How do Stalin's apologists address the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? [Archive]

View Full Version : How do Stalin's apologists address the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Gileson

16th March 2015, 00:49

Guardia Rossa

16th March 2015, 21:03

//Did I really wrote this 1 month ago?//

Gileson

16th March 2015, 21:51

Your claims aren't accepted by Tooze, Ericson, Philbin, and Weinberg. Tooze and Ericson's works have shown Nazi Germany wasn't in the Soviet Union's league when it came to warfare based around attrition, if nothing else. Weinberg and Ericson have also rejected the "Hitler ruined the war'' narrative that has been advocated by Wehrmacht apologists.

Cliff Paul

16th March 2015, 22:04

You didn't answer the main question which was how do you justify the massive amount of supplies the USSR provided Nazi Germany with.

Destroyer of Illusions

17th March 2015, 03:20

1. As a resultof the pact, instead of being locked against the Soviet Union, Germany and Britain and France went to war with each other. This meant that the Soviet Union would not have to fight with all of them at the same time. Moreover, the Soviet Union had the opportunity to enter the war after the other participants, and even having some freedom of choice - which side to support.

»The war is between the two groups of capitalist countries ... for the redivision of the world, for world domination! We do not mind that they fight hard and weaken each other ... We can maneuver to push one side against the other, for them to better be torn down". - Stalin.

2. In the summer of 1939, Soviets were engaged in heavy fighting with the Japanese on Khalkhin Goal. Because Japan was an ally of the German Anti-Comintern Pact, the pact was perceived in Tokyo as a betrayal. As a result, the relationship between the Third Reich and Japan were marred considerably.Consequently, the Japanese ruling circles have opted for the "Southern option" suggestingwar with Britain and the United States. As we know, after the German attack on the Soviet Union, Japan did not start the war against the USSR.

#FF0000

17th March 2015, 06:01

Gileson

17th March 2015, 19:28

And the supplies that prevented an early defeat of Nazi Germany?

Exterminatus

18th March 2015, 13:27

And who would defeat them? France and England? Not a chance in hell

Destroyer of Illusions

18th March 2015, 17:29

And the supplies that helped tobdefeat Nazi Germany?

Gileson

18th March 2015, 18:02

Nazi Germany wouldn't have made it as far as it did without the supplies from the Soviet Union. That's what I have yet to see the Stalin apologists address.

And who would defeat them? France and England? Not a chance in hell

Do you really think Nazi Germany could have won while being blockaded, and having far less supplies from the Soviet Union?

Destroyer of Illusions

19th March 2015, 03:13

Any blockade before 23.08.39? More details about this historic discovery,please.

And since 1940 there was not Nazi Germany but continental Europe under the guidance of Nazi Germany wich had good relations with the USA, btw.Even in 1944 Germany monthly received through Franco's Spain 48 000 tons of US oil and 1 100 tons of tungsten.

Gileson

19th March 2015, 04:21

I am referring to the blockade that Hitler and his inner circle were concerned about. The same one that Hitler bragged to his generals they didn't have to fear thanks to the pact.

The Western Allies tried to drag Nazi Germany into into a war of attrition it wasn't able to win. This would have worked if it wasn't for the Soviet Union supplying Nazi Germany.

Cliff Paul

19th March 2015, 04:42

John Nada

19th March 2015, 10:56

Any blockade before 23.08.39? More details about this historic discovery,please.That's not really relevant since after the blockade Soviet imports literally increased eightfold. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was totally incapable of supplying its war economyTrade implies that their was an exchange between both sides. It is relevant.

The Soviets were in debt and had a trading relation with capitalist nations from the get-go. The debt to Germany and other imperialist goes back to the 1920's. The trading continued up to when the Nazis seized power. Then trade dropped about 90%. Because the German bourgeoisie wanted Soviet goods, and the Soviets needed cash and resources to industrialize, the trading relation resumed, just like with all the rest of the imperialist.

Still, Germany believed they couldn't keep the economy afloat without expanded territory. It took another hit after Germany annexed Austria and then Czechoslovakia, which didn't help as much as hoped. The Soviets tried to get an alliance to stop it, but no one wanted to join it.

After this, Germany continued to pursue trade relations with the USSR, at the behest of business, who need resources.

Later the Germans started demanding goods to pay off the debt. This was pushed for by various sections of the Germany government and capitalist. The Soviets, being in debt, had to comply. At first, this benefited Germany.

But later the Soviets started playing hardball. Though Germany could've got much of the supplies, such as oil from Romania, or made it themselves, the Soviets could do it cheaper. This delayed efforts that could've made them more self-sufficient. Plants to make synthetic oil and rubber were put on hold. When the Soviet seized territory in Romania, this denied them direct access to oil fields, which had to cross by rail through Soviet territory. And the Soviets seized oilfields in Romania and Poland, as well as infrastructure like train carts. The balance tipped towards the USSR. Germany was paying the Soviets and giving them credit that was in the Soviets interest. Germany became dependent on the Soviets, rather then developing themselves. The Soviet did everything they could to milk them for as much as possible.

The Soviets, suspicious of the Nazis reliability, demanded better terms. They start dragging their feet till they were certain the deal would come through. Not all the agreed upon raw material got delivered on time, or at all. Germany, not making replacements and rationing, had to go along.

They never liked each other. They hated their each other with zeal. All this was to buy time for the expected war. Germany became convinced that they need to expand to feed their economy. It wasn't helping. Then they decided to start Operation Barbarossa, seizing the resources themselves. However, this was more costly than helpful. The Soviets weren't pushovers. They would've likely lost anyway, but this signed their death warrant.
While some historians have seen these high Soviet armaments and inspection demands and the resulting tension as part of a Soviet "blackmail" agenda and others have argued that this was primarily just a reaction to German "blackmail," it seems more likely that the Soviets were using their superior bargaining position to get the best economic terms they could and to do a little economic espionage along the way. What transformed the otherwise merely difficult negotiations, as had been occurring in Moscow, into the intense confrontations described by Yakovlev were some fundamental misperceptions by both sides about their opponent's level of technological sophistication. The Germans apparently assumed from their encounters with the poorly equipped Russians in Poland that they could intimidate the Soviets, as they had done with other countries, by a display of their military prowess. So they showed the Soviets almost everything and expected them to be impressed.29 For their part, the Soviets assumed that the Germans would be much more technologically advanced than themselves and therefore complained bitterly when shown items inferior to what they already had in development. According to Guderian, the Germans noted this anomaly but did not fully understand its cause until 1941 when they ran into T-34s on the Russian steppes.30 By then, it was too late P.88 Bold mine, because its fucking hilarious. And ironically on page 88.:laugh:
Dramatic, but wrong. By the end of May, the Soviets had shipped only 155,000 tons of oil to the Reich in comparison to German oil stocks of 1,115,000 tons,88 8,600 tons of manganese in comparison to reserves of 230,000 tons,89 and 128,100 tons of grain in comparison to stockpiles of 4,693,000 tons.90 And these were the most important categories. The rest of Soviet deliveries mattered even less to Germany's raw-material situation during the decisive first few weeks of the conflict in France. In short, Soviet economic aid had relatively little direct impact on the initial fighting in the West.
Even if Stalin had wanted to appease Germany, he could never have supplied enough raw materials to cover all the holes in the German war economy.p 128Source for all of this post: Feeding the German Eagle:)

If you just read the first part, the last chapter or worse Wikipedia, it'd appear that the Soviets just sold out for the fuck of it when taken out of context. However, much to my surprise, this book is rather sympathetic to the Soviets. He mentions that he was mostly going by German sources. He also believed that many of the estimates were exaggerated by businessmen and bureaucrats out of opportunism(ie "We only have 2 months of oil left, the Soviet are our best source."), for their livelihood depended on the deal. War profiteers. They may have also wanted to play down their role after the war.

Stalin, Molotov and other officials come across like geniuses in this book. Accumulated valuable resources and equipment, sowing discontent in the Axis camp, while buying time to crush them later. Playing the fascist like a fiddle. Shit, if it went liked planned it'd probably would've gone down as one of the most brilliant diplomatic schemes in recent history.

But it didn't. He concluded that it did help Germany, just not as black and white as it appears. He sums it up as Murphy's Law,"Anything that can go wrong, will."

Cliff Paul

20th March 2015, 00:15

But it didn't. He concluded that it did help Germany, just not as black and white as it appears. He sums it up as Murphy's Law,"Anything that can go wrong, will."

Idk. He seemed to think that the USSR's overconfidence in the red army's ability to hold off the German invasion almost led to their downfall:

According to Volkogonov, the impact of the invasion took four or five days to hit Stalin, because he kept expecting that the Red Army would halt the German advance and push the Wehrmacht back across the border. Such news never came. It was then that Stalin "simply lost control of himself and went into deep psychological shock." In the end, however, space, weather, and, most important, German overconfidence, eventually saved the Red Army, and Stalin managed to survive Operation Barbarossa.

And in the conclusion he sort of hints that had the war and everything gone as the USSR had planned the German army would have had enough supplies to deliver a decisive blow to the USSR in their initial strike.

But yeh, the book is quite sympathetic to the USSR actually and does give a lot of context/background to why they had an economic agreement with Nazi Germany.

Cliff Paul

20th March 2015, 00:25

On an unrelated note, I've heard a number of really funny stories about the T-34.

Here's one from wikipedia:

German Panzer 35(t) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_35%28t%29) light tanks and anti-tank weapons were practically ineffective against the Soviet armoured giants, which closed with and, even though some of them were out of ammunition, destroyed some German anti-tank guns by simply driving over them

Another story that I heard (I can't find the source for, I think it was like the military channel on tv, so you should take this with a grain of salt) is that the Soviet's were able to stop an entire German division from advancing across a bridge with only one T-34.

cyu

20th March 2015, 00:56

Stalin's apologists

Kind of sad whenever I see hero-worship. Maybe the more authoritarian a society is, the more hero-worship exists, even among those trying to overthrow the existing order. After all, in order for an authoritarian society to function, it needs to ensure http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ is effective. It needs to condition its people into thinking that appeal to authority is normal and logical. If it is effective, then one can expect rampant hero-worship - including celebrity-worship.

OMG, if my hero is a bad guy, that means all his ideas must be bad! OMG, if someone in my ethnic group is a bad guy, that means my entire ethnic group is nasty! The better you are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy the better you are at demagoguery ;)

Destroyer of Illusions

20th March 2015, 07:42

That's not really relevant since after the blockade Soviet imports literally increased eightfold.

So you recognise that there was no any blocade before the pact.The war between two imperialist groups started after the pact and due to the pact,everything else fits into the strategy of Stalin:"We can maneuver to push one side against the other, for them to better be torn down".I don't see anything bad in it.

Nazi Germany was totally incapable of supplying its war economy

Any proofs that the Soviet supply was decisive?No proofs,of course.It's well known that Germany was able to fight for 4 yers in total blockade diring WW1.

Gileson

20th March 2015, 23:17

So you recognise that there was no any blocade before the pact.

Are you serious?

The war between two imperialist groups started after the pact and due to the pact,everything else fits into the strategy of Stalin:"We can maneuver to push one side against the other, for them to better be torn down".I don't see anything bad in it.

France and the British Empire were already hostile to Nazi Germany before the pact. The Soviet Union supplied the nation that would attack it, and undermined France and England.

Any proofs that the Soviet supply was decisive?No proofs,of course.It's well known that Germany was able to fight for 4 yers in total blockade diring WW1.

The blockade assured Germany's defeat in WW1, as Richard Overy pointed out. Germany wasn't able to win a war of attrition in either of the World Wars. The Allies took of advantage of Germany's limits.

The Soviet Union could have focused all of its support on the Western Allies far sooner. Instead of sending so many supplies to Nazi Germany.

Hermes

21st March 2015, 01:02

The Soviet Union could have focused all of its support on the Western Allies far sooner. Instead of sending so many supplies to Nazi Germany.

I think this has a lot to do with what #FF0000 mentioned earlier, in that the Soviet Union was, first of all, not really satisfied with what the Western Allies were offering in return for an alliance, and also that they were incredibly suspicious of the Allies' willingness to actually intervene in a military conflict after the Munich Conference and Hitler's march into Prague. I mean, you only have to look at the start of the war, and the 'support' given to Poland, to see that they weren't entirely wrong.

Destroyer of Illusions

21st March 2015, 03:24

Are you serious?

I am.

France and the British Empire were already hostile to Nazi Germany before the pact. Hostile to Nazi Germany and friendly to the USSR? When? At the time of the Munich agreement? At the time of joint actions against Spanish republic? When France refused the conclusion of the military pact with the USSR against Germany?

The Soviet Union could have focused all of its support on the Western Allies far sooner. Instead of sending so many supplies to Nazi Germany.

At first,the main anti-Nazi force was the USSR,not Britain and France.

At second,the USSR ,the main anti-Nazi force, got supplies from Germany due to the pact.

At third, where are your proofs of the fact that Germany wasn't able to fight without Soviet supplies? Facts,please,not oral statements.

Cliff Paul

21st March 2015, 03:29

Any proofs that the Soviet supply was decisive?No proofs,of course.It's well known that Germany was able to fight for 4 yers in total blockade diring WW1.

Literally in my last post there is a quote about this...

Without Soviet deliveries of these four major items (oil, grain, manganese, and rubber), however, Germany barely could have attacked the Soviet Union, let alone come close to victory. Germany's stockpiles of oil, manganese, and grain would have been completely exhausted by the late summer of 1941. And Germany's rubber supply would have run out half a year earlier. Even with more intense rationing and synthetic production, the Reich surely would have lacked the reserves necessary for a major campaign in the East along the lines of Operation Barbarossa. In other words, Hitler had been almost completely dependent on Stalin to provide him the resources he needed to attack the Soviet Union.

Destroyer of Illusions

21st March 2015, 03:37

Your post is only a postulation.

How much did Germany need oil, grain, manganese, rubber,etc.?How much did it get this from the USSR? Facts and figures,please.

Cliff Paul

21st March 2015, 04:16

Your post is only a postulation.

How much did Germany need oil, grain, manganese, rubber,etc.?How much did it get this from the USSR? Facts and figures,please.

Well since I guess you don't trust Ericson here's his sources.

For more information on Germany's raw material shortages on as war approached, see OKW/WiRuAmt/Wi, "Die Moglichketien der Versorgung Deutschlands und Italiens aus dem neutralen Raum im Fall einer Krieges gegen England und Frankreich (und Ruflland) (12.5.39)," RW19/3110

Despite the efforts of the Four-Year Plan, Germany was still dependent on foreign supplies for 10 to 20 percent of her foodstuffs, two thirds of her oil, and 80 percent of her rubberHis source for this is: Carroll, Berenice A. Design for Total War: Arms and Economics in the Third Reich

On the quote you dismissed before, his source was

BAMA/WiRuAmt/Ro, "Mineralolbestande, -Erzeugung und -Einfuhr insb. aus Rumanien und UdSSR 1940-1943," RW 19/2715, 15070; "The German Oil Industry: Ministerial Report," in USSBS, 1945 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1947), Fig. 21; and "Oil Division, Final Report," in USSBS, 1945 (Washington, D.C: GPO, 1947), Fig. 25.

Cliff Paul

21st March 2015, 04:22

and to humor you, here are some tables in the appendix

Antiochus

21st March 2015, 07:17

The Stalinist apologists and their ridiculous re-writing of history. Suddenly the Soviet invasion of Poland which killed tens of thousands of Polish soldiers and civilians is actually "an effort to save Poland from Nazi Germany".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-013-0068-18A%2C_Polen%2C_Treffen_deutscher_und_sowjetischer _Soldaten.jpg

Stalin tried to use Hitler to reach his own imperialist ambitions. And for that the Soviet Union suffered very, very dearly.

Gileson

21st March 2015, 07:56

And don't forget the REALLY brilliant purge of the military.:rolleyes:

Destroyer of Illusions

21st March 2015, 17:20

the Soviet invasion of Poland

Invasion of fascist Poland.Antistalinists are very pity of the fascists and this is not surprisingly : the further from Stalin - the closer to Hitler.

Puzzled Left

21st March 2015, 18:06

Invasion of fascist Poland
... while cooperating with Nazi Germany that's far more reactionary, dangerous, and atrocious than Poland.

Invader Zim

21st March 2015, 18:17

iirc stalinists also (probably rightly) point out that the USSR had been trying to negotiate with France and Britain for a military alliance, which fell through. So, Molotov-Ribbentropp was done mostly out of desperation/necessity.

The idea that the USSR was in a position of form an alliance with Britain and France or instead economically prop up the Nazi instead, is a false dichotomy.

Hermes

21st March 2015, 20:43

The idea that the USSR was in a position of form an alliance with Britain and France or instead economically prop up the Nazi instead, is a false dichotomy.

Sorry, could you explain why this is true?

Gileson

22nd March 2015, 05:41

Nazi Germany was in no position to defeat a hostile or non-helpful Soviet Union while at war with the Western Allies. The SU could have been neutral to the conflict, with its military being prepared for war.

Antiochus

23rd March 2015, 19:36

You had a nice laugh with the "further from Stalin closer to Hitler bit", didn't you? While Stalin and Hitler might not have believed anything similar, their methods were almost identical:

1) Wholesale slaughter of political opposition (actual or perceived)
2) Killing/deporting "dangerous" ethnic minorities, sometimes for "legitimate" or trumped up reasons.
3) Ridiculous imperialism that made even Britain blush.

Stalin behaved like a fucking moron in the run-up to the German invasion. He provided Hitler with enormous quantities of raw materials and expanded the Soviet border (Germany was hundreds of kilometers away from the Soviet border) to Germany's doorstep. Poland would have been a great buffer for the USSR given its large military (almost 1 million men) that actually performed pretty well against the German army, despite the common perception.

And off course, by deploying the Soviet army ON the border with Germany, it allowed the Germans to quickly encircle and annihilate them in the first months of the 1941 invasion. Stalin deserves as much blame for the 27 million Soviet deaths as the builders of the Titanic.

Invader Zim

23rd March 2015, 20:26

Sorry, could you explain why this is true?

First, tacit British and French support, even if it had been forthcoming, would have been meaningless as Stalin and his inner-circle well knew. Had the Soviet Union refused to deal with Hitler, and left wide open the possibility of going to war if Nazi Germany invaded or annexed a state bordering the USSR, then the situation would have been no different with or without British and French support. If the Nazis went to war with the Soviet Union over Poland there was nothing that Britain or France would have or could have done about it. British policy for most of the late 1930s was centred around Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart's strategic recommendations, which emphasized the use of technology, air and sea, to project British power on the continent, as opposed to the vast standing armies of the First World War which had proved so costly in terms of men and materiel. Even after the partial reverse of that policy in August / September 1939, the British Expeditionary Force sent consisted of just 158,000 men, and would only grow to 310,000 men by April 1940.

Meanwhile, the French standing army was significantly larger, but French Grand strategy was very much focused on the lessons learned in the First World War and not in keeping with the changes to strategic thought of the inter-war years (Liddell-Hart, Fuller, von Thoma, Guderian, von Blomberg, etc), and instead emphasized fighting a war of attrition from behind strong defensive fortifications. The French Army was neither equipped, deployed or prepared for a lightning offensive war. And, as it is, had the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact not occurred, providing Germany the access to resources necessary to invade France in the manner in which it did, it is doubtful that an invasion of France would have taken place and if it did, it would have had to have been on different lines. Moreover, vast portions of the Wehrmacht would have, by necessity, deployed in the newly annexed Poland in case a potentially hostile Soviet Union utilized the opportunity to attack Germany and its recently occupied territories in the east.

So, the idea that a triple alliance with the west would have changed anything doesn't add up. Stalin never really thought that, even if they wanted to, Britain and France would have actually been able to do anything in the event that the Nazis called their bluff. And he was right, they did exactly what they had planned to do all along when they did go to war, the difference being that the Soviet Union, by handing the Nazis key resources, prevented the economic blockade which fatally crippled Germany two decades before.

Moreover, there was no real basis, beyond massive miscalculation on the part of the Soviet leadership, to parley with the Nazi regime in manner in which it did. As we know, not only because it happened but also because of years of open and public rhetoric, that the Nazi's ultimate aim (regardless of any Machiavellian deals to carve up eastern and central Europe) was to turn on the Soviet Union. And, indeed, throughout 1941 Soviet intelligence told Stalin precisely that, and that an invasion was coming, and sooner rather than later- but being a paranoid fool, a terrible judge of character, and a worse strategist - he chose to assume that his own people were plotting against him rather than accept that Hitler and Molotov would breach the terms of their agreement with the Soviet Union.

Indeed, it boggles the mind that Stalin and the Soviet Union were so taken by surprise by Operation Barbarossa. All the evidence pointed precisely to what eventually happened. It is, without doubt, the single greatest intelligence failure in the history of military intelligence - and not because the exemplary Soviet intelligence services were failing to adequately do their jobs (the SU had, without doubt, the best Human Intelligence available to any state in the world at that time - if not of any time), but because their assessments fell on deaf ears. So complete was Soviet intelligence mastery, that even if the tell-tale information from wireless Traffic Analysis, reconnaissance, informants actually looking at what was going on on the border in 1941 was not sufficient, the Soviet Union had key spies in British intelligence (which was, even more productive than Soviet intelligence in other fields, primarily signals intelligence) for them to be able to make it clear to Stalin that Churchill's warnings regarding Nazi intentions were absolutely accurate. Yet even then, Stalin in particular, was instrumental in the Red Army's lack of preparation for what was to come. Moreover, Stalin continued to allow the shipping of vast quantities of materiel to Nazi Germany which could only, by then, have one purpose - to feed the Wehrmacht for a coming invasion of the Soviet Union. That Stalin did not order a stop to this the moment France fell, and so quickly, is remarkable; the fact that it continued after the Luftwaffe's defeat in 1940 over the English South Downs and the English Channel is unfathomable. But this is getting beside the point.

The point is that Stalin and the Soviet Union did not need to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to ensure the Soviet Union's national security. While the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact temporarily turned Nazi aggression westward, it did so at the expense of making the Wehrmacht vastly more powerful and the German capacity to wage war a long-term from the entirely unfeasible to a virtual guarantee. And, ultimately, the Soviet people payed a very dear price for the Stalinist regime's quasi-colonialist collaboration with the Nazi regime. Had Stalin and Molotov simply told Ribbentrop that they wouldn't play ball and refused to sent the Nazis a single drop of oil, an ounce of magnesium, or a plank of lumber, the Nazis would have been fucked in any war against a major power which promised to last more than a couple of months. Panzers and Stukers don't run on air alone. Hell, even with vast quantities of resources from the Soviet Union, including no less than 10% of the oil which fueled Barbarossa, the Wehrmacht's supply line was still horse drawn and over 600,000 horses were utilised in the invasion.

If you are interested, I have expanded on these points, and responded to various inane and ignorant Stalinist (among others) "critiques" here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/molotov-ribentrop-pact-t179684/index.html?t=179684

Destroyer of Illusions

24th March 2015, 13:37

As any diligent researcher knows, historical facts should not be viewed in isolation, but in the overall context of what was happening at the time.

1.By the end of the 1930s it became apparent that a new world war will take place in any case. Thus its potential participants were divided into three groups: firstly, Britain, France and the United States in the perspective, secondly, Germany and its allies, finally, the USSR. It followed that in the coming battle the two of them will beat the one left, and this part will have hard times. In addition, the example shown by the United States in the 1st World War, demonstrated that those who enter the fray later than others receive tangible benefits.

2. Analyzing the Soviet- German treaty, we should not forget about another agreement concluded nearly a year before in Munich. As it was shown by Munich, contracts with Britain and France, could be safely regarded as a useless scrap of paper because they fail to fulfill their obligations.In this situation the Soviet leadership made a natural conclusion –not to believe the Western words. It was possible to cooperate with Britain and France only having obtained a military treaty, which will clearly and unambiguously spell out the obligations of the parties so that newly minted "allies" could not wriggle out of their implementation.On April 17, 1939 Moscow offered to conclude the Anglo-Franco - Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance.The British government accepted the Soviet proposal to start negotiations on a military convention only on July 25 and so did the French government on July 26,and they expressed their willingness to send their representatives to Moscow. Negotiations began on August 12. It immediately became clear that the French delegation headed by General J.Dumenk had authority only to negotiate, but not tosignany agreements, and the British delegation headed by Admiral Reginald Drax had no written full powers.

Thus, being not able to get anything good from Britain and France, the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact with Germany.

Invader Zim

24th March 2015, 17:23

As any diligent researcher knows, historical facts should not be viewed in isolation, but in the overall context of what was happening at the time.

This is true, but given that you are plainly ignorant of both the facts and the context, your entire post is somewhat beside the point.

1.By the end of the 1930s it became apparent that a new world war will take place in any case.

No, this was not 'clear'. As late as 30 June 1939, The Spectator, in a leading article no less, felt able to inform readers that though the international situation was poor, 'Certain reassuring signs [for peace] can be discerned, and in their aggregate they amount to something not insubstantial'. It was certainly not clear immediately after Munich or at any time before that.

Thus its potential participants were divided into three groups: firstly, Britain, France and the United States in the perspective

How, precisely, was the United States anything to do with this? The United States did not go to war with Britain and France in 1939, it was not a member of the League of Nations, and it had made no guarantees to Poland.

It followed that in the coming battle the two of them will beat the one left, and this part will have hard times.

But, Britain and France were never going to join with Nazi Germany in combined war against the Soviet Union. So, really, what are you banging on about?

In addition, the example shown by the United States in the 1st World War, demonstrated that those who enter the fray later than others receive tangible benefits.

And the example shown by Italy demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

As it was shown by Munich, contracts with Britain and France, could be safely regarded as a useless scrap of paper because they fail to fulfill their obligations.

Prior to Munich, Britain had made no guarantees to Czechoslovakia. That she did so at Munich was pointless and foolish, because neither Britain nor France believed they were in a position to do anything about it (as proved to be the case in the actual event) if Hitler went back on his word.

In this situation the Soviet leadership made a natural conclusion –not to believe the Western words.

And which words would these be? What guarantees do you believe Britain and France made to the Soviet Union?

It was possible to cooperate with Britain and France only having obtained a military treaty, which will clearly and unambiguously spell out the obligations of the parties so that newly minted "allies" could not wriggle out of their implementation.

You do realize that Stalin held no faith in there ever being such an agreement with the western powers? Obviously no, and I'll explain why (think of it as a remedial history class to make up for the damage inflicted on you by your either entirely absent or at best perfunctory historical education):

1. Stalin knew that even if such an agreement were reached (and he did, in fact, ask for one only to be rebuffed) that it would, in military terms, be meaningless - see my previous post.

2. The western powers had no reason to go for such an agreement and every reason to rebuff it. First, the Red Army was universally seen to be a vast but utterly brittle shell, which would shatter at first contact with the armed forces of a major world power. This was in no small part because Stalin, in the midst of paranoid madness and usual power plays, exterminated or imprisoned 70% of the Red Army's officers, thus decapitating it and destroying strategic and doctrinal memory, not to mention wiping out huge swathes of talent. This was confirmed to the world during the Winter War when a tiny Finnish army caused havoc and inflicted huge losses on the Red Army. In the end the Red Army actually got off lightly because the Finns ran out of key resources, primarily ammunition. Second, they were worried that such a clear act of aggression would result in war - which they were trying to avoid.

I would go through the rest of the rubbish you have posted not only in this post but in the rest of the thread, but I think I've demonstrated, from this sample alone, that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about - and it is too draining to deal with this level of ignorance without getting paid for it.

Rafiq

24th March 2015, 21:42

No, this was not 'clear'. As late as 30 June 1939, The Spectator, in a leading article no less, felt able to inform readers that though the international situation was poor, 'Certain reassuring signs [for peace] can be discerned, and in their aggregate they amount to something not insubstantial'. It was certainly not clear immediately after Munich or at any time before that.

By 1939, I don't know what kind of idiot wouldn't have been able to predict that the next world war was coming. This was, to say the least, "up there" as not only something recognized by virtually every state, but at that point it was a component of mass public sentimentality. I mean, is this article, a few passages is to be taken as your evidence that the threat of war wasn't obvious, that the next world war wasn't already looming in the heads of virtually everyone who wasn't living under a cave? The fact that the article had to re-assure readers that the possibility of peace [/B]was "not insubstantial", that it can be "discerned" suggests that it had to be "discerned" in order to be conceived, that is, the imminent threat of a world war was something that was in the minds and hearts of people across Europe. Look at the very language being employed here - that it's not too late, that, in other words, "There are elements in what appears to be a shit-storm that have a not-so-slim chance of preventing it from ravaging the world". You want to know what this sounds like? This sounds like a caring paternal figure telling the people around him in a doomed situation the noble lie that "everything's going to be alright".

And most especially in the USSR, the threat of war specifically with Germany was apparent as early as 1938 (earlier, even). Now you don't have to dig up any dusty old archives, or analyze the specific interactions leading members of the Soviet state had with one and another to realize this - it was openly regarded as common knowledge, it was already in the noosphere of the Soviet people - such films, as this wouldn't have been possible if it was otherwise:
http://latvianhistory.com/2013/08/23/if-war-comes-tomorrow-1938-soviet-movie-that-predicted-the-world-war-ii/

And the example shown by Italy demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

Forgive me, but what are you talking about here? Italy entered the first world war in 1915. That isn't particularly late. And even if we do count it as late, by no meaningful criteria could Italy ever be understood as a great imperialist power during the first world war. It is arguable that Italy's impotent Imperialism is what fostered the rise of Fascism in the first place, they were incapable of possessing a substantial share of the loot.

cyu

24th March 2015, 22:07

If you believe in the inevitability of history (something I'm not 100% convinced of, yet have yet to see any convincing counter-evidence), then what happened in the past couldn't have happened any other way. The only way historical figures would have behaved differently, would be if they were different people than the ones that existed at the time.

Some may ask what then is the point of studying history? If we determine that certain things led to negative results, the question isn't whether they could have been avoided in the past, but rather if our knowledge of past conditions can prevent similar negative effects in the future.

