Poles were deported from Soviet territories. As you may know, there were hundreds of thousands of Poles living in the USSR prior to the dissolution of the Polish state. Such people were obviously allowed to stay if they so wished.

Many Poles from that area were deported to Kazakhstan and Syberia. Later some of them join Polish Army created in USSR. I took that information from book written by one of them. (Franciszek Siellicki "Co śpiewali kościuszkowcy i czym radowali dusze: z folkloru Pierwszej Dywizji WP" Wrocław, 1995).
It also isn't entirely true that Poles which lived in USSR before could stayed where they wanted. In 1935 Polish Autonomous District Marchlewszczyzna in Ukrainian SSR was disbanded and many of its inhabitants were executed or deported to Syberia and Kazakhstan. The same happend with Polish Autonomous District Dzierżyńszczyzna in Belarus in 1938 and with many others Poles living in USSR.

[James Connolly]

So yeah, Stalin is accused of disloyalty, intolerance, rudeness, capriciousness, and of being arbitrary, while Trotsky is accused of being too self-assure and being too committed to adminstrative work and of being the most capable of the entire C.C., Zinoviev and Kamenev are absolved of personal blame for their October episode, and Bukharin is showered with praise. How, then, is Lenin's Last Testament, an attack on anyone except for Stalin?

Actually no, you're wrong. Lenin called out Bukharin for not understanding Dialectics(ignorance), and he pretty much said Zinoviev and Kamenev were traitors. He also questioned Trotsky's intentions, seeing that he only joined the party in 1917.

Take this for example:
"The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession"
From Trotsky's Letter to Chkheidze, April 1913.

The reason for his attacks on Stalin were for calling Nadezhda Krupskaya a "*****." But let's not forget who Lenin's right-hand man had been before the incident.

This is from Stalin's speech that was delivered at a meeting of the Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B.) October 23, 1927.


...Now about Lenin's "will." The oppositionists shouted here—you heard them—that the Central Committee of the Party "concealed" Lenin's "will." We have discussed this question several times at the plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission, you know that. (A voice: "Scores of times.") It has been proved and proved again that nobody has concealed anything, that Lenin's "will" was addressed to the Thirteenth Party Congress, that this "will" was read out at the congress (Voices: "That's right!"), that the congress unanimously decided not to publish it because, among other things, Lenin himself did not want it to be published and did not ask that it should be published. The opposition knows all this just as well as we do. Nevertheless, it has the audacity to declare that the Central Committee is "concealing" the "will."
The question of Lenin's "will" was brought up, if I am not mistaken, as far back as 1924. There is a certain Eastman, a former American Communist who was later expelled from the Party. This gentleman, who mixed with the Trotskyists in Moscow, picked up some rumours and gossip about Lenin's "will," went abroad and published a book entitled After Lenin's Death, in which he did his best to blacken the Party, the Central Committee and the Soviet regime, and the gist of which was that the Central Committee of our Party was "concealing" Lenin's "will." In view of the fact that this Eastman had at one time been connected with Trotsky, we, the members of the Political Bureau, called upon Trotsky to dissociate himself from Eastman who, clutching at Trotsky and referring to the opposition, had made Trotsky responsible for the slanderous statements against our Party about the "will." Since the question was so obvious, Trotsky did, indeed, publicly dissociate himself from Eastman in a statement he made in the press. It was published in September 1925 in Bolshevik, No. 16.

Permit me to read the passage in Trotsky's article in which he deals with the question whether the Party and its Central Committee was concealing Lenin's "will" or not. I quote Trotsky's article:


"In several parts of his book Eastman says that the Central Committee 'concealed' from the Party a number of exceptionally important documents written by Lenin in the last period of his life (it is a matter of letters on the national question, the so-called 'will,' and others); there can be no other name for this than slander against the Central Committee of our Party. From what Eastman says it may be inferred that Vladimir Ilyich intended those letters, which bore the character of advice on internal organisation, for the press. In point of fact, that is absolutely untrue. During hisillness Vladimir Ilyich often sent proposals, letters, and so forth, to the Party's leading institutions and to its congress. It goes without saying that all those letters and proposals were always delivered to those for whom they were intended, were brought to the knowledge of the delegates at the Twelfth and Thirteenth Congresses, and always, of course, exercised due influence upon the Party's decisions; and if not all of those letters were published, it was because the author did not intend them for the press. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any 'will,' and the very character of his attitude towards the Party, as well as the character of the Party itself, precluded the possibility of such a 'will.' What is usually referred to as a 'will' in the emigre and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters containing advice on organisational matters. The Thirteenth Congress of the Party paid the closest attention to that letter, as to all of the others, and drew from it conclusions appropriate to the conditions and circumstances of the time. All talk about concealing or violating a 'will' is a malicious invention and is entirely directed against Vladimir Ilyichs real will, and against the interests of the Party he created" (see Trotsky's article "Concerning Eastman's Book After Lenin's Death," Bolshevik, No. 16, September 1, 1925, p. 68)....


