Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [SPLIT FROM CSG THREAD]

[Invader Zim]

This however, which strikes me as holocaust denial, is of worry: -

"Well in 1938 there was no auswitchs camp
so its not like i would of sided with a jew killing maniac [at the time]
i know you would of signed a pact with racist churchill
who killed more innocence then adollf ever did."

My emphasis.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1211019&postcount=14

[Pawn Power]

I think you have mis-read that PP. He said, "like we will kill them once we are in power". He is saying that he thinks the rest of us fear that he, and his fellow Stalinists, will kill us all should they come to power. He is not saying that he would like to, or will, kill us all rather that we are deluded into thinking that will occur.

That could be right... his prose are some times hard to decipher.


This however, which strikes me as holocaust denial, is of worry: -

"Well in 1938 there was no auswitchs camp
so its not like i would of sided with a jew killing maniac [at the time]
i know you would of signed a pact with racist churchill
who killed more innocence then adollf ever did."

My emphasis.


Yeah, that caught my eye as well. Good ol' adolf. :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

Indeed, I quite agree with him that Churchill is another of history's more unsavoury characters, but the assumption that Hitler's killing failed to surpass that of Churchill's is to deny the massive extent to which Hitler's regime committed mass-murder.

I am not sure he should be banned for that, I don't think he has the political and historical knowledge to comprehend the implications of his claims. Rather I think he should be PM'ed by an administrator or moderator and have it explained, in a kindly and friendly fashion, some basic historical and political realities. Indeed, perhaps that should be the task of one of his fellow Stalinists here on this board, as I doubt he will pay attention to the rest of us 'trotgoats'.

[Invader Zim]

Also:


Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1210984&postcount=9)

What the fuck? :blink:

After the death threat and the pro-Nazi bullshit I'm going to go ahead and Ban this piece of shit.

If anyone has a problem with it a poll should be added to this thread, but I doubt this will be necessary.

Well that quote, I think he is trying to say that it was justifiable for Stalin to have played his part in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and that if he were in the same position with his people to think of, he would likely have made the same decision. He also is attempting to point out that Stalin would not have known about the final solution, when the USSR signed the pact with nazi Germany, because the decision to impliment the final solution was not made until very late 1941 early 1942.

I think that is a case of inept wording from a non-English speaker, rather than an example of pro-Nazi sentiments.

As for his death threats, I become more convinced with each of his posts that he is likely to be a very young teenager at the oldest. He acts like a child, and makes childish comments and threats, because that is exactly what he is.

[bcbm]

He also is attempting to point out that Stalin would not have known about the final solution, when the USSR signed the pact with nazi Germany, because the decision to impliment the final solution was not made until very late 1941 early 1942.

Its a stupid argument though. The Nazis racist policies were no secret, especially after Kristallnacht.

[Comrade Rage]

Why has he already been banned? Why hasn't an admin stated that he has been banned and closed this thread? Last, but not least; why has he been banned without a poll?


Its a stupid argument though.I don't see how. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was signed in 1939. The final solution started in 1942.

Is Stalin supposed to predict the future or something?

Yes, Hitler's policies were dispicable, but the alliance was not Stalin's first choice. Stalin had attempted to engage the Western allies in an anti-fascist alliance, but they were too caught up in anti-Stalin propaganda to see the threat. Therefore Stalin had to make a pact with the monster Hitler in order to delay the inevitable, the inevitable being war with the 3rd Reich.

That's what diplomacy is. Most of the time it consists of forming non-aggression pacts with your enemies.

[Bilan]

Why has he already been banned? Why hasn't an admin stated that he has been banned and closed this thread? Last, but not least; why has he been banned without a poll?

I don't see how. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was signed in 1939. The final solution started in 1942.

Hitlers devout anti-semitism and, albeit vague and general threats of elimination of the Jews, were however well known. Hitler was also an admirer of Mussolini - The father of modern fascism in Europe.
Hitler had also supported the violent attacks, repression, and murder of thousands of communists in Germany.

Face it, Stalin sided with a fascist, and signed a non-aggression pact with one of the rising stars of fascism in Europe who'd also helped to crush the revolutionary forces in Spain.
I suppose Stalin did, too. :)

Stop apologising for this cretin.



Is Stalin supposed to predict the future or something?

Are you honestly trying to justify his actions?
I think if this is the case, you should be booted from the CC.



Yes, Hitler's policies were dispicable, but the alliance was not Stalin's first choice. Stalin had attempted to engage the Western allies in an anti-fascist alliance, but they were too caught up in anti-Stalin propaganda to see the threat. Therefore Stalin had to make a pact with the monster Hitler in order to delay the inevitable, the inevitable being war with the 3rd Reich.