If the question is how leftists would be able to tell the difference between a viable "alliance of convenience" versus dangerous ones, then one might look for past warning signs that should not be ignored in the future. Maybe the alternative conclusion should be that "alliances of convenience" should be avoided altogether. From a more anarchist viewpoint, why should history be viewed from the vantage point of Stalin and Hitler (or a few of their prize underlings)? Regardless of what deals our current heads of state make with one another (whether we think they're on our side or not), what can anarchists do to frustrate such policies, regardless of whether others believe it would be strengthening fascism or not?

Destroyer of Illusions

25th March 2015, 03:19

Gileson

25th March 2015, 04:06

I see you haven't addressed how supplies from the Soviet Union enabled Nazi Germany to withstand the blockade, and invade as far as it did into the SU.

John Nada

25th March 2015, 06:15

an ounce of magnesiumIt was manganese, not magnesium.:) Austria is a leading supplier of the later, Germany had plenty. The former MANGANESE being used in some steel alloys. In fact, I wonder what form of manganese. Was it pyrolusite ore, a manganese salt, an iron/manganese alloy or pure manganese? Manganese metal easily rusts in pure form, so if it's not sold as ore or salt, it's sold as an alloy. This was especially true in that era.

Now that I think of it, how was the quality of the goods?
And most especially in the USSR, the threat of war specifically with Germany was apparent as early as 1938 (earlier, even). Now you don't have to dig up any dusty old archives, or analyze the specific interactions leading members of the Soviet state had with one and another to realize this - it was openly regarded as common knowledge, it was already in the noosphere of the Soviet people - such films, as this wouldn't have been possible if it was otherwise: http://latvianhistory.com/2013/08/23...-world-war-ii/ The author noticed the film said “From the Black Sea, to the Arctic from the Baltics to the Pacific Ocean millions of sons joins the fight”. They though the Baltic part was the spoiler. But the Pacific would've been in East Asia, where there was a horrific war going on between Communists and fascists. A lot of the outdated weapons were in use there. It kind of looks like it could've taken place in China(the race of the actors/actresses notwithstanding).
Only a prize idiot will say it wasn't clear that a new world war will take place.Dudes,the war already went on - in Spain and China - and the Soviets,btw,has already joined it, think about this fact before you begin to reproach them for a temporary truce with Hitler.That's exactly what I was thinking, and there was Italy's invasion of Ethiopia(with France giving the green light) and Albania.

It wasn't just Czechoslovakia that France and Britain gave up. Imperial Japan invaded China, seizing Manchuria. Fascist Italy conquered Ethiopia, deploying chemical weapons. Just a couple months later Italy and Germany went to aid the fascists in Spain. In November, 1936 the Anti-Comintern Pact was made. World War II starts for China, with the Nanking massacre. Right after crushing the Spanish Republicans, the fascists moved on to the rest of Czechoslovakia. Literally a couple weeks after Fascist Italy takes over Albania.

It is then, that the Soviets had a choice. Everyone on all side has been at war with them at some point. Japan tries to attack in the east, but are defeated by the famed General Zhukov. At the same time of the battle, the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is signed. This gives the Soviets about 2 years.

Japan, feeling let down, decides to back off and move southward instead. They sign a peace treat with the Soviets. Nobody gets pissed at this because just a month later the Nazis invade the USSR.

Japan gets bogged down in China, but proceed to invade Indochina. The US finally has had enough, seizing Japanese assets, and stop sending Japan oil and goods. In retaliation, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, which they were probably going to do anyway. Thus the Allies were born. And there's even more shit than I typed.

Now what would've happened if the Pact hadn't occurred, who knows? At least the UK and France didn't follow through with this operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War Goddamn I have a feeling it'd be bad.

Something I noticed is that as Germany seized more territory, their imports drop, but Soviet exports went up. For each nation that fell, Germany became more dependent on the USSR. What if Germany just attacked the Soviet Union instead, and kept importing from the "neutral" countries, who they actually took out IRL? How would other countries react? How would the Allies react if the Axis Powers just went right through Poland straight to Moscow, with Japan pursuing the Northern Strategy. Would the US stop exporting oil to Japan in that event?

WWII was the closest capitalism fell into barbarism(ironically save by an attempt at socialism). I don't see how anyone could compare even the worst attempt at socialism to fascism. Fascism wasn't the state taking over businesses, it was both of them merging together. The corporate cartels were to the bourgeoisie benefit in the short run. Yet to keep their privileges, the fascists had to resort to increasingly twisted shit, from slavery to genocide. The whole thing was one big tangled web of backroom deals. Hell the US was exporting to the Soviets when the Soviets were exporting to Germany!

cyu

25th March 2015, 10:26

Off-topic, but was reminded of http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-23/us-loses-500-million-weapons-given-yemen-now-al-qaeda-hands

the Pentagon is unable to account for more than $500 million in U.S. military aid given to Yemen.

With Yemen in turmoil and its government splintering, the Defense Department has lost its ability to monitor the whereabouts of small arms, ammunition, night-vision goggles, patrol boats, vehicles and other supplies donated by the United States.

Pentagon officials have said that they have little information to go on and that there is little they can do at this point to prevent the weapons and gear from falling into the wrong hands.

“We have to assume it’s completely compromised and gone,” said a legislative aide on Capitol Hill who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Washington has supplied more than $500 million in military aid to Yemen since 2007 under an array of Defense Department and State Department programs. The Pentagon and CIA have provided additional assistance through classified programs, making it difficult to know exactly how much Yemen has received in total.

U.S. officials said it would be unlikely to alter the military balance of power there. Yemen is estimated to have the second-highest gun ownership rate in the world, ranking behind only the United States, and its bazaars are well stocked with heavy weaponry.

See, it's no biggie: the Yemen branch of Al-Qaeda was already armed to the teeth anyway, peace out.

Up next? US-trained Ukraine troops with ultra-modern equipment mysteriously defect, and end up in the Russian army?

Sometimes I wonder just how hard it would be to tell the difference between incompetence and conspiracy. On the other hand, perhaps conspiracy is only necessitated by incompetence...

Invader Zim

25th March 2015, 19:43

Only a prize idiot will say it wasn't clear that a new world war will take place.Dudes,the war already went on - in Spain and China - and the Soviets,btw,has already joined it, think about this fact before you begin to reproach them for a temporary truce with Hitler.

First, the Spanish Civil War was not, as you appear to believe, a part of the Second World War. Second, the Spanish Civil War, even if one is foolish enough to believe that the Second World War was 'inevitable', long predated the point that this could be argued. Third, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a 'truce' with the Nazis - it was collaborative land grabbing, and an exercise in war-mongering by both parties to the total detriment of Europe's working classes.

Invader Zim

25th March 2015, 20:01

Rafiq's two points are also both without merit. First, you look at the events of 1939 with the benefit of hindsight, and not based on what was actually know at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy). Had the Second World War been deemed by one and all to be inevitable, that it "was coming" regardless of any diplomatic efforts, the appeasement policy would not have been adopted as anything but a stalling strategy for rearmament purposes. Yet, as anybody with even an elementary historical education knows, the appeasers really did believe in and hope for peace, even up to September 1939. Indeed, Georges Bonnet, on 2 September 1939, was still striving to avoid war via orchestrating another summit along the same lines as the Munich agreement. Clearly, no lesser individual than the French Foreign Minister, still, in the very final hours of the inter-war period, was not convinced that war was inevitable. The idea of a future coming war, written in the sand for all to see save the deluded, weak or foolish, is a line of self-serving Churchillian rhetoric very few specialists have taken seriously for quite a number of decades. Second, 1915 is, of course, late entry - and 1916 when Italy declared war on Germany is later still. The fact is that Italy absolutely joined the First World War on the promise of substantial reward (at the Treaty of London). While it is true that Italy was a second rank power, by comparison to Britain, France, the US and Germany, etc., it was undeniably a major European power, with considerable imperial assets. The promises made at the Treaty of London, reflected its status and military potential. Also, you are shifting the goal posts, Destroyer of Illusions did not make any such distinctions in their ludicrous sweeping statement.

And yes, they were shafted and received little compensation for what was a huge and crippling contribution (460,000 military losses and 550,000 civilian deaths). Their late arrival, regardless of promises made, did not guarantee, as Destroyer of Illusions's ignorantly asserts, a seat at the victor's top table.

Gileson

25th March 2015, 20:32

Even if another World War was guaranteed, Nazi Germany wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as it did if the Soviet Union did not enable it to.

Rafiq

26th March 2015, 04:16

The idea of a future coming war, written in the sand for all to see save the deluded, weak or foolish, is a line of self-serving Churchillian rhetoric very few specialists have taken seriously for quite a number of decades.

They may have tried their very best to prevent the war (Else, why would they have even tried in the first place if they thought it was futile? This is common sense), but it was quite obvious at that time that war was in the air, that war was coming. Whatever the reservations of this or that French and British statesmen, the idea that the war was preventable was not significant to the public aroma. Of course not all things that occur couldn't have happened another way, but another world war was indeed an inevitability and this was thought by many even a decade before it became abundantly clear.

Their late arrival, regardless of promises made, did not guarantee, as Destroyer of Illusions's ignorantly asserts, a seat at the victor's top table.

The difference is that the fate of the war was never completely dependent on Italy's entrance into the war. While Italy's contribution may have been significant, it wasn't pivotal to the outcome of the war in a way that was comparable to the United States. This was as true in the first world war as the second. Destroyer's point stands well - with such dependence, entering the war as a strategically pivotal power late with a guarantee of an equally pivotal share of the spoils was indeed preferable.

John Nada

26th March 2015, 10:09

Already in 1936 Stalin said in an interview that a war was likely:
Howard : Should war come, Mr. Stalin, where is it most likely to break out? Where are the war clouds the most menacing, in the East or in the West?

Stalin : In my opinion there are two seats of war danger. The first is in the Far East, in the zone of Japan. I have in mind the numerous statements made by Japanese military men containing threats against other powers. The second seat is in the zone of Germany. It is hard to say which is the most menacing, but both exist and are active. Compared with these two principal seats of war danger, the Italian-Abyssinian war is an episode. At present, the Far Eastern seat of danger reveals the greatest activity. However, the centre of this danger may shift to Europe. This is indicated, for example, by the interview which Herr Hitler recently gave to a French newspaper. In this interview Hitler seems to have tried to say peaceful things, but he sprinkled his "peacefulness" so plentifully with threats against both France and the Soviet Union that nothing remained of his "peacefulness."; You see, even when Herr Hitler wants to speak of peace he cannot avoid uttering threats. This is symptomatic.

Howard : What situation or condition, in your opinion, furnishes the chief war menace today?

Stalin : Capitalism. Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm
Beginning of a New Imperialist War.

Here is a list of the most important events during the period under review which mark the beginning of the new imperialist war. In 1935 Italy attacked and seized Abyssinia. In the summer of 1936 Germany and Italy organized military intervention in Spain, Germany entrenching herself in the north of Spain and in Spanish Morocco, and Italy in the south of Spain and in the Balearic Islands. Having seized Manchuria, Japan in 1937 invaded North and Central China, occupied Peking, Tientsin and Shanghai and began to oust her foreign competitors from the occupied zone. In the beginning of 1938 Germany seized Austria, and in the autumn of 1938 the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia. At the end of 1938 Japan seized Canton, and at the beginning of 1939 the Island of Hainan.

Thus the war, which has stolen so imperceptibly upon the nations, has drawn over five hundred million people into its orbit and has extended its sphere of action over a vast territory, stretching from Tientsin, Shanghai and Canton, through Abyssinia, to Gibraltar.Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm

From the Soviet's point of view, the war started in Ethiopia, China and Spain. WWII was already going on by 1938 from their perspective. China's was right on their border. There was already battles between the Japanese and the Soviets. At the time, some though China might surrender and become a hostile Japanese colony. Japan could've seized Pacific ports like Vladivostok. Spain was lost, and expected to side with the Axis. If the fascists took control of both Strait of Gibraltar and the Gulf of Aden, that could've potentially cutoff the Mediterranean Sea, or even the Black Sea. We know now that it didn't turn out this way, but it wasn't certain at the time.
Even if another World War was guaranteed, Nazi Germany wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as it did if the Soviet Union did not enable it to.As far as they did, maybe not. I'd imagine that even if the Soviets didn't sell them shit, there would still be a lot of damage dealt. And Germany wasn't the only belligerent in the war.

Leonid Brozhnev

26th March 2015, 11:05

They also refer to the conflicts in Europe and Asia at the time as the "Second Imperialist War" in the History of the CPSU/Bolsheviks 1938 (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm).
So certainly the Soviet government (or at least Stalin) believed that the world was on the brink of another war, if not already in the opening stages of one.

Gileson

26th March 2015, 11:32

Nazi Germany wouldn't have withstood its blockade without the Soviet Union's supplies. Operation Barbarossa would have been doomed to failure.

Instead, the Stalinists enabled Nazi Germany's Operation Barbarossa.

Destroyer of Illusions

26th March 2015, 11:34

1.Why is it commonly believed that the ww2 started when Britain and France formally entered in war? It is a Eurocentric position The Chinese believe that the war began at July 7, 1937 - the day of a start of an open Japan's aggression against China.And why not? There is a reason in this position. And would not it be more logical to consider that a first military clash of the regular units of the major warring parts was a start of the war? This first military clash of the Soviet military units and the units of Axis happened in October 29, 1936 in Spain near Madrid when Soviet tanksmen attacked Italians.A long time before 1939 Soviet pilots in Spain and in China shot down German,Italian and Japanese planes.Btw not only pilots but all types and kinds of troops fought in Spain, only infantry was represented mainly by officers-councils.

And then was a desisive contribution to the victory over Nazism in 1941-1945.

2.The Western position.Look at the chronology of the events.

1935 - Reinstatement of Conscription in Germany in in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles - no Western reaction;

1935 - Anglo-German Naval Agreement wich allowed Germany to build up it's Naval forces;

1935-1936 - Italian agression in Ethiopia - no Western reaction;

1936-1939 - German and Italian agression in Spain - British and French partisipation together with the Nazis in an economic blockade of the Spanish Republic.In 1939 British cruiser Devonshire helped the fascist to occupy the island of Menorca. In February 1939, Britain and France recognized the Franco regime and severed ties with the Republican government when the Republic still held Madrid and the entire central Spain. This was perhaps an even greater infamy than Munich Agreement.

1938 - Annexion of Austria - no Western reaction;

1938-1939 - Munich Agreement,no need in comments.Germany,Hungary and Poland (yes,that very Poland some gentlemen here are pity of ) occupies Czechoslovakia;

1939 -1940 - the betrayal of Poland and the "phoney war", ie the imitation of war against the Nazis;

1941-1944 - the policy of delays,the Second front was opened only in 1944.

So the evident appeasement, the cultivation of Nazism as a main anti-Soviet and anti-communist force on one side - on the opposite side is a fight agains Nazism from the very begining up to the end.That is the main fact .Everything else is a nitpicking to the Soviet anti-Nazi tactics

Destroyer of Illusions

26th March 2015, 11:42

Nazi Germany wouldn't have withstood its blockade without the Soviet Union's supplies.

Your multiple repetition does not make this statement true.A repetition is not a proof.

I see you haven't addressed how supplies from the Soviet Union enabled Nazi Germany to withstand the blockade, and invade as far as it did into the SU.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2824924)

Can we know who blocked Germany and when?

Cliff Paul

26th March 2015, 14:12

Your multiple repetition does not make this statement true.A repetition is not a proof.

Notice how you didn't respond to the images I posted...

Destroyer of Illusions

26th March 2015, 16:16

What can your images prove except the fact that supplies really took place?The Soviets supplied raw materials to Germany, Germany supplied machines and equipment for the production or weapons for the Soviets.Two questions: could Germany get raw materials from other countries? The answer is obvious.Could the USSR get machines and equipment from other countries?The answer is obvious,too.

Invader Zim

26th March 2015, 16:24

1.Why is it commonly believed that the ww2 started when Britain and France formally entered in war?

Because the war in China was, by definition, not global. Britain and France, on the other hand, brought countries and territories within their Empires, and allies, into the war from every continent on earth.

There is a reason in this position. And would not it be more logical to consider that a first military clash of the regular units of the major warring parts was a start of the war?

No, because that war was only incorporated into the global, world war, when Japan attacked the United States, the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, and British Indochina.

This is not a euro-centric position, but one of logical classification.

This first military clash of the Soviet military units and the units of Axis happened in October 29, 1936 in Spain near Madrid when Soviet tanksmen attacked Italians

This is as stupid as it is anachronistic. There was no such thing as the 'Axis' until 27 July 1940, and read the following fact:

The Spanish Civil War was not a part of the Second World War.

Read it again and again until it sinks.

1935 - Reinstatement of Conscription in Germany in in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles - no Western reaction;

1935 - Anglo-German Naval Agreement wich allowed Germany to build up it's Naval forces;

1935-1936 - Italian agression in Ethiopia - no Western reaction;

1936-1939 - German and Italian agression in Spain - British and French partisipation together with the Nazis in an economic blockade of the Spanish Republic.In 1939 British cruiser Devonshire helped the fascist to occupy the island of Menorca. In February 1939, Britain and France recognized the Franco regime and severed ties with the Republican government when the Republic still held Madrid and the entire central Spain. This was perhaps an even greater infamy than Munich Agreement.

1938 - Annexion of Austria - no Western reaction;

1938-1939 - Munich Agreement,no need in comments.Germany,Hungary and Poland (yes,that very Poland some gentlemen here are pity of ) occupies Czechoslovakia;

1939 -1940 - the betrayal of Poland and the "phoney war", ie the imitation of war against the Nazis;

1941-1944 - the policy of delays,the Second front was opened only in 1944.

This is ridiculous, the Soviet Union, like Britain and France, also failed to go to war with Germany in the 1930s despite German expansionist policy. Moreover, while the British and French appeased the Nazis until 1939, the Soviet Union actively collaborated with the Nazis and their imperialist ambitions from 1939 to 1941.

Oh, and the Allies invaded mainland Europe and opened a second front in 1943. It takes a certain pig ignorance to be unaware of the Italian Campaign.

1936-1939 - German and Italian agression in Spain - British and French partisipation together with the Nazis in an economic blockade of the Spanish Republic.In 1939 British cruiser Devonshire helped the fascist to occupy the island of Menorca. In February 1939, Britain and France recognized the Franco regime and severed ties with the Republican government when the Republic still held Madrid and the entire central Spain. This was perhaps an even greater infamy than Munich Agreement.

And the Soviet Union utilized the Spanish Civil War to rob the Republic blind, betrayed the revolution and assassinated its leaders. Oh, and the idea that the Non-Intervention Committee somehow starved the Republic is a myth fabricated by the Stalinist regime. As Lord Halifax candidly admitted in 1952:

'I doubt that a single man or gun less reached either side in that war as a result of its [the committees] activities'.

Meanwhile, the French often utterly ignored it and allowed huge amounts of material over the border destined for the Republican side, including a 1937 shipment of 300 aircraft. Non-intervention was, quite frankly, meaningless and Spain's borders were remarkably porous.

1939 -1940 - the betrayal of Poland and the "phoney war", ie the imitation of war against the Nazis;

This is a misunderstanding of what the "Phoney War" was, and you ignored the following facts:

1939-1941 - the betrayal of Poland and collaboration with the Nazis - the Soviet Union sides with the Nazis and carves up eastern Europe, and feeds Germany.

1939-1940 - The Winter War, the Soviet Union invades and annexes Finland.

on the opposite side is a fight agains Nazism from the very begining up to the end.That is the main fact .Everything else is a nitpicking to the Soviet anti-Nazi tactics

Except, of course, the Soviet Union objectively did not 'fight' against the Nazis, instead they actively collaborated with them, and shared the spoils of conquest, until the Nazi betrayal of 1941. The Western powers, Britain and France, on the other hand, did go to war with Germany.

Alexios

26th March 2015, 16:25

Funny how Stalinists and their apologists will derail arguments to avoid criticism. What started as a controversy over whether or not Molotov-Ribbentrop funded the Nazi war machine is now an argument over whether or not a great European war was apparent before 1939. The latter becomes a fairly inconsequential point when considering the implications of the former, which is why no one in this thread has actually bothered challenging it. Now I suspect it'll turn into a debate about the Spanish Civil War - an argument that can only end in disaster.

Invader Zim

26th March 2015, 16:32

Invader Zim

26th March 2015, 16:34

Cliff Paul

26th March 2015, 16:36

could Germany get raw materials from other countries?

At this point I can't help but think you are just willfully ignorant of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_%281939%E2%80%9345%29

Destroyer of Illusions

26th March 2015, 17:22

At this point I can't help but think you are just willfully ignorant of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_%281939%E2%80%9345%29

Of course your opponents are always ignorant.But it seems you personally don't know how to read.I'll tell you what is written in your link : the first phase of the economic war started after 1 September,1939 ie not before but after the Pact was signed.So the Pact didn't destroy any blockade because it is inpossible to destroy the thing that does not exist.Quite contrary,the result of the Pact was a redirection of the Nazi agression at the West and all the following events including the blockade were the results of it.And if the Soviets firstly pushed Germany against Britain and France then Britain and the USA against Germany what of it ? I don't see anything bad in it - let imperialists beat each other.

Invader Zim

26th March 2015, 18:02

Of course your opponents are always ignorant.But it seems you personally don't know how to read.I'll tell you what is written in your link : the first phase of the economic war started after 1 September,1939 ie not before but after the Pact was signed.So the Pact didn't destroy any blockade because it is inpossible to destroy the thing that does not exist.Quite contrary,the result of the Pact was a redirection of the Nazi agression at the West and all the following events including the blockade were the results of it.

Your post, as usual, makes absolutely no sense. Both Hitler and Stalin were well aware that in the event of a war between Britain and France, and Germany, the response of the former two would be to introduce an economic blockade styled on the one that had crippled Germany two decades earlier. The fact that the Nazi regime was able to preempt this move, thanks entirely to Stalin's collaboration, reinforces rather than diminishes the point.

And, of course, you still fail to address the central point: the Soviet Union continued to supply the Nazi regime after June 1940, and in doing to supplied the army that would invade the Soviet Union in 1941. Try to understand this very simple fact: had it not been for Soviet supplies, Operation Barbarossa would have ground to a halt within a matter of weeks.

And if the Soviets firstly pushed Germany against Britain and France then Britain and the USA against Germany what of it ? I don't see anything bad in it - let imperialists beat each other.

And who would suffer from such a war other than the working classes?

Destroyer of Illusions

27th March 2015, 02:40

Don't push it. I don't dispute with trolls.

cyu

27th March 2015, 02:45

who would suffer from such a war other than the working classes?

http://www.internationalposter.com/pimages/USX23692z.jpg

Reminds me of a discussion about the marketing of toy guns to kids - gotta ensure the future pool of recruits...

Invader Zim

27th March 2015, 09:57

Don't push it. I don't dispute with trolls.

Highlighting your ignorance and violently anti-working class attitude is not trolling.

Gileson

28th March 2015, 19:49

I noticed nobody here has said what the SU had to lose by not sending so many supplies to Nazi Germany.

Die Neue Zeit

29th March 2015, 18:48

Antiochus

29th March 2015, 21:57

The Stalinists in here need a lobotomy. Even the ones that claim they aren't Stalinist can't help but rush to the defense of the the 5'3 Mario. This is all that this "quote" digging from 1937 Pravda and other nonsense is about. Typical imbecility.

The Molotov pact was NOT a "non-aggression pact" you MORONS. If it were the most logical thing to have followed suit would be a moratorium to border conflicts between both states, instead you have the EXACT opposite, shameless land-grabbing by both Nazi Germany and the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania, Finland Poland, Estonia were all invaded for absolutely no reason other than to expand the Soviet borders. Its amazing how you freaks are able to understand a nuanced interpretation of say American imperialism but you swallow this garbage about Soviet "partnership" with these countries with as much conviction as a porn star.

It is quite simple: The USSR and Germany both wanted to become European hegemonic powers. Germany just threw the first punch in a fight that both knew would eventually occur. And in order to 'get ready' for the fight both of these disgusting states sucked the blood, manpower and dignity of the workers of all of the above mentioned countries. The fact that you (generality) idiots actually defend perhaps the most naked imperialism of the 20th century must have people like Marx, Bakhukin and whoever the fuck else you proudly wear as your avatars rolling in their graves.

Go ahead, keep writing essays and novels about absolutely irrelevant points that have nothing to do with this argument. You are either trolls or you bring stupidity to an art form. Whats next? "I didn't murder him, he walked in the direction of my bullet".

Prof. Oblivion

30th March 2015, 16:17

It is quite simple: The USSR and Germany both wanted to become European hegemonic powers. Germany just threw the first punch in a fight that both knew would eventually occur. And in order to 'get ready' for the fight both of these disgusting states sucked the blood, manpower and dignity of the workers of all of the above mentioned countries. The fact that you (generality) idiots actually defend perhaps the most naked imperialism of the 20th century must have people like Marx, Bakhukin and whoever the fuck else you proudly wear as your avatars rolling in their graves.

I don't think this is really true. The goals of the USSR weren't really to expand on a massive geographic scale or simply to "gain power". The USSR was mostly concerned with its fragile political administration and state apparatuses following the purges, and the prospect of being threatened by a capitalist military bloc. I'm not convinced that the USSR would have enacted an expansionist policy in any way similar to Nazi Germany, and in fact believe that all Soviet expansionism was limited and within the boundaries of the former Russian empire.

Antiochus

30th March 2015, 20:32

The goals of the USSR weren't really to expand on a massive geographic scale or simply to "gain power".

At best to create a "buffer" zone. But in reality to obtain raw materials, manpower and infrastructural capabilities (i.e Imperialism). Also, claiming that it was limited to the borders of the Russian Empire might be true, I don't know. A perhaps more accurate picture, in my opinion is limited to the territorial ambitions of the Russian Empire (which expanded quite a bit from just their borders).

A simple pact of two countries not attacking one another and giving one country a free *military* hand at taking on colonial powers who tried to play the two of them against each other is one thing. The trade activities that followed were under separate agreements.

False, false and false. All of these ridiculous views have already been smashed in this thread but you are either unable to read or unwilling to. The trade activities were instrumental within the "non-aggression" pact because it gave Nazi Germany access to Soviet resources that it otherwise would not have had. What don't you understand about this? The fact that they were written on different pieces of paper means what exactly?

Stalin took a gamble for his personal ambitions. And the Soviet people paid for it with 27 million deaths. Stalin was as incompetent as the Italian cruise ship driver, and as culpable.

Slavic

30th March 2015, 21:35

A simple pact of two countries not attacking one another and giving one country a free *military* hand at taking on colonial powers who tried to play the two of them against each other is one thing. The trade activities that followed were under separate agreements.

How blind can you be. You make it sound as if Germany and Russia were justified in fighting against the "colonial" west, all while ignoring the very real colonial actions both Germany and Russian undertook. It is just silly anti-imperialist East vs. imperialist West nonsense.

Rafiq

30th March 2015, 22:32

Stalin took a gamble for his personal ambitions. And the Soviet people paid for it with 27 million deaths. Stalin was as incompetent as the Italian cruise ship driver, and as culpable.

What a profoundly idiotic assessment. As though the complexity of the Soviet state machine,with all that it entailed, is reducible to the "ambitions" of a single person. The fact of the matter is that as far as Stalin's "personal ambitions" go, there were absolutely none. Any idiot can see that Stalin did not identify with his cult of personality, i.e. Stalin did not care about himself as far as these matters are concerned, he cared about a specific bureaucratic, political faction in the Bolshevik party and ultimately it is arguable that he had absolutely no sinister intentions: Stalin may very well (most likely, actually) could have thought himself an ardent defender of the Soviet Union and the October revolution, and while this may not reflect the reality of the conditions in the Soviet Union, - it is nothing short of childish and a betrayal of enlightenment values to reduce the actions of the Soviet state to "Stalin wants power". The same could even be said for Hitler - it's doubtful that Hitler didn't actually believe at least some of the shit he said. This relies on the assumption that humans can actually "want" power in such a way, that it must be limited and so on. But this has not ever been, and cannot be the case - power can only be exercised within the framework of immediate associates within your domain of experience, otherwise you will never feel the effects of it, and if you try to, you end up like Alexander with delusions of grandeur with no bearing in the realities of "your" power.

It's not difficult: Read Stalin for fuck's sake this is not a man who could as an intellectual lie to himself so well - Stalin was above all a democratic figure in the ironic sense of the word - the type of man who would literally respond to criticism, irregardless of where it came from, as though he was a mere intellectual, a man like any other good Stalinist who after a long speech would applaud himself, so as to not so greatly distance himself from the masses. So what personal ambitions could Stalin possibly have? It wouldn't be so difficult to retire and spend the rest of his days in luxury and peace, and power is a great, tireless and hellish responsibility in a place like the Soviet Union. So what was it? The thrill of feeling powerful? A big ego? A child's explanation.

Of course one could try to argue that the Molotov Ribbentrop pact was a mistake, and that is up for debate: But to reduce its inception to "Stalin's personal ambitions" at the expense of the "Soviet people" - who apparently would have, if given the democratic instruments, would have ousted Stalin or pursue a different policy with the Germans - except for the fact that Stalin was, for the most part, an immensely popular figure among the "Soviet people" (Tell me, how did this non-aggression pact bolster Stalin's personal or even political ambitions?). You're trying to argue that had Stalin had the best interests of his people in mind, he wouldn't have pursued the policies he did. But his people is exactly what he had in mind in pursuing those policies, which proves not his sincerity but the fact that to act on behalf of the people is a very vague and meaningless thing. Stalin couldn't have done what he did without thinking that it was for the betterment of the nation in the same way conservative bourgeois leaders couldn't.

