3A CCCP
25th April 2008, 07:00
In American high school and college history books the Soviet Union
is portrayed as the evil cohort of Nazi Germany in 1939. The
American fantasy paints a picture of Stalin and Hitler agreeing to
carve up an innocent, defenseless Poland.
In fact, the Red Army did not invade Poland, but liberated the
western portion of Byelorussia that was coerced from the Russian
Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (the USSR was officially
formed in 1922) by the Treay of Brest-Litovsk.
After the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917, comrade Lenin was
forced to sue for peace at any cost to save the infant Soviet
Republic from being killed in the cradle. And the cost was high!
The RSFSR was forced to cede the western portion of Byelorussia
right up to the border of Minsk. Other parts of the former Russian
Empire that were ceded included: the Grand Duchy of Finland,
Poland, western Ukraine, and the Caucasus.
The western portion of Byelorussia was ethnically 80% Byelorussian
and only 10% Polish. Jews and others made up the remaining 10%.
For 22 years the Byelorussian people suffered the indignities of the
Polish occupation. Their children were not allowed to learn their
own language in school and taught to write in the Latin alphabet,
not Byelorussian Cyrrillic. Russian Orthodox Church holidays, such
as Christmas (Jan. 7th), were made work days while Polish Catholic
holidays were legal holidays. The best jobs and government posts
were reserved for Poles. In their own country Byelorussians were
forced to take the crumbs from the Polish Pan's table!
So, it shouldn't be surprising that when Stalin's tanks rolled into
Grodno, Brest, and other Byelorussian cities and villages the people
cheered them in the streets. This was a LIBERATION, not an invasion!
I heard this history from my relatives in Belarus. But, before I
even had the opportunity to make my first trip to Soviet Byelorussia
in 1970, I had met many people who had lived through the Polish
occupation of Byelorussia.
Our Russian Orthodox Church parish in Brooklyn, NY was about 90%
Byelorussian and I heard similar accounts from many different people
who had experienced the Polish occupation first hand.
The Poles were not the defenseless, innocent people the American
version of history would have you believe. They were (and are) a
convenient propaganda tool for the United States government and the
west.
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
3A CCCP
25th April 2008, 15:50
No doubt the Belorussians weren't in a terrific state, but that does not make this kind of behavior responsible:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Germans_and_Soviets2.jpg
First of all, when was this picture taken? What does it show? A Byelorussian with Nazi officers? Maybe one of Vlasov's men or a traitor from Western Ukraine?
If you are trying to disparage Byelorussia and imply the Byelorussian people were collaborators you won't get very far. It is common knowledge (even acknowledged in the bourgeois West) that the Byelorussian people were the fiercest opponents the Nazis faced on the Eastern Front.
One out of every three Byelorussians perished during the Great Patriotic War. That high death count didn't occur because my people collaborated. Over a million Byelorussian partisans fought the German occupiers and kept them in a constant state of stress.
The Byelorussian expression, "Шоссе немецкое, а страна советская!" (The road is German, but the country is Soviet!) showed the fear of the Germans to go off the roads and venture into the countryside. Byelorussian snipers and partisan units picked them off like flies.
You're post strongly suggests that you are a provocateur.
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
Random Precision
27th April 2008, 10:44
It's a rather famous photograph of a meeting between Red Army and Wermacht soldiers after they had each taken their chunk of what was then Poland. You know, when they were allies? Sound familiar?
If the Red Army soldier had been one of Vlasov's men, he would have been wearing a German uniform, because Vlasov's men were in the German army.
3A CCCP
27th April 2008, 15:36
It's a rather famous photograph of a meeting between Red Army and Wermacht soldiers after they had each taken their chunk of what was then Poland. You know, when they were allies? Sound familiar?
I've never seen this "famous" photo before. The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany to buy time, but weren't their allies. Italy and Japan were their allies, not the USSR.
This is typical of Trotskyite scum like yourself. I posted a legitimate message describing the situation in Belarus under the Poles and the Byelorussian people's reaction to the liberation in 1939. So, you and the other Trot decide to make an issue of it by parroting your anti-Soviet crap.
The point of my original post was to convey to the list the reaction of the people living in Byelorussia from first hand sources and to point out this was not an invasion by the Red Army as bourgeois Western propaganda describes it, but a liberation.
