Smilin' Dave wrote:For reference I'm using Google Translate for speed - I can read Russian but am still very slow when doing so.
Thanks for admitting that you do not have a sufficient command of Russian!
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:Hitler invaded on 1st September Poland, on 3d September UK and France declared war on Germany. Stalin told the Comintern leaders on 7th September 1939: "There is a war between two groups of capitalist countries (rich capitalists, like UK and Frnace, who have a lot of colonies and resources, and the poor Germany) who fight for their spheres of influence. It is in our interest that the Capitalists weaken each others. Hitler is good for us, he weakens the most rich capitalist countries (especially England)
Smilin' Dave wrote:It seems odd that Meltyukhov would use a speech to the Comintern as evidence seeing as elsewhere in his text he dismisses official pronouncements by the Soviet leadership as indicative of true policy.
Well, the only thing that matters is that there was such a speech, and that Meltyukhov quoted this speech.
Smilin' Dave wrote: This statement of Stalin was repeated by Mekhlis on 10. November 1939. "The actions of Germany is in our interests. Hitler weakens the British Empire. If this Empire falls, then this will lead to the destruction of the entire capitalist system".
----
It is perhaps of note that Meltyukhov's reference for this (endnotes 1348 and 1349) isn't a primary source but a text by another historian. I raise this because:
So what? Do you believe that if the statement of Mekhlis was not in agreement with the policy of Stalin, the Mekhlis could survive this blunder?
Smilin' Dave wrote:- You claimed Meltyukhov was the be all and end all as his 'revelations' come from research in secret archives. Yet it seems in many cases he is just repeating the work of others.
In some cases he is repeating the work of others, but he has a brain and he can connect the dots. Most "Embedded Historians" do not have this ability, or they just suppress this ability.
Smilin' Dave wrote:- Without knowing the original source of the information we should be cautious in endorsing the veracity of the quote. Do we really know this is exactly what Stalin told Lev Mekhlis? A lot of references for discussions in this period end up being sourced from hearsay.
Was Meltyukhov accused of misquoting somebody, or were historians he is quoting, accused of such things? What is your point?
Smilin' Dave wrote:The comment by Stalin only mentions the destruction of the capitalist system, nowhere does it suggest Stalin plans to make this happen himself.
Yes, Stalin and his colleagues believed that Capitalists must start another big war with each others (like WWI), and then this would be a good opportunity to finish ALL the capitalists, who weakened each others in an exhausting war.
That was in full harmony with the teachings of the "great Lenin".
Smilin' Dave wrote:In fact in contrast to that notion Stalin has apparently claimed he will ally with the British Empire to fight Nazi Germany at some later date. Are you telling me Stalin was going to ally with a capitalist power to undermine them by defeating their enemy?
Stalin told that the Soviets shall support both sides of the conflict, so they weaken each others, and after that he will finish all capitalists, the really fat, like UK, and the poor capitalists, like Germany, too.
And that is precisely what he to some extend did after WWII.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Finally in 1941 the Soviets did join the Allies. Was that indicative of a plan to destroy capitalism?
Yes, of course!
He destroyed capitalism in half of Europe, that was a great sucess, and after 1945 the war with Capitalism was not finished. The Cold War started, and the Capitalists had to rearm what was left of Germany in order to prevent the further expansion of Communism.
So if somebody was a fool in WWII, then this was UK and Churchill.
From the point of view of Stalin (before WWII) Hitler was not the worst capitalist, Hitler was the leader of an impoverished Germany that was more ready for acceptance of Communism, than the rich UK.
Stalin was after the fat ass of Churchill and his western colleagues, that was his final goal.
The idiot Churchill could not understand that, and he allied with Stalin.
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:The final struggle between socialism and capitalism is inevitable. The goal of the foreign policy of the USSR is to create all conditions for the victory of socialism.
Smilin' Dave wrote:If you are going to 'translate' I suggest you do it properly and in full - it was obvious you were 'summarising', your text was 1/3rd the length. It actually comes out as:
I have omitted the unimportant details.
Soviet foreign policy comes from the indisputable proposition that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union - its special funds [I think maybe the intended term is 'resources' here] to provide all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who is who" on an international scale "
Your translation is wrong, they do not talk about "proposition", they talk about the actual position.
"Внешняя политика СССР исходит из того непререкаемого положения, что столкновение между миром социализма и миром капитализма неизбежно. Основная цель внешней политики СССР — своими особыми средствами обеспечить все необходимые предпосылки для победоносного решения вопроса "кто кого" в международном масштабе".