The Molotov pact was NOT a "non-aggression pact" you MORONS. If it were the most logical thing to have followed suit would be a moratorium to border conflicts between both states, instead you have the EXACT opposite, shameless land-grabbing by both Nazi Germany and the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania, Finland Poland, Estonia were all invaded for absolutely no reason other than to expand the Soviet borders

For all the accusations of imbecility, it's a wonder why you conveniently forget to mention that the land, or parts of these states pursued by the Soviet Union were in fact formerly a part of the Russian Empire, these were lands conceded during the Russian civil war and the treaty of brest-litovsk. With of course the exception of Finland (which is arguable too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat), which was attacked primarily because it was going to be used as a launching pad by the Germans, or could have easily been, to invade the Soviet Union. The same rule applies with regard to the land ceded by Poland, and while one could argue that this culminated in "Imperialism" (which is a term you so carelessly throw around as though it simply translates into simply being a big bad asshole, typical of an infantile bourgeois ideologue incapable of utilizing scientific methodology) through the establishment of various Communist states in Eastern Europe, this is hardly the same thing as 'land-grabbing', unless of course we want to claim that countries like Greece, among other countries were land-grabbed by the United Kingdom in the midst of popular Communist movements - clearly the 'democratic' good guys didn't give much of a fuck about democracy either.

It could be argued that the Soviet drive to export ideological and political influence in Eastern Europe and other parts of the world was a result of the necessity for "raw materials, manpower and infrastructural capabilities", but concerning the immediate pre-war actions of the Soviet government, the only thing in mind was ultimately the strengthening of the country's defenses against the immediate threat of invasion. Which clearly was a threat. I mean, it was beyond obvious by that time that war was coming, with Germany as well - only an idiot would have had illusions, on either side, that this was in the long term anything more than a temporary non-aggression pact, trade relations aside.

Antiochus

31st March 2015, 00:45

What a profoundly long statement with virtually no substance and totally irrelevant to this actual topic. I'll try to keep it short:

What a profoundly idiotic assessment. As though the complexity of the Soviet state machine,with all that it entailed, is reducible to the "ambitions" of a single person.

Really? It isn't reducible (largely) to a single person, that person being Stalin? If so how the fuck do you explain the massive purge of the Red Army based solely on Stalin's paranoia which crippled the Red Army's response to Barbarossa which as you later say was "inevitable" in the eyes of Stalin.

which is a term you so carelessly throw around as though it simply translates into simply being a big bad asshole, typical of an infantile bourgeois ideologue incapable of utilizing scientific methodology

Rafiq, I am actually a scientist. The only PhD you have is in shit-slinging and obfuscation. Nevertheless, lets use the most basic definition of Imperialism:

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

How on Earth does this not apply to Stalin's chauvinism. The supposed justification that these territories were 'part of the Russian Empire' is about as fucking irrelevant as Russia once being a part of the Mongol Empire.

which was attacked primarily because it was going to be used as a launching pad by the Germans, or could have easily been, to invade the Soviet Union.

Do you actually have proof of this or are you just spamming worthless shit out of your ass? The Finns were at best unwilling allies of Germany after the Winter War, which was launched on baseless and totally fabricated causes. Even in late 1941 when it seemed like the USSR was in its death-throws the Finns refused to cooperate with the Germans in the siege of Leningrad. Could it possibly be that Stalin's invasion of Finland in 1940 catalyzed a self-fulfilling prophecy?

the only thing in mind was ultimately the strengthening of the country's defenses against the immediate threat of invasion. Which clearly was a threat. I mean, it was beyond obvious by that time that war was coming, with Germany as well

Except none of Stalin's actions in 1939-1941 followed this pattern. Off course Stalin 'knew' of an upcoming war with Germany, but either the man was a total idiot (which he wasn't) and countered every bit of rationality, Soviet military intelligence information, enormous German/allied troop movements on the new Soviet border; or he was pursuing a policy to strengthen the 'nation' at the cost of the nation's security (similar to what Israel does on its own borders).

Stalin did absolutely nothing to prepare for the upcoming invasion even after they captured a fucking reconnaissance pilot's surveillance maps over the USSR. Stalin did everything he could to counter the obvious fact that the German invasion was happening sooner rather than later out of a probable belief that Germany should exhaust itself against Britain first.

on either side, that this was in the long term anything more than a temporary non-aggression pact, trade relations aside.

Trade relations which as already mentioned and as always, ignored, were critical for the German war effort. Even if for sake of argument we say that Stalin hoped for a war of attrition between France/Britain and Germany; after June 1940 he should have stopped these shipments or maybe even as late as early 1941 when the German invasion was becoming evident. Instead he started a fucking war against the Finns and their deadly 12 aircraft air force and purging 3/4 of the high Soviet military leadership. The Winter War was also disastrous because it totally discredited the abilities of the Red Army in the eyes of the Germans and at least strengthened the Nazi resolve to invade the USSR.

Everything else you say is just fucking posturing and meaningless drivel. Yes, Stalin clearly had problems. He photo shopped people he had executed out of pictures in the same manner Caracalla had done to his brother, that isn't what someone who "doesn't care about their status" does.

Rafiq

31st March 2015, 02:36

Really? It isn't reducible (largely) to a single person, that person being Stalin? If so how the fuck do you explain the massive purge of the Red Army based solely on Stalin's paranoia which crippled the Red Army's response to Barbarossa which as you later say was "inevitable" in the eyes of Stalin.

Except this isn't reducible to "Stalin's" paranoia. You clearly don't know shit about anything regarding the Soviet government if you think so. The (or a faction of) leadership of the Red Army, through the culmination of several years following the October revolution, formed a distinct political bloc that, during the 1930's at least, either constituted in itself a political faction, or had allied itself with bureaucratic factions opposed to Stalin. The leadership of the Red Army at this time represented by Tukhachevsky and other former Tsarist officers had distinctive, pragmatic and bonapartist aims. This was ripe for a major power struggle. Had Stalin died at any moment, this power struggle would have culminated into real actions one way or another, and whether the leadership of the red army would be purged would be entirely dependent on the victory of various different factions within the Soviet state. Even the most moronic historians on the Soviet Union will not dare claim that "Stalin" (his bloc really) fully consolidated political power before the end of the great purges, which alone affirms that there were other, rivaling blocs and that Stalin's leadership was at best precarious before then. One wonders why you skip the obvious fact that this struggle for power had nothing to do with the military apparatus of the state (For fuck's sake...). And this isn't simply paranoia - it had a definite grounding in reality. I even remember once reading that Hitler personally claimed that he reserved worries that "fanatics" were going to take over the USSR during the late 1930's. You've got to be a special kind of idiot if you think that there wasn't at least some truth to the existence of subversive political entities within the USSR - why wouldn't there be given the conditions?

And contrary to your cartoonish, infantile narrative of history, primarily stemming from the necessity to conform facts to the widespread designation of illegitimacy upon the whole of the USSR solely because of its collapse (fitting with the totalitarian narrative in general, I mean, seriously, how the fuck could the Soviet Union last a day if it was ruled this way?) - the purging of the Red Army arguably saved the Soviet Union from collapse during the second world war. Despite the fact that many of the victims were skilled generals, the purging of the Red Army led to the complete subordination of the military to the political apparatus of the Soviet Union, it led to the creation of a monolithic force devoid of any particular interests external from the aims of the party and the state. Conversely, the German military apparatus was not politically monolithic to the slightest degree, - do you think that anything similar to the conspiracy to kill Hitler could have occurred in the Soviet Union during the war? There was virtually no dissent, insubordination by the Soviet military leadership during the war - and this was something recognized (even admitted) by the German military leadership during their retreat.

Rafiq, I am actually a scientist

You are, officially a scientist, as are a plethora of other bourgeois ideologues. The qualifications for science being layed down here don't amount to a piece of paper you get from your university, I'm afraid. As an orthodox Marxist, I don't have time or intuition to give a shit about your totems of legitimacy - they mean nothing. You can be a scientist and still employ unscientific methodology with regard to history, and that much has been demonstrated here. "Science" isn't some cheap buzzword which grants one keys to the kingdom of truth, it's a real, identifiable means of articulation, of knowing.

The supposed justification that these territories were 'part of the Russian Empire' is about as fucking irrelevant as Russia once being a part of the Mongol Empire.

Perhaps if the social, and geopolitical coordinates of the Mongol Empire were still intact it would. But they weren't - while the territories of the Russian empire were just as vital to its military, economic and political security as they were to the Soviet Union, which is none other than the territorial heir to the Russian empire. It's almost as idiotic as saying that the colonies of the kingdom of France wouldn't be of vital necessity to the newly formed French republic or first empire... Of course it does! Not in this abstract sense, but as a reflection of the recognition that the old political entities still existed and the "game" of geopolitics and war was still intact. If there was some kind of world revolution, of course the Soviet Union wouldn't have shit to do with them.

Even in late 1941 when it seemed like the USSR was in its death-throws the Finns refused to cooperate with the Germans in the siege of Leningrad. Could it possibly be that Stalin's invasion of Finland in 1940 catalyzed a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Which ignores the fact that Finland was ruled by a violently anti-Communist government since the Russian civil war, could potentially be a strategically pivotal launching pad onto the Soviet Union, and in addition, relations between Finland and the Soviet Union were never friendly before. This adds to the fact that the country never fully constituted itself with the allies. Any IDIOT can see that with or without the Winter War, Finland's alignment with powers opposed to the Soviet Union was obvious - any idiot could see that Finland had recognizable territorial ambitions, had every reason to fuck with the Soviet Union, or at the very least allow others to even before the winter war. And what the fuck are you talking about? The Fins participated in the siege of Leningrad- what in your mind amounts to their lack of cooperation? And tell me, if the Fins were reluctant allies, why did they have to be beaten into surrender? Why didn't they immediatly join the allies when it became apparent that the Nazis were losing after Stalingrad and the Soviet advance into Eastern Europe? For fuck's sake, the Fins didn't officially leave the Axis until late 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice).

Stalin did absolutely nothing to prepare for the upcoming invasion even after they captured a fucking reconnaissance pilot's surveillance maps over the USSR. Stalin did everything he could to counter the obvious fact that the German invasion was happening sooner rather than later out of a probable belief that Germany should exhaust itself against Britain first.

This is debatable, but all-together besides the point. Saying that Stalin fucked the nation for his own personal ambition, and saying that mistakes were made under his rule that, if avoided would have allowed the Soviet Union to have better prepared itself for the war are completely different things. The point is that Stalin DID act with the intent of defending the Soviet Union as an unconditional priority. Whether he succeeded in this before the war, or displayed utmost competence, isn't really my concern here.

The Winter War was also disastrous because it totally discredited the abilities of the Red Army in the eyes of the Germans and at least strengthened the Nazi resolve to invade the USSR.

Don't kid yourself, the Nazis were going to invade either way. And while this wasn't deliberate, your whole argument falls flat on its fucking face because had the Nazis actually formed a realistic assessment of the Red Army's abilities, they would have been more amply prepared to deal with them. Instead, they grossly underestimated the strength and power of the Soviet army - Hitler and most of western Europe thought that after the 1937 purges the Red Army was a rotting corpse and they were proven dead wrong. Unless of course we want to believe that the Soviets won out of mere luck, or because they disregarded the sanctity of human life by throwing a bunch of unarmed asiatic hordes at the enemy, but this clearly is bullshit considering that the Soviets outproduced the Germans militarily and were overall more competent in coordinating large scale attacks.

He photo shopped people he had executed out of pictures in the same manner Caracalla had done to his brother, that isn't what someone who "doesn't care about their status" does.

Did Stalin personally fucking do this? Or are we to believe that everything that happened in the Soviet Union was on Stalin's orders? For fuck's sake... And let's be honest here, it is idiotic to think that the photoshops served the purpose of re-writing history. They didn't. They were a political message in themselves: Yezhov's denunciation and execution was known by virtually everyone, it wasn't some secret. Stalin shouldn't be immune from real, hard criticism, but on such a personal level it's clownish. How tiring... This banal fascination westerners have, so arrogantly, with reducing the realities of ideologically different societies to some kind of spectacle - "Oh my god! It's so crazy in the Soviet Union - they say we have always been at war with East Asia and so on!" - even in North Korea we see this. People criticize the North Korean government because they're "crazy" and "ridiculous" (Yes, so crazy and ridiculous that other standards, no matter how twisted, exist which we can't fathom within our coordinates of thought), and it's comparable to the "mad mullahs" of Iran. I mean - this isn't to soften opposition - North Korea and the Iranian state are despotic that any reasonable person would like to see overthrown - the point is that the very nature of this criticism silences self-reflexive thought with regard to our own society and renders our western pluralistic democracies just as predictable, stupid and banal as the double rainbow fetishizing North Koreans. Contained with our jeering, arrogant dismissal is the very image of a society devoid of self-consciousness, unable to think outside of its own coordinates of thought. This is much more "totalitarian", much more detrimental to critical thought than all the secret police or direct "indoctrination" imaginable...

Prof. Oblivion

31st March 2015, 03:05

What a profoundly idiotic assessment. As though the complexity of the Soviet state machine,with all that it entailed, is reducible to the "ambitions" of a single person. The fact of the matter is that as far as Stalin's "personal ambitions" go, there were absolutely none. Any idiot can see that Stalin did not identify with his cult of personality, i.e. Stalin did not care about himself as far as these matters are concerned, he cared about a specific bureaucratic, political faction in the Bolshevik party and ultimately it is arguable that he had absolutely no sinister intentions: Stalin may very well (most likely, actually) could have thought himself an ardent defender of the Soviet Union and the October revolution, and while this may not reflect the reality of the conditions in the Soviet Union, - it is nothing short of childish and a betrayal of enlightenment values to reduce the actions of the Soviet state to "Stalin wants power". The same could even be said for Hitler - it's doubtful that Hitler didn't actually believe at least some of the shit he said. This relies on the assumption that humans can actually "want" power in such a way, that it must be limited and so on. But this has not ever been, and cannot be the case - power can only be exercised within the framework of immediate associates within your domain of experience, otherwise you will never feel the effects of it, and if you try to, you end up like Alexander with delusions of grandeur with no bearing in the realities of "your" power.

It's not difficult: Read Stalin for fuck's sake this is not a man who could as an intellectual lie to himself so well - Stalin was above all a democratic figure in the ironic sense of the word - the type of man who would literally respond to criticism, irregardless of where it came from, as though he was a mere intellectual, a man like any other good Stalinist who after a long speech would applaud himself, so as to not so greatly distance himself from the masses. So what personal ambitions could Stalin possibly have? It wouldn't be so difficult to retire and spend the rest of his days in luxury and peace, and power is a great, tireless and hellish responsibility in a place like the Soviet Union. So what was it? The thrill of feeling powerful? A big ego? A child's explanation.

Of course one could try to argue that the Molotov Ribbentrop pact was a mistake, and that is up for debate: But to reduce its inception to "Stalin's personal ambitions" at the expense of the "Soviet people" - who apparently would have, if given the democratic instruments, would have ousted Stalin or pursue a different policy with the Germans - except for the fact that Stalin was, for the most part, an immensely popular figure among the "Soviet people" (Tell me, how did this non-aggression pact bolster Stalin's personal or even political ambitions?). You're trying to argue that had Stalin had the best interests of his people in mind, he wouldn't have pursued the policies he did. But his people is exactly what he had in mind in pursuing those policies, which proves not his sincerity but the fact that to act on behalf of the people is a very vague and meaningless thing. Stalin couldn't have done what he did without thinking that it was for the betterment of the nation in the same way conservative bourgeois leaders couldn't.

Would you say the same of Ceaușescu?

Rafiq

31st March 2015, 04:10

Would you say the same of Ceaușescu?

That his corruption and nepotism corresponded with his rule does not mean that the affairs of the Romanian state were reducible to his, coinciding self-aggrandizement.

Antiochus

31st March 2015, 05:52

Except this isn't reducible to "Stalin's" paranoia. You clearly don't know shit about anything regarding the Soviet government if you think so. The (or a faction of) leadership of the Red Army, through the culmination of several years following the October revolution, formed a distinct political bloc that, during the 1930's at least, either constituted in itself a political faction, or had allied itself with bureaucratic factions opposed to Stalin

Funny how these "powerful factions" which theoretically controlled the bulk of the Soviet military and transportation hubs were totally unable to defend themselves against a bunch of show trials and executions. These smacks clear of of the "Trotkyist" plots in the early 30s and late 30s and is quite idiotic. No one argued that Stalin had "total" power, nevertheless like Augustus in the 1st century; Napoleon in the 19th century or even Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, the power relations that they themselves fabricated through purges, massacres and proscriptions ensured that they had more authority and standing than any conceivable 'opposition'.

And this isn't simply paranoia - it had a definite grounding in reality. I even remember once reading that Hitler personally claimed that he reserved worries that "fanatics" were going to take over the USSR during the late 1930's.

So did Hitler you moron. The difference is he wasn't stupid enough to slaughter/imprison/dismiss the bulk of the high officer corps in the midst of a war. Usually without any proof of their supposed involvement in these conspiracies.

Which ignores the fact that Finland was ruled by a violently anti-Communist government since the Russian civil war, could potentially be a strategically pivotal launching pad onto the Soviet Union, and in addition, relations between Finland and the Soviet Union were never friendly before.

*Yawn* Every government on the planet in the 1930s was "violently anti-communist". But that in and of itself has virtually no bearing on whether or not Finland would have permitted the Germans to "launch an invasion" before the Winter War.

The FACT of the matter is, even when Finland WAS invaded in 1939 they asked for FRENCH and ENGLISH help, not German. The bulk of the Finnish military inventory was 'Allied', not German. So please dispense with the bullshit that Finland, with 4 million people, an air force of biplanes and 30 tanks was some sort of threat to the USSR.

This leaves whether or not it would be a "spring board". Finland's hesitation to even describe itself as an ally of Germany in 1941 (when German victory seemed imminent) and their attempts to maintain good relations with the Western allies (which at the time posed no threat to Finland) indicates that the German-Finnish relationship was lukewarm at best. This is further emphasized by Finnish refusals to persecute Jews and minorities at German behest, even under significant pressure.

Also, the Soviets and Finns signed a non-aggression pact in 1932 which Stalin broke with a staged attack carried out by the NKVD. Whatever that is worth to you.

The Fins participated in the siege of Leningrad- what in your mind amounts to their lack of cooperation? And tell me, if the Fins were reluctant allies, why did they have to be beaten into surrender?

The Finns participated in the siege using DEFENSIVE positions, from Wikipedia:

According to Soviet claims the Finnish advance was stopped in September through resistance by the Karelian Fortified Region,[39] however Finnish troops had already earlier in August 1941 received orders to halt the advance after reaching their goals, some of which lay beyond the pre-Winter War border. After reaching their respective goals, the Finns halted their advance and started moving troops to East Karelia.[40][41] For the next three years, the Finns did little to contribute to the battle for Leningrad, maintaining their lines.[42] Their headquarters rejected German pleas for aerial attacks against Leningrad[43] and did not advance farther south from the Svir River in occupied East Karelia (160 kilometres northeast of Leningrad), which they had reached on 7 September.

And tell me, if the Fins were reluctant allies, why did they have to be beaten into surrender? Why didn't they immediatly join the allies when it became apparent that the Nazis were losing after Stalingrad and the Soviet advance into Eastern Europe? For fuck's sake, the Fins didn't officially leave the Axis until late 1944.

I am not 'defending' the Finns, merely pointing out a nuanced analysis of the situation. Finland was/is a small country with a small population that was desperately poor in the 1930s and 1940s. They had very little industrial capability and they were being co-opted by two huge powers with hegemonic ambitions.

It isn't hard to see why the Finns "had to be beaten into surrender", considering the Nazis were genocidal maniacs that had killed millions in Eastern Europe to further their racial agenda. A 'shift' in 1943 for example could have been totally disastrous given the disparity in strength and what the German army was capable of.

The point is that Stalin DID act with the intent of defending the Soviet Union as an unconditional priority. Whether he succeeded in this before the war, or displayed utmost competence, isn't really my concern here.

Israel claims to be 'defending' itself by occupying the West Bank and its former occupations of the Sinai and Lebanon. Off course both of these occupations caused GREATER insecurity for the country. Whether or not Stalin had Machiavellian aims is besides the point. What is the point is that his attempt to revive the Russian Empire turned out to be a disaster that placed the Soviet people in much greater peril than it needed to. A much more sane strategy would have been to insure Poland's security from Nazi Germany, which Poland saw as its biggest threat after 1933. The 1 million man Polish army would have been an indispensable buffer against German aggression against the USSR.

Instead Stalin invaded the USSR and made nice little parades with the Nazis. How proud Marx must have been.

Don't kid yourself, the Nazis were going to invade either way. And while this wasn't deliberate, your whole argument falls flat on its fucking face because had the Nazis actually formed a realistic assessment of the Red Army's abilities, they would have been more amply prepared to deal with them.

I never said they weren't going to invade. Nevertheless the catastrophic performance of the Red Army emboldened Nazi Germany and "confirmed" its hopes that the USSR was an easy target.

The German preparations were thorough. They didn't underestimate Soviet troop strength (at the time of invasion) and the initial assault was perhaps the most devastating the world had ever seen at that point. Within a few months the original Soviet army of 5.5 million had been virtually annihilated by a smaller German force. The Germans had out-killed (if we include POWs as "dead" given their treatment) the Soviet army by a margin of 5:1.

There are reasons why the operation failed. Yes, some of it was luck. Some of it was poor German general strategy. Some of it was the unexpected tenacity of the Soviet people. It wasn't fucking Stalin. The Soviets won WW2 in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

Unless of course we want to believe that the Soviets won out of mere luck, or because they disregarded the sanctity of human life by throwing a bunch of unarmed asiatic hordes at the enemy, but this clearly is bullshit considering that the Soviets outproduced the Germans militarily and were overall more competent in coordinating large scale attacks.

I never said that. But please argue against yourself more. The Soviets greatly improved in their general preparation and execution of large scale operations. But not in 1941. In 1941 (and half of 1942) they got shit-stomped very badly by an army that was the only one at the time that utilized:

1) Mission based tactics
2) Concentration of armored forces along narrow points for depth penetration
3) The best logistics supply system in the world, utilizing air drops on a massive scale to speed up movement.

The sad part is, #2 was developed and revolutionized in the USSR and ignored by that monkey Stalin, in large part due to his micro-management of military forces.

and were overall more competent in coordinating large scale attacks.

Ok, just stop. Even in 1945 this is debatable. The Soviets greatly improved, but they largely did so by copying the Germans.

People criticize the North Korean government because they're "crazy" and "ridiculous" (Yes, so crazy and ridiculous that other standards, no matter how twisted, exist which we can't fathom within our coordinates of thought), and it's comparable to the "mad mullahs" of Iran. I mean - this isn't to soften opposition - North Korea and the Iranian state are despotic that any reasonable person would like to see overthrown -

Well that is entirely the point. Stalin wasn't "insane". He wasn't a clown or anything of the sort. Which again beckons how the man who did so much wrong could possibly have his own fanboys cheering him on. In "science" (and this isn't directed at you) if something is totally wrong it is discarded in a fucking trash-heap. You don't make 500 fucking avatars of him and masturbate to his mustache.

Prof. Oblivion

31st March 2015, 15:16

That his corruption and nepotism corresponded with his rule does not mean that the affairs of the Romanian state were reducible to his, coinciding self-aggrandizement.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that it certainly is a contributing factor, though.

Invader Zim

31st March 2015, 19:38

Except this isn't reducible to "Stalin's" paranoia. You clearly don't know shit about anything regarding the Soviet government if you think so.
The argument that the Great Terror boils down solely to Stalin’s state of mind, is, of course, misleading – however, the central importance of the environment of the regime which Stalin had played the leading role in constructing, its mechanisms, and indeed Stalin’s own culpability as the central player, is equally undeniable. And it has been undeniable since the opening of the Soviet Archives and the production of innumerable studies outlining just how central Stalin actually was. Undoubtedly, Stalin was a functionary in the structure of the regime he dominated, but he was the driving force. And no historian of the regime, “moronic” or otherwise, denies that.

The (or a faction of) leadership of the Red Army, through the culmination of several years following the October revolution, formed a distinct political bloc that, during the 1930's at least, either constituted in itself a political faction, or had allied itself with bureaucratic factions opposed to Stalin. The leadership of the Red Army at this time represented by Tukhachevsky and other former Tsarist officers had distinctive, pragmatic and bonapartist aims

All the paranoia about a Fifth-Column and serious opposition to Stalin’s leadership, certainly by 1937, was either fiction or massively overblown. The fact is that the purges were designed to destroy the institutional memory within the regime – those members of the ‘Old Guard’ could remember a time of actual party democracy, when Stalin was their equal, and when Lenin nearly throttled Stalin’s career before he ascended to further power. The notable thing about the purges is how they were not restricted to those who had been opposition movements, but also included old Bolsheviks whose loyalty to Stalin was fervent. Meanwhile, the purge of the Red Army was not restricted to the eight senior commanders initially dragged through kangaroo courts after being forced by Yezhov, on Stalin’s orders, to “confess” to crimes they had not committed. Interestingly, Tukhachevsky’s “confession” retains the blood splatter from his “interrogation”. It seems that the fear of foreign infiltration into the Red Army was the basis for the purge and dictated its timing. That it was groundless nonsense, of course, didn’t matter. The result was that hundreds of officers, from the Battalion to Corps levels were purged. A total of 30,000 officers were purged, and subject to arrest, discharge or shooting. Of course, that wasn’t enough, and Stalin orchestrated the murder of a further 300 officers in 1941. This, was ironically, rather convenient for Stalin as Operation Barbarossa gave Stalin a pretext to wipe out ‘incompetent’ officers for failings that were in no small part his fault for failing to believe his own intelligence services.

One wonders why you skip the obvious fact that this struggle for power had nothing to do with the military apparatus of the state (For fuck's sake...). And this isn't simply paranoia - it had a definite grounding in reality

These two sentences are contradictory. And no, the fear of Nazi fifth-columnists had no grounding in reality.

You've got to be a special kind of idiot if you think that there wasn't at least some truth to the existence of subversive political entities within the USSR - why wouldn't there be given the conditions?
There are two points to make here, first: where is the evidence that there was a fifth column, be it of ‘foreign intelligence’ recruiters, or a cabal of belligerent and aggrieved Soviet citizens that such agents might rely on? Second, what were these ‘conditions’ you speak of? The Axis powers were useless when it came to foreign intelligence work. Meanwhile, the Western Democracies, who were rather better at it, during the 1930s were still trying to recover from the two waves of retrenchment following the First World War and the Great Depression.

- the purging of the Red Army arguably saved the Soviet Union from collapse during the second world war.

Really? Perhaps you could enlighten us, who has argued this? You see, general wisdom is that the ultra-centralisation following the purge, where Stalin had not only unprecedented control of operational bureaucratic matters, but also Foreign policy and military strategy, was in no small part the basis for the Red Army’s catastrophic performance in 1941. Commanders, watching the Wehrmacht preparing to invade in front of their very eyes were not allowed to bring their troops to alert and mobilize their units without the express orders from Moscow which weren't forthcoming until it was too late. Winston Churchill and Hitler also saw themselves as military strategists, and like Stalin they both got a lot of their own troops killed. Politicians should make policy and military commanders strategy. When military commanders are paralyzed because of 'complete subordination of the military to the political apparatus' then disasters like Barbarossa occur.

do you think that anything similar to the conspiracy to kill Hitler could have occurred in the Soviet Union during the war?
Other than the fact that Stalin’s purge of the Red Army ensured that its (remaining) officers were loyal to him above all, what does this comparison prove?

while the territories of the Russian empire were just as vital to its military, economic and political security as they were to the Soviet Union, which is none other than the territorial heir to the Russian empire.

Ah, so when was Bukovina a part of Imperial Russia?

could potentially be a strategically pivotal launching pad onto the Soviet Union

No. Just no.

This is debatable,

Well, it depends on what one means by ‘prepared’. Stalin ordered the Red Army to prepare for a war against Germany that he believed would occur in 1942. Rather than address the actual threat which was obvious by the summer of 1941, when German troops were even seen building pontoon bridges to cross the river to attack Soviet occupied Polish territory, Stalin expressly forbade the Red Army to go to an alert status out of fear that this would provoke an attack. It was not until 22 June, when the bombs were already falling, that Zhukov was able to convince him to sound the alarm and bring the Red Army to alert – by which time it was too late. The preparations in the border regions were pretty woeful. This was precisely because of Stalin’s misguided and contradictory position that 1. Germany was too weak to attack the Soviet Union at that time and 2. That the Red Army was not yet ready for war and thus Hitler was not to be provoked. The former was wrong, and the latter self-fulfilling precisely because the Red Army was unprepared.

The strategy that the Red Army had prepared, was, in the event of invasion, to launch shattering counter-attacks against the Wehrmacht. However, this was based on the assumption that it would take time for the Wehrmacht to mobilise and that it would be numerically weaker. However, because Stalin, personally, order the Red Army to ignore the fact that the Wehrmacht was mobilising and because he had, deliberately, refused to allow the Red Army to fully secure the borders, this strategy was useless. Orders were given to Red Army commanders to launch attacks that were impossible, and where the Red Army commanders did try to mount a stand, they found themselves totally outmanoeuvred. They were then, in many instances, executed by the regime for “their” failure; a rather morbid irony.

your whole argument falls flat on its fucking face because had the Nazis actually formed a realistic assessment of the Red Army's abilities, they would have been more amply prepared to deal with them.
Not really. The reason that Barbarossa failed was not simply down to the fact that the Red Army was harder to break than the Wehrmacht and Hitler had imagined (though this was undoubtedly a factor), but also because the German’s overestimated the power of the Wehrmacht and underestimated the logistical challenges inherent in invading the Soviet Union for a power with no native source of oil.

Did Stalin personally fucking do this?

A rather poor argument: did Hitler personally write, or order the commission, every article in Der Stürmer? Obviously not, but nobody denies the centrality and driving force of Hitler in the Third Reich. Indeed, you are just regurgitating the Irving line that takes structuralism beyond its logical or historical utility and seeks to minimize Stalin’s personal culpability for his role in the regime by instead blaming it all on underlings.

Invader Zim

31st March 2015, 20:02

3) The best logistics supply system in the world, utilizing air drops on a massive scale to speed up movement.

The Wehrmacht's supply system wasn't that good, most of it was horse drawn. It is one of the reasons that German advances were constantly subject to massive progress before inevitably grinding to a halt. It repeatedly happened Russia and it happened in North Africa, any time that they were dealing with massive geographical areas. They were innovative on some levels, sure, but the idea of the super-mobilized high-tech Wehrmacht is something of a myth.