We have the decision of a plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission in 1926 to ask the Fifteenth Congress for permission to publish this document. We have the decision of the same plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission to publish other letters of Lenin's, in which he pointed out the mistakes of Kamenev and Zinoviev just before the October uprising and demanded their expulsion from the Party.[/URL]
Obviously, talk about the Party concealing these documents is infamous slander. Among these documents are letters from Lenin urging the necessity of expelling Zinoviev and Kamenev from the Party. The Bolshevik Party, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, have never feared the truth. The strength of the Bolshevik Party lies precisely in the fact that it does not fear the truth and looks the truth straight in the face...


Indeed, it is a fact that in his "will" Lenin accuses Trotsky of being guilty of "non-Bolshevism" and, as regards the mistake Kamenev and Zinoviev made during October, he says that that mistake was not "accidental." What does that mean? It means that Trotsky, who suffers from "non-Bolshevism," and Kamenev and Zinoviev, whose mistakes are not "accidental" and can and certainly will be repeated, cannot be politically trusted.
It is characteristic that there is not a word, not a hint in the "will" about Stalin having made mistakes. It refers only to Stalin's rudeness. But rudeness is not and cannot be counted as a defect in Stalin's political line or position.
Here is the relevant passage in the "will":
"I shall not go on to characterise the personal qualities of the other members of the Central Committee. I shall merely remind you that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, not accidental, but that they can be blamed for it personally as little as Trotsky can be blamed for his non-Bolshevism."


[url]http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm#2)

[l'Enfermé]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lies, lies, lies, lies. I don't know how you're still not ashamed enough to stop posting, after your lies have been refuted so many times.

Lenin's "Last Testament" is freely available on MIA. http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm

If you bothered to read you'd know that the entire speech you posted is a bunch of lies.

[James Connolly]

I guess it is appropriate to use the phrase "oh he's mad."

[Geiseric]

To answer the OP's question: Yes the U.S.S.R. and the Red Army did indeed invade Poland, on several occasions. The first time was about at the end of the Civil War. Stalin was a commander at this point, and recieved some criticism from Lenin and Stalin about using extrajuridicial measures against soldiers and civilians. He disobeyed Lenin's orders to join up with another section of the Red Army to invade Warsaw, and instead went for Krakow. I don't know the specifics, but I remember reading somewhere that it ruined the campaign. The polish government was set up by the British, and was hardly worth supporting by any socialists.

The second time was when Stalin and Hitler divided Poland in half, during the Molotov Ribbentrop act, an action that is probably one of the worst moves the Stalinist state has ever done.

[Psy]

Indeed, it is a fact that in his "will" Lenin accuses Trotsky of being guilty of "non-Bolshevism" and, as regards the mistake Kamenev and Zinoviev made during October, he says that that mistake was not "accidental." What does that mean? It means that Trotsky, who suffers from "non-Bolshevism," and Kamenev and Zinoviev, whose mistakes are not "accidental" and can and certainly will be repeated, cannot be politically trusted.
It is characteristic that there is not a word, not a hint in the "will" about Stalin having made mistakes. It refers only to Stalin's rudeness. But rudeness is not and cannot be counted as a defect in Stalin's political line or position.

This is hearsay, it is Stalin saying what Lenin said about Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev. We have mountains of evidence that Stalin doctored pictures and documents thus we can't trust any Lenin writings "found" by Stalin and should only work with writings already made public before Lenin's death.

[Psy]

The second time was when Stalin and Hitler divided Poland in half, during the Molotov Ribbentrop act, an action that is probably one of the worst moves the Stalinist state has ever done.
Well it would have been a strategic gain if Stalin fortified east Poland like how the USSR fortified east Germany after WWII thus slowing down Operation Barbarossa and inflicting more casualties on Germany as they push through east Poland.

[Invader Zim]

This is hearsay, it is Stalin saying what Lenin said about Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev. We have mountains of evidence that Stalin doctored pictures and documents thus we can't trust any Lenin writings "found" by Stalin and should only work with writings already made public before Lenin's death.

True, but Havee333333 (aka Jame Connolly) wouldn't have accepted the point anway. And he's (re)banned so can't respond.