"A good book on the subject is Stalin's Wars by Geoffrey Roberts"
Thanks for the suggestion...I checked the reviews at Amazon Ismail. I have ordered the book. Since the opening of archives there must be other good books out there too. This paragraph from a reviewer interested me....
"This book is a very useful corrective to myths about the Second World War and the Cold War. It shows how the Soviet Union played a key role in winning the World War, defeating more than 75% of Hitler's divisions. As President Roosevelt said, "The Russian armies are killing more Axis personnel and destroying more Axis material than all the other twenty-five United Nations put together."
Quote:
Because, as Molotov notes in his memoirs, the Soviets expected the Germans to attack one year later than they did, and this was before the fall of France. Before that the Soviets thought that the German proletariat would rise up as the Nazi army got bogged down fighting France, and thus the Soviets would more or less effortlessly move onwards and take Berlin in an offensive operation.
A good book on the subject is Stalin's Wars by Geoffrey Roberts.
Because he suspected them of being Nazi agents or at the very least wanting to overthrow the government.
On every one of your posts you have listed atleast one book/source. You're pretty damn well-read.
By looking at your posts, and knowing that you know so much about Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha, that I wouldn't be surprised if you knew how many corn kernels were in a shit that Stalin took in 1941.
Quote:
On every one of your posts you have listed atleast one book/source. You're pretty damn well-read.
By looking at your posts, and knowing that you know so much about Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha, that I wouldn't be surprised if you knew how many corn kernels were in a shit that Stalin took in 1941.
Didn't you know? Ismail knows
everything... :p
Quote:
Then why were they so woefully unprepared when operation Barborossa commenced? Why did Stalin purge his whole officer corps in the late 30's? Why were millions of troops encircled? Why didn't they have a decent plane? Why were they on a peacetime footing when the shit hit the fan, with all their plans grounded in neat little rows? They had a huge army, I'll give you that, but it took two years until after they were invaded for it to become ready to fight the Nazis. From 1943-on they whooped-ass, but they certainly weren't very prepared in 1941.
The USSR sent thousands of I-15 and I-16 Polikarpovs to supply the Republicans in the Spanish civil war. Many Russian pilots fought in that war. The heads of the Soviet military quickly found out that the Polikarpovs were no match for the German BF-109's and changed their strategy to build ground-attack planes, like the IL-2 Sturmovik instead. The change-over decision was made less than one-year before Hitler attacked.
The Soviets were not in a peacetime mode, like you state, they were building and preparing as quickly as possible. Stalin was smart enough to recognize that the Russian winter would quickly decimate the Nazis, as Hitler was so determined to capture Moscow and rule the whole USSR, he left his forward troops without any backup logistics. The Russian winter cost the Wehrmacht heavy losses as it did Napoleons troops.
Quote:
The USSR never annexed Finland,what are you talking about?
I'm talking about the USSR invading Finland in 1939, annexing 11% of it's territory and much of its economic resources, commonly known as the "Winter War" of 1939/30, where Finnish troops held off the massive Red Army for many months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Quote:
The USSR sent thousands of I-15 and I-16 Polikarpovs to supply the Republicans in the Spanish civil war. Many Russian pilots fought in that war. The heads of the Soviet military quickly found out that the Polikarpovs were no match for the German BF-109's and changed their strategy to build ground-attack planes, like the IL-2 Sturmovik instead. The change-over decision was made less than one-year before Hitler attacked.
The Soviets were not in a peacetime mode, like you state, they were building and preparing as quickly as possible. Stalin was smart enough to recognize that the Russian winter would quickly decimate the Nazis, as Hitler was so determined to capture Moscow and rule the whole USSR, he left his forward troops without any backup logistics. The Russian winter cost the Wehrmacht heavy losses as it did Napoleons troops.
Yeah, Hitler was incedibly stupid, and didn't bother providing Wermacht troops with winter clothing, History repeats itself. But I have a hard time believing the non-aggression pact was just a gambit to buy more time to arm, rather than a move to gobble up territory. I mean, they were sharing rifles. And the winter didn't just decimate all the German troops while the soviets sat there in the snow warm and laughing. Look at the siege of Leningrad. That victory was due as much to the civilians than the army.
I giggle everytime I see a Trot call out Stalin (or any Stalinist for that matter) for his overly authoritarian practices. Do you really think your fearless leader (dictator) wouldn't have done the same thing?
Quote:
I giggle everytime I see a Trot call out Stalin (or any Stalinist for that matter) for his overly authoritarian practices. Do you really think your fearless leader (dictator) wouldn't have done the same thing?
Sorry, where is "The Trotsky Thread 2: All discussion about Trotsky (as a person) in this thread please."
Quote:
Sorry, where is "The Trotsky Thread 2: All discussion about Trotsky (as a person) in this thread please."
I get it... your a Trotskyist.
Quote:
Yeah, Hitler was incedibly stupid, and didn't bother providing Wermacht troops with winter clothing, History repeats itself. But I have a hard time believing the non-aggression pact was just a gambit to buy more time to arm, rather than a move to gobble up territory. I mean, they were sharing rifles. And the winter didn't just decimate all the German troops while the soviets sat there in the snow warm and laughing. Look at the siege of Leningrad. That victory was due as much to the civilians than the army.
Right but the battle of Stalingrad shows what the winter can do in the Russian steppes if you're not prepared. Not to downplay the courage of the Soviet soldiers as well.
Quote:
I'm talking about the USSR invading Finland in 1939, annexing 11% of it's territory and much of its economic resources, commonly known as the "Winter War" of 1939/30, where Finnish troops held off the massive Red Army for many months:
The USSR invaded Finland because it was refusing to lease ports which the Soviets feared would be used by the Germans to attack Leningrad. The Finnish negotiators actually backed the Soviet requests, but the anti-communist government did not. So Stalin offered a proposal more acceptable to the Finns. The Finnish negotiators thought that was even better, but the government still said no.
After the invasion the Soviets evidently viewed Finland as a pro-German state and wanted to make sure that if it tried to go to war again (note that the Finns claimed Karelia) the Soviets would be in a better position to spar with them.
Quote:
But I have a hard time believing the non-aggression pact was just a gambit to buy more time to arm, rather than a move to gobble up territory.
It was both. The USSR got the Baltics (although Hitler didn't like it when Soviet troops moved into Lithuania, which Nazi Germany had designs on), Bessarabia and western Byelorussia and Ukraine (aka eastern Poland.) This allowed for the USSR to be in a better military position for when the Nazis did invade.
Quote:
I giggle everytime I see a Trot call out Stalin (or any Stalinist for that matter) for his overly authoritarian practices. Do you really think your fearless leader (dictator) wouldn't have done the same thing?
Yes, I don't. If you look at Trotsky's behavior when he was out of power, from about 1924 on, you will see a pattern of behavior very different from that of Stalin. You will see a man who was a great revolutionary desperately trying to keep the revolutionary spirit alive in the USSR, and the, when all was lost, trying to build a new international.
And for this Stalin had an ice pick put in his brain.
RED DAVEI think Stalin should have been kept on display in the mausoleum.
Quote:
The USSR invaded Finland because it was refusing to lease ports which the Soviets feared would be used by the Germans to attack Leningrad. The Finnish negotiators actually backed the Soviet requests, but the anti-communist government did not. So Stalin offered a proposal more acceptable to the Finns. The Finnish negotiators thought that was even better, but the government still said no
During WWIII Churchill seriously contemplated invading Ireland to secure the use of the strategically important Treaty Ports. An offer was even supposedly made to exchange Northern Ireland for the ports. This was refused by Dublin. Do you believe that Britain would have justified in invading Ireland and forcibly annexing the lands it desired?
Quote:
During WWIII Churchill seriously contemplated invading Ireland to secure the use of the strategically important Treaty Ports. An offer was even supposedly made to exchange Northern Ireland for the ports. This was refused by Dublin. Do you believe that Britain would have justified in invading Ireland and forcibly annexing the lands it desired?
If it was in the context of WWII, yes.
Of course the USSR gave back the territories it did annex after WWII had ended.
The archives make it clear that the Soviets had no imperial ambitions. They thought that Finland would align with the Germans (as it did) and that the Germans would use Finland as a base to attack Leningrad.
Quote:
If it was in the context of WWII, yes
Well at least you're consistent in your support of imperialist empires
The right of nations to self-determination supposes that nations have 'political independence' and 'state self-determination' from their former imperial masters. This is not the same as 'independence unless a good deal is offered for territory' or 'independence until an imperialist power fears for its security'. Self-determination means, can only mean, that the choice of whether to accept the Soviet ultimatum lay with Finland alone. This was not Moscow's decision to make
Quote:
Of course the USSR gave back the territories it did annex after WWII had ended
Really? I'm sure you can explain this because to the uneducated eye it appears that Russia continues to occupy Karelia. No doubt Moscow continues to fear that the Finns might try to take Petersburg :rolleyes:
Quote:
The right of nations to self-determination supposes that nations have 'political independence' and 'state self-determination' from their former imperial masters. This is not the same as 'independence unless a good deal is offered for territory' or 'independence until an imperialist power fears for its security'. Self-determination means, can only mean, that the choice of whether to accept the Soviet ultimatum lay with Finland alone. This was not Moscow's decision to make
Of course as Trotsky once said, "We do not only recognize, but we also give full support to the principle of self-determination, wherever it is directed against feudal, capitalist and imperialist states. But wherever the fiction of self-determination, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, becomes a weapon directed against the proletarian revolution, we have no occasion to treat this fiction differently from the other 'principles' of democracy perverted by capitalism."
The Bolsheviks granted Finland self-determination. The USSR's proposals to have some ports leased to it did not infringe upon the national rights of the Finnish people. Again, the actual negotiators accepted the Soviet proposals, only the reactionary government did not.
Quote:
I'm sure you can explain this because to the uneducated eye it appears that Russia continues to occupy Karelia.
I meant to say the leased ports, although the Karelian people did have their own SSR until the advent of Khrushchev. Early on the Bolsheviks also considered transferring the whole Karelian region in general to the Finns on the conclusion of a socialist revolution, but obviously that didn't happen.
A denial of the holodomor on the first page. Great thread guys. Not unlike the denial of the holocaust on Stormfront, really.
Quote:
The Bolsheviks granted Finland self-determination. The USSR's proposals to have some ports leased to it did not infringe upon the national rights of the Finnish people. Again, the actual negotiators accepted the Soviet proposals, only the reactionary government did not
No, it was the invasion by the Red Army that violated Finland's sovereignty and made a mockery of any Soviet lip service to the right of self-determination. This was the naked aggression of a Great Power against a small former colonial subject. But hey, you're already okay with such a scenario in the case of Ireland/Britain... all in the defence of Churchill's proletarian revolution of course
And frankly what the Finnish negotiators thought is entirely irrelevant
Quote:
I meant to say the leased ports, although the Karelian people did have their own SSR until the advent of Khrushchev
"The Karelian people" being Russians who settled in the area in the post-war period. They don't speak Finnish in Vyborg any more
Quote:
No, it was the invasion by the Red Army that violated Finland's sovereignty and made a mockery of any Soviet lip service to the right of self-determination.
It violated Finland's sovereignty just to go to war? That's an odd definition and conflation of sovereignty and national self-determination.
Quote:
And frankly what the Finnish negotiators thought is entirely irrelevant
Yet what the bourgeois rulers thought was not? The same bourgeois rulers who literally praised Hitler as a "genius" (such as Ryti)? The same leaders who called on Mannerheim, who butchered countless workers during the Finnish Civil War, to take the helm of the state against the dreaded communist menace?
Quote:
"The Karelian people" being Russians who settled in the area in the post-war period. They don't speak Finnish in Vyborg any more
Er, no, Karelians have been around since medieval times. Obviously lots of Russians came in after the war, but still. The Karelo-Finnish SSR of 1940-1956 was based on the Karelian ASSR set up in 1923.
Quote:
A denial of the holodomor on the first page. Great thread guys. Not unlike the denial of the holocaust on Stormfront, really.
No one denies that the Ukrainian famine happened.
Quote:
It violated Finland's sovereignty just to go to war? That's an odd definition and conflation of sovereignty and national self-determination
Yes, invading another country in a war of aggression is, by definition, a violation of both a nation's sovereignty and right to self-determination
Quote:
Yet what the bourgeois rulers thought was not? The same bourgeois rulers who literally praised Hitler as a "genius" (such as Ryti)? The same leaders who called on Mannerheim, who butchered countless workers during the Finnish Civil War, to take the helm of the state against the dreaded communist menace?
All of which is true. I guess it's a good thing then that the decision was taken on behalf of the Finnish people by Russians in Moscow. Because the Soviet Politburo was much better placed to make a decision regarding the borders of Finland than any Finnish government, right?
You really should listen to yourself sometime
Quote:
Er, no, Karelians have been around since medieval times. Obviously lots of Russians came in after the war, but still
A lot of Russians came in after the previous Karelians fled, never to return, during the war. Had the Soviet government not decided to invade and annex Karelia then the ethnic composition of the region would be very different today
Quote:
No one denies that the Ukrainian famine happened.
Lot's of people deny that the Soviet government played any role in it. An act of God is the current excuse