Rafiq

31st March 2015, 20:04

Funny how these "powerful factions" which theoretically controlled the bulk of the Soviet military and transportation hubs were totally unable to defend themselves against a bunch of show trials and executions.

Because orchestrating a coup, or mass coordinated action is impossible when the organs of state power are not entirely subordinate to you. Again, the point of a power struggle is the precarious nature of power with regard to the various contenders. While the soviet military was powerful, and, perhaps capable of launching a full scale coup, it was not the highest organ of political power and furthermore launching a full scale coup in a country like the Soviet Union would require careful accumulated planning. If in the process of attempting to undermine the Soviet state you are caught, then you can't very well make shit out of the "Soviet military and transportation hubs". It's simple: The military leadership couldn't consolidate complete control over the military itself, which was subordinate to the Soviet state. Hence, according to Stalin and his faction, they had foiled the predispositions which would make this possible. And don't kid yourself, there is indisputable evidence to the very least that Stalin and co. believed themselves that those who they condemned were guilty of the crimes attributed to them. Apparently, Stalin had the army purged for "no reason" or because he was "paranoid". But a ruler who is chronically paranoid wouldn't be able to survive in Stalin's conditions, as any idiot knows the paranoid are the easiest to manipulate and out-maneuver. You need to pick: Either Stalin was this psychotic madman, or he was a very skilled and capable leader (moral connotations aside, something which everyone, absolutely everyone recognized). I don't even have to make pretenses to whether or not the charges of conspiracy were true, one only need utilize logic: If key members of a faction are discovered and outed, then the whole thing falls apart. A preemptive utilization of the Red Army to save your own ass when your peers are found out isn't possible when key members of the organs of state power are no longer there to assist you. But - what makes you think that there weren't those who did try to defend themselves when it became probable they'd be accused? They did, the point is that they didn't have mass resources and organs of state power at their disposal in doing so. You literally have a child's understanding of the complexity of the state machinery in the Soviet Union. You, like every other clownish historian who follows the totalitarian narrative, make the assumption that these are merely matters of "common sense" we can dismiss in a few jeering sentences... In all the Soviet Union's alleged illegitimacy. I'm afraid things are more complicated than you'd like to think.

And you appear to be under the assumption that the Soviet military, or the ability to mass mobilize it was somehow under the autonomous command of the leading officers. It wasn't. And frankly it is absolutely inarguable that Tukhachevsky constituted a different, more pragmatic faction within the Soviet Union and even the Red Army (as opposed to Frunze), this was damned well apparent upon inception of the Polish Soviet war.

No one argued that Stalin had "total" power, nevertheless like Augustus in the 1st century; Napoleon in the 19th century or even Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, the power relations that they themselves fabricated through purges, massacres and proscriptions ensured that they had more authority and standing than any conceivable 'opposition'.

The only relevancy here, with regard to all of these leaders was their symbolic power. And Stalin was the only one to realize this, the only one not possessed with delusions of grandeur or great egotism. In a conversation with his son, Stalin said - I forget exactly - something along the lines of "You think you're Stalin's son? You think that's me? No man can assume such power" and so on. Stalin knew very much that his cult of personality, and himself personally were completely and entirely different things - which is why he constantly referred to himself in the third person formally: In speeches, in trials, and in writings. Stalin's authority represented the authority of not himself personally, not his "personal ambitions" but a real identifiable faction. So no, none of it is reducible to his "paranoia" or his "personal ambitions".

*Yawn* Every government on the planet in the 1930s was "violently anti-communist". But that in and of itself has virtually no bearing on whether or not Finland would have permitted the Germans to "launch an invasion" before the Winter War.

Except not every government had been forced to fully recuperate from the trauma of a revolutionary civil war, not every government was built upon the suppression of a mass revolutionary insurrection. Finland was just as much a rabidly hostile threat as Hungary and Romania were. That's not to say that Finland itself was a threat (Had the Red Army utilized all the resources at its disposal, engaged in full deployment with the intent of conquering all of Finland, they could have done so - and battering down Finland during their late offensive in WWII wasn't difficult at all), but that strategically the border shared between the USSR and Finland left the Soviet Union very vulnerable to an attack, should Finland allow itself to be used by a country like Germany. This is COMPLETELY an issue of legitimacy and it's fucking pathetic: If Canada didn't declare itself an utmost pro-American ally, we would invade and while there would be protests - the rationality behind it wouldn't be questioned. The difference is that the USSR didn't really care that much about destroying Finland while most major powers were concerned with the destruction of the USSR from its very inception. The fact of the matter is that there exists evidence that Finland was, before the winter war, a pro-German state. You're conveniently forgetting that as far as imperialist geopolitics went, Finland was on the German side since the first world war.

And it is completely logical: For one, Finland had territorial ambitions. If Germany, or any other country decided to invade the USSR, the Fins would most certainly have much to gain from cooperation. And that's a risk I don't think any reasonable person would like to take - sure, you can go ahead and argue that they had a non-aggression pact but judging by the actual seriousness of non-aggression pacts in the eyes of major powers in the interwar period (culminating in operation Barbarossa), from the standpoint of military strategy only an idiot would sleep comfortably at night on the behest of, an obviously temporal treaty between you and your enemies. Secondly, Finland's relationship with Moscow was always on uneasy terms, and seeing how Hitler was able to muster up allies throughout central Europe to invade the Soviet Union, the mere shaky foundations of the relationship between the two countries, in the midst of a war which no one had any doubt would force all strategic powers to take a side in, are compelling enough evidence to assume that Finland posed a threat to the military security of the country. All the regions ceded to the Soviet Union following the end of the war were of utmost strategic importance. Do you deny this?

Finally, the Fins couldn't officially ask the Germans for help, or weren't so stupid to, as a result of the pact of non-aggression. Though it's a wonder why the Germans allowed for arms to be passed from Sweden to Finland only until it was officially published for every bumfuck idiot with a pair of eyes to see - that the Germans were clearly violating the treaty. Are you really trying to say that Finland wasn't in Germany's sphere of influence at this time, or that Finland didn't already informally constitute itself as essentially a pro-German state along the same lines of Hungary and Estonia? What a fucking joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_support_of_Finland_in_the_Winter_War#Franc e_and_United_Kingdom What a wonder it is that the bulk of what would become the Axis states offered their solidarity to Finland here? Even the British-French planned intervention to Finland was arguably and partially caused by the necessity to sway Finland from Germany's sphere of imperial influence. According to you, the Soviets attacked Finland because they were big bad assholes for no reason, right? In a time when even the slightest move was infinitely dangerous - the Soviet Union wasn't in a position to SIMPLY act as this big conqueror - what lands they took, they took because it was vital to their security. You'll have us believe that Finland joined the war effort because it wanted to reclaim territories lost during the Winter War, right? Then why wouldn't that be a good enough reason to to join - even if there was no winter war - to, for example reclaim the areas in East Karelia ceded to the Soviet Union in the Treaty of Tartu during 1920, which wasn't so different from the Moscow Peace Treaty in 1940?

And they did precisely this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_military_administration_in_Eastern_Karelia , it was their intention all along. Or would you have us believe that the aftermath of the Winter war "forced" the Fins into taking Karelia? Had the Fins stopped and simply reclaimed the territories lost in the Moscow peace treaty, your argument would hold up, but they didn't. They went as far as to violate the Tartu as well.

We are, however, shoved down our throats an entirely different narrative wherein those peaceful Fins were simply minding their own business when the big bad Russians came, wherein they heroically defended themselves from foreign aggression. What a fucking joke - we see this emerging in a new wave of European "soft" Fascism where the rabid nationalism, chauvinism and black reaction of the inter-war period excluding Hitler is now O.K.

Finland's hesitation to even describe itself as an ally of Germany in 1941 (when German victory seemed imminent)

That doesn't explain the Ryti–Ribbentrop Agreement signed in 1944 even when Germany's defeat and the victory of the allies became imminent, it doesn't explain why the Fins were so reluctant to renounce the Germans even under the caring insistence by the "nice" western allies (I.e. The United States and the UK, which had urged Finland to renounce the Germans). Don't fucking try and make it seem like the Fins simply got "caught up" in the war - they were German allies from inception and they had to be defeated in the same way Germany was to renounce their support. Finland, which joined the anti-comintern pact of 1940...

The Finns participated in the siege using DEFENSIVE positions

That doesn't mean the Fins were any less committed as allies to the Germans, and of course as allies it is a matter of the self-interest of Finnish statehood, that is, regaining the territories lots to the Soviet Union and so on. Was Finnish participation in the offensive position actually pivotal or vital to the victory of the Germans? The fact of the matter is that Finland's participation proved useful and necessary to the Germans during the siege of Leningrad and would have been even more devastating to the Soviet Union had the territories annexed as a result of the winter war still belonged to Finland. Of course, the Fins had no interest in capturing Leningrad, but compliance with the Germans to a relative degree was still mutually beneficial - the point is that Finland was able to maintain a successful blockade - you make it as though Finland didn't at all participate in the seige of Leningrad, and it's fucking pathetic. Finland's participation extended beyond merely securing and defending their own newly acquired borders, which they wouldn't be able to do without the choking of Leningrad to begin with for fuck's sake!

They had very little industrial capability and they were being co-opted by two huge powers with hegemonic ambitions.

Oh, Poor Fins, a "proletarian" nation. No one gives a fuck about such ideas of "small" and "big" nations, these are nations fundamentally composed of social antagonisms, and the Finnish bourgeoisie, and the Finnish landowners was among the most viciously reactionary imaginable - they deserved something like Katyn tenfold. But no one's arguing that the Fins were some big threatening power - the point is that they were a strategic weak-point and would be very useful in any attempted invasion of the Soviet Union. Do you deny this? Do you deny that Finland could be used, very usefully, as a spring board to invade the Soviet Union, if the Germans, another "big power" had the intuition to persuade them? Do you deny that the annexed territories were not, after all, places which left the Soviet Union very vulnerable? Sorry, but in the climate Europe was in - that's not even a risk anyone can take. Even if Finland was neutral, even if Finland was innocent, which contradicts all evidence - it doesn't matter. Given the circumstances, invading Finland was completely reasonable. You only role dice in war when you have to.

It isn't hard to see why the Finns "had to be beaten into surrender", considering the Nazis were genocidal maniacs.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you arguing that the Fins were coerced, and forced to comply with the Nazis because they were scared? Yawn, like we haven't heard that before as far as excuses for support for the Nazis go by the dirty bourgeois scum. The fact of the matter is that Nazi defeat was imminent, and not hard to see, the fact of the matter is that the allies would have protected Finland from Nazi barbarism had the Nazis (and it's doubtful) decided to go on a genocidal spree in Finland because they violated their alliance. And this isn't how the Nazis reacted to Romania leaving or Hungary's impudence... So what the fuck are you talking about? And no one's even talking about leaving in 1943, the Fins were more than capable of safely renouncing the Nazis in late 1943 and during 1944. They didn't. Instead, they kept on fighting and were forced to surrender by the sword. So don't give me this bullshit.

Israel claims to be 'defending' itself by occupying the West Bank and its former occupations of the Sinai and Lebanon.

Except of course for the fact that for the time at least, strategically the occupation of the Sinai was vital for Israel, and as for the west bank, the situations are completely incomparable. The Soviet Union isn't a settler state, and finally, the Soviet occupation of the territories mentioned wasn't done so as a means of expanding the Russian population at the expense of others but securing its own borders. The difference is that at no point in history did Israel face a threat comparable to that of the Nazis to the Soviet Union, and any idiot can understand that Israel's occupations of the mentioned territories aren't just for the security of the country but for the expansion of its settler project, the Soviet Union doesn't have a comparable external motivation, and finally, Israels defense of its "security" exists under the qualifications for the retention of a "Jewish state", or a state wherein the majority of its citizens are ethnically Jewish, which in the middle of a region which historically has been diverse with a wide array of different ethnic groups, is alone a very difficult task. So the retention of the "jewish state" and the defense of Israel's security are completely synonymous, and it is completely irrational.

It's so cute how you compare the two situations when no reasonable comparison could ever be made from the vantage point of intellectual honesty. The insecurity doesn't stem from the fact that Israel is MERELY occupying territories, but that it is occupying territories while at the same time making pretenses to be an ethnically-based state - not integrating the occupied Arabs into the democratic political process, giving them full citizenship and all of the rights that entails. If they did that in the west bank for example, there would be no problems for the Palestinians - I'm sure most of them would even like that very much. The point is that they're occupying the place without giving the Palestinians any of the rights enjoyed by Israelis - this isn't the case as far as the Soviet Union is concerned wherein an expansion of borders actually entails a real expansion of political borders, not merely prolonged temporal occupation. The problem with Israel is that it can't have it both ways - you can't be a democratic state defending its secuirity under the qualifications of defending the existence of a Jewish ethnic majority. In order for it to defend its borders, and remain a democratic state, it needs to include those Arabs too. So that's the problem with Israel - unless you want to use another stupid example.

Instead Stalin invaded the USSR and made nice little parades with the Nazis. How proud Marx must have been.

Poland was the Soviet Union's enemy since 1918, so an alliance with Poland wasn't happening - and Poland was necessary as a buffer zone against Nazi Germany. What makes you think they would have been compliant? Anyway, whether this was a mistake or not I'm not concerned with right now.

There are reasons why the operation failed. Yes, some of it was luck. Some of it was poor German general strategy. Some of it was the unexpected tenacity of the Soviet people. It wasn't fucking Stalin. The Soviets won WW2 in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

Again, the fact of the matter is that the Germans completely under-estimated the military leadership of the USSR. It was the fact that the operation was a surprise attack that gave way to the German successes, not the purging of the military in 1937 for fuck's sake. The Soviet leadership had wanted to (not simply wanted to, had to) prolong confrontation for another two years, and failed. I never said that it was completely owed to Stalin, just that it wasn't in spite of him either. Stalin contributed to the war effort as a competent and skilled leader - who the fuck could deny this? Let's adopt the hypocritical and idiotic western narrative that the "Soviet people" fought bravely with the spirit of liberalism in their hearts in spite of the "tyrant" in the Kremlin and his henchmen. Even bourgeois historians like Thurston completely contest this - the "Soviet people" were fully devoted to the (alleged) ideas of Communism and the symbol of Stalin.

The success of the Soviet counteroffensive wasn't some kind of miracle, it was owed to the systemic prowess of the Soviet army. This was gravely underestimated by the Germans - even operation barbarossa, no matter how devastating, gravely under-estimated the capacities of the Soviet Union. The Germans thought the Soviet Union was a dying state, they thought that with a single touch the nationally diverse entity would break apart into chaos and ruin. They were dead wrong. The German military leadership admitted (if I remember reading it correctly), for fuck's sake, that the purges contributed to their success - I think it was Hitler saying something along those lines regarding the incompetence of the German military apparatus.

I never said that. But please argue against yourself more. The Soviets greatly improved in their general preparation and execution of large scale operations. But not in 1941. In 1941 (and half of 1942) they got shit-stomped very badly

Because they were unprepared and because it was a fucking surprise attack. It had nothing to do with the incompetence of the Red Army's military leadership, but the incompetence in preparing early enough - I mean what kind of picture are you trying to paint here? That the Soviets miraculously became a force to reckon with because they were properly motivated by the German invasion, that they put aside "monkey" Stalin's bullshit and started taking war seriously? No, the organs of military competence and effective tactics were present even before Barbarossa - again the problem was that they were not amply prepared enough.

Even in 1945 this is debatable. The Soviets greatly improved, but they largely did so by copying the Germans.

How? The Soviets were more competent as a result of the complete and total subordination of the military command - they were infinitely more competent in the germans in making their military a homogeneous political etntity.

if something is totally wrong it is discarded in a fucking trash-heap. You don't make 500 fucking avatars of him and masturbate to his mustache.

This is what you call science? What constitutes something as "wrong", and how did you arrive at those qualifications? From your ass? What is "wrong" about Stalin in the sense that you put it? My god you have a child's understanding of things... That he is illegitimate? No more illegitimate than Churchill, Roosevelt, all of which are certainly not considered "wrong". For fuck's sake, what moral authority does Churchill, who oversaw the bengal famines among numerous other crimes, have over Stalin? If this is really about Stalin's blunderous mistakes, why despite of this fact is Churchill given this almost unanimous respect and sympathy from all sides of the political spectrum, but not Stalin (Stailn was, actually, during the 1950's at least). I will tell you: Because the Soviet Union collapsed, because history has been re-written and now the "monkey" Stalin is illegitimate to the prestigious gentlemen Churchill and Roosevelt. You don't think that bourgeois leaders were lying scoundrels too? Arguably as far as character goes, they were worse than Stalin. You should know that you ought not to mistake my own opposition to Stalin. It has nothing to do with his excesses, but his weaknesses. What moral qualms with Stalin aren't against Stalin personally, but what he represented, that is - the subordination of the power of Communism along national lines. Stalin was a bourgeois romantic revolutionary, there should be nothing taboo about respecting this fact.

Invader Zim

31st March 2015, 20:18

You are, officially a scientist, as are a plethora of other bourgeois ideologues. The qualifications for science being layed down here don't amount to a piece of paper you get from your university, I'm afraid. As an orthodox Marxist, I don't have time or intuition to give a shit about your totems of legitimacy - they mean nothing. You can be a scientist and still employ unscientific methodology with regard to history, and that much has been demonstrated here. "Science" isn't some cheap buzzword which grants one keys to the kingdom of truth, it's a real, identifiable means of articulation, of knowing.

This made me chuckle a little. They don't just hand out those pieces of paper. You do have to work for them.

Rafiq

31st March 2015, 20:36

These two sentences are contradictory. And no, the fear of Nazi fifth-columnists had no grounding in reality.

They don't have to be Fascist fifth columnists to constitute a definite political faction within the USSR, and Tukhachevsky did. Now, I honestly can't tell you whether such a fifth column existed as it was described by those in power, I have always remained skeptical of the idea, a pre-text to project the necessary energy to account for the systemic dysfunction of the Soviet Union to actual political will rather than an inherent systemic problem. The point is that I don't doubt for a second that there was a minor degree of truth to the accusations of economic, political and military sabotage - this is what ultimately gave birth to an environment of paranoia and fear in the first place. Many were killed, and some were killed for having killed too many. I remain equally skeptical to the notion that Stalin was killing a bunch of people to consolidate his personal power.

Second, what were these ‘conditions’ you speak of?

A politically, and socially unstable environment ripe for inter-bureaucratic conflict and the potential for a coup (an interest independent of foreign powers, mind you). Russia was ripe for bonapartism as was France for Napoleon. Stalin, a Jacobin to his death, prolonged the wishes of history with sheer will.

Politicians should make policy and military commanders strategy. When military commanders are paralyzed because of 'complete subordination of the military to the political apparatus' then disasters like Barbarossa occur.

Except the military's subordination to political ends, which is the point of war to begin with, isn't axiomatic. Which means that securing utmost political loyalty is necessary in the defense of political entities. What were the Red Army actually fighting for, for a god's eye view? For the Russian "land"? No, for the political entity which was the Soviet Union. And the positive aspects of this complete subordination outweighed the negative, as would be proven years later, as Hitler himself would realize. Barbarossa was a disaster because it was a surprise, because they weren't prepared. This was a mistake, but it wasn't preventable through decentralizing the Red Army. Now what "should" and "shouldn't" be is a different argument - assuming the defense of these political entities is an axiom when one speaks of war. Wars "shouldn't" happen to begin with for a Communist, but this isn't the reality of things. When conflicting political interests are present in the military, as it was in the German military - then this endangers the ultimate strategic ends of political power (or defense of).

Other than the fact that Stalin’s purge of the Red Army ensured that its (remaining) officers were loyal to him above all, what does this comparison prove?

Loyalty to "him" was synonymous to loyalty to the protection of the Soviet Union as a political entity - and political unity was of utmost importance for its defense, even if it culminated in the form of Stalin.

Ah, so when was Bukovina a part of Imperial Russia?

Bukovina had a Ukrainian-majority population, and whose occupation had been contested from decades prior. It was not unreasonable that it was demanded, given its complex history with Ukraine following WWI. So they didn't just pull it out of their ass.

A rather poor argument: did Hitler personally write, or order the commission, every article in Der Stürmer?

We're talking about Stalin's alleged self-obsession or ego. That was the context of the discussion. The point has nothing to do with Stalin's culpability, but the implications it has for Stalin's personality. It was being used as evidence that Stalin in fact did care a lot about himself, was full of himself, and I pointed out that it's a ridiculous argument.

But as far as a meaningful historical assessment, it is idiotic to merely and in-contextually blame Hitler or Stalin. What "culpability" is important here? The necessity of symbolic justice? The need to put the blame on a face, rather than a system or condition? We are supposed to be men and women of the enlightenment, Zim. Especially for a man like Hitler - a fucking actor. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y2iA0TC44ZY/UX2mD8BiWtI/AAAAAAAAEf8/POBg6gvtlaY/s1600/Hitler+rehearsing+his+public+speeches+in+front+of+ the+mirror+4.jpeg

Rafiq

31st March 2015, 20:38

This made me chuckle a little. They don't just hand out those pieces of paper. You do have to work for them.

Yeah you do, and you know what amounts to working for them? Doing a bunch of shit that you'll forget the next day. That's college. Everything you "learn" from college you only remember because you're continually and actively applying that information in different ways. Let's not kid ourselves, such pieces of paper are totems of legitimacy and nothing more.

Invader Zim

31st March 2015, 21:03

Yeah you do, and you know what amounts to working for them? Doing a bunch of shit that you'll forget the next day. That's college. Everything you "learn" from college you only remember because you're continually and actively applying that information in different ways. Let's not kid ourselves, such pieces of paper are totems of legitimacy and nothing more.

I actually have one of those said pieces of PhD paper, like I said your comments make me chuckle with their understandable naivety. You speak of the PhD like it is any other college degree, and it just isn't. People do a PhD to satisfy a burning intellectual curiosity. Those people who do it just for the piece of paper, in my experience, drop out within a year. You have to really love your subject to put your self through a PhD, because it is unbelievably grueling - which is why so many PhD students end up with mental health problems and around 30-45% quit (depending on the subject / country) or end up taking over a decade to do it. To be honest, unless a person actually has one, or has made a valiant attempt at getting one, then they are simply not qualified (no pun intended) to pass comment on what doing one is about or what it means to do one. And the fact that you think it is like any other college degree, something you just forget the next day, again, makes me chuckle.

I'm not sure how many times I had to re-read my thesis, but dozens. I know virtually every page of it by heart now. I don't think I could forget what I learned even if I tried to forget. Not of course that I would want to, it is my little contribution to the sum of human knowledge.

Cliff Paul

1st April 2015, 01:38

So this thread is now about what a phd means? What?

Shout out to Rafiq for some of these gems though.

A politically, and socially unstable environment ripe for inter-bureaucratic conflict and the potential for a coup (an interest independent of foreign powers, mind you). Russia was ripe for bonapartism as was France for Napoleon. Stalin, a Jacobin to his death, prolonged the wishes of history with sheer will.

What a ridiculously un-marxist statement. To quote yourself:

What a profoundly idiotic assessment. As though the complexity of the Soviet state machine,with all that it entailed, is reducible to the "ambitions" of a single person.

And

Sorry, but in the climate Europe was in - that's not even a risk anyone can take. Even if Finland was neutral, even if Finland was innocent, which contradicts all evidence - it doesn't matter. Given the circumstances, invading Finland was completely reasonable. You only role dice in war when you have to.

Can you just admit that you don't actually give a shit about a socialist revolution? That you are just in it for the violence? RANDOM BOLD SHIT. You are the kind of person that doesn't see violence as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself.

I forget to randomly add in the word fuck every five or six words but oh well

Antiochus

1st April 2015, 02:38

The Wehrmacht's supply system wasn't that good, most of it was horse drawn. It is one of the reasons that German advances were constantly subject to massive progress before inevitably grinding to a halt. It repeatedly happened Russia and it happened in North Africa, any time that they were dealing with massive geographical areas. They were innovative on some levels, sure, but the idea of the super-mobilized high-tech Wehrmacht is something of a myth.

I am well aware the bulk of the Whermacht was horse-drawn, but perhaps due to my own carelessness, I was referring specifically to the Panzer corps which were the most instrumental portion of the German military, which was quickly able to envelop the Soviet armies, particularly in Minsk.

I'll write a another post in a bit to address Rafiq's word vomit.

Rafiq

1st April 2015, 04:53

What a ridiculously un-marxist statement.

It's meant to be ironic of course - and if you want to be creative, poetic even. In romantic bourgeois revolutions (Which isn't what the October revolution had to be, but what it became following its failure - to paraphrase Serge, a germ initially present among several others), it is typical that a bonapartist coup would occur in order to export the revolutionary energy. For a vulgar, stageist Hegelian, this is something that would have been an inevitability in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was, after all, ripe and predisposed to it. Instead, the terror became prolonged and continually re-occurrent because of the historically self-conscious maneuvering of the party. That's the point - that it was a bourgeois romantic revolution led by non-bourgeois elements, by self-conscious Marxists. I shouldn't have to explain something so simple, however.

You are the kind of person that doesn't see violence as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself.

The justice of revolutionary violence is synonymous with socialist revolution. Socialist revolution, or the desire for it is violence - if you have yet to understand this, it is you who doesn't know shit about what socialism entails - what distinguishes it is what type of violence, the distinct nature of such violence. So yes I will unconditionally support the guillotine while unconditionally condemning the rope and the axe.

So violence is an end in itself, its expression is entirely contingent upon the ends - it is not some kind of tool, it is enshrined into the very edifice of the new order. What is socialist revolution if not the ultimate culmination of the struggle? It is you who sees the force of Communism as a means to some kind of perverse utopian ends, some stupid fantastic abstraction corrupted by ruling ideology. What is Communism if not the expression of a war between two antagonistic classes?

Cliff Paul

1st April 2015, 12:47

It's meant to be ironic of course - and if you want to be creative, poetic even.

You, poetic? You mean you aren't a robot?

It is you who sees the force of Communism as a means to some kind of perverse utopian ends, some stupid fantastic abstraction corrupted by ruling ideology. What is Communism if not the expression of a war between two antagonistic classes?

This is actually a good point. I stand corrected.

Turinbaar

1st April 2015, 16:53

On the matter of academics, I am much more impressed by those with burning intellectual passion who have had no education whatever. Jessica Mitford had no degree, and never went to school. She was an aristocrat, whose mother didn't believe in sending girls to school, and she was taught by her nanny the skills of reading, writing, arithmetic and shoplifting, and took these and through direct experience (not official academia) became one of the greatest leftist journalist in history.

As for the hitler-stalin pact, here's a little gem
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19400108&id=AnZDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MpIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6256,657791&hl=en

"Twenty Officers of the German General Staff have left for Soviet Russia to particiapate in the re-organization of the Red Army"

Antiochus

1st April 2015, 20:07

And Stalin was the only one to realize this, the only one not possessed with delusions of grandeur or great egotism.

Bullshit, there have a plethora of leaders that feign modesty (or perhaps actually believe it so) and at the same time accumulate and centralize ever greater power within the state. The very example I mentioned, Augustus, was notorious for this. That little story of Stalin yelling at his son, "I am not Stalin" means what exactly? Have you ever asked yourself how such a story "got out"? Surely if he was speaking personally to his son, no one would willingly 'blurt it out'. It is congruent with some bullshit (I mean, it might have happened, idk) story about how when Augustus' small downtrodden house burned down the people loved him so much they offered to rebuild it but he insisted they give him only 1 Sesterce each (while being the richest man in Rome). These are carefully constructed personalities tantamount to Warren Buffet's "modesty". They have a purpose, which is often to masquerade behind propriety while doing everything possible to further cement power.

So who cares if Stalin "realized" this, or claimed he hated his personality cult? He milked it for all it was worth after carefully building it up. It doesn't matter if he didn't personally ask the men of Pravda to Photoshop a fucking picture. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. That is the whole point of being the architect, you don't have to lay out the fucking bricks every 2 minutes to know its being built.

but that strategically the border shared between the USSR and Finland left the Soviet Union very vulnerable to an attack, should Finland allow itself to be used by a country like Germany.

More bullshit. Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that Finland would have allowed itself to be used in 1939? Do you have ANY proof Finland was even contemplating invading the USSR in concert with any power in 1939?

Because all the evidence runs contrary to this. All of Finland's preparations (which were few) were centered around the Mannerheim line, which was a poorly built DEFENSIVE line. Surely if, as you so eloquently said, "any idiot could see war between the USSR and Germany was coming" and Finland PLANNED or even THOUGHT of attacking the USSR than they would have made SOME offensive preparations. Wouldn't they? Where were the dive bombers needed to puncture through concrete bunkers? Were were the main battle tanks? The minesweepers? Why is it the Finns had around ~100 anti-tank rifles from the 1920s and 1930s as their only (besides Molotov cocktails) recourse against armour?

The fact of the matter is that there exists evidence that Finland was, before the winter war, a pro-German state. You're conveniently forgetting that as far as imperialist geopolitics went, Finland was on the German side since the first world war.

Evidence? And off course I mean actual state policy, not segments of the Finnish far right.

Finland might have allied itself with Germany at the very end of WW1 during a civil war, but Finnish/German relations during the Weimar period and Hitler were hardly those of a vassal state which is what you are suggesting.

They went as far as to violate the Tartu as well.

Which would become, even by the most rudimentary understanding, totally void once the USSR violated the 1932 non-aggression pact. I mean, did the Soviets stop at the 1941 border? No off course not, don't be an idiot. I never claimed the Finns weren't opportunistic.

What a wonder it is that the bulk of what would become the Axis states offered their solidarity to Finland here?

Right, so I guess that isn't a case of them hating the USSR more than their 'love' of Finland? Chechen nationalists and Islamists also supported Finland during the Winter War... gee I guess we should check Helsinki for a secret Kaaba.

econdly, Finland's relationship with Moscow was always on uneasy terms, and seeing how Hitler was able to muster up allies throughout central Europe to invade the Soviet Union, the mere shaky foundations of the relationship between the two countries, in the midst of a war which no one had any doubt would force all strategic powers to take a side in, are compelling enough evidence to assume that Finland posed a threat to the military security of the country. All the regions ceded to the Soviet Union following the end of the war were of utmost strategic importance. Do you deny this?