That is pathetic apologist crap. Truly despicable.

[RHIZOMES]

I think if this is the case, you should be booted from the CC.

Are you fucking serious? Okay, a guy apologizing for Stalin trying to stop his country, the only bastion of socialism in the world at that point, from being overrun by fascists. He should be booted! :lol: Seriously, stop being so sectarian. All because you disagree with what Stalin did does not mean Brick, a good comrade who holds a different opinion on Stalin's pragmatism, should be booted.

[RHIZOMES]

Brick, like you, should know better than to be an agent of apologism for collaboration with fascism. I defended CSG because I was under the impression that the Stalinists here would be able to explain to him the folly of the views he was expressing, yet now it seems that those views are more entrenched on this board than had been previously considered, I must confess, it is a worry.

Fascism is horrible and I'm not apologizing for that. My view is Stalin only did that to deter the invasion of the Soviet Union as long as possible. I do remember reading somewhere that Stalin was actually secretly planning on attacking Hitler pre-emptively, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. You may disagree with that and that he should've done something else, but having the view that Stalin only did it to try and prevent his country from being overrun by fascists is not a bootable offense.

[Invader Zim]

My view is Stalin only did that to deter the invasion of the Soviet Union as long as possible.Ah, I guess the territorial gains had nothing to do with it.

I have no doubt that he did wish to buy time to restore the Red Army after he purged its officers and introduce modernisation, but the pact allowed the two regimes to divide Eastern Europe between them. And that is what you are defending.

[bcbm]

I don't see how. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was signed in 1939. The final solution started in 1942.

Is Stalin supposed to predict the future or something?

Read my post again.

The Nazis racist policies were no secret, especially after Kristallnacht.
especially after Kristallnacht
Kristallnacht

No need to predict the future, the present was clear enough. Or the past... the Nazis backing Franco was a pretty big hint.


Therefore Stalin had to make a pact with the monster Hitler in order to delay the inevitable, the inevitable being war with the 3rd Reich.

That's what diplomacy is. Most of the time it consists of forming non-aggression pacts with your enemies.

There is no logic in your statement. If he knew war was INEVITABLE, then that would mean Hitler would invade when he felt strong enough and discard the pact (as happened). But without the pact, why would Hitler invade before he felt strong enough? Doesn't hold up.

[Invader Zim]

Not that I like Stalin one inch, but the non-aggression pact was the result of the western allies' refusal to encounter the Soviet Union. Stalin was, like Nixon, a realist in terms of foreign policy. The Soviet Union wanted to secure itself from invasion, and gain more strategic depth/territory. Therefore, it made advances towards both the Allies and the Axis.

Both of these blocs were enemies of the Comintern, but the Germans were in a position to give the Soviet Union the benefits it wanted.

Stalin counted that Hitler was a realist like himself, but Hitler was a gambler, an adventurer and an idealist in the sphere of foreign policy.

I do not specifically condemn the non-aggression pact because the Soviet Union, as a state and a great power, was inclined to go down that way. And I do not condemn what states do because states are monsters anyway. It's quite futile to condemn breaches in human rights, because that is what states do the best, by their very nature.

The issue of the pact was that it was not only to ensure non-aggression, but so that the two powers could chop up Europe between each other.

[The Author]

The Non-Aggression Pact is not an example of collaboration with fascism, but of turning fascism against the same imperialists who encouraged the fascists to push east in the first place.

Now, this could have all been avoided if the leftist organizations who said "don't fight in the war" or "don't participate in the elections" (this includes the vast majority of Anarchists and Trotskyists as well as Communists) had actually bothered to fight for revolution in their own countries, fascism never would have risen in the first place. But seeing as how these organizations had no muscle, were filled with nothing but words and not deeds and reduced to the armchair of screaming loudly, but doing nothing, fascism grew stronger. Hence social-fascism: socialists in words, fascists in deeds. Everyone who complains about the Pact is being a hypocrite because their own "leftist" organizations did nothing or very little to fight fascism.

As for the claim about the re-division of Eastern Europe, it's complete bullshit. Poland invaded Belarus and Ukraine during the Civil War and occupied the western portions of their territories. Territories liberated in 1939.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think communists had any reason to fight in WW II. more than 100 million died in either the name of democracy or fascism. WW II was the same as WW I, an inter-imperialist war fired up by capitalist geopolitic. the only difference is that in the former, the USSR sided with the allies, pulling the whole comintern into the abyss.