Well, your idol Trotsky was a whore who would consort with anyone of any political ilk to defame the USSR, so what can one expect from his disciples?
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
Random Precision
27th April 2008, 19:42
Dude, you need to chill the fuck out.
I've never seen this "famous" photo before.
Which means what exactly?
The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany to buy time, but weren't their allies. Italy and Japan were their allies, not the USSR.
Yea, they only had a non-aggression pact, cooperated in the carving up of Poland, and the Soviet Union supplied crucial war materials to Germany while the Stalinist leadership banned all public criticism of Germany and its leadership. :rolleyes:
This is typical of Trotskyite scum like yourself. I posted a legitimate message describing the situation in Belarus under the Poles and the Byelorussian people's reaction to the liberation in 1939.
It is true that there was national oppression in Poland of Byelorussians and Ukrainians, I have never denied that. Although I do find it interesting that you decry Polish oppression of Russian Orthodoxy when the Stalinist leadership was doing the exact same thing in the USSR, until they found it useful to rally the populace during the war.
So, you and the other Trot decide to make an issue of it by parroting your anti-Soviet crap.
Lombas is an anarchist.
The point of my original post was to convey to the list the reaction of the people living in Byelorussia from first hand sources and to point out this was not an invasion by the Red Army as bourgeois Western propaganda describes it, but a liberation.
Shouldn't the Byelorussians have taken care of that themselves?
Well, your idol Trotsky was a whore who would consort with anyone of any political ilk to defame the USSR, so what can one expect from his disciples?
Just because Trotsky got more action than Stalin doesn't mean he was a whore. Sounds like sour grapes to me! :lol:
3A CCCP
28th April 2008, 00:55
Random Precision writes:
Yea, they only had a non-aggression pact, cooperated in the carving up of Poland, and the Soviet Union supplied crucial war materials to Germany while the Stalinist leadership banned all public criticism of Germany and its leadership.
My reply:
You are ignoring the whole point of my post - there was no "carving up" of Poland. Western Byelorussia was liberated from Polish occupation and oppression. Germany went in from the West and occupied what was actually Poland.
I am not aware of the Soviet Union supplying "crucial war materials" to Germany. Cite your sources.
Random Precision writes:
Shouldn't the Byelorussians have taken care of that themselves?
(This refers to my statement, "The point of my original post was to convey to the list the reaction of the people living in Byelorussia from first hand sources and to point out this was not an invasion by the Red Army as bourgeois Western propaganda describes it, but a liberation." - 3A CCCP)
My reply:
Of course they have, but it has been ignored by the Western bourgeois media for 70 years. One would think that my post would have received a better reception from Communists. However, it appears that certain myths are valued more by certain Communists in order to support their dogma, than the truth of the actual occurences as documented by the people who lived through them. That would seem to be the case here with your position.
Random Precision writes:
Just because Trotsky got more action than Stalin doesn't mean he was a whore. Sounds like sour grapes to me!
My reply:
The sour grapes were on Trotsky's end after:
Trotsky's position was soundly rejected by the majority of the Party at the 13th Party Congress in 1924;
Trotsky's position was almost unanimously rejected by the 15th Party Congress in 1927 by a vote of 740,000 to 4,000;
Trotsky was the only major leader not present at comrade Lenin's funeral;
Trotsky was denounced by comrade Lenin.
Trotsky got his ass kicked out of the Soviet Union for being the traitor he was.
After his exile Trotsky consorted with anyone of any political persuasion if he thought it would hurt the Soviet Union and the CPSU which rejected him and his positions. In my mind, this would qualify him as a "whore" in the political sense.
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
Random Precision
28th April 2008, 01:38
Random Precision writes:
Shouldn't the Byelorussians have taken care of that themselves?
(This refers to my statement, "The point of my original post was to convey to the list the reaction of the people living in Byelorussia from first hand sources and to point out this was not an invasion by the Red Army as bourgeois Western propaganda describes it, but a liberation." - 3A CCCP)
I was referring to the national oppression of Byelorussians by Poland, saying that it was the task of the Byelorussians themselves to liberate the western portion of their country rather than the Soviet Army marching in and doing it for them. This is the normal Leninist position on such matters.
I am not aware of the Soviet Union supplying "crucial war materials" to Germany. Cite your sources.
Memorandum on the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement Signed February 11, 1940:
2. The Soviet deliveries. According to the Agreement, the Soviet Union shall within the first 12 months deliver raw materials in the amount of approximately 500 million Reichsmarks.
In addition, the Soviets will deliver raw materials, contemplated in the Credit Agreement of August 19, 1939, for the same period, in the amount of approximately 100 million Reichsmarks.
The most important raw materials are the following:
1,000,000 tons of grain for cattle, and of legumes, in the amount of 120 million Reichsmarks
900,000 tons of mineral oil in the amount of approximately 115 million Reichsmarks
100,000 tons of cotton in the amount of approximately 90 million Reichsmarks
500,000 tons of phosphates
100,000 tons of chrome ores
500,000 tons of iron ore
300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron
2,400 kg. of platinum Manganese ore, metals, lumber, and numerous other raw materials.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns120.htm
The sour grapes were on Trotsky's end after:
Trotsky's position was soundly rejected by the majority of the Party at the 13th Party Congress in 1924;
Trotsky's position was almost unanimously rejected by the 15th Party Congress in 1927 by a vote of 740,000 to 4,000;
Trotsky was the only major leader not present at comrade Lenin's funeral;
Trotsky was denounced by comrade Lenin.
Trotsky got his ass kicked out of the Soviet Union for being the traitor he was.
After his exile Trotsky consorted with anyone of any political persuasion if he thought it would hurt the Soviet Union and the CPSU which rejected him and his positions. In my mind, this would qualify him as a "whore" in the political sense.
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
Can you keep that stuff in the other thread, please? This one is about the Soviet "liberation" of Western Byelorussia/Eastern Poland, not about Trotsky.
3A CCCP
28th April 2008, 02:47
Random Precision writes:
I was referring to the national oppression of Byelorussians by Poland, saying that it was the task of the Byelorussians themselves to liberate the western portion of their country rather than the Soviet Army marching in and doing it for them. This is the normal Leninist position on such matters.
My reply:
The Leninist position would be applicable if we were referring to the proletariat of a nation struggling against a capitalist regime and system. This is a case of Poland grabbing Soviet territory (Western Byelorussia) and the Red Army liberating that territory and reuniting it with the main body of Byelorussia.
Random Precision writes:
It is true that there was national oppression in Poland of Byelorussians and Ukrainians, I have never denied that. Although I do find it interesting that you decry Polish oppression of Russian Orthodoxy when the Stalinist leadership was doing the exact same thing in the USSR, until they found it useful to rally the populace during the war.
My reply:
The oppression of the Orthodox Church by the Poles in Western Byelorussia can hardly be compared to what was going on in the Soviet Union. The Poles were repressing Orthodoxy in an attempt to eliminate it in favor of Roman Catholicism (the historic enemy of the Orthodox Church).
The CPSU was fighting reactionary forces inside the Russian Orthodox Church that were still loyal to the defunct Tsarist regime and continued to support the remnants of the White Guard counter-revolutionaries that were driven underground after the Red Army defeated the White forces and their internationalist allies.
For the most part, by the mid to late 1930s the reactionary Russian Orthodox clergy had been purged from the Church and overt attacks on the Church ceased.
Random Precision writes:
Can you keep that stuff in the other thread, please? This one is about the Soviet "liberation" of Western Byelorussia/Eastern Poland, not about Trotsky.
My reply:
That was a reply to your sarcastic comment. I'm fine with leaving Trotsky out of this.
Random Precision writes:
Memorandum on the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement Signed February 11, 1940:
My reply:
I will check this out.
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
3A CCCP
29th April 2008, 07:25
Random Precision wrote:
Memorandum on the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement Signed February 11, 1940:
2. The Soviet deliveries. According to the Agreement, the Soviet Union shall within the first 12 months deliver raw materials in the amount of approximately 500 million Reichsmarks.
In addition, the Soviets will deliver raw materials, contemplated in the Credit Agreement of August 19, 1939, for the same period, in the amount of approximately 100 million Reichsmarks.
The most important raw materials are the following:
1,000,000 tons of grain for cattle, and of legumes, in the amount of 120 million Reichsmarks
900,000 tons of mineral oil in the amount of approximately 115 million Reichsmarks
100,000 tons of cotton in the amount of approximately 90 million Reichsmarks
500,000 tons of phosphates
100,000 tons of chrome ores
500,000 tons of iron ore
300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron
2,400 kg. of platinum Manganese ore, metals, lumber, and numerous other raw materials.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns120.htm
My reply:
You assume there was something wrong with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact and its secret codicils on trade and on spheres of influence in Poland. But that's nonsense. It was the only thing the USSR could do. The Soviets tried desperately to get France and the UK to sign mutual defense treaties, but they refused. The REASON they refused was that they wanted to encourage Hitler to attack the USSR. So, the Soviets signed these agreements.
After the Soviet - Finnish War began, the Soviets' only source for sophisticated military technology was Nazi Germany. They traded raw materials in return.
Trotsky was conspiring with the Germans and Japanese to take over the USSR and divide it up after a military coup against Stalin.
Furthermore, we know that the conspirators, who included Trotsky but were not all led by him, were going to forge an alliance with Nazi Germany that would have greatly strengthened Hitler's hand.
There is a lot of evidence of this in the former Soviet archives. There is also some very damning information from German sources. Of course there was lots of testimony about this in the 1937 and 1938 Moscow Trials.
Trotskyites like yourself (and you describe yourself as a Trotskyite) are notorious for cherry-picking information when it comes to comrade Stalin and the Soviet Union.
First of all, the fact that the letter you chose to cite lists only those goods which the Soviet Union was to deliver to Germany while conveniently downplaying what the USSR was to receive from Germany.
The letter was written in that manner because it came from the pen of Schnurre, a top German trade negotiator, who was trying to make himself look good by stressing only what Germany was receiving from the USSR, not what Germany was giving up.
Secondly, you ignore the fact that the Soviet Union in return for its raw materials was receiving some very valuable and badly needed products.
Finally, you ignore the fact that comrade Stalin was doing everything possible to prevent a war from breaking out. Comrade Stalin felt equal exchanges of products with Germany was a sensible way to help prevent that possibility. Countries don’t normally attack nations from which they are receiving valuable and needed products on a regular basis.
Below are some links (not associated with Yale or other anti-Soviet sources) that Russian readers on the list can go to for information:
http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/01.html (http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/01.html)
http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_413.htm (http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_413.htm)
http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_414.htm (http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_414.htm)
For non-Russian readers some quotes below may be of use:
“The nazi-Soviet pact had also a strong economic aspect. By this and later agreements, the USSR agreed to deliver great quantities of oil, grain, cotton, manganese, and other raw materials; but this was no mere tribute or sacrifice imposed by force.
The Soviet received in exchange, through a clearing system, German machines and spare parts, machine tools, instruments of precision, chemicals and drugs. Soviet industry had run down badly during the purge, and most of its machines and tools needed replacement or repair. It was already beginning to produce such things for itself, but of all machinery imported in the last ten years, more than 60 percent was of German origin.
Thus Germany received much-needed raw materials, but the USSR benefited even more by the change,…”
Duranty, Walter. The Kremlin and the People. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 169
“Recently, much has been written about Soviet shipments to Germany, and Stalin has been rightly blamed for supplying Hitler with grain, oil, and rare metals and for helping the Nazis accumulate strategic reserves that they subsequently used in the war against the Soviet Union.
But at the same time, it should be pointed out that in return we also obtained much that we needed in the way of equipment and modern military hardware. Only on those terms did the Soviet government agree to supply to Germany the resources it was requesting.
Among our acquisitions from the Germans was the Lutzov, a state-of-the-art cruiser of the same class as the cruiser Prinz Eugen. Both ships were built by Germany for its own fleet. The Germans also gave us the shop drawings for their newest battleship, the Bismarck, for thirty different combat aircraft, including Messerschmitt 109 and 110 fighters and Yunker 88 dive bombers, samples of field-artillery pieces, modern fire-support systems, tanks together with the formulas for their armor, and a variety of explosive devices. In addition, Germany undertook to supply us with locomotives, turbines, diesel motors, merchant ships, metal-cutting machine tools, presses, press-forging and other equipment for heavy industry, including the oil and electric industries.”
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 75
“I saw clearly now why Soviet materials continued to be shipped into Germany on a regular basis even though the Germans didn't comply with their delivery schedules. The idea was to gain time, to appease Hitler, and at the same time to demonstrate to him that it made no sense for Germany to go to war with the Soviet Union since this would effectively cut it off from a rich source of supplies.”
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 102
“The Soviet-German trade agreement, concluded a few days before the signing of the nonaggression pact, provided for deliveries of modern equipment and the latest technology to the Soviet Union. Among others, our navy was very much interested in getting new equipment and technology.”
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 269
"There has long been a myth that in order to buy time and postpone the threat of invasion by the mechanized might of the Wehrmacht, Stalin was Hitler's dupe, prepared to pay any price he demanded. The reality was entirely different.
Stalin could have had no illusions about Hitler's ultimate ambitions. Neither did he have any illusions, even before the debacle of the Red Army's performance in Finland, about the Soviet Union's ability to withstand a German attack. But before he could prepare his country, and perhaps even increase its military strength to such an extent that Hitler would be deterred from attacking, Stalin needed to buy not only time but also technology. The only people he could obtain either from were the Germans.
For his part, Hitler needed vital raw materialsfor his arms industry in order to build up his forces to the level necessary for attacking the Soviet Union, and food to sustain his people while the military machine was made ready.
Once he had failed to keep Britain, and to a lesser extent France, out of the war, the only place he could obtain either of his needs was the Soviet Union.
By September 1939, therefore, the two leaders found themselves in the ludicrous situation where Hitler needed food and raw materials from the Soviet Union in order to attack her, while Stalin needed machinery, arms, and equipment from Germany in order to be able to fight her off. The question was, who needed what most? Certainly, Stalin was perfectly well aware of Hitler's needs. And while Germany still faced the allies in the west, he was able to drive a very hard bargain indeed.”
Read, Anthony and David Fisher. The Deadly Embrace. New York: Norton, 1988, p. 433
“On February 11, the new trade treaty was signed. Germany was assured of all the raw materials and grain she wanted - but the price exacted by Stalin was a heavy one.
The list of war material to be given to him covered 42 closely typed pages. At the top of the list was the cruiser formerly known as the Lutzow [after the Graf Spee incident Hitler had given the name Lutzow to the Deutschland, since it would have been unbearable for a ship with that name to be sunk), the hull of which was to be delivered to Leningrad after launching, for completion in the Soviet Union. The complete drawings for the Bismarck were to be handed over after all, together with plans for a large destroyer and complete machinery for such a ship, and full details of performance of the other two
cruisers.
The aircraft list included 10 Heinkel He-100s, 5 Messerschmitt Bf-110s, 2 Junkers Ju-88 twin-engined dive-bombers, 2 Dornier Do-215s; 3 Buker Bu-131s and 3 Bu-133s; 3 Fokke-Wulf Fw-58-v-13s and 2 Fokke-Wulf Fa-255 helicopters, plus the experimental Messerschmitt 209. All of these were regarded as test aircraft, which the Soviets could then buy in quantity or build under license later - they vigorously denied that they intended to copy them.
On and on went the list of equipment, guns, machinery, instruments, other ships and shipbuilding gear, plus installations and plants for chemical and metallurgical processes, many of them highly secret.
In return, the Soviet Union agreed to provide an impressive list of materials including:
1,000,000 tons of feed grains and legumes
900,000 tons of petroleum
100,000 tons of cotton
500,000 tons of phosphates
100,000 tons of chromium ores
500,000 tons of iron ore
300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron
2400 kilograms of platinum
Manganese ore, metals, lumber, and numerous other raw materials.”
Read, Anthony and David Fisher. The Deadly Embrace. New York:
Norton, 1988, p. 442
“Behind the facade, however, Stalin was thinking very hard about the
situation. On the economic front, he was prepared to continue the friendship -
whatever it cost he had to have German tools and technology. He ordered Mikoyan
to take the breaks off the negotiations he was holding with Schnurre [a German
trade Representative]....”
Read, Anthony and David Fisher. The Deadly Embrace. New York: Norton, 1988, p. 536
3A CCCP!
Mikhail
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.