If the Stalin's goal had been to neutralize a potentially dangerous Finland, he failed miserably. The Finnish army became much stronger than in 1939 and solidified public support for a war that had previously not been there. What a great asset he was. Never mind the humiliation suffered by the USSR and the ~300,000 casualties. And the USSR did "try" to conquer Finland, not just a few border strategic areas you dumb ass, why else would they create a government in exile if not to place them in power? Stalin's intention wasn't merely to wrestle a few "strategic" areas.

I mean seriously, if you just want to say that Stalin makes your little dick hard because he was a strong man who didn't give a flying fuck about the most basic precepts of international politics than just do so. But then again, why not Bush?

How? The Soviets were more competent as a result of the complete and total subordination of the military command - they were infinitely more competent in the germans in making their military a homogeneous political etntity.

Obfuscation and more obfuscation. Seriously, stop parroting Clausewitz and thinking you are making sense. The German army, man for man, was well ahead of any military between 1940-1944. Do you disagree with this? If so state why. Maybe the Soviets military was more "politically homogenous", it did not translate to better performance on the field.

Even in great Soviet victories like Kursk the Germans totally outkilled the Soviets, which is what I am arguing.

Because they were unprepared and because it was a fucking surprise attack

Ummm, ok? Why was it such a surprise when ~4 million enemy troops are massed on your border; when hundreds of reconnaissance flights from easily visible Junkers are flying over your border (oops "accidentally straying"); when the army massed in your border is led by a man that swore himself to attack the USSR. This wasn't Pearl Harbor, some surprise attack against a relatively distant target. It was a fucking full scale invasion that was OBVIOUS by May of 1941. Stalin didn't even order the most basic of preparations. Soviet aircraft were strewn a few feet apart on airfields ffs.

That the Soviets miraculously became a force to reckon with because they were properly motivated by the German invasion

Not at all. The German military was superior, no doubt. But in 1941 the USSR could have easily halted (or at the very least, slowed down) the initial blow with its 5.5 million man army. They didn't. Why was that? They had all the tools necessary. Larger military, good equipment, fairly competent junior officers. Could it be that Stalin's ineptitude created the circumstances necessary for the devastating Soviet defeats?

No, the organs of military competence and effective tactics were present even before Barbarossa - again the problem was that they were not amply prepared enough.

Bingo. Again I ask, why was that? Even if for the sake of argument, we say Stalin put the military on alert only a week before the invasion, the difference would have been SPECTACULAR. The Ju-88 wouldn't have been able to obliterate Soviet fleets on the ground at little cost. The Soviet field armies wouldn't have been enveloped anywhere nearly as easily.

The German military leadership admitted (if I remember reading it correctly), for fuck's sake, that the purges contributed to their success

I think what you are referring to is Hitler 'wishing' he had purged the military like Stalin did. Off course this had more to do with Hitler's imbecility than anything. He blamed the army for losing him the war. Dismissing great generals like Manstein at critical moments and completely ignoring their competent advice.

If this is really about Stalin's blunderous mistakes, why despite of this fact is Churchill given this almost unanimous respect and sympathy from all sides of the political spectrum, but not Stalin (Stailn was, actually, during the 1950's at least).

I mean, Churchill was dismissed after Gallipoli. Nevertheless I never claimed Churchill or Neville Chamberlain or Roosevelt were "great" leaders. My contention was that Stalin was hardly an asset, not that these people above were 'greater' assets.

he Soviet leadership had wanted to (not simply wanted to, had to) prolong confrontation for another two years, and failed. I never said that it was completely owed to Stalin, just that it wasn't in spite of him either.

Errr, common sense dictates that you prolong a fight as long as possible, sure. I agree with that. Nevertheless when you are cornered and the person in front of you is attacking, you don't fucking turn your back and let him punch you 20 times before you react. THAT is the point. By June of 1941 (much earlier actually, but whatever) it was OBVIOUS that the Germans were going to attack. No preparations were made. The military was not placed on alert. Even the most basic of preparations (pulling aircraft out of range, installing greater anti-aircraft forces near airfields, withdrawing the field armies to prepared positions further back etc...) were discarded. Much of the Soviet military leadership URGED Stalin to do this.

Stalin's fear of 'provoking' Hitler was the reason why it was such a 'surprise' as you put it. Even when the Soviets knew ahead of time it was coming.

As to your other lines, I'll reply again later.

John Nada

1st April 2015, 22:05

Bullshit, there have a plethora of leaders that feign modesty (or perhaps actually believe it so) and at the same time accumulate and centralize ever greater power within the state. The very example I mentioned, Augustus, was notorious for this. That little story of Stalin yelling at his son, "I am not Stalin" means what exactly? Have you ever asked yourself how such a story "got out"? Surely if he was speaking personally to his son, no one would willingly 'blurt it out'. It is congruent with some bullshit (I mean, it might have happened, idk) story about how when Augustus' small downtrodden house burned down the people loved him so much they offered to rebuild it but he insisted they give him only 1 Sesterce each (while being the richest man in Rome). These are carefully constructed personalities tantamount to Warren Buffet's "modesty". They have a purpose, which is often to masquerade behind propriety while doing everything possible to further cement power.Stalin was his cadre name. His real last name was Jughashvili. I think the story came from someone who was close to Stalin, might've been one of his children, I forgot.
So who cares if Stalin "realized" this, or claimed he hated his personality cult? He milked it for all it was worth after carefully building it up. It doesn't matter if he didn't personally ask the men of Pravda to Photoshop a fucking picture. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. That is the whole point of being the architect, you don't have to lay out the fucking bricks every 2 minutes to know its being built.It could've been to come across as the "reluctant leader". Or it he could've separated Jughashvili, the man, from Stalin, the ideal. It wasn't so much him being the architect, more a representative of the house itself. To the country, the party and the global Communist movement at the time, he was the personification of them and their ideals. After Lenin's death, he was the leader of the first sucesfull Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which hadn't happened before. He was actually well respected in his own right. The various cliques in the government also had reason to build up the cult for their own benefit.
More bullshit. Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that Finland would have allowed itself to be used in 1939? Do you have ANY proof Finland was even contemplating invading the USSR in concert with any power in 1939?It didn't matter if Finland(which had an anti-communists government) wanted to invade. What mattered is that it could've used as a springboard to Leningrad and the Arctic ports for the fascists. It didn't have to be with Finland's consent, anymore than it would've with all the other nations the fascists conquered.
Because all the evidence runs contrary to this. All of Finland's preparations (which were few) were centered around the Mannerheim line, which was a poorly built DEFENSIVE line. Surely if, as you so eloquently said, "any idiot could see war between the USSR and Germany was coming" and Finland PLANNED or even THOUGHT of attacking the USSR than they would have made SOME offensive preparations. Wouldn't they? Where were the dive bombers needed to puncture through concrete bunkers? Were were the main battle tanks? The minesweepers? Why is it the Finns had around ~100 anti-tank rifles from the 1920s and 1930s as their only (besides Molotov cocktails) recourse against armour?Germany withheld support due to the pact.

The fact of the matter is that there exists evidence that Finland was, before the winter war, a pro-German state. You're conveniently forgetting that as far as imperialist geopolitics went, Finland was on the German side since the first world war.Evidence? And off course I mean actual state policy, not segments of the Finnish far right.

Finland might have allied itself with Germany at the very end of WW1 during a civil war, but Finnish/German relations during the Weimar period and Hitler were hardly those of a vassal state which is what you are suggesting.Again, it didn't matter that. That shit could've(and did) change later.
Which would become, even by the most rudimentary understanding, totally void once the USSR violated the 1932 non-aggression pact. I mean, did the Soviets stop at the 1941 border? No off course not, don't be an idiot. I never claimed the Finns weren't opportunistic.If they were willing to take advantage of a situation to their benefit, when things went bad for the Soviets, what would then stop them from join in on an easy land grab?
Right, so I guess that isn't a case of them hating the USSR more than their 'love' of Finland? Chechen nationalists and Islamists also supported Finland during the Winter War... gee I guess we should check Helsinki for a secret Kaaba.They clearly were drawing the support of some rather reactionary people.
If the Stalin's goal had been to neutralize a potentially dangerous Finland, he failed miserably. The Finnish army became much stronger than in 1939 and solidified public support for a war that had previously not been there. What a great asset he was. Never mind the humiliation suffered by the USSR and the ~300,000 casualties. And the USSR did "try" to conquer Finland, not just a few border strategic areas you dumb ass, why else would they create a government in exile if not to place them in power? Stalin's intention wasn't merely to wrestle a few "strategic" areas.There was a banned Finnish Communist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Finland) in exile after the Finnish Civil War. It was a brutal civil war, with the White Terror decimating the Communists and dividing the nation for years. Had the Reds won, this wouldn't have even been an issue. A decade earlier there might've been popular support for a Finnish Democratic Republic, or even a Soviet Republic. This doesn't imply that the Soviets wanted to annex all of Finland, anymore than they wanted to annex China.
I mean seriously, if you just want to say that Stalin makes your little dick hard because he was a strong man who didn't give a flying fuck about the most basic precepts of international politics than just do so. But then again, why not Bush?Shut the fuck up with your homophobic bullshit! It should be possible to have a discussion without acting like a child.
Obfuscation and more obfuscation. Seriously, stop parroting Clausewitz and thinking you are making sense. The German army, man for man, was well ahead of any military between 1940-1944. Do you disagree with this? If so state why. Maybe the Soviets military was more "politically homogenous", it did not translate to better performance on the field.

Even in great Soviet victories like Kursk the Germans totally outkilled the Soviets, which is what I am arguing.They were clearly a worthy foe, yet the Soviets won.
Ummm, ok? Why was it such a surprise when ~4 million enemy troops are massed on your border; when hundreds of reconnaissance flights from easily visible Junkers are flying over your border (oops "accidentally straying"); when the army massed in your border is led by a man that swore himself to attack the USSR. This wasn't Pearl Harbor, some surprise attack against a relatively distant target. It was a fucking full scale invasion that was OBVIOUS by May of 1941. Stalin didn't even order the most basic of preparations. Soviet aircraft were strewn a few feet apart on airfields ffs.Stalin, in spite of what everyone likes to believe, was not God of the Soviets. They've had close calls on their eastern front with Japan before. But they clearly fucked up and got took by surprise, when in retrospect, hell at the time, they shouldn't have.
Not at all. The German military was superior, no doubt. But in 1941 the USSR could have easily halted (or at the very least, slowed down) the initial blow with its 5.5 million man army. They didn't. Why was that? They had all the tools necessary. Larger military, good equipment, fairly competent junior officers. Could it be that Stalin's ineptitude created the circumstances necessary for the devastating Soviet defeats?This was an army that rolled right over the rest of Europe, and had Britain on edge. It was going to be bad, more or less.
Bingo. Again I ask, why was that? Even if for the sake of argument, we say Stalin put the military on alert only a week before the invasion, the difference would have been SPECTACULAR. The Ju-88 wouldn't have been able to obliterate Soviet fleets on the ground at little cost. The Soviet field armies wouldn't have been enveloped anywhere nearly as easily.It may well have. Sadly it wasn't so.
I think what you are referring to is Hitler 'wishing' he had purged the military like Stalin did. Off course this had more to do with Hitler's imbecility than anything. He blamed the army for losing him the war. Dismissing great generals like Manstein at critical moments and completely ignoring their competent advice.Actually IIRC Feeding the Eagle did mention that Hitler saw the purge as a sign of weakness, but it made others in the government and businesses worried.
I mean, Churchill was dismissed after Gallipoli. Nevertheless I never claimed Churchill or Neville Chamberlain or Roosevelt were "great" leaders. My contention was that Stalin was hardly an asset, not that these people above were 'greater' assets.It's always the common folks who're the real assets.
Errr, common sense dictates that you prolong a fight as long as possible, sure. I agree with that. Nevertheless when you are cornered and the person in front of you is attacking, you don't fucking turn your back and let him punch you 20 times before you react. THAT is the point. By June of 1941 (much earlier actually, but whatever) it was OBVIOUS that the Germans were going to attack. No preparations were made. The military was not placed on alert. Even the most basic of preparations (pulling aircraft out of range, installing greater anti-aircraft forces near airfields, withdrawing the field armies to prepared positions further back etc...) were discarded. Much of the Soviet military leadership URGED Stalin to do this.

Stalin's fear of 'provoking' Hitler was the reason why it was such a 'surprise' as you put it. Even when the Soviets knew ahead of time it was coming.Judging by aftermath, this isn't surprising.

Gileson

1st April 2015, 23:07

The Soviet defense was mismanaged no matter how many excuses.

And Nazi Germany wouldn't have been in any position to defeat the Soviet Union if not for the SU enabling it to.

Antiochus

2nd April 2015, 00:28

Shut the fuck up with your homophobic bullshit!

What? Are you insane? How the fuck can my comment be construed as homophobic? "Getting your dick hard" is just an expression in the U.S that means really liking something, it has virtually no homosexual (or homophobic) connotations.

They were clearly a worthy foe, yet the Soviets won

Right, but not because of Stalin.

And saying things like "hindsight bias", might work for many situations, but it doesn't work for this one. The Soviets had TOTAL reason to believe that the German attack was imminent. Its not like it was some well kept secret. If I get 20 death threats today from my "worst enemy", you can be sure I'll take some sort of precautions.

There was a banned Finnish Communist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Finland) in exile after the Finnish Civil War. It was a brutal civil war, with the White Terror decimating the Communists and dividing the nation for years. Had the Reds won, this wouldn't have even been an issue. A decade earlier there might've been popular support for a Finnish Democratic Republic, or even a Soviet Republic. This doesn't imply that the Soviets wanted to annex all of Finland, anymore than they wanted to annex China.

Yes, nevertheless Finland wasn't a "fascist" state, even if you stretch the meaning of the word quite a bit. Finland was no more reactionary than Britain or France, who few here would call 'fascist'.

The Soviets did create a government in exile as the war began. The point of this is that they believed they could install them in power. In order to do so they would have had to have conquered Finland in its entirety, as opposed to the bloody stalemate (albeit with Soviet advantage at the end due to Finnish logistics).

Also, for the record Finland did offer to cede some (although not as much as the Soviets wanted) territory near Leningrad that would have pushed the border away. This was off course totally ignored.

I mean seriously, if you agree with the invasion of Finland you must also agree with the American attacks on Cuba or Nicaragua for the same trumped up reasons. Its just ridiculous. Even if we totally separate morality from the equation both attempts (Cuba, Finland) failed MISERABLY at their supposed goal (to neutralize a potentially dangerous country from being co-opted by a rival).

This was an army that rolled right over the rest of Europe, and had Britain on edge. It was going to be bad, more or less.

The German invasion of France is perhaps the most misunderstood battle in history. The fact is the Germans got ridiculously lucky in so many instances, particularly at Sedan and Fall Geb. But anyways, these weren't problems for the USSR since:

1) The USSR greatly outnumbered the combined German/Hungarian/Romanian forces.
2) Had greater material superiority and roughly equal armament (in most fields).
3) Had enormous territory which they could much more freely maneuver unlike the Allies in the west.

They clearly were drawing the support of some rather reactionary people.

Its just irrelevant. They supported the Finns on the context of their hatred of the USSR and the USSR's supposed "Communism". There are hundreds of examples in history of reactionary cliques supporting progressive movements, that doesn't make them reactionary themselves (I am not saying the Finns were progressive, just to clarify), like for example France and the U.S in the Revolutionary War.

If they were willing to take advantage of a situation to their benefit, when things went bad for the Soviets, what would then stop them from join in on an easy land grab?

I mean, what if things went bad for the U.S? Maybe Cuba could take over Miami? :lol: Seriously though, look up the stats for the Finnish army in 1939. It was a glorified militia using WW1 rifles and skis. There was no proof they had any real strategy to conquer these territories. Even if they 'claimed' them as Rafiq says, it doesn't really matter. Mexico for example might love to 'take back' California, it just isn't realistic.

John Nada

2nd April 2015, 06:49

What? Are you insane? How the fuck can my comment be construed as homophobic? "Getting your dick hard" is just an expression in the U.S that means really liking something, it has virtually no homosexual (or homophobic) connotations.I don't give a fuck what you say IRL, but it's board etiquette not to use oppressive language.It's like saying he's gay for Stalin. The supposed same-sex attraction(to someone, Stalin, who's government recriminalized homosexuality and persecuted them, even dismissing a gay British Communist who appealed to reverse it as "an idiot and degenerate") is used in a negative context, as synonymous for foolish. You might not have meant it in a homophobic way, but many, perhaps most people(even some LGBTQ! ) , acquire the homophobia of society at large. As (presumably)leftists, who strive to end oppression, we should look out for bigotry even we may have picked up subconsciously.:)
Right, but not because of Stalin.

And saying things like "hindsight bias", might work for many situations, but it doesn't work for this one. The Soviets had TOTAL reason to believe that the German attack was imminent. Its not like it was some well kept secret. If I get 20 death threats today from my "worst enemy", you can be sure I'll take some sort of precautions.It wasn't just one worst enemy giving death threats, but another Anti-Comintern founder, Japan, too. At the time, the Soviets were worried about them invading too. They didn't, and there was a spy who confirmed this(who's intel was either ignored or dismissed). I forgot, does anyone know his name?
Yes, nevertheless Finland wasn't a "fascist" state, even if you stretch the meaning of the word quite a bit. Finland was no more reactionary than Britain or France, who few here would call 'fascist'.Reactionary? Yes. Fascists overall? No, I try to keep a Marxist's definition.
The Soviets did create a government in exile as the war began. The point of this is that they believed they could install them in power. In order to do so they would have had to have conquered Finland in its entirety, as opposed to the bloody stalemate (albeit with Soviet advantage at the end due to Finnish logistics).I think the Finnish Communists themselves might have overestimated their popularity. Almost a proto-Ahmed Chalabi like situation.
Also, for the record Finland did offer to cede some (although not as much as the Soviets wanted) territory near Leningrad that would have pushed the border away. This was off course totally ignored.It's too bad. Might've had to do with Soviet Ambassador Kollontai's past politics.
I mean seriously, if you agree with the invasion of Finland you must also agree with the American attacks on Cuba or Nicaragua for the same trumped up reasons. Its just ridiculous. Even if we totally separate morality from the equation both attempts (Cuba, Finland) failed MISERABLY at their supposed goal (to neutralize a potentially dangerous country from being co-opted by a rival)."I&quot" agree with the invasion of Finland, or the US invasion of Cuba/Nicaragua for that matter:). IMO they should've given Kollontai a chance.
The German invasion of France is perhaps the most misunderstood battle in history. The fact is the Germans got ridiculously lucky in so many instances, particularly at Sedan and Fall Geb. But anyways, these weren't problems for the USSR since:

1) The USSR greatly outnumbered the combined German/Hungarian/Romanian forces.
2) Had greater material superiority and roughly equal armament (in most fields).
3) Had enormous territory which they could much more freely maneuver unlike the Allies in the west.What I'm getting at is from their perception at the time it could've included Japan and their puppets in the east(Which would've been bad). And it might've been the difference at best between 10 million dead(even half would've been bad),27 million(which happened) or even higher casualties(honestly, hard to imagine). It was going to be a tough fight.
Its just irrelevant. They supported the Finns on the context of their hatred of the USSR and the USSR's supposed "Communism". There are hundreds of examples in history of reactionary cliques supporting progressive movements, that doesn't make them reactionary themselves (I am not saying the Finns were progressive, just to clarify), like for example France and the U.S in the Revolutionary War.The Finnish government was reactionary. But the point was that Finland could've, from the Soviet's perspective, been an equivalent of WWI Belgium from which the fascists could seize the arctic ports. This later proved to be at least a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I mean, what if things went bad for the U.S? Maybe Cuba could take over Miami? :lol: Seriously though, look up the stats for the Finnish army in 1939. It was a glorified militia using WW1 rifles and skis. There was no proof they had any real strategy to conquer these territories. Even if they 'claimed' them as Rafiq says, it doesn't really matter. Mexico for example might love to 'take back' California, it just isn't realistic.Hey give the Finns some credit. They produced this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 Sure he may have been on the wrong side, but damn with iron sights too:ohmy:. Exceeded or rivaled my anti-fascist hero(ine)s:wub: in the Red Arm such as Surkov, Sidorenko, Kvachantiradze, Pavlichenko, and Zaitzev.

From a practical point of view, and not in some Reaganite cold-war fantasies, I would expect the US to occupy those places if shit hit the fan. If, during World War II, occupying the Philippines, Alaska, Hawaii, (basically)Cuba, Azlan;), ect. wasn't enough to stop the imminent joint German-Japanese fascist invasion, Canada and Mexico would've kissed their (nominal) sovereignty goodby, at best like Iceland and Persia.

Antiochus

2nd April 2015, 16:28

I don't give a fuck what you say IRL, but it's board etiquette not to use oppressive language.It's like saying he's gay for Stalin. The supposed same-sex attraction

The phrase I used has never and isn't meant as "sexual attraction". It has nothing to do with any sexual attraction. If you misunderstood it is your problem now that I have explained it to you. And yes, it is cute that you are so supportive of a man who indeed treated Homosexuals like vermin for so long.

Invader Zim

2nd April 2015, 18:41

I don't give a fuck what you say IRL, but it's board etiquette not to use oppressive language.It's like saying he's gay for Stalin. The supposed same-sex attraction(to someone, Stalin, who's government recriminalized homosexuality and persecuted them, even dismissing a gay British Communist who appealed to reverse it as "an idiot and degenerate") is used in a negative context, as synonymous for foolish. You might not have meant it in a homophobic way, but many, perhaps most people(even some LGBTQ! ) , acquire the homophobia of society at large. As (presumably)leftists, who strive to end oppression, we should look out for bigotry even we may have picked up subconsciously.

Don't be silly; the criticism is not of homosexuality, but the fetishing of a brutal dictatorship.

Rafiq

2nd April 2015, 21:29

That little story of Stalin yelling at his son, "I am not Stalin" means what exactly? Have you ever asked yourself how such a story "got out"?

From Wikipedia:
Artyom Sergeev, Stalin's adopted son, recalled a fight between Stalin and his biological son Vasily. After Stalin found out that Vasily had used his famous last name to escape punishment for one of his drunken debauches, Stalin screamed at him. "'But I'm a Stalin too,' retorted Vasily. 'No, you're not,' said Stalin. 'You're not Stalin and I'm not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, not even me!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality#Stalin.27s_opinion_ of_his_cult

So no, it wasn't some propaganda, and there is absolutely no reason to believe this wasn't real. One doesn't even need such a story, however, to conceive the general point - it was merely an example. Stalin's disdain for the cult of personality is well known, and furthermore, one only need read Stalin's writings or speeches to realize that this is overwhelmingly apparent - Stalin did not care about himself, continually referring to himself in the third person, his great modesty in public is common knowledge, his insistence on not taking responsibility for the achievements of the Soviet Union, and so on. This isn't limited to Stalin, but virtually present in every other Stalinist government - it is profoundly idiotic, and childish to prattle of "dictators" here, the cult of personality had nothing to do with the magnitude of power possessed by this or that individual but as a symbolic means of binding together populations through the state machinery - it is completely systemic, and not reflective of what they want. When Stalin did have the power to intervene in such matters, he did what he could to curtail it, such as the banning of places named after him after 1936. You'd have us believe, in contrast, that Stalin was personally responsible for everything and in control of everything. The cult of personality in all of these countries is the irrational expression of romantic revolutionary expression, not quite dissimilar to the near worship of Marat following his death and so on. In Russia Stalin was an immensely popular figure and the backward rural masses, of whom experienced an increased standard of living as well as various new education and career opportunities, expressed this through the cult of personality. It is beyond imagination how people who aren't rabid reactionaries still ascribe to the totalitarian model, completely excluding the fact that the Soviet Union was a real state whose eventful power isn't reducible to the intentional maneuverings of those in power. Meaning mass ideology was organic and contingent upon their way of life, and furthermore when it was not, it still relied upon the basis of a commonly accepted, unknowable system of "givens' ideologically. When we look at the Soviet Union and talk of how ridiculous it is that men were photoshopped out of pictures, or Stalin's grotesque cult of personality, we do so without conceiving the fact that different standards were in place that were independently of ours. Do you actually fucking think that photoshoping people out of pictures was a deliberate act meant to re-write history, rather than a symbolic one?

Though to be clear, the point is that if we are to assume that Stalin did what he did to "consolidate his own power", or that the mechanisms of the Soviet state were reducible to his personal desires and ambitions, we would have to presume that being in a position of power would have been a desirable thing in such circumstances, cynically. But it isn't. The point is that Stalin didn't even identify with the alleged spoils of the Soviet political maneuvering, i.e. his "power" - so clearly he wasn't doing it for himself, but for something he recognized was greater than himself. Stalin could have easily lived an easy life of luxury to his grave without any problems. So your explanation is completely fucking worthless: No the geopolitical maneuverings, the winter war and the non-aggression pact were not owed to "Stalin persuing his personal ambitions at the expense of the Soviet people" - and in the face of this, all you have to show for it is making the argument that Stalin did a poor job at protecting the Soviet Union. Very well, this can be debated - but even if we take this argument to an extreme ends what it does not confirm is that Stalin did so for his personal ambition at the expense of others, just that he was an "incompetent ruler". Do you even understand logic? For someone who takes on such an aggressive tone, you sure are an intellectual coward, with the only thread of consistency here being your unawoved desire to reduce complex historical conditions to your cartoonish ideological archetypes.

These are carefully constructed personalities tantamount to Warren Buffet's "modesty". They have a purpose, which is often to masquerade behind propriety while doing everything possible to further cement power.

Except what you fail to conceive is that no - Stalin's cult of personality did develop organically, and merely looking at the history of its development confirms this. That is not to say that it didn't serve a purpose outside of its own appearance, it did. This purpose, however, is not the the drive to further cement personal power but to have a real symbolic, ideological and political function in approximation to systemic power. Things can have a real function without being intended to have that specific function in the long term, and furthermore, what every adherent to the totalitarian narrative, what every infantile philistine in your same vein cannot fathom is that there is hidden meaning even behind the darkest conspiracies unknown to the perpetrators. The specific expression of, let's say propaganda, is ideological and beyond anyone's control. In thinking that you can manipulate people, you rely on a set of pre-conceived ideological coordinates that you aren't aware of. One thing Stalin was not was an actor - he was no Hitler, Soviet Communism was not a hollow spectacle like Fascism was, it was real insofar as it organically developed through real experiences, even if it could be argued that it was a real failure at that. In Fascism, you'd have agencies built with the intent to psychologically mass-manipulate people, but this was non-existent in the Soviet Union. Why? Because being a Stalin relied on the necessity of actually believing, wholly, what you appear as - there was no need for this deliberate mass-manipulation because the manipulators themselves were, more or less under the same spell as the people were. The existence of the romantic-revolutionary state apparatus was entirely contingent upon the devotion of those who compromised it to ruling ideas. When you have pragmatic careerists pursuing individual power, or gain, you don't have Stalinism, you have Dengism, you have Titoism, among other countless examples.

But anyway, the traces of Stalin's modesty in his cult of personality are not even definitive of his cult of personality. Stalin was the ultimate father figure, not some kind of Vlad the Terrible but the wise paternal authority of whom all tried to emulate. The true hallmark of modesty was that he didn't try and go out of his way to demonstrate to everyone that he was modest, he, like Lenin before him (and I am uneasy even comparing the two to begin with) did not care to do this as they were concerned with fulfilling their own Communist superego. I mean, what a damned arrogant fool you are with your imbecilic cynicism - what you don't realize is that the bare-bones desires for "power" or "money" or whatever you want, these themselves are subservient to the mere "appearances" which allegedly "masquerade" them. I can already sense, however, that you begin to disavow such an idiotic argument in favor for another - now the moves made by the soviet leadership weren't about cementing their own power, but were "stupid" mistakes that could have otherwise been avoided if not for their incompetence.

So who cares if Stalin "realized" this, or claimed he hated his personality cult? He milked it for all it was worth after carefully building it up. It doesn't matter if he didn't personally ask the men of Pravda to Photoshop a fucking picture. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. That is the whole point of being the architect, you don't have to lay out the fucking bricks every 2 minutes to know its being built.

Let's see the evidence - how the fuck did Stalin build his cult of personality? What evidence is there that he "carefully" built it up? Yet again talking out of your ass, rather than me being hard for Stalin it sounds like it's only you who credits him with so much. Stalin was apparently, cunningly able to implant the predispositions to every which specification that would otherwise logically follow from his power. Why did Stalin have to do this? Why wouldn't a personality cult be a logical result of the presiding circumstances? Stalin was certianly a leader - and it doesn't even matter if he thought himself such a great machiavellian, Stalin represented a real faction (And when I say this, I mean political current - the culmination of what Victor Serge referred to as one of the many germs of the October revolution, and that is the romantic Jacobin alternative) which existed in the Soviet Union which, one way or another, would have found a champion for its expression. Every FUCKING idiot knows that Lenin had nothing to do with his personality cult, and yet the pre-cursor for it were there even while he was alive! How does Antiochus explain this? With more infantile bourgeois platitudes about how everything characteristic of the Soviet Union which is not characteristic of liberal democracies was a deliberate conspiracy by the authorities. They do this because they can't fathom the fact that what they take as a given is relative, that their ideological universe is synonymous with nature and that everything in contrast is a deliberate suppression of the "obvious" spontaneous predisposition human nature has toward behaviors relative to our societies. As though there wasn't a dimension in the Soviet Union, even outside the coordinates of the political will of the state, which still didn't fall into this trap. This is why everyone was for a big surprise when the fall of Communism came through - ordinary citizens were not "relieved" that they found a platform for their organic expression, final breathing space, they were met with mass confusion and chaos - even if it ultimately culminated in a better life or whatever you want in the end.

People like Antiochus, bourgeois philistines with their unquestioned, perceived axiomatic understanding of history being the product of the direct conscious will of men, have to say "Stalin did this" or "Stalin did that", completely unaware that there were real systemic processes in place, real structures of power and real foundations of life which existed independently of Stalin. It simply couldn't be otherwise - a state could not survive in the cartoonish way Antiochus would have us believe. And of course, the acid test was the Nazi invasion which, despite some anomalies, completely decimated Hitler's prediction that it would plummet the country into political chaos, freeing the Soviet people from their "mass fear" of the totalitarian regime, finally being able to express their inherent national sentiments and so on. On the contrary, the majority of people were enthusiastic about defending what they perceived as their gains, of fighting for their champion Stalin. I mean this isn't such a controversial thing to say - you don't need to be a Stalinist to recognize this, most revisionist historians do who have no political motivations at all. Every fucking idiot should know by now that the totalitarian narrative has absolutely no bearing in any reality, and yet we still have self-proclaiemd leftists like Antichious feed it to us.

For the record, I don't feel like I have to justify defending Stalin here - I am. I am defending Stalin against a criticism which reinforces bourgeois ideology. Stalin was the representation of failure, but it is our failure he represents, he is ours to defend and ours to criticize. The fact that leftists are willing to submit him to the dogs, to not even try to make a meaningful narrative on Stalinism consistent with our theoretical tradition is absolutely sickening. You can't "distnace" yourself from it, you can't say you have nothing to do with Stalin if you're a Communist. You do. Don't pretend like the power of international Communism wasn't owed at least to some degree to the power of Stalinist states, and it's for that reason that after the great collapse a plethora of Leftists, whether they were Trotskyists or anarchists, abandoned the movement, were demoralized, and collapsed in turn. This is our legacy we're talking about, it's important we don't cede it to philistines like Antiochus.

More bullshit. Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that Finland would have allowed itself to be used in 1939? Do you have ANY proof Finland was even contemplating invading the USSR in concert with any power in 1939?

There is no proof, but in the long term the invasion had nothing to with the perception that Finland was going to invade the USSR. Why do you think like a fucking child? This had nothing to do with perceiving Finland as a hostile power of which the USSR had to defend itself against, but the fact that Finland itself was in the domain of other, recognizable hostile powers. do you fucking understand this? I'm so sick of repeating it: Even if Finland had the desire to remain neutral, in conditions similar to Europe in the late 1930's, neutrality itself is already taking sides. You can't fucking be neutral when you're in the middle of two different powers going at it - especially if you are geographically positioned strategically. In war, there are risks only fools take - so in your mind, was it a risk worth taking leaving Leningrad vulnerable on top of the following realities:

1) Finland was within the sphere of imperial influence of Germany, and had been since the first world war. Finland was a pro-German state and while no one argues that the Finnish government was Fascist, it was undoubtedly riddled with Fascist elements and let's say, was definitely predisposed to it.

2) Finland had territorial ambitions, which meant that it had every reason to cooperate with powers hostile to the Soviet Union. No one argues that Finland was simply manavelent, but that it had a rational reason to cooperate with powers in the midst of an invasion of the Soviet Union, namely to reclaim the territories of East Karelia ceded to the USSR during the treaty of Tartu. It was not hidden that Finland had these territorial ambitions, ideas of a greater Finland had circulated politically throughout the country, I don't need to show you secret documents because only a fucking idiot would think it was a secret. While only an idiot, equally, would believe that Finland had some grand expansionist goals during this time, it takes a real fucking moron to not see the clear threat.

3) As a small power, Finland was in no position to be neutral had a Great war transpired, something which Stalin openly predicted he thought was going to happen. During great imperialist wars, few reserve the privilege of not having to take sides in the middle of places of grand geopolitical importance, the qualifications being that you have to be powerful capable of inspiring fear into the enemy, constitute an independent imperial interest, or finally be of no use or consequence to any powers as far as being worth military aggression. None of these qualifications are met by Finland. If Finland was not on the side of the USSR, then given its geopolitical proximity, including the above mentioned facts, then Finland was certainly the USSR's enemy. Securing the safety of Soviet borders was of utmost importance.

4) Finally, Finland's shared border with the Soviet Union left the Soviet Union irrationally vulnerable.

So what we're left with is the argument that the Soviet Union shouldn't invade - because of geopolitical morality which no one observed when they had the position to anyway, of which observing in conditions where it endangers your safety is even more immoral. The point was precisely that Finland was a small, weak power malleable to the interests of other powers, yet in a position of grave strategic importance.

Evidence? And off course I mean actual state policy, not segments of the Finnish far right.

Finland might have allied itself with Germany at the very end of WW1 during a civil war, but Finnish/German relations during the Weimar period and Hitler were hardly those of a vassal state which is what you are suggesting.

Finland was still within the German sphere of influence, and had been since the end of the first world war. No one argues that it was a puppet government, but that it was identified with, and predisposed to Germany. It wasn't a matter of state policy anymore than Bulgaria or Romania had to have openly declared it. As for evidence: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-russia&month=1111&week=c&msg=kkOEg6h2UH79ry7NG8sgbQ&user=&pw=

Which would become, even by the most rudimentary understanding, totally void once the USSR violated the 1932 non-aggression pact. I mean, did the Soviets stop at the 1941 border? No off course not, don't be an idiot. I never claimed the Finns weren't opportunistic.

As another pointed out, it would logically follow that he Finns wouldn't opportunistically attempt to recalim that land should another situation transpire. What do we have to show for it? The "dignity", the "honesty" of Finnish statesmen? I love how you're such a cynic when it comse to the Soviets, but we're to just assume that should the Germans invade the USSR, the Finns in the midst of being able to reclaim East Karelia wouldn't join in, especially with what would probably be immense German pressure, as well as the realities of such a grand war wherein everyone still salty about the unfinished Great War was given a chance at redemption- and in the even that they wouldn't comply with the Germans, they themselves could have been invaded. It's not a risk any decent statesmen would have taken. My point isn't simply to demonstrate that they were opportunistic, but that East Karelia had been desired by the Fins since 1920, and they even exported combatants, in violation of the 1920 treaty during the insurrection of 1921-22. It wasn't simply a secondary spoil of war that they thought they should have "may as well" claimed, it is why they cooperated with Germans in the first place. Antiochus would have us believe the Fins joined in just to reclaim what they lost at the Moscow peace treaty, but this is beyond fucking stupid because even if it was true, they lost what they did because they couldn't keep up the fight against the Soviet Union. Why else would they cede the territory if not because they were coerced to under the threat of force? But wait a minute, this is EXACTLY why they had to sign the treaty of Tartu - because they didn't want to engage in the Soviet Union in armed conflict! So the motivations for "peace" were the same during the civil war as much as they were during the winter war. How will Antiochus respond? "Oh, that was almost twenty years prior, things had changed!" - coming from someone who just claimed that a reasonable comparison to my argument would be Mexico being a perceived threat over the territories lost almost two centuries ago, your standard for time and its relative importance is clearly non-existent.

So you don't even need "proof" in documents, mere LOGIC suggests that the border would have been exploited by the Germans, and mere logic dictates that it would be with Finnish consent.

Right, so I guess that isn't a case of them hating the USSR more than their 'love' of Finland?

Finland was arguably for the Fascists what the civil war in Spain was for the Communists, among those Republicans there were liberals and anarchists too. So what's your point? Furthermore, the Fascistic character of "Islamism" (which DIDN'T EXIST during that time anyway, mind you) and nationalism of all varieties was obvious. Who cares that Chechen crypto-Fascists sympathized and fought against the Soviets too? And what evidence do you have that Finland was equally a hotbed for international islamist reaction as much as it was Fascist reaction? Whom are these "Chechen Islamists" - just admit that yet again you talk out of your ass to make a convenient example which doesn't even add up. It had nothing to do with some kind of pragmatic hatred of the USSR, otherwise Fascists would have deployed en masse to Khalkhin Gol or Xinjiang. What's the explanation now, that they're out of geographic proximity? If Finland was so neutral, why did the invasion bother members of the Axis states more than anyone? What difference would it make if Finland wasn't on their side anyway?

If the Stalin's goal had been to neutralize a potentially dangerous Finland, he failed miserably

Except this discussion isn't about whether in the long term the Winter war was a success or a miserable failure, but about the motivations and reasoning behind the invasion. It is not Stalin's "personal ambitions" at the expense of the Soviet people.

And the USSR did "try" to conquer Finland, not just a few border strategic areas you dumb ass, why else would they create a government in exile if not to place them in power? Stalin's intention wasn't merely to wrestle a few "strategic" areas.

Wrong again, Molotov had thoroughly said in secret that the goal is to, if possible, make a Finnish democratic Republic, not a Finnish Soviet Republic. Meaning this Finland as a whole was never going to be annexed or incorporated by the Soviet Union (why would they want this?), just a friendly state that wouldn't compromise Soviet security ruled by the Finnish revolutionaries who were crushed twenty years earlier in an organic insurrection which had fuck all to do with the Soviet Union. But never mind that - the Soviets invaded not with the intention to conquer Finland, but to secure their borders - when it became apparent that Finland wasn't going to budge, then why not support an actual alternative to the Finnish government? The USSR wanted to conquer Finland as much as it did Hungary and Czechoslovakia at the onset of the cold war. Get over it, in an environment of imperialist geopolitics, you don't survive unless you play the dirty game. Tell me again about how the US would even think to tolerate a "neutral" Canada, or a Mexico aligned with the enemy. Clearly the allies never gave a fuck about democracy anyway, considering that it WAS the national expression of self-determination to have Communism for some countries, like Greece. Britain couldn't tolerate this and a brutal dictatorship was installed. it's very difficult to have to dominate another country, it is much easier to simply have a friendly government. Hence, why the Soviets wanted the governments of Czechoslovakia and Hungary to get their shit together after 56 an the Prague spring so they don't have to deal with them. The Soviets couldn't care less about "conquering" Finland, they wanted a Finland which didn't threaten Soviet security. And the government in exile didn't amass popular support, which is probably why it was created in the first place - not to "conquer" Finland but to create the organs for an alternative Finnish state. They failed.

I mean seriously, if you just want to say that Stalin makes your little dick hard because he was a strong man who didn't give a flying fuck about the most basic precepts of international politics than just do so.

What, this unwritten geopolitical morality that everyone is supposed to follow? People follow them solely out of fear, not morality. And when that fear is replaced by power, it's violated as a rule. Like are you fucking kidding me? This is why you're outraged you little shit? Why should Stalin have given a shit about this when no one else did, which alone compromises and endangers the security of the country?

Maybe the Soviets military was more "politically homogenous", it did not translate to better performance on the field.

Ignoring the fact that Soviet causalities at the onset of the cold war were grossly exaggerated by anti-Communist historians, the Soviet military was more responsive, more amply able to be coordinated en-masse, more organized, had superior morale and indeed this translated to better performance - depending on what one means by this. The Soviets were better at coordinating large scale attacks - ultimately the politically homogeneous nature of the Soviet military proved to be pivotal in its victory over Germany. How the fuck could this be denied? What the fuck do you think war is about if not politics? Is there some kind of "natural" feud between the German and Soviet people's? Is there a dimension to this war that is somehow external fro mthe political realities of the historical situation? No! Is war "natural", is it some kind of spontaneous impulse integral to any society? If not, how could the political subordination of the military not be, in the long term better?

It was a fucking full scale invasion that was OBVIOUS by May of 1941. Stalin didn't even order the most basic of preparations. Soviet aircraft were strewn a few feet apart on airfields ffs.

No one argues that this wans't a blunder - but what's your point? How does this support the notion that this had anything to do with Stalin's personal ambitions at the expense of the Soviet people? In other words, had Stalin not purged the military - do you somehow think that this could have been avoided? The results would have been even more disastrous, and, to be clear - the goal was to savior as much time as possible for full preparation of the war. OBVIOUSLY this was a failure, but no one denies this - it is a straw man to begin with. What point are you trying to make here? That the Soviets took pre-emptative measures like the winter war - all I am arguing is about the nature of their intent, not whether this was successful or not. For fuck's sake you think like a damned child and it's pathetic - "Oh? If Stalin wanted to do this, why didn't he succeed?" is how you think. It stems again as a dirty bastard of the totalitarian narrative, that Stalin was somehow omnipotent or that the Soviet leadership was all-powerful. Every idiot recognizes the systemic impotence and weaknesses of the Soviet government. They made a mistake, and in hindsight they could have known, but only after it happened - or to be more clear, if they could have been more perceptive in anticipating the attack, it wouldn't have been owed to Stalin not being in power, it wouldn't have been owed to Stalin pursuing "power" and so on. Do you understand this?

Could it be that Stalin's ineptitude created the circumstances necessary for the devastating Soviet defeats?

Could it be that this was an ineptitude which was a mistake that could've existed with or without Stalin? And you're arguing about something else now - I'm telling you that the Soviet military was effective and powerful, that they were taken by surprise and this was ultimately responsible for their failure. You want to know what a swine you are? First the Soviet military is immensely incompetent because Stalin purged the skilled officers of the Red Army, and now the Red Army was still competent but "Stalin fucked things up by not anticipating the invasion early enough". If the Red Army was an ineffective fighting force, if it was reduced to shit after the purges, then it wouldn't make a difference because they wouldn't have been able to fight the Germans anyway. So what the FUCK are you saying? Was the unique peculiarities of the purged officers their ability to act sooner than required? As far as any idiot would have been concerned, the Soviet military was not fully prepared and the goal was to delay the war as long as possible. This was a mistake, but it is not testament to Stalin's will at the expense of the Soviet people. In Stalin's situations, such mistakes are unavoidable - and they aren't reducible to him either.

EVEN IF had Stalin not purged the military, it would have led to better anticipation of the invasion, that does NOT MEAN it in the long term would have led to a soviet victory. The military was full of conflicting interests, it was not politically homogeneous or subordinate - for fuck's sake, the loyalty of these Officers itself wasn't a risk worth taking when push came to shove like this. The Soviet military in 1937 wouldn't have been able to withstand the invasion.

blamed the army for losing him the war.

And there was truth in it too - Hitler's subordinates weren't of unitary interests, and many of them simply denounced him and Nazism following the defeat. Because the war was also an extension of Nazi barbarism (contrary to those scum who want to draw a line between the "good" German military and the "political" national socialists), they utterly failed in securing the power of the Nazi regime because of this.

My contention was that Stalin was hardly an asset, not that these people above were 'greater' assets.

You're dishonest. You will never in a million years call Churchill or Roosevelt a monkey. Why is Stalin a monkey? Because he's illegitimate. And Stalin IS irrevocably a part of our legacy, even if it isn't something to be proud of. To say otherwise is dishonest and cowardly.

Nevertheless when you are cornered and the person in front of you is attacking, you don't fucking turn your back and let him punch you 20 times before you react. THAT is the point. By June of 1941 (much earlier actually, but whatever) it was OBVIOUS that the Germans were going to attack. No preparations were made because of Stalin's fear of 'provoking' Hitler was the reason why it was such a 'surprise' as you put it. Even when the Soviets knew ahead of time it was coming.

"The" person in front of you wasn't attacking at that point, even if it should have been obvious. And preparations were made, just not appropriate preparations mind you - but no one denies this. You forget to mention that at various other times, a warning of an invasion at a different time was given - the Soviets did not "know" the Germans were going to attack at the time they did, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. So yes it was a surprise invasion, and no it had nothing to do with Stalin's irrational stubborness but miscalculations on part of hte Soviet regime. The picture you're painting of Stalin the "monkey" stubbornly refusing the insistence of his experts to do something is simply wrong.

Also, for the record Finland did offer to cede some (although not as much as the Soviets wanted) territory near Leningrad that would have pushed the border away. This was off course totally ignored.

Yes, because what they offered, if anything, was a joke. The soviets didn't want "territory" but territory of strategic significance. The Soviets asked the Finns to move the border of Karelian Isthmus a dozen kilometers away from Leningrad, and in turn the Soviets were willing to give up a territory twice as large as East Karelia. Now, if the innocent Fins had no malevolent intent, why didn't they cede this demand? And the outcome fo the war did have positive effects - for one, the invaders at the onset of the invasion were met with a defense line 150km from Leningrad - imagine the devastating effects had this not been secured!

I mean, what if things went bad for the U.S? Maybe Cuba could take over Miami? Seriously though, look up the stats for the Finnish army in 1939. It was a glorified militia using WW1 rifles and skis. There was no proof they had any real strategy to conquer these territories. Even if they 'claimed' them as Rafiq says, it doesn't really matter. Mexico for example might love to 'take back' California, it just isn't realistic.

What a stupid fucking argument. The difference is that the Soviet Union wasn't even close to being within geopolitical proximity to the US to use Cuba, the difference is that Cuba historically had no claim to, and had absolutely no interest in conquering Miami. Are you actually trying to make this fucking comparison? The culmination of conflict between the US and Cuba was never going to be a matter of invasion or conqeust, but Nuclear war. And the threat of it was very, very real. The US didn't ever invade Cuba with the pre-text of defending of its borders from an invasion (For fuck's sake, war was COMPLETELY CHANGED since - how sickening of you to make this comparison) but from destroying a state friendly to it's enemy with the same threat posed to it as Turkey did to the Soviet Union. Was Cuba a strategic threat to US imperial interests? Yes, now the US couldn't keep its Jupiter missiles in Turkey pointed directly towards the USSR. The point is that the Soviets didn't want Finland so they could invade western Europe, or hold everyone else hostage, they intervened to secure their borders. So the situation is completely incomparable.

And I'm going to do you a favor and assume you're talking about the Zimmerman's note of WWI, since saying that Mexico has any identifiable ambitions to the borders possessed nearly two centuries ago today, borders which historically it has no pretense to, in a way comparable to the very real, very obvious Finnish desire for East Karelia and the territories lost after Tartu, no reason to want or have would be unfathomably stupid to process. These territories WERE in Finland's capacity to grab (if it cooperated with the Germans). The fact of the matter is that if Mexico was in a position to reclaim those borders by WWI, it probably would have - the difference is that the Germans had no chance of mass-mobilizing troops to Mexico to invade the US, while giving Mexico the promise of the land it had. The Germans were across the Atlantic ocean - how far was Germany from Finland? Tell me, worm, are you ACTUALLY arguing it is unreasonable to consider Finland to have been a threat? Finlands desires for East Karelia was not some kind of far-fetched trivial desire, it was absolutely in the minds and hearts of Finnish statesmen for decades - they wanted it back and they were ameable to being put in a position to take them back had they cooperated with the Germans. Do you love talking out of your ass? How the fuck would the situation be unrealistic? How? Is Finland out of Germany's reach as far as conducting miltiary operations (Which literally contradicts logic)? For Finland, it was realistic - it was just as realistic as a western invasion of the USSR. If Europe was plummeted back into a world war, it's up for everyone to take sides - there's no room for such abstract thinking of "neutrality" for individual, specific countries.

For the last fucking time, Finland's military wasn't the threat, but Finland's geographic proximity and the border it shared with the USSR. You make it as though Stalin anticipated a great war between just Finland and the Soviet Union that he had to prepare for. A fucking straw man.

John Nada

3rd April 2015, 01:52

The phrase I used has never and isn't meant as "sexual attraction". It has nothing to do with any sexual attraction. If you misunderstood it is your problem now that I have explained it to you. And yes, it is cute that you are so supportive of a man who indeed treated Homosexuals like vermin for so long.Chill out. I didn't think you meant it in that manner, thought there's better ways to convey that point(duped, foolish, enchanted, ect.) Though to be fair, young Stalin...
Don't be silly; the criticism is not of homosexuality, but the fetishing of a brutal dictatorship.There is some fetishizing going on with one side. One side says that Stalin was but a representative of the Soviets Union(with an entire apparatus with various contradictions) who did at least give a fuck about defending the Soviet people and revolution from real enemies, east, west and center, and not some paranoid(which would be justified) madman bent on world domination. Influential, but not an omnipotent god. The other claims that Stalin was like the Old Testament God, personally fucking with everyone just for lolz. Needless letting everyone suffer for a power trip. A cartoon character bent on world domination.
As for the hitler-stalin pact, here's a little gem https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...6,657791&hl=en

"Twenty Officers of the German General Staff have left for Soviet Russia to particiapate in the re-organization of the Red Army"Besides those hilarious spectacles(the German military also trained the Chinese military before the Anti-Comintern Pact, like they were betraying themselves too) and Romanian King saying he won't let the Soviets take any territory, why was the war at that stage called the "Western Front" if Poland lost and Japan didn't attack the European colonies yet?(puts on tinfoil hat) Just a name that stuck? Serious question.

Gileson

3rd April 2015, 03:50

And there was truth in it too - Hitler's subordinates weren't of unitary interests, and many of them simply denounced him and Nazism following the defeat. Because the war was also an extension of Nazi barbarism (contrary to those scum who want to draw a line between the "good" German military and the "political" national socialists), they utterly failed in securing the power of the Nazi regime because of this.

You have a point here. Both ''Hitler lost Germany the war'' and ''the noble, not Nazified Wehrmacht'', if not created by surviving Wehrmacht members, were spread from them. Of all the historians debunking such apologism, Gerhard Weinberg in particular fond noted that German officers' memoirs had claims like "if only the Führer had listened to me..." and forget to add, "the war would have lasted even longer until the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on us." Along with how Rommel's image as a ''noble, ultimate soldier'' was used by the English forces to excuse failures.

ComradeOm

3rd April 2015, 11:03

A politically, and socially unstable environment ripe for inter-bureaucratic conflict and the potential for a coup (an interest independent of foreign powers, mind you). Russia was ripe for bonapartism as was France for Napoleon. Stalin, a Jacobin to his death, prolonged the wishes of history with sheer will.I really think that this is the stupidest thing I've read on the internet this year. To the point that I really don't know where to start critiquing it; every sentence is deeply flawed. And I mean on a base level, each element of this paragraph displaying a complete absence of critical thought. Taken together and there's a semblance of a logical argument but one so rudimentary and nonsensical that it's hard to credit from a supposed Marxist.

Seriously, Rafiq, you've been around this site for a few years now. That your thinking is still at this level is frankly embarrassing. I suggest that you take a break from the site, read something that isn't a polemic or Soviet-related and try to restart your brain.

Rafiq

3rd April 2015, 14:39

You make it as though this is supposed to be a direct pretense to an empirical fact, as though history does actually have a will and so on... That's not the point.

The point is that bonapartism in Russia was a very real possibility. There was a clear drive to re-establish Russia's old borders and assume the old empires geopolitical interests, the country was full with social instability and chaos while at the same time being greatly threatened by foreign powers and so on - no one claims a direct parallel but the need to export the revolutionary energy, rather than resort to inter-bureaucratic masturbatory terror to preserve its momentum (did it not? Weren't its failures and degeneracy given an outlet to directly humanize and give intent). This was prolonged, or made impossible because of the political maneuvering of Stalin's faction. As for Stalin's Jacobinism, this was meant to be ironic: Stalin, or what represented was romantic bourgeois revolutionary in the same vein.

Mind you, it is not even I who first thought this, but Zizek. I stole the idea from him.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd April 2015, 16:16

How blind can you be. You make it sound as if Germany and Russia were justified in fighting against the "colonial" west, all while ignoring the very real colonial actions both Germany and Russian undertook. It is just silly anti-imperialist East vs. imperialist West nonsense.

I'm not. Even such a geopolitical pre-approval of the division of the spoils of war, without trade considerations, could be justified historically. Why? Because a similar agreement was made only a few years later: the Yalta Conference.

Asero

3rd April 2015, 19:16

Mind you, it is not even I who first thought this, but Zizek. I stole the idea from him.

I really like your posts, Rafiq, and this is something I noticed, but I see that you rely and take too much from Zizek. I'm no expert on Marxism, and you probably have read more than I have (and consequently know more than I do), but you really should get theory from more than just Zizek (you know what I mean), and read much more beyond him. Zizek has a tendency to be increadibly idealist when it comes to historical analysis. ComradeOm is right, you should really take a break from the site, and read something different.

Rafiq

3rd April 2015, 19:51

I really like your posts, Rafiq, and this is something I noticed, but I see that you rely and take too much from Zizek.

A great bulk of what I say derives from Zizek's works, so much so to the point where even what Zizek himself has not said, I have come to the conclusion from foundations provided by him.

This, however, has very little to do with a specific fixation on Zizek's works, or even Zizek himself - but his method as a continuation of the legacy of the tradition of western Marxism. It doesn't matter what anyone reads as far as 'credentials' go, but as someone who has read Laclau, Badiou, Negri among the other remaining 'western' Marxists, only Zizek truly is able to live up to the legacy in approximation to our present circumstances. From the Frankfurt tradition to Louis Althusser, Zizek has this thread in common. This doesn't make him immune from criticism, it just makes him immune from criticism if one derives their basis from that which he had already discredited. Zizek is thoroughly a materialist, however, and what idealism is present in him is pathologically widespread among most Left-academics - Zizek is fixated upon 'interpreting the world' cyclically, he provides an amply profound basis for what Communism can mean today, only to close the circuit with political modesty. One example of this is how he talks about the deadlock of how we fail to explain 20th century Communism, or more precisely its failure - on a presumption which completely disregards the social realities of its failure and focuses on only the details of the failure rather than its causes. But we already have brilliant Marxists like Bordiga who have, more or less explained this in terms of the necessity to build the foundations of capitalism where the bourgeoisie could not, hence a Jacobin phrase. He benefits very much from making such closed circuits, as an intellectual and this is a grave problem.

If you ask what I think, and I am certainly no expert, I would tell you that Zizek knows exactly what he's doing here, and is fully aware that there isn't much synchronicity between the substance of his works, and what he superficially attempts to appear as. And it's an effective strategy in that he is given a platform to be recognized through mass media by superficially distancing himself at the implications of the substance of his work. Nothing is worse than Zizek's self-ascribed followers who repeat this same mistake thinking they're living up to it by coming to the same stupid 'practical' conclusions that he does. The problem with Zizek is hardly his "idealism" (This is completely nonsensical, as it would lead to philosophic philistinism and the complete rejection of the German idealist tradition on grounds of "materialism", which is idiotic considering that Marx's materialism was built up from the foundations of German idealism... Nothing is more idealist in the vulgar sense than the analytic tradition), and while he might be primarily fixated upon the history of ideas his only error is not shedding light upon the social foundations of those ideas - but read Zizek, all of the major ideological ruptures he deals with, from the greek revolution against mysticism to Christianity, all thoroughly correspond to great social revolutions. So thorough is this analysis that Zizek actually makes a stronger case for materialism, with even small niches in the history of ideas exactly corresponding to precise social changes.

So Zizek isn't so much someone who I primarily fixate upon as someone who ought to be recognized as the culmination of western-Marxism in the 21st century. But allow me to ask: What exactly, in your mind, should I be focusing attention to "other" than Zizek? Let me be very clear: contemporary Marxist intellectuals are very useful but only within the specific domains which they deal with. For example, there are very good Marxist-economists, there are good Marxist historians who deal with a specific field of history, etc. but only Marxists who have conjoined with the psychoanalytic tradition, or who have strived at the revival of German Idealism have in effect been able to comprehend the global totality as a whole in one way or another. It's true that there are many Marxist intellectuals from the 20th century one ought to pay attention to: But what's the point here? I fail to see how anyone can read Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, or even State and Society by Antonio Gramsci in a non-historicist way without some kind of external theoretical framework.

RedMaterialist

3rd April 2015, 20:14

According to Adam Tooze and Edward E. Ericson, Nazi Germany was doomed to fail a war of attrition against the Soviet Union. Ericson in particular pointed out that the pact ruined the English blockade directed at Nazi Germany.

What did Stalin have to lose by making sure the SU WASN'T sending so many supplies?

There were a lot of countries who made pacts with Hitler. The Molotov and Chamberlain deals were probably the most famous. These agreements were a continuation of 18th and 19th century balance of power deals. Churchill is famous for saying that he made a deal with the devil (Stalin) in order to defeat Hitler. If Hitler had attacked Russia first Churchill would have joined him.

It's not a question of what Stalin had to lose, but what he had to gain. He thought he was gaining additional time to prepare for war or even to help Hitler defeat the West. Stalin almost certainly did not see (as Trotsky did) that fascism was a direct threat to international socialism. Possibly Stalin thought the USSR could exist as socialism in one country along with Hitler's National Socialism. Stalin and Russia came extremely close to being destroyed.

Invader Zim

3rd April 2015, 20:21

There were a lot of countries who made pacts with Hitler. The Molotov and Chamberlain deals were probably the most famous. These agreements were a continuation of 18th and 19th century balance of power deals. Churchill is famous for saying that he made a deal with the devil (Stalin) in order to defeat Hitler. If Hitler had attacked Russia first Churchill would have joined him.

You get that Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister or even in the government in the late 1930s, right?

Invader Zim

3rd April 2015, 20:30

1) Finland was within the sphere of imperial influence of Germany, and had been since the first world war. Finland was a pro-German state and while no one argues that the Finnish government was Fascist, it was undoubtedly riddled with Fascist elements and let's say, was definitely predisposed to it.

This is simply untrue. Germany had no 'sphere of influence' in Europe after the First World War until the second half of the 1930s - Germany was a broken state in 1919, quite literally. Economically and physically. It had virtually no standing army to speak of until 1935. The idea that Finland was in German's pocket until the Soviet Union invaded in 1939 is disproven by the fact that Finland tried to court the western powers long before it turned turned to Nazi Germany in desperation.

I don't really know why you peddle this line, when you have no sources or evidence to back it up and when the entire claim contradicts the chronology of international relations in the late 1930s.

It seems to me that you're just making this stuff up as you go along in the hope that if you write your post in an entirely unnecessarily long winded way, utilise bold, and riddle it with obscenities, and generally rage, that nobody will notice.

And no, Finland was not 'predisposed' to fascism, in fact Finland outlawed The Lapua Movement in 1932 after a failed coup.

Rafiq

3rd April 2015, 20:57

This is simply untrue. Germany had no 'sphere of influence' in Europe after the First World War until the second half of the 1930s - Germany was a broken state in 1919, quite literally. Economically and physically. It had virtually no standing army to speak of until 1935. The idea that Finland was in German's pocket until the Soviet Union invaded in 1939 is disproven by the fact that Finland tried to court the western powers long before it turned turned to Nazi Germany in desperation.

I clearly stated that Finland was never Germany's puppet state and it clearly had its own interests. However, so did Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania - none of these were Nazi puppet states and all of them allied with German imperialism based on their respective state-based interests. I merely claim that Finland too was in this sphere of influence. Do you even fucking read my posts, or do you decide to botch them to conform to your infantile and obvious conclusions? And Finland was most definitely predisposed to Fascism, which you yourself confirm to recognize by citing the Lapua movement - I didn't say that the Finnish government was fascist, but that given Finland's conditions and its proximal position in what would become the cementing of international alliances between world powers, it was definitely, organically predisposed to Fascism - even if ultimately it was never able to take hold. Does this make sense to you? The Fascist movements in Europe (with minor exceptions) were primarily most powerful in states that still had beef with the allies after WWI in one way or another (And this doesn't mean they LITERALLY wanted to fuck with the allies, just that they got the short end of the stick after the Great war).

Finally, did the Finns actually turn to Nazi Germany during the Winter War in the manner you describe? Because for fuck's sake, during the get go the Nazis allowed for weapons to pass through to aid the Fins against the Soviets, this was only halted after it was made public, in order to not violate the non-aggression pact they had with the Soviet Union. The Finns didn't bother the Germans for help as much as they did the French and British because of the non-aggression pact, and that's it. German assistance would have otherwise been a given and not even up for debate otherwise, and any honest person can see this. And no one claimed that Finland was pro-German until the Winter war. It was pro-German well after that as well.

To be clear, my posts are long-winded because stupid fucking reactions not dissimilar to yours which completely draw ridiculous and wild conclusions from my posts are made almost as a given if I don't keep incessently elaborating upon what I mean. "Oh, rafiq thinks this, how ridiculous!". This stems from the fact that users, like most normal people, adhere to the logic of a hierarchy of legitimized truth wherein we can designate what people know and don't know independently of the content of their ideas. So go ahead, Zim, keep with your dismissive attitude when my posts don't go into much detail and then complain about how my posts are "too long" when I respond to your narrowness. It's intellectual barbarism, quite very much uniquely a postmodern phenomena (Even if it existed before).

RedMaterialist

3rd April 2015, 20:58

You didn't answer the main question which was how do you justify the massive amount of supplies the USSR provided Nazi Germany with.

The USSR made a deal with the devil (Hitler) to help him defeat western capitalism, specifically, Britain.

Hitler represented the petit-bourgeois classes in Germany (as described by Marx in True Socialism, in the Manifesto). He was anti-big capital and anti-working class, in other words, fascist. He wanted to kill two birds with one stone: Britain and the Bolsheviks.

If Hitler had won the Battle of Britain he might have defeated Britain before the Americans could save it. Likewise, if he had won the Battle of Stalingrad he might have defeated the USSR. He came close to doing both. The USSR aiding Hitler was a case of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Gileson

3rd April 2015, 21:04

Lol, do you think Nazi Germany could have won against the Western Allies or the Soviet Union with far less supplies from the Soviet Union?

Cliff Paul

3rd April 2015, 21:14

If Hitler had won the Battle of Britain he might have defeated Britain before the Americans could save it.

If hypothetically the Nazis somehow managed to win the Battle of Britain (and defeat the British navy), the USSR would have fallen very, very shortly afterwards.

Invader Zim

3rd April 2015, 21:20

I clearly stated that Finland was never Germany's puppet state and it clearly had its own interests.

I never claimed that you suggested you did - I took issue with your inaccurate conclusion that Finland was under the German sphere of influence after the First World War - it was not.

I merely claim that Finland too was in this sphere of influence.

And you are wrong.

Do you even fucking read my posts, or do you decide to botch them to conform to your infantile and obvious conclusions?

An ironic question given that you just strawmanned my reply.

And Finland was most definitely predisposed to Fascism, which you yourself confirm to recognize by citing the Lapua movement -

Which was outlawed. The existence of a militant fascist movement which failed does not suggest that Finland was predisposed to Fascism any more than the existence of the British Union of Fascists implies that Britain was predisposed to fascism, or that the Silver Legion suggets that the US was predisposed to fascism.

You are talking out of your ass.

but that given Finland's conditions and its proximal position in what would become the cementing of international alliances between world powers, it was definitely, organically predisposed to Fascism

What those conditions which led an attempt at a fascist coup to fail miserably, and the fact that it eschewed the forging of a relationship with Nazi Germany (until it became abundently clear that Britain and France, under whose sphere of influence it actually lay, would not support it) suggests the precise opposite of what you claim. Again, you spray these ludicrous contentions as if none of us here actually know anything about the 1930s and won't notice that your claims are contrary to the facts.

Does this make sense to you?

No, because your argument rests on a series of false premises.

Finally, did the Finns actually turn to Nazi Germany during the Winter War in the manner you describe? Because for fuck's sake, during the get go the Nazis allowed for weapons to pass through to aid the Fins against the Soviets, this was only halted after it was made public, in order to not violate the non-aggression pact they had with the Soviet Union. The Finns didn't bother the Germans for help as much as they did the French and British because of the non-aggression pact, and that's it. German assistance would have otherwise been a given and not even up for debate otherwise, and any honest person can see this.

This is a total non-sequitur and built on entirely unprovable psuedo-historical, counter-factual nonsense.

I grow bored of this, and you.

Rafiq

3rd April 2015, 21:56

I never claimed that you suggested you did - I took issue with your inaccurate conclusion that Finland was under the German sphere of influence after the First World War - it was not.

It was. Do you even know why Finland entered the first world war? Finland's independence was unavoidably bound up with an opposition to Russia and later the Bolshevik government. Sharing a border with Russia, with geographic proximity to then western front, Germany was its natural ally. This did not change more than a decade later. Britain and France would never have been able to spearhead a campaign against the Soviet Union, especially after the victory of the Nazis in Germany, because this would irrevocably play into the hands of German imperial interests, which was completely opposed to that of British and French imperial interests. How the FUCK is this difficult to understand? Finland was already in an antagonistic position against the Soviet Union as a territory of the former Russian Empire, and while the Soviets never intended on annexing all of Finland, the territorial disputes they shared were partially almost completely definitive of Finnish politics at the time.

Which was outlawed.

You want to know something? Usually I leave things out because I can't possibly fathom how stupid you would have to be to have the resopnse that you do - I literally predicted you were going to bring up other failed Fascist movements, and more pathetically, I'm not even kidding, I LITERALLY contemplated talking about the British Union SPECIFICALLY, and the only reason I didn't was because I didn't think you would be idiotic enough to use this as an example. Fascism in Britain was absolutely incomparable and would have never had the opportunity to seize power. The Luapa movement, conversely, launched a fucking rebellion and a planned coup - show me how this would have been possible in Britain! Finland was definitely predisposed to Fascism in a way incomparable to Britain, because the social foundations of British imperialism did not even make the possibility of Fascism real. Britain was one of the powers which represented, to Italy and Germany, the "plutocracy", it was one of the states with a major concentration of finance capital. Furthermore, Britain hardly experienced anything similar to the counter-revolution in Finland and the failed social upheavel during the Finnish civil war, which actually cemented Fascist politics anyway.

My point wasn't even that Finland was Fascist, but that it was socially and spontaneously predisposed to Fascism. If the Luapa movement succeeded, it would have done so in a way similar to far right parties throughout Eastern Europe at the time. Conversely, a fascist takeover in Britain would equate to a full-blown political revolution, it would not be a logical assumption or continuation of the interests of British big capital, when conversely in Finland, a Fascist party coming to power would assume carrying out the geopolitical initiatives of the previous government, only in a more aggressive way. British Fascism was the Fascism of a defeatism, not the culmination of British geopolitical interests. It would be like a crypto-Putinist party in the Untied States being compared to one in Moldava or Azerbaijan. Finland was not a fascist state, but the possibility of Fascism in Finland was infinitely more possible than in the UK, and if you argue otherwise you're being deliberately dishonest. For fuck's sake, what was to be done with the counter-revolutionary enthusiasm of the Finnish white guards? Finland was almost perfect for Fascism.

No, because your argument rests on a series of false premises.

Which remain unknowable to the rest of us. As for you, apparently Finland was in the sphere of influence of Britain and France - is this a fucking joke? How could Finland in any meaningful sense be in the sphere of influence of Britain and France? Not because of any geographic proximity, that's for sure. So what's left? Finland asking the allies for weapons against the Soviet Union? Is this what constitutes being in the sphere of influence, or is it exploiting the anti-Communism of the allies?

This is a total non-sequitur and built on entirely unprovable psuedo-historical, counter-factual nonsense.

This is just as worthwhile of addressing as a high priest denouncing someone for heresy. You clearly don't give a fuck about using basic reason as far as this is concerned, but defending commonly accepted and legitimized historical narratives.

RedMaterialist

4th April 2015, 02:12

You get that Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister or even in the government in the late 1930s, right?

Right. So what? If Hitler had attacked the Soviet Union after Poland, Churchill would have made a deal with Hitler. It was only after Hitler attacked Belgium, France and Britain that Churchill decided Hitler was history's greatest monster. That's one reason they call it the "phony war," after Poland and before France.

RedMaterialist

4th April 2015, 02:16

Lol, do you think Nazi Germany could have won against the Western Allies or the Soviet Union with far less supplies from the Soviet Union?

Probably not, but that wasn't the point. Stalin was trying to delay war with Hitler by appeasing him. As were other powers. Sweden, i think, made a deal with him to stay neutral.

Antiochus

4th April 2015, 02:40

Right. So what? If Hitler had attacked the Soviet Union after Poland, Churchill would have made a deal with Hitler. It was only after Hitler attacked Belgium, France and Britain that Churchill decided Hitler was history's greatest monster. That's one reason they call it the "phony war," after Poland and before France.

Perhaps the most idiotic post I have ever read in my life. Seriously, how do you function in your day to day life. Never mind the enormous speculation your post entails. Britain and France declared WAR on Germany after the Polish invasion, yet they EXPLICITLY did not declare war on the USSR during the Soviet invasion of Poland.

In addition to that, Hitler WANTED an alliance with Britain (in general, not simply against the USSR); he was rebuffed again and again. You are literally pulling shit so far up your ass Einstein can detect a black hole. Trust me, if Hitler had to choose between fighting France and Britain or the USSR he would have chosen the USSR for obvious reasons. There was never any contemplation by the Allies of allying with Hitler in 1939, you are absolutely retarded.

Finally, Hitler's goal's were explicitly tied to the East, this is where the German super-state would be formed. Which means that while Hitlerite interests were in direct conflict with the USSR's Stalin allied with him anyway and the allies refused to.

And I won't bother commenting on your Chamberlain nonsense.

Gileson

4th April 2015, 05:39

Probably not, but that wasn't the point. Stalin was trying to delay war with Hitler by appeasing him.

So to delay an enemy who would lose a war of attrition against the Western Allies or the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union enabled Nazi Germany to withstand the blockade and invade deep into the Soviet Union.

Uh-huh.:rolleyes:

Invader Zim

4th April 2015, 12:18

cyu

4th April 2015, 17:14

Not really on topic, and I'm not really sure what view of history it reflects, but we kind of look at history in terms of, "If I were Stalin or Chamberlain or whatever" what would I have done, or "What else could Stalin or Chamberlain or whatever" have done? Why don't we ask "If I were Hitler or Mussolini" what would I have done, or "What else could Hitler or Mussolini" have done?

"Well, if I were Hitler, I wouldn't have killed people in concentration camps." It sounds totally silly though, yet we ask the same question of other people at the time. What is the difference? Is it just that we think figures like Hitler and Mussolini were a lost cause, while other actors we feel slightly better about, and think we could have worked with them?

Illegalitarian

22nd April 2015, 06:59

Germany did a lot of trading with the west too. I have many doubts to all these claims that M-R was some big resource vein that fueled the Nazi war machine, especially since we can see that trade between the two nations was actually pretty minimal

Invader Zim

22nd April 2015, 09:26

Illegalitarian

23rd April 2015, 00:54

Read more about this subject last night

Stalin was willing to go through great lengths to keep a German invasion from happening. He knew that war was very likely, but it seems as if he thought he could economically bribe his way out of the conflict and just let Germany and the allies kill each other. In the middle of 1940 he was shipping goods to Germany that they hadn't even placed orders for, if that isn't the move of a desperate government, I don't know what is.

It seems that this desperation may have actually caused the war to happen, even. Hitler wanted a war against Russia in spite of the advice given by all of his trusted henchmen, and was pretty upset that virtually no one else was on board. When these sad attempts at appeasement were made by the USSR, however, it gave all of the right people the confidence they needed, since they mistook this appeasement as a sign of weakness, not to mention they now had everything they needed to fuel such a war.

What's even worse, most of the military equipment the Soviets received in exchange was re-captured by the Germans during Barbarossa.

The question arises, though, why? Did the Soviets not know that they could handle Germany in the event of war, or did they not want to pay the price of what such a war would entail? We can't chalk it up to ignorance, everyone knew what was coming.

I guess we have to chalk it up to the biggest failure of realpolitik of the 20th century, maybe of all time..

Illegalitarian

23rd April 2015, 01:17

So much for anti-Trot claims that Trotsky wouldn't have focused on industrialization and the USSR would have fallen to the Nazis :lol:

Illegalitarian

23rd April 2015, 03:12

Do you have more sources on this aside from Ericson, Invader Zim? I hate to be "that guy", but he seems to be the only one who has written on the subject and length and he is a rather conservative author, if you read his biography. It's also based largely on Tooze and Overy's work, which has never had much traction with other major historians on the subject, with Mason being considered to be the leading authority of the day by most.

There's also the fact that, prior to M-R, rearmament had been almost entirely funded by Western capital, so to place blame squarely on the soviets is still unfair, especially given all of the contradictory evidence to this claim, such as the Mason thesis and the work it's built upon

MarxSchmarx

23rd April 2015, 05:33

In addition to that, Hitler WANTED an alliance with Britain (in general, not simply against the USSR); he was rebuffed again and again. You are literally pulling shit so far up your ass Einstein can detect a black hole. Trust me, if Hitler had to choose between fighting France and Britain or the USSR he would have chosen the USSR for obvious reasons. There was never any contemplation by the Allies of allying with Hitler in 1939, you are absolutely retarded.

Just a reminder please do not use prejudicial language in your posts.

Comrade Jacob

15th May 2015, 15:27

USSR was the last country in Europe to sign a non-aggressive pact. But only this pact gets taught. It keeps getting brought up to compare Stalin to Hitler and make out they where friends.

Invader Zim

16th May 2015, 20:52

USSR was the last country in Europe to sign a non-aggressive pact. But only this pact gets taught. It keeps getting brought up to compare Stalin to Hitler and make out they where friends.

Well in that case, please tell us which other earlier non-aggression pact that Nazi Germany signed that you would like to see taught and explain why it is more significant than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Antiochus

16th May 2015, 21:08

RedMaterialist

17th May 2015, 05:30

Well in that case, please tell us which other earlier non-aggression pact that Nazi Germany signed that you would like to see taught and explain why it is more significant than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Neville Chamberlain? Stalin would not have been the first statesman in history to try to make a deal with the devil. One might even view the Mao-Nixon agreement as an anti-Soviet pact, but at the same time China and the Soviet Union were supplying Vietnam. Lincoln offered a deal to the South to simply limit the expansion of slavery. The U.S. right now is fighting ISIS who is an enemy of Iran, who is fighting Saudi Arabia in Yemen, which is being supported by Iran.

A.J.

18th May 2015, 15:25

Its really cute seeing Stalinists try to explain his 180 turn 80 years after it happened. You could just be honest and say "we done fucked up". But facts and Stalinism go together like brains and bullets.

Even if there had been "previous" (which?) agreements, they are irrelevant since none of these "pacts" enabled Germany to subsequently dominate Europe in the same way as the trade deal with the USSR.

This is counter-intuitive as nobody in 1939, not even the Soviets, could have possibly envisaged how poorly the British and French armies were going to perform the following year when the "phoney war" came to an abrupt end when the Germans launched their offensive through the Ardennes.

Invader Zim

18th May 2015, 16:57

Neville Chamberlain? Stalin would not have been the first statesman in history to try to make a deal with the devil. One might even view the Mao-Nixon agreement as an anti-Soviet pact, but at the same time China and the Soviet Union were supplying Vietnam. Lincoln offered a deal to the South to simply limit the expansion of slavery. The U.S. right now is fighting ISIS who is an enemy of Iran, who is fighting Saudi Arabia in Yemen, which is being supported by Iran.

Of the examples you cite, only one has anything to do with the international situation in the late 1930s - the Anglo-French policy of appeasement. There are several issues here to discuss. First, the appeasement policy was not a non-aggression pact. The purpose of appeasement was to attempt to avert or at least delay war essentially by conceding to German demands, and it was the only policy available to Britain and France at that time based on the available information. Second, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was markedly different, it was an agreement to carve up Eastern Europe between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Third, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact came into existence as appeasement was jettisoned, had the Soviet Union refused to deal with Hitler at that juncture the Nazis would have had to drop their plan to invade Poland or find themselves surrounded on all sides by three hostile, and by the late summer of 1939 rearmed, super-powers.

Appeasement is, actually, one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned policies in the annals of diplomatic history. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on the other hand, was a most egregious, foolish and disastrous miscalculation. Britain survived because of the rearmament bought by appeasement, the USSR survived in-spite of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

A.J.

23rd May 2015, 16:02

First, the appeasement policy was not a non-aggression pact. The purpose of appeasement was to attempt to avert or at least delay war essentially by conceding to German demands, and it was the only policy available to Britain and France at that time based on the available information.

er, no appeasement was the policy by the British and French imperialists because they wanted to divert German aggression eastwards to the Soviet Union.

Second, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was markedly different, it was an agreement to carve up Eastern Europe between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.Third, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact came into existence as appeasement was jettisoned, had the Soviet Union refused to deal with Hitler at that juncture the Nazis would have had to drop their plan to invade Poland or find themselves surrounded on all sides by three hostile, and by the late summer of 1939 rearmed, super-powers.

The ever duplicitous British and French imperialists weren't interested in forming an alliance of collective security with the Soviet Union.
The idea of a Non-Aggression Pact with Germany only came about after negotiations between the Soviets and British and French Government had decisively broken down by the summer of 1939.

Appeasement is, actually, one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned policies in the annals of diplomatic history. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on the other hand, was a most egregious, foolish and disastrous miscalculation.

you've completely failed to back these assertions up with anything.

Britain survived because of the rearmament bought by appeasement, the USSR survived in-spite of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

You're an apologist for British imperialism.

Invader Zim

23rd May 2015, 17:54

Antiochus

23rd May 2015, 20:12

AJ just leave the thread. You've been spanked enough. Never mind the fact that you are just a silly apologist (and have the chagrin to call others such) for Stalin's incompetence.

The British/French, regardless of how you feel about them, saw Nazi GERMANY not the USSR as their greastest adversary/enemy in the 1930s. This is evidenced by the SIMPLY fact that they declared war on GERMANY not on the USSR. Hitler would have LOVED to have formed an alliance with Britain and France to fight "Jewish Bolshevism" but he was rebuffed again and again. And when the USSR invaded Poland, the Allies did not declare war on them, even though the USSR was little more than Germany's shocktroops in the east of Poland (this is what actually caused the total collapse of Polish resistance).

John Nada

24th May 2015, 09:43

er, no appeasement was the policy by the British and French imperialists because they wanted to divert German aggression eastwards to the Soviet Union."Er", indeed. Why, if Britain and France were bent on pushing German aggression to the East, did they offer guarantees to Poland on 31 March 1939? Or is the fact that Poland is to the East of Germany a fact that has, hitherto, eluded you?In Britain and France there wasn't a singular consensus about Germany or the USSR. Some viewed the Nazis as the lesser evil, other were more sympathetic to the Soviets, or at least hated Germany more. On the right some wouldn't had a problem with the Anti-Comintern forces marching straight through Poland and China towards the USSR. On the left some who already wanted to go to war over Spain or China. And all over there was many who just wanted peace at all costs.

The Soviets already offered the UK and France a military alliance in February of 1939, but the conditions were free passage of troops through countries like Poland, Romania and the Baltic states. Being primarily a land power this was the Soviets had to offer. Unfortunately most of the same countries were led by anti-communist right-wing, if not outright fascists, governments. Naturally these countries weren't too keen on getting help from the USSR.

Both the UK and France refused to deal with the USSR, and gave guarantees, not yet formal ones for the most part, to just about every other country but the USSR. France's alliance with Poland came from an anti-Soviet alliance back in the 20's, and didn't formally get updated against Germany till September, 1939. The UK gave guarantees to Poland, and later Greece and Romania, but with Poland it wasn't formalized till August, 1939.

Why would Britain and France form an alliance with the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union was, when this option was on the cards, in the midsts of purging the Red Army. Nobody, not the Western Allies, and not the Axis powers, thought that the Red Army was anything other than a papier-mâché giant - outwardly impressive but ultimately without depth. Second, the Soviet Union were the ones to form a duplicitous and imperialistic pact with the Third Reich - Britain and France went to war with them after they cross the line drawn in the sand.That line was crossed multiple times, starting with Manchuria. Any agreement with imperialists is duplicitous and shady by default, but dealing with the Soviets would've been like selling your soul to the devil. Had Poland became a Soviet Republic(which many Polish Communists originally wanted) the other countries likely wouldn't have given a fuck about Germany attacking, anymore then they did with Japan attacking China. But invading capitalist Poland was proof of the existential threat, not just to the UK and France, but bourgeois democracy(however shitty), itself.

On why the Allies didn't initially want the Soviets on their side, why should they trust a state that openly wants to destroy "their" empires? And if the USSR was too weak for the Allies(in spite of winning battles against Japan), why shouldn't they make the Pact with Germany, split the Axis camp, start dumping and shift attention westward for the time being, to build up forces and fight a war of annihilation? Kind of worked for the US.
Britain and France, as noted above, made their guarantees to Poland in March 1939. The Soviet Union did not require a formal alliance with the Western Allies, if the Soviet Union had refused to play ball with Hitler, and Germany had invaded Poland anyway, then the Nazis would have been in serious trouble regardless. They would have faced two great powers in the West and the threat of an ideologically hostile Soviet Union in the East. Moreover, they would not have had the supplies provided by the Soviet Union with which the German war machine was powered.Technically, it did require a formal alliance, per international law att. Hence all the mental gymnastics that diplomats, like Molotov, had to pull off. Even Germany launched Operation Canned Goods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler) for a false flag justification of invading Poland. Might seem absurd that anyone pretended to care about international law in retrospect(with damn near every single one broken), but most countries tried to give the appearance of adhering to it.

Germany wasn't the only country in the Axis alliance. Japan still would've attacked someone. This would've(and did) tied down the European nations' navies in the Pacific. And after the non-aggression Pact, Japan held off on attacking the Soviets, which left the Soviet's Pacific ports open for supplies from the US. Which was one of the goals of British/French Appeasement, spiting up the Anti-Comintern nations. And to that end the UK and France did help Italy invade Ethiopia(which was tacit approval of Japan's claim to China), blockaded the Spanish Republic, supplied Imperial Japan's invasion of China, and gave up Austria, Czechoslovakia and Albania.

And your right, Germany would've been in serious trouble and faced a threat on both sides, because they were regardless of a deal or no deal. In fact, the op brought up a good point that had the Axis Powers won every battle, the US would've just nuked them.
The British/French, regardless of how you feel about them, saw Nazi GERMANY not the USSR as their greastest adversary/enemy in the 1930s. This is evidenced by the SIMPLY fact that they declared war on GERMANY not on the USSR. Hitler would have LOVED to have formed an alliance with Britain and France to fight "Jewish Bolshevism" but he was rebuffed again and again. And when the USSR invaded Poland, the Allies did not declare war on them, even though the USSR was little more than Germany's shocktroops in the east of Poland (this is what actually caused the total collapse of Polish resistance).At various points in the 30's Britain and France saw Imperial Japan as the greatest threat. And Poland lost because of Germany, though there was still the military in exile and partisans at home. Poland was depending on a French attack, and were already retreating to Romania. Waiting till Germany got to the Soviet border wouldn't changed anything. If the Soviets were to come to Poland's aid, the Soviets would've occupied the west anyway, like what happened in Persia and Iceland.

A.J.

25th May 2015, 12:39

AJ just leave the thread. You've been spanked enough.

When was this?

What we have on this thread is someone called "invader zim" making a whole series of baseless assertions about how the British government was throughout the 1930s staunch anti-fascists and that appeasement was a strategy of British imperialism to effectively buy time in order to re-arm!

Codswallop.

Appeasement in reality was an attempt placate fascist Germany in such a way as to achieve "peace in our time"(Neville Chamberlain) between Europe's leading imperialist countries, Germany, Britain, France and Italy and ultimately, sometime in the future, direct German aggression towards the Soviet Union.

To prove my point I will from one of the principal architects of appeasement, Lord Halifax, who on a visit to Germany in November 1937 declared "......members of the British Government were well aware that the Fuehrer had attained a great deal. . . . Having destroyed Communism in his country, he had barred the road of the latter to Western Europe and Germany was therefore entitled to be regarded as a bulwark of the West against Bolshevism. .
When the ground has been prepared for an Anglo-German rapprochement, the four great West European Powers must jointly set up the foundation of lasting peace in Europe".

I rest my case.

A.J.

25th May 2015, 14:10

Why would Britain and France form an alliance with the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union was, when this option was on the cards, in the midsts of purging the Red Army. Nobody, not the Western Allies, and not the Axis powers, thought that the Red Army was anything other than a papier-mâché giant - outwardly impressive but ultimately without depth.

So you're saying that it wasn't worth the British and French imperialists forming a tri-lateral alliance with Soviet Union(didn't matter anyway because the Chamberlain and Daladier governments didn't want such an alliance because of their virulent anti-communism) because it wasn't strong enough militarily.
You then proceed to completely contradict yourself in the very next paragraph.......

Britain and France, as noted above, made their guarantees to Poland in March 1939. The Soviet Union did not require a formal alliance with the Western Allies, if the Soviet Union had refused to play ball with Hitler, and Germany had invaded Poland anyway, then the Nazis would have been in serious trouble regardless. They would have faced two great powers in the West and the threat of an ideologically hostile Soviet Union in the East. Moreover, they would not have had the supplies provided by the Soviet Union with which the German war machine was powered.

Absolute comedy gold!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Invader Zim

25th May 2015, 15:57

What we have on this thread is someone called "invader zim" making a whole series of baseless assertions about how the British government was throughout the 1930s staunch anti-fascists and that appeasement was a strategy of British imperialism to effectively buy time in order to re-arm!

Actually, I said that the policy was designed to avert war and buy time if that proved impossible. Learn to read.

And as for the clear aim to buy time for rearmament, it is a clear fact revealed to any and all who choose to look at the evidence. But given that you clearly haven't every actually read anything of substance on this topic, I suppose I will have to outline the facts for you:

Britain had a national income of around 22bn (in US dollars) in 1937, France had around $10bn, and Germany $17bn. Of that sum, Britain had increased its defense spending to a little under 6% - or $1.25bn, while France spent around 9% or $0.9bn - Germany, on the other hand after the Nazi revelations regarding military spending in 1935 had already mobilised its economy onto a war footing and spent 23.5% of her national income on defense, a sum of just under $4bn. The result was that, when Chamberlain became Prime Minister he was in a situation in which the militant Nazi Germany was already had a military budget that was nearly $1.75bn larger than both Britain and France's military spending combined. [1] By 1939 and the outbreak of war, after British aircraft production had finally caught with German production, Britain remained behind germany in key areas: Rifle production (Germany: 279,000, Britain: 18,700), Machine gun production (Germany: 12,700, Britain: 6,900), Medium Tank production (Germany: 355, Britain: 104). [2] Even the Royal Nazy, Britain's traditional bastion of military strength was in a suprisingly weakened position in the last years of appeasement. To quote Paul Kennedy:

“A third fact in restricting the navy’s expansion was more alarming still: when the Royal Navy began its plans for new ships which the war clouds looming on the horizon dictated and which even the Treasury found it impossible to resist fully, it was discovered that Britain no longer possessed the productive strength to satisfy these urgent orders. The long lean years of virtually no construction, the lack of incentive for technological innovation, the unwillingness to invest capital in what had been regarded as unprofitable fields and, above all, that steady cancerous decay of the country’s sinews, were now showing their fruit.” [3]

So, yes, in 1937 right until the outbreak of war, rearmament and reconfiguring the economy was a priority for the Chamberlain Government. Chamberlain followed precisely the advice given to the Government by Britain's Chiefs of Staff in 1937, who urged the government to 'reduce the number' of Britain's 'potential enemies' because 'we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time'.[4] Indeed, in a cabinet meeting called to discuss the Czech crisis in 1938, Chamberlain again summed up the practical basis for appeasement, as opposed to intervention stating, 'No state … ought to make a threat of war unless it was both ready to carry it out and prepared to do so.' [5] In 1940, Chamberlain further outlined his fears that, despite considerable improvements to Britain's situation, he was still worried by Britain's material weakness. In a letter written to his sisters he said:

'The most common cry […] Why can’t we have some plan which would take him by surprise? The answer to these questions is simple enough, […] It is Because [sic] we are not yet strong enough. […] We have plenty of manpower but it is neither trained nor equipped. We are short of many weapons of offence and defence. Above all we are short of airpower.'[6]

So, let us drop the pretense that you have any idea what you're talking about.

[1] Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, p. 426.
[2] David Edgerton, Britain's War Machine, p. 60, 64. Figures cover production from Sep-Dec, 1939.
[3] Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, pp. 286-287.
[4] Quoted in Kennedy, Naval Mastery, p. 290.
[5] Quoted in Fuchser, Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement: A Study in the Politics of History, p.136.
[6] Chamberlain, ‘Neville Chamberlain to Hilda Chamberlain, 4 May 1940’ in Self (ed.), The Neville Chamberlain Diary Letters: Volume 4: The Downing Street Years, 1934-1940, p. 526.

Appeasement in reality was an attempt placate fascist Germany in such a way as to achieve "peace in our time"(Neville Chamberlain) between Europe's leading imperialist countries, Germany, Britain, France and Italy and ultimately, sometime in the future, direct German aggression towards the Soviet Union.

So you claimed earlier. Yet in the final analysis, Britain and France declared war against Germany in 1939 precisely because Hitler invaded an Eastern European country - amove which runs entirely contrary to your suggestion that Britain's aim was to orchestrate a war between nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, engaged in imperialistic collaboration with the Nazis to carve up Eastern Europe between themselves.

To prove my point I will from one of the principal architects of appeasement, Lord Halifax, who on a visit to Germany in November 1937 declared "......members of the British Government were well aware that the Fuehrer had attained a great deal. . . . Having destroyed Communism in his country, he had barred the road of the latter to Western Europe and Germany was therefore entitled to be regarded as a bulwark of the West against Bolshevism. .
When the ground has been prepared for an Anglo-German rapprochement, the four great West European Powers must jointly set up the foundation of lasting peace in Europe".So? First, this quotation does not prove your point at all - the fact that Halifax believed, in 1937, that Nazi Germany would prevent Soviet incursions to the West does not support your assertion that appeasement was designed to orchestrate a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet union by pushing German aggression in that direction. Second, Halifax was not Prime Minister, and nor (contrary to many Stalinist goons' claims to the contrary) was he Foreign Secretary in 1937 (Eden was). Again, whatever Halifax's views on the topic (and he secretly tried to broker a peace with Nazi Germany shortly after war broke out), Britain went to war with Nazi Germany once it became clear that appeasement was not going to prevent further German aggression and Britain and France believed themselves to be in a position to materially back their threats. Third, Halifax was calling, not for war, but for a four way entente aimed at preventing war - not starting one; he say's as much in that quotation: 'the four great West European Powers must jointly set up the foundation of lasting peace in Europe'.

As I said above, learn to read.

So you're saying that it wasn't worth the British and French imperialists forming a tri-lateral alliance with Soviet Union(didn't matter anyway because the Chamberlain and Daladier governments didn't want such an alliance because of their virulent anti-communism) because it wasn't strong enough militarily.

The problem with forming a military alliance with the Soviet Union or 1938 was that it was felt that it might provoke a war which British military officials believed Britain and France had serious potential to lose, and that the Red Army might crumble at the first provocation - thus leaving Britain and France in precisely the situation they wish to avoid.

You then proceed to completely contradict yourself in the very next paragraph.......

That isn't a contradition - the situation in 1939 was not the situation of 1938 let alone 1937. Indeed, it is fucking obvious, Britain and France made unprecedented guarantees which they kept to in September 1939, they did not do so regarding the Sudentenland, the Rhineland, Austria or the Czech rump state - manifestly their situation had changed, and that change was rearmament. Do you understand the concept of chronology and that the options policy makers have available are determined by the material conditions in which they find themselves?

Absolute comedy gold!

I have already outlined, in detail, why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was folly and how it screwed over the Western allies - ultimately to the Soviet Union's own detriment - earlier in this thread:

First, tacit British and French support, even if it had been forthcoming, would have been meaningless as Stalin and his inner-circle well knew. Had the Soviet Union refused to deal with Hitler, and left wide open the possibility of going to war if Nazi Germany invaded or annexed a state bordering the USSR, then the situation would have been no different with or without British and French support. If the Nazis went to war with the Soviet Union over Poland there was nothing that Britain or France would have or could have done about it. British policy for most of the late 1930s was centred around Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart's strategic recommendations, which emphasized the use of technology, air and sea, to project British power on the continent, as opposed to the vast standing armies of the First World War which had proved so costly in terms of men and materiel. Even after the partial reverse of that policy in August / September 1939, the British Expeditionary Force sent consisted of just 158,000 men, and would only grow to 310,000 men by April 1940.

Meanwhile, the French standing army was significantly larger, but French Grand strategy was very much focused on the lessons learned in the First World War and not in keeping with the changes to strategic thought of the inter-war years (Liddell-Hart, Fuller, von Thoma, Guderian, von Blomberg, etc), and instead emphasized fighting a war of attrition from behind strong defensive fortifications. The French Army was neither equipped, deployed or prepared for a lightning offensive war. And, as it is, had the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact not occurred, providing Germany the access to resources necessary to invade France in the manner in which it did, it is doubtful that an invasion of France would have taken place and if it did, it would have had to have been on different lines. Moreover, vast portions of the Wehrmacht would have, by necessity, deployed in the newly annexed Poland in case a potentially hostile Soviet Union utilized the opportunity to attack Germany and its recently occupied territories in the east.

So, the idea that a triple alliance with the west would have changed anything doesn't add up. Stalin never really thought that, even if they wanted to, Britain and France would have actually been able to do anything in the event that the Nazis called their bluff. And he was right, they did exactly what they had planned to do all along when they did go to war, the difference being that the Soviet Union, by handing the Nazis key resources, prevented the economic blockade which fatally crippled Germany two decades before.

Moreover, there was no real basis, beyond massive miscalculation on the part of the Soviet leadership, to parley with the Nazi regime in manner in which it did. As we know, not only because it happened but also because of years of open and public rhetoric, that the Nazi's ultimate aim (regardless of any Machiavellian deals to carve up eastern and central Europe) was to turn on the Soviet Union. And, indeed, throughout 1941 Soviet intelligence told Stalin precisely that, and that an invasion was coming, and sooner rather than later- but being a paranoid fool, a terrible judge of character, and a worse strategist - he chose to assume that his own people were plotting against him rather than accept that Hitler and Molotov would breach the terms of their agreement with the Soviet Union.

Indeed, it boggles the mind that Stalin and the Soviet Union were so taken by surprise by Operation Barbarossa. All the evidence pointed precisely to what eventually happened. It is, without doubt, the single greatest intelligence failure in the history of military intelligence - and not because the exemplary Soviet intelligence services were failing to adequately do their jobs (the SU had, without doubt, the best Human Intelligence available to any state in the world at that time - if not of any time), but because their assessments fell on deaf ears. So complete was Soviet intelligence mastery, that even if the tell-tale information from wireless Traffic Analysis, reconnaissance, informants actually looking at what was going on on the border in 1941 was not sufficient, the Soviet Union had key spies in British intelligence (which was, even more productive than Soviet intelligence in other fields, primarily signals intelligence) for them to be able to make it clear to Stalin that Churchill's warnings regarding Nazi intentions were absolutely accurate. Yet even then, Stalin in particular, was instrumental in the Red Army's lack of preparation for what was to come. Moreover, Stalin continued to allow the shipping of vast quantities of materiel to Nazi Germany which could only, by then, have one purpose - to feed the Wehrmacht for a coming invasion of the Soviet Union. That Stalin did not order a stop to this the moment France fell, and so quickly, is remarkable; the fact that it continued after the Luftwaffe's defeat in 1940 over the English South Downs and the English Channel is unfathomable. But this is getting beside the point.

The point is that Stalin and the Soviet Union did not need to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to ensure the Soviet Union's national security. While the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact temporarily turned Nazi aggression westward, it did so at the expense of making the Wehrmacht vastly more powerful and the German capacity to wage war a long-term from the entirely unfeasible to a virtual guarantee. And, ultimately, the Soviet people payed a very dear price for the Stalinist regime's quasi-colonialist collaboration with the Nazi regime. Had Stalin and Molotov simply told Ribbentrop that they wouldn't play ball and refused to sent the Nazis a single drop of oil, an ounce of magnesium, or a plank of lumber, the Nazis would have been fucked in any war against a major power which promised to last more than a couple of months. Panzers and Stukers don't run on air alone. Hell, even with vast quantities of resources from the Soviet Union, including no less than 10% of the oil which fueled Barbarossa, the Wehrmacht's supply line was still horse drawn and over 600,000 horses were utilised in the invasion.

A.J.

5th June 2015, 11:50

Actually, I said that the policy was designed to avert war and buy time if that proved impossible. Learn to read.

And as for the clear aim to buy time for rearmament, it is a clear fact revealed to any and all who choose to look at the evidence. But given that you clearly haven't every actually read anything of substance on this topic, I suppose I will have to outline the facts for you:

Britain had a national income of around 22bn (in US dollars) in 1937, France had around $10bn, and Germany $17bn. Of that sum, Britain had increased its defense spending to a little under 6% - or $1.25bn, while France spent around 9% or $0.9bn - Germany, on the other hand after the Nazi revelations regarding military spending in 1935 had already mobilised its economy onto a war footing and spent 23.5% of her national income on defense, a sum of just under $4bn. The result was that, when Chamberlain became Prime Minister he was in a situation in which the militant Nazi Germany was already had a military budget that was nearly $1.75bn larger than both Britain and France's military spending combined. [1] By 1939 and the outbreak of war, after British aircraft production had finally caught with German production, Britain remained behind germany in key areas: Rifle production (Germany: 279,000, Britain: 18,700), Machine gun production (Germany: 12,700, Britain: 6,900), Medium Tank production (Germany: 355, Britain: 104). [2] Even the Royal Nazy, Britain's traditional bastion of military strength was in a suprisingly weakened position in the last years of appeasement. To quote Paul Kennedy:

“A third fact in restricting the navy’s expansion was more alarming still: when the Royal Navy began its plans for new ships which the war clouds looming on the horizon dictated and which even the Treasury found it impossible to resist fully, it was discovered that Britain no longer possessed the productive strength to satisfy these urgent orders. The long lean years of virtually no construction, the lack of incentive for technological innovation, the unwillingness to invest capital in what had been regarded as unprofitable fields and, above all, that steady cancerous decay of the country’s sinews, were now showing their fruit.” [3]

Appeasement was a policy originally adopted by Chamberlain predecessor Stanley Baldwin. So your extremely weak attempt to assert that it was attempt to "buy time" lacks any credibility whatsoever. (A bit like your much vaunted claim to be "intellectual":laugh:). So despite repeatedly trying to self-promote yourself as an authority on the subject you've shown yourself to ignorant.

In 1940, Chamberlain further outlined his fears that, despite considerable improvements to Britain's situation, he was still worried by Britain's material weakness. In a letter written to his sisters he said:
'The most common cry […] Why can’t we have some plan which would take him by surprise? The answer to these questions is simple enough, […] It is Because [sic] we are not yet strong enough. […] We have plenty of manpower but it is neither trained nor equipped. We are short of many weapons of offence and defence. Above all we are short of airpower.'[6]

Looks like Chamberlain was trying to retrospectively justify the policy of appeasement in light of the general consensus that was due to emerge, even amongst bourgeoisie, that it had been an utter disaster. Far from placating Germany's aggressive territorial designs had actually encouraged it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty_Men

I haven't got much free time on my hands to respond fully, however.....

Appeasement is, actually, one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned policies in the annals of diplomatic history. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on the other hand, was a most egregious, foolish and disastrous miscalculation. Britain survived because of the rearmament bought by appeasement, the USSR survived in-spite of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

This fawning adulation for the appeasing tory governments of Baldwin and Chamberlain is cringeworthy to say the least.

Antiochus

5th June 2015, 15:56

AJ has his head so far up Stalin's ass he can see Pravda :laugh:

I find it hysterical how you criticize appeasement and accept the far more dangerous appeasement of the USSR which was directly responsible for the disaster in the East that would kill over 30 million in Poland and the USSR.

Keep in mind, by 1939 Germany was still not ready for a war and after 1939 the VAST majority of its war supplies came from the USSR. The fact that you can't refute this (off course not, you don't have a leg to stand on, just baseless Stalinist rhetoric) means this "discussion" amounts to absolutely nothing other than some Stalinist clown's fantasy.

Invader Zim provided 6 sources (not that you need it, as you can see from the previous pages, its obvious the USSR's role in supplying Nazi Germany), you provided a Wikipedia link of a book condemning appeasement.

A.J.

5th June 2015, 16:05

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, engaged in imperialistic collaboration with the Nazis to carve up Eastern Europe between themselves.

Not all territorial expansionism is imperialist. Your obviously haven't read Lenin's work Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Furthermore, in the areas of eastern Poland that were absorbed into Soviet Union Poles were an ethnic minority being outnumbered by ethnic Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians(who welcomed the Red Army as liberators). The action was thus in keeping with the right of nations to self-determination.

Lastly, your characterisation of the Red Army as "shock troops"(although I noticed you've edited this description out) is also misleading as they never engaged in any fighting with the Polish armed forces as the liberation of the eastern areas of Poland commenced 16 days after the German invasion(by which time the Polish state apparatus had all but collapsed)

http://espressostalinist.com/2013/10/30/bill-bland-the-german-soviet-non-aggression-pact-of-1939/

Invader Zim

8th June 2015, 14:35

Appeasement was a policy originally adopted by Chamberlain predecessor Stanley Baldwin.

Appeasement is actually a policy which was widely used in the 19th Century. As for interwar appeasement, it had been utilised throughout the entire period - not just in Baldwin's final term as Prime Minister. However, quite clearly there was a qualitative difference between the policies adopted by Chamberlain to those of Baldwin; primarily the decision to avoid intervention regarding the annexation of the Sudetenland which was a step far beyond any of the Nazis' previous policies.

So your extremely weak attempt to assert that it was attempt to "buy time" lacks any credibility whatsoever.

How so? I've provided you with clear evidence that buying time was a key objective of the Chamberlain Government given the parlous state of the British military apparatus in 1937.

(A bit like your much vaunted claim to be "intellectual":laugh:)

I haven't made that claim - any more than I have claimed to either be "vile" or a "hack". Indeed, I explained to you the origins of my Avatar tagline elsewhere.

So despite repeatedly trying to self-promote yourself as an authority on the subject you've shown yourself to ignorant.

Say's the lad who thinks that Appeasement began in the 1930s and that the policy's key purpose was to orchestrate a war as opposed to avert one; a claim in stark contrast to the conclusions of every serious study of the subject ever conducted.

Looks like Chamberlain was trying to retrospectively justify the policy of appeasement in light of the general consensus that was due to emerge, even amongst bourgeoisie, that it had been an utter disaster.

Which is actually a fair conclusion - appeasement did indeed fail in its primary objective to avert war; where it was a success was in delaying war while key British defence infrastructure was constructed - if I had not already provided concrete evidence that the Chiefs of Staff had informed the Cabinet in 1937 that Britain's military was utterly unprepared for the scenario the period posed. To repeat the quote which you have ignored (because you're dishonest):

'we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty_Men

Cato is your source for all this blather despite, of course, that the trio did not pose the idiotic arguments that appeasement was designed to orchestrate a war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? What a dullard you are. For the record, The Guilty Men charged the appeasers with political weakeness. The problem with their thesis was that their proposed policy, that Britain should have gone to war far earlier, had been shot down by Britain's war chiefs in the light of intelligence assessments from Nazi Germany which suggested that the German military machine was considerably more advanced than Britain's at that time.

I haven't got much free time on my hands to respond fully, however.....

And absolutely no idea what you are banging on about.

This fawning adulation for the appeasing tory governments of Baldwin and Chamberlain is cringeworthy to say the least.

Suggesting that appeasement has been popularly misunderstood and maligned (as evidenced by your own ignorant drivel) is a fact, and does not constitute fawning adulation for the Baldwin or Chamberlain governments. Short of bluffing, appeasement was the only policy available.

Furthermore, in the areas of eastern Poland that were absorbed into Soviet Union Poles were an ethnic minority being outnumbered by ethnic Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians(who welcomed the Red Army as liberators). The action was thus in keeping with the right of nations to self-determination.

You imagine that those in Western Poland agreed? And you're ignorance and/or dishonesty has reached truly stratospheric heights. The Soviet/Nazi land grabbing extended far beyond territory in Poland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ribbentrop-Molotov_no_legend.svg

(although I noticed you've edited this description out)

What are you babbling about now?

parallax

13th June 2015, 23:22

cyu

14th June 2015, 01:58

If atheists decide that Jesus can be wrong, do they need to find a new replacement who they can worship as infallible? It would be a logical contradiction to say nobody is infallible, then turn around and defend any historical figure as if they were.

Antiochus

14th June 2015, 20:40

The pact was necessary because the Soviet Union had its back to the wall. The imperialist powers on all sides were conspiring against it. France and England were going to ally with Germany, and isolate the USSR.

No evidence for this off course. Just regurgitated stalinist drivel. Even the most elementary logic is thrown out of the window. Hitler would have LOVED an "alliance against the USSR with France/England"; but he never came close to having it. Any delusion that he did is bullshit. France and England in the 1930s saw Germany, not the USSR as the biggest threat to their European hegemony. And off course, who would have benefited from such an alliance? Only Germany.

A.J.

27th June 2015, 10:15

Actually, I said that the policy was designed to avert war and buy time if that proved impossible. Learn to read.

And as for the clear aim to buy time for rearmament, it is a clear fact revealed to any and all who choose to look at the evidence. But given that you clearly haven't every actually read anything of substance on this topic, I suppose I will have to outline the facts for you:

Britain had a national income of around 22bn (in US dollars) in 1937, France had around $10bn, and Germany $17bn. Of that sum, Britain had increased its defense spending to a little under 6% - or $1.25bn, while France spent around 9% or $0.9bn - Germany, on the other hand after the Nazi revelations regarding military spending in 1935 had already mobilised its economy onto a war footing and spent 23.5% of her national income on defense, a sum of just under $4bn. The result was that, when Chamberlain became Prime Minister he was in a situation in which the militant Nazi Germany was already had a military budget that was nearly $1.75bn larger than both Britain and France's military spending combined. [1] By 1939 and the outbreak of war, after British aircraft production had finally caught with German production, Britain remained behind germany in key areas: Rifle production (Germany: 279,000, Britain: 18,700), Machine gun production (Germany: 12,700, Britain: 6,900), Medium Tank production (Germany: 355, Britain: 104). [2] Even the Royal Nazy, Britain's traditional bastion of military strength was in a suprisingly weakened position in the last years of appeasement. To quote Paul Kennedy:

“A third fact in restricting the navy’s expansion was more alarming still: when the Royal Navy began its plans for new ships which the war clouds looming on the horizon dictated and which even the Treasury found it impossible to resist fully, it was discovered that Britain no longer possessed the productive strength to satisfy these urgent orders. The long lean years of virtually no construction, the lack of incentive for technological innovation, the unwillingness to invest capital in what had been regarded as unprofitable fields and, above all, that steady cancerous decay of the country’s sinews, were now showing their fruit.” [3]

So, yes, in 1937 right until the outbreak of war, rearmament and reconfiguring the economy was a priority for the Chamberlain Government. Chamberlain followed precisely the advice given to the Government by Britain's Chiefs of Staff in 1937, who urged the government to 'reduce the number' of Britain's 'potential enemies' because 'we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time'.[4] Indeed, in a cabinet meeting called to discuss the Czech crisis in 1938, Chamberlain again summed up the practical basis for appeasement, as opposed to intervention stating, 'No state … ought to make a threat of war unless it was both ready to carry it out and prepared to do so.' [5] In 1940, Chamberlain further outlined his fears that, despite considerable improvements to Britain's situation, he was still worried by Britain's material weakness. In a letter written to his sisters he said:

'The most common cry […] Why can’t we have some plan which would take him by surprise? The answer to these questions is simple enough, […] It is Because [sic] we are not yet strong enough. […] We have plenty of manpower but it is neither trained nor equipped. We are short of many weapons of offence and defence. Above all we are short of airpower.'[6]

^What's incredible here is that while you've attempted to convey the impression on this thread of being some sort of guru on the subject of appeasement you've exhibited a quite breathtaking ignorance on one basic facts of the matter. Namely, appeasemnet had been adopted as the policy of British imperialism had effectively been the policy of the British imperialists towards Germany the moment the fascist regime had been established and openly declared their intention to re-arm. Not, as you seem to believe from the piece you copied and pasted of the internet, in 1937.

So, let us drop the pretense that you have any idea what you're talking about.

The irony of the comment is astonishing. I can only think your attempting double-bluff in order to deflect attention away from your own ignorance.
Together with this incessant use of contrived condecsension and pretensious prose you come across as a complete charlatan.

You should really stop embarrassing yourself like this.

Invader Zim

27th June 2015, 10:28

^What's incredible here is that while you've attempted to convey the impression on this thread of being some sort of guru on the subject of appeasement you've exhibited a quite breathtaking ignorance on one basic facts of the matter. Namely, appeasemnet had been adopted as the policy of British imperialism had effectively been the policy of the British imperialists towards Germany the moment the fascist regime had been established and openly declared their intention to re-arm. Not, as you seem to believe from the piece you copied and pasted of the internet, in 1937.

The irony of the comment is astonishing. I can only think your attempting double-bluff in order to deflect attention away from your own ignorance.
Together with this incessant use of contrived condecsension and pretensious prose you come across as a complete charlatan.

You should really stop embarrassing yourself like this.

Just insults and no argument. And as noted, appeasement had been used regarding Germany since long before the rise of the NSDAP. What do you think Locarno and the repeated reduction in German reparations were about? And can you really not tell the difference between Chamberlain's policies and those that went before it? Moreover, we are talking about Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, crises faced by the Chamberlain government, not Baldwin's which (with the limited and substancially different exception of the remilitarisation of the Rhineland) did not have to deal with the kind of threats posed by Nazy Germany that arose in the late 1930s.

And no, I'm not an expert on appeasement -- but, I guess it could seem that way to you given that you have clearly never picked up a history book in your life.

But, I'm wasting my time, you're a troll.

PS. Oh, and I didn't copy and paste anything. You can tell where I got my sources, because I have told you the specific books.

A.J.

21st April 2016, 13:48

Just insults and no argument. And as noted, appeasement had been used regarding Germany since long before the rise of the NSDAP. What do you think Locarno and the repeated reduction in German reparations were about? And can you really not tell the difference between Chamberlain's policies and those that went before it? Moreover, we are talking about Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, crises faced by the Chamberlain government, not Baldwin's which (with the limited and substancially different exception of the remilitarisation of the Rhineland) did not have to deal with the kind of threats posed by Nazy Germany that arose in the late 1930s.

insults? that's a bit rich coming from you.

You seem to think the degenerate British ruling classes were morally opposed to hitlerism and would have declared war on Germany earlier had Britain been militarily prepared.:laugh:

I hate to be the one to break this to you but governments, especially tory governments, don't base their policies on ethical or moral considerations.

PS. Oh, and I didn't copy and paste anything. You can tell where I got my sources, because I have told you the specific books.

The fact that you seem to have both a) the money and b) free time on your hands to source such utterly obscure out of print [bourgeois]works on the subject reveals you to be of an extremely privileged socio-economic background, a member of the class enemy.

This in turn reveals why you've been lavishing praise on the policy of the British government as it essentially represents your own class interests.

You're on the wrong side of history.

Laika

21st April 2016, 16:37

This has probably already come up, but Stalin edited and partially re-wrote a book on German-Soviet relations, "Falsifiers of History". So this gives some insight into how Stalin himself viewed events (or wanted people to view them at least). I can't post links but you can get a PDF file if you search on google.

Invader Zim

10th May 2016, 23:29

Excellent necro. I hadn't noticed this before from A.J.

You seem to think the degenerate British ruling classes were morally opposed to hitlerism and would have declared war on Germany earlier had Britain been militarily prepared.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but governments, especially tory governments, don't base their policies on ethical or moral considerations.

They wouldn't have needed to. Had Britain and France been commensurately more powerful Nazi Germany would not have pursued the foreign policy that it did. But this is not about 'moral' considerations, but the balance of power in Europe, and preventing Germany or indeed any other single power from holding it. Which has, in essence, been British foreign policy for centuries.

The fact that you seem to have both a) the money and b) free time on your hands to source such utterly obscure out of print [bourgeois]works on the subject reveals you to be of an extremely privileged socio-economic background, a member of the class enemy.

A. Library card. B. Library.

But, you're not completely wrong, I probably do spend too much time and money on reading.

However, I'd rather that than be like you who thinks that reading makes somebody a 'class enemy' -- no doubt you'd rather burn books than read them.

Tio Pepe

28th May 2016, 17:11

A.J.

20th July 2016, 17:36

Suggesting that appeasement has been popularly misunderstood and maligned (as evidenced by your own ignorant drivel) is a fact, and does not constitute fawning adulation for the Baldwin or Chamberlain governments. Short of bluffing, appeasement was the only policy available.

Using superlatives to describe the the policy in question is fawning.

Which brings me on to another point; unless you're a supporter of British imperialism why give a damn whether or not it was the best policy?

In an inter-imperialist war the correct Leninist position is that the conflict is reactionary on both sides and to therefore pursue a line of revolutionary defeatism.

You imagine that those in Western Poland agreed? And you're ignorance and/or dishonesty has reached truly stratospheric heights. The Soviet/Nazi land grabbing extended far beyond territory in Poland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ribbentrop-Molotov_no_legend.svg

You're moral indignation about all territorial expansionism being wrong is one that I obviously don't share. Furthermore, you're being insincere judging by your support for British colonialism in the north of Ireland...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/5202-The-IRA-are-totaly-out-of-order!-They-dont-fight-for-the-f

^note the virulent abuse directed towards anyone challenging your pro-imperialist position. Quite incredible that I'm viewing such sentiments expressed on a supposedly "revolutionary left" forum.

A. Library card. B. Library.

Rather disingenuous comment. I don't think an array of obscure works from exactly the same (extreme right wing) political postion would typically be available at your average public library

But, you're not completely wrong, I probably do spend too much time and money on reading.

However, I'd rather that than be like you who thinks that reading makes somebody a 'class enemy' -- no doubt you'd rather burn books than read them.

No, I said it was on account of your extremely privileged socio-economic background.

Not that that necessarily makes someone a reactionary or a bad person(Frederick Engels after all was from a family of capitalist mill-owners) but when you express extremely chauvinist views like this....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/5306-The-British-Empire-Nasty-but-needed?highlight=British+empire

...you are most certainly in the camp of the oppressor.
(once again, note abuse towards users who challenge ultra-chauvinist views)

As an aside, and I said this before, I cant quite believe I'm witnessing such extreme right wing views being posted on a supposedly "revolutionary left" forum without any reprimand whatsoever.

Invader Zim

6th August 2016, 20:14

Using superlatives to describe the the policy in question is fawning.

No, it isn't.

Which brings me on to another point; unless you're a supporter of British imperialism why give a damn whether or not it was the best policy?

The only policy. And I "give a damn" because it interests me.

In an inter-imperialist war the correct Leninist position is that the conflict is reactionary on both sides and to therefore pursue a line of revolutionary defeatism.

You are confused, the appeasement policy, by definition, was not an inter-imperialist war, it was the effort to prevent a war.

You're moral indignation about all territorial expansionism being wrong is one that I obviously don't share

Yes, because you're an apologist for the imperialism of a psuedo-socialist regime.

Furthermore, you're being insincere judging by your support for British colonialism in the north of Ireland...

Digging up threads from nearly a decade and a half ago? Suffice to say, my views from nearly 15 years ago when I was a young teenager have moved on. Not that I have any love of nationalists now either.

I don't think an array of obscure works

None of those books are obscure.

(extreme right wing)

Don't pretend that you have read these, or any, books about this subject.

political postion would typically be available at your average public library

If you tried stepping into a library you might be suprised what is available.

No, I said it was on account of your extremely privileged socio-economic background.

Sorry son, local comp product.

I cant quite believe I'm witnessing such extreme right wing views being posted on a supposedly "revolutionary left" forum without any reprimand whatsoever.

My views as a teenager were indeed reactionary, I'm more worried why you are still an apologist for mass murder and imperialism.

A.J.

8th August 2016, 13:06

No, it isn't.[QUOTE]

The lavishness of the praise, together with the personal abuse you directed towards me when I suggested the foreign policy of the British ruling class is determined by less than honourable intentions, wasn't at all necessary.
It's inconceivable that someone other than other than a partisan supporter of the British ruling class would get so incredibly emotional and upset as you did.

[QUOTE]The only policy. And I "give a damn" because it interests me.

Once again, it's inconceivable that anyone would care so much unless they were a conscious, witting supporter of the British ruling class and it's imperialism.

Although as will become apparent it's obvious you dont know what imperialism actually is;
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm
Incorrectly regarding it as synonymous with territorial expansionism;

You are confused, the appeasement policy, by definition, was not an inter-imperialist war, it was the effort to prevent a war.

The underlying objective of foreign policy objective of any imperialist government is to defend the overseas investments of it's monopoly capitalist groups(cartels, trusts etc.). Whether such objectives are attained by war or peace against it's imperialist rivals dosen't alter the fact that the policy is ultimately a reactionary one.

Yes, because you're an apologist for the imperialism of a psuedo-socialist regime.

You were the one praising the foreign policy of an imperialist country(Britain), getting extremely emotional and upset when your attempts to portray the British ruling class as being so virtuous were challenged.
Although as previously noted, you obviously dont know what an imperialism actually is.

"psuedo-socialist regime" since when did Britain claim to be socialist?

Also, I believe its spelt "pseudo".

Digging up threads from nearly a decade and a half ago? Suffice to say, my views from nearly 15 years ago when I was a young teenager have moved on.

Not really, you're still a extreme right wing chauvinist as evidenced by your support for British imperialist foreign policy on this very thread.

Not that I have any love of nationalists now either.

As someone once famously said "nationalism of the oppressed is applied internationalism".
Nationalism can be temporarily progressive in anti-imperialist national liberation struggles.
This, of course, explains why you are hostile towards the right of the Irish nation to self-determination as it would strike a blow against your beloved British imperialism.

None of those books are obscure.

Debatable.

What, however, is not debatable is that the authors are extremely right wing and have reactionary, pro-imperialist agenda. As such if someone were to quote these propagandists at face value it would reveal themselves to be a)not quite the sharpest tool in the box or b) someone who was extremely right wing as well.

If you tried stepping into a library you might be suprised what is available.

I think you might want to go to the library yourself and take out a copy of Lenin's work Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
Then you might realise the embarrassment you made yourself in equating imperialism solely with territorial expansionism.

Sorry son, local comp product.

what on earth does this mean?

My views as a teenager were indeed reactionary,

They still are.

I'm more worried why you are still an apologist for mass murder and imperialism.

The irony(and obvious insincerity) of someone attempting to get all morally indignant at "mass murder and imperialism" after praising British foreign policy in such lavish terms is quite simply breathtaking.

http://worldsworstmassmurderer.blogspot.co.uk/