[The Author]

The entire point of fascism was to crush or co-opt the left, and comrades from all stripes did everything they could to stop it. So why didn't they, then? Where was the resistance to the rising tide of fascism in the 1920s and early 1930s? How come fascism and authoritarian regimes sprung up in Italy, Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland just to name a few? "I'm not voting in parliament, that's a bourgeois institution, a statist institution! I don't care if it's a fascist or a social-democrat or a communist, it's all the same to me." How many people said that? How many people sat on the side and decided to do nothing, until it was too late?

Romanticism aside, there hardly was any serious resistance- just the usual petty squabbling characteristic among the left then just as it is now. Thanks to that, with a false consciousness and not a revolutionary one, the working class was seriously duped by fascism and manipulated until the fascists got total power. And that I consider a serious crime committed by all leftists of all tendencies- for failing the working class just when they needed the right kind of leadership at one of the most crucial points in history.


I don't think communists had any reason to fight in WW II.My point exactly. "It's not our fight, let the German and Russian bastards fight each other out! Never mind if their people get killed in the process, or what's at stake."

With this kind of logic, how can you put faith into leftist organizations that are poorly led and don't have the strength to rise up and overthrow these oppressive governments? Ultimately, one has to be a diplomat, and sign things they don't like, such as the Pact. Because there's no strong resistance or alternatives.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I don't think communists had any reason to fight in WW II. more than 100 million died in either the name of democracy or fascism. WW II was the same as WW I, an inter-imperialist war fired up by capitalist geopolitic. the only difference is that in the former, the USSR sided with the allies, pulling the whole comintern into the abyss.

IF the Soviets did not fight in WWII then the Nazis WOULD HAVE invaded the USSR. Learn history. Stop rephrasing bourgeois rhetoric.

RevLeft is a fucking joke. You guys claim to be "leftists" and you're all fucking pettybourgeois university kids who buy into cappie propaganda and believe "stalin was a murderer". I'd be happy to shoot all the Trot-hippies and anti-stalinkiddie fucks on this forum. You guys act like fucking privileged arseholes. You ***** and moan about the "stalinists" and you abuse your admin/mod powers but AT LEAST we have enough intelligence to recognize that any true revolutionary wouldn't be *****ing about Stalin, they'd be fighting the bourgeoisie, not promoting reformism. Revleft is a MAJOR fail.

BD edit: removed flame

[bcbm]

So why didn't they, then?You know sometimes when you try, you fail? It happens from time to time. In this case, rather spectacularly. A lot of it has to do with the counter-revolutions ignited in Italy and Germany that led to the fascists there gaining power and the crushing of the Spanish revolution at the hands of the left and the right. The fascists had the advantage of being backed by those in power and being allowed to basically get away with whatever they want while the Soviet allied CP were told to play it cool. That didn't work out so hot for anybody. Non-Stalin communists did attempt to resist but they were crushed for a number of reasons. Its completely wrong to say nothing was done however.


"I'm not voting in parliament, that's a bourgeois institution, a statist institution! I don't care if it's a fascist or a social-democrat or a communist, it's all the same to me." How many people said that? How many people sat on the side and decided to do nothing, until it was too late?The people who didn't support voting were the people actively challenging the fascists in the streets. Hell, the Edelweiss Piraten even managed to kick the shit out of the SS. But guess which parties were working electorally and said that the left just needed to "debate" with the fascists. Guess which parties were, even then, working together with the fascists on certain projects?

In Italy the antifascists formed a fucking armed group to deal with the threat of the blackshits- the Arditi del Popolo. But guess which group had access to state funds? And guess which parties wouldn't support them? There was also widespread organization in factories for insurrection and a general strike was even called... then called off by, again, guess who?


Romanticism aside, there hardly was any serious resistance- just the usual petty squabbling characteristic among the left then just as it is now.This is fairly true, although guess who was calling for a unified front in most cases? There were many failings and much squabbling and I'd like to see it end to. Kind of hard with people calling for me to be shot, you know?

----


RevLeft is a fucking joke. You guys claim to be "leftists" and you're all fucking pettybourgeois university kids who buy into cappie propaganda and believe "stalin was a murderer". I'd be happy to shoot all the Trot-hippies and anti-stalinkiddie fucks on this forum. You guys act like fucking privileged arseholes. You ***** and moan about the "stalinists" and you abuse your admin/mod powers but AT LEAST we have enough intelligence to recognize that any true revolutionary wouldn't be *****ing about Stalin, they'd be fighting the bourgeoisie, not promoting reformism. Revleft is a MAJOR fail.You don't know shit about me and forgive me for not wasting my time defending some dead asshole who is completely irrelevant to the working class, especially in the US. Go talk to some average workers in Milwaukee about Stalin and how great he is, see what happens. You'll get laughed out of the building, if not worse if they happen to be Polish workers. Hey, why don't you try it in the Polish Falcon, just for shits and giggles? You're a joke. You're a Soviet fetishist to the point of absurdity and have no idea what it takes to build anything and work with actual people. Here's a hint- a youtube full of soviet propaganda appeals to approximately NO ONE. There's no pointing in wasting time defending or anything about Stalin- we should be fighting the bourgeoisie.

And yet you want to shoot us (you're welcome to try, some of us liberals:rolleyes: are armed to)? how about instead of trolling and posting bullshit you just fuck off and don't let the door hit you on the way out? The fact that you'd shoot people who, really, don't disagree with you on much is also pretty telling. What sort of piece of shit revolutionary are you? Ah well, I suppose if shooting comrades worked for Stalin it works for you. Pathetic.

Gee, I'm pissy today.

[Comrade Rage]

Face it, Stalin sided with a fascist, and signed a non-aggression pact with one of the rising stars of fascism in Europe who'd also helped to crush the revolutionary forces in Spain.Siding with someone and signing a non-aggression pact are two different things.

A non-aggression pact isn't an alliance or anything of the sort. A non-aggression pact is simply a preemptive peace treaty. Stalin signed it because at the time, the USSR was unprepared to engage the fascists. He had to do it to buy time.

That is the way it is, you can't always physically engage the fascists, you have to wait until the right opportunity. I wish that Stalin had the military resources available to smash the fash before 1939, but the simple fact is that he didn't.

Stalin used the nonagression pact to further advance socialism, BTW. He stationed troops in the Baltic states and in Eastern Europe to slow the impending Nazi advance.

Are you fucking serious? Okay, a guy apologizing for Stalin trying to stop his country, the only bastion of socialism in the world at that point, from being overrun by fascists. He should be booted! :lol: Seriously, stop being so sectarian. All because you disagree with what Stalin did does not mean Brick, a good comrade who holds a different opinion on Stalin's pragmatism, should be booted.This.


I didn't ban him solely for the Nazi comment, I banned him because he threatened to kill someone.Sorry, I didn't see that.

However, I think he should have been suspended until the outcome of his poll, rather than an outright ban.

[black magick hustla]

My point exactly. "It's not our fight, let the German and Russian bastards fight each other out! Never mind if their people get killed in the process, or what's at stake."


I don't think you got what I said. I think WWII was an inter-imperialist war, and therefore communists should have tried to sabotage the effort. Germans and RUssians were killing each other too in WWI, but still what differed communists from spineless national chauvinists was that they opposed the war effort. I don't think communists should support workers being drafted to protect their bosses.

The only difference is that you consider the USSR under stalin a workers' state, I think it was state-capitalist.


You're an idiot.

I already answered your point above but I just want to say that you should buy some beers sometime because it seems you are a really sad and angry person.

[Bilan]

Siding with someone and signing a non-aggression pact are two different things.

In the context of the pact, no, it wasn't. Stalin had at that time being supporting the destruction of revolutionary movements - the most prominent in Spain - where Stalinists had murdered hundreds of anarchist leaders and Trotskyists.
In this case, he picked peace with fascism, which was subsequently crushing revolutionary uprisings everywhere (From Italy, to Spain, to Germany) as opposed to supporting working class revolutions.

The simply reality is that the nature of politics is that there are sides to it, and the treaties signed by politicians, regardless of how many hammers and sickles they wear on their outfits, determine that side; their actions place them, not their claim to ideology.
His actions put him in direct opposition to working class revolutions.

The non-aggression pact also allowed for the two to chop up Eastern Europe, and immediatley, Poland together.
That was certainly on the cards: land.



A non-aggression pact isn't an alliance or anything of the sort. A non-aggression pact is simply a preemptive peace treaty. Stalin signed it because at the time, the USSR was unprepared to engage the fascists. He had to do it to buy time.

Hitler was unprepared, too. Furthermore, it's not just the treaty. You're completely removing the treaty from its context, which removes any validity from your argument.
The actions which Stalin had taken in regards to socialism and revolutions in surrounding nations - Spain, Italy, Germany - determine what merit and motives he would have for signing the treaty.
They speak for themselves.



That is the way it is, you can't always physically engage the fascists, you have to wait until the right opportunity. I wish that Stalin had the military resources available to smash the fash before 1939, but the simple fact is that he didn't.

To be fair, he could've armed, and help arm, socialists fighting fascism in the early 30's (Germany) and 36 (Spain).
But I suppose it was better to just purge their leaders instead? :lol:

[Dimentio]

I do not think that Stalin saw the Soviet Union as a tool for the world revolution, but rather the other way around. The establishment of a socialist state in Germany would have meant that Stalin could have been overshadowed by a socialist leader who might have been too independent for his taste?