The Soviet foreign policy is derived from the indisputable position, that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is to provide with their own special means all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who will destroy whom" on an international scale.And here is the shorter version of this:
The final struggle between socialism and capitalism is inevitable. The goal of the foreign policy of the USSR is to create all conditions for the victory of socialism.No difference, but your translation was a total distortion of the original Russian text.
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:Zhdanov told on 15. Mai 1941 "If we will get the opportunity, we will expand the the front of socialism".
Smilin' Dave wrote:Here you do it again. It actually says
On the May 15 Zhdanov at the meeting of film workers in the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), "if the circumstances allow us, we will continue to expand the front of socialism"
So what is the difference? He said what he said.
"если обстоятельства нам позволят, то мы и дальше будем расширять фронт социализма"
Smilin' Dave wrote:"If circumstances allow" isn't exactly a sign of a deliberate plan.
The plan was to wait for a good opportunity and then finish the fat capitalists, like Churchill.
Nothing misleading about this, they didn't know the exact timing, but their goal was already articulated, and they were militarily prepared for finishing the Capitalism and "freeing" (speak enslaving) the entire Europe.
What circumstances was he taking about? Well, they were afraid that Chruchill and Hitler could reach an agreement, and then the opportunity would be lost.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Once again it should also be pointed out 'expanding the front' isn't strictly a reference to war, invasion etc. Indeed it could have been a reference to the previous policy of the Popular Front.
How else could they expand the "front of socialism"?
Are you kidding?
If Stalin told Churchill "We are going to expand the front of Socialism to the British Islands", what would be the reaction of Churchill?
And it is obvious from the other quotes that Stalin and his colleagues agreed with Lenin, who predicted that a big war between capitalists countries will be the best opportunity to finish ALL capitalists.
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:Kalinin told on 5th June 1941: "War is the best opportunity to increase the sphere of Communism".
Smilin' Dave wrote:Firstly Kalinin had no real role in policy formulation...
If Kalinin said something that would not 100% represent the opinion of Stalin, then he would be finished without any big trial. It is silly to believe that there was a "pluralism of opinions" in the former SU, especially in the SU, ruled by Stalin.
Smilin' Dave wrote: Secondly given the timing of the quote wouldn't this tend to indicate that even in the month of Barbarossa being imminent, that the Soviet government was still debating policy?
They (Stalin and his cohorts) could not believe that Hitler would be so stupid and give them the "casus belli", committing a political suicide, launching the first strike against the SU.
Stalin was more intelligent and more cunning, than Hitler.
He knew, that if Hitler launches the first strike, then the UK will have to side with Stalin, and Hitler will be waging a war on many fronts with an adversary who has an astronomical superiority in military forces and resources.
Hitler had no chance winning a war against the SU without the help of the "fat Capitalists", and Stalin knew that.
If Stalin launched the first strike against Germany, then the situation would be different.
In this case the UK could have rather supported the Third Reich, or they would have continued their "phony war".
After the Brits rejected the proposal of Rudolf Hess, Stalin could be sure that the big war between capitalists is inevitable:
Meltyukhov suggests that the assault on Germany was initially planned to take place on June 12, 1941, but was postponed because the Soviet leadership feared an Anglo-German reconciliation against the Soviet Union after the flight of Rudolf Hess on May 12, 1941.[16]
The basis for this assumption is revealed by Molotov's recollection 40 years later in a conversation with Russian journalist Ivan Stadnyuk: "I don't remember all the motives for cancelling this decision, but it seems to me that Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess' flight to England played the main role there. The NKVD reconnaissance reported to us, that Hess on behalf of Hitler had proposed the United Kingdom to conclude peace and to participate in the military march against the USSR... If we at this time would have unleashed ourselves a war against Germany, would have moved forces to Europe, then England could have entered the alliance with Germany without any delay... And not only England. We could have been face to face with the entire capitalist world".[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_Missed_Chance
Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain during World War Two to sign a peace deal ordered by Adolf Hitler has long been recorded as a bizarre one man mission to try and reconcile warring West Europe and the Nazis.
But the high-ranking Nazi was actually carrying out orders from the Fuhrer when he flew to Messerschmitt to Scotland in May 1941.
He was to offer the British government a deal that would see Germany pull out of Western Europe - so long as the fascists could attack the USSR without intervention.
But historian Peter Padfield has discovered evidence he claims proves that the deputy Fuhrer held a detailed peace treaty.
It proposed that the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe, in exchange for British neutrality over a planned attack on Russia, the Daily Telegraph reported.
...
But despite the offer, Churchill's morals were not swayed by the offer.
He refused to allow the Third Reich a clear path to attack the Eastern Front - because he did not trust Hitler's promises and it would have jeopardised his efforts to involve the U.S in the raging war, Mr Padfield says.
The author claims the Prime Minister was determined to beat Hitler and he did not want to destroy a coalition of European governments, so the offer was not made public.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sians.html
Vital files on Hess have been weeded out or remain closed, and we are unlikely to ever know the full truth. Until we do, this grippingly readable book gives the fullest and most convincing exposition of one of the 20th century’s strangest stories.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... eview.html
So this was like a poker game, and Hitler lost his nerves, he made the first move. Why?
This may be the clue:
Why Hess dropped in
A new theory suggests the odd flight of Hitler's deputy was a plot to oust Churchill and end the war. Roy Hattersley on a historical detective story from Martin Allen
Even when Winston Churchill succeeded Chamberlain there were still hopes in the Berlin High Command that the appeasement faction in Britain would organise a successful coup and install a Prime Minister who was prepared to sue for peace. According to Allen, the Nazis were reinforced in that judgment by the occasional (and invariably unsuccessful) attempts to carry a parliamentary vote of no confidence in Churchill's coalition government. If that is so, we can only conclude that Hitler and his cronies had no idea how the House of Commons worked.
British intelligence did, however, recognise how susceptible the Germans were to the notion that Churchill's strategy of blood, sweat and tears had not been wholeheartedly accepted in Westminster and Whitehall. Berlin, it was thought, assumed that Sir Samuel Hoare, a Cabinet Minister in Chamberlain's government whom Churchill had made Ambassador to Spain, had been 'banished' by the new Prime Minister because his loyalty was suspect. The scene was set for Hoare to at least feed the Germans' suspicion. Allen (a distinguished exponent of the 'it is reasonable to assume' school of historical analysis) believes, but admits he cannot prove, that Hoare met Hess in Madrid. From then on the reader is fed a series of plausible assumptions made more convincing by the details with which they are justified.
During Hess's preparations for bed on the night before he flew to Britain he noticed that his wife was reading the Duke of Hamilton's account of flying over Everest. It was, the author assures us, an unlikely coincidence. 'Hess himself had been looking at it, left it out, and Ilse had subsequently picked it up.' Ergo, the plan to drop in on the Duke of Hamilton had been carefully prepared and the location of his arrival in Scotland precisely determined in advance.
On the basis of that quality of circumstantial evidence Allen comes to his novel conclusion that Hess and Hitler were duped by British intelligence into believing that something called the Hoare-Halifax Pact had been created, and that the plotters were preparing to depose Churchill and end the war.
The object of the complicated exercise was to persuade Hitler that Britain was no longer a threat and that he could invade Russia without fearing that the Wehrmacht would be forced to fight on two fronts. Hess, according to the Allen thesis, flew into Britain just to make sure that everything was going according to what he believed to be the plan.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/m ... s.features
So if Stalin had received from the British Secret Service the true information about the intentions of the GB, and Hitler was fooled into believing that he will get a support from the GB, then everything fells into its place and makes sense.
Hitler launched the first strike because he knew that Stalin has a plan to attack the Third Reich, and Hitler believed that the Brits will have no objection against "strangling Bolshevism in its cradle".
Stalin could not imagine that the military skills of the Wehrmacht is qualitatively so superior to the Red Army, who had a huge quantitative superiority, and that the losses of the Red Army in the first month of the war would be so huge.
But, on the long run, the assessments and predictions of Stalin were right, and the assessments and predictions of the gullible, desperate and very nervous Hitler were wrong.
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:To the end of Mai 1941 the Soviets printed for all soldiers a German-Russian phrasebook, this phrasebook should help the Soviet soldiers to liberate (speak to enslave) Germany.
Smilin' Dave wrote:If you care going to translate, I suggest you avoid editorialisng - it just makes you look even more biased. Nowhere does Meltyukhov mention enslavement
Did I tell that Meltyukhov talked about enslavement?
действовать среди немецкоязычного населения и облегчить тем самым "освободительную миссию"
Melthykhovs puts the "liberation mission" of the Soviet Army in quotation marks. Do you know what the quotation marks mean in this context?
It is obvious that the Soviet Army planed to invade Germany, and liberate the Germans from capitalists.
"Liberation" means in the Soviet Newsoeak "enslavement".
Or do you really believe that the Soviet Army liberated East Europe from the oppression of Capitalists?
Yes or no?At the end of May - beginning of June 1941 was published in great quantities and sent troops to the western border districts "Russian-German phrase book for the soldier and junior commander", the content of which was to help the Soviet soldiers [450] act of the German-speaking population and thus facilitating "mission of liberation".
В конце мая — начале июня 1941 г. огромным тиражом был издан и отправлен в войска западных приграничных округов "Русско-немецкий разговорник для бойца и младшего командира", содержание которого должно было помочь советским воинам [450] действовать среди немецкоязычного населения и облегчить тем самым "освободительную миссию"Here is the word by word translation:
At the end of May - beginning of June 1941 was published the "Russian-German phrase book for the soldier and junior commander". This phrasebook got a huge circulation, and the content of this phrasebook had to help the Soviet soldiers, dislocated on the western border districts , to act among the German-speaking population, facilitating their "mission of liberation".Smilin' Dave wrote:Given there were German speakers in the Baltic states ...
There were no significant numbers of German speakers in the Baltic States, and ALL of them could speak Russian.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Soviet soliders might be called on to speak to German soldiers on their new border, this isn't actually proof of an intent to invade.
You have made my day!
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:The main goal of USSR was to expand the "front of Socialism" as much as possible. The Soviet government believed that the current situation is good for the achievement of this goal. German occupation of Europe, dispersion of the forces of Wehrmacht over a huge territory, the increasing discontent of the population of the occupied territory, the increasing conflict between the USA and Japan - all this gives the USSR the unique chance to launch a surprise attack against Germany and "liberate" Europe from capitalism.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Meltyukhov doesn't refer to the 'entire Europe' in his conclusion of chapter 11, just like he doesn't make reference to enslavement. So I've removed those from your translation.
I have never said that Meltyukhov talked about enslavement, he talked about "liberation" in quotation marks.
It is obviously that if somebody puts the text in brackets (say enslavement(, then he had no intention to say that this were the words of the original text.
Here is the original text:
...это давало советскому руководству уникальный шанс внезапным ударом разгромить Германию и "освободить" Европу от "загнивающего капитализма".
"... this gives the Soviet leadership the unique chance to launch a surprise attack on Germany and "liberate" Europe from "decadent Capitalism".So he was talking about "liberating" Europe from capitalism. Not parts of Europe, but Europe.
Sorry, Smilin' Dave, but your hairsplitting cannot disprove the obvious intentions of the criminal Soviet Regime.
If you believe that Stalin really "liberated" half of Europe from capitalism, then there is no use to continue the discussion.
Smilin' Dave wrote:I disagree with Meltyukhov's conclusion here ....
Who cares? You claimed that Meltyukhov debunked Rezun's theory, but in reality Rezun gets more and more confirmation.,
Smilin' Dave wrote: It could also have been a reference to the annexation of the Baltic states, Bessarabia/North Bukovina and the war with Finland.
And that is why they had printed the German-Russian phrasebook?
BTW, the Baltic States were already "liberated" at this point of time.
Smilin' Dave wrote:In fact if we go back earlier in the chapter we find a quote from Zhdanov characterisng 'offensive policy' not in terms of a new war, but in terms of the previous offensives against eastern Poland and Finland (endnote 1417).
I really feel sorry for you. You do not have the sufficient command of Russian, and your google-Translation is misleading,
You have to translate this sentence, that explains the following quotes:
Все это лишний раз подтверждает тот факт, что так называемая "миролюбивая внешняя политика СССР" являлась не более чем пропагандистской кампанией, под прикрытием которой советское руководство стремилось обеспечить наиболее благоприятные условия для "сокрушения капитализма" военным путем.
I will not translate anything, I am fed up with your hair-splitting.
Do the translation yourself, or ask somebody who can speak Russian for an adequate translation.
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:One of the main motives, why Germany decided to attack the USSR, was anticommunist ideology. National Socialists believed that they are the only force that can stop the expansion of communism. The National Socialists managed to destroy communism in Germany and on the occupied territory of Europe, and they believed that that is their duty to destroy the head quarters of communist propaganda, which were in Moscow.
Smilin' Dave wrote:This totally contradicts your position - that Hitler was planning a pre-emptive strike.
He was launching a pre-emptive strike, and I could prove this with my quotes.
Yes, he had the intention to destroy the headquarters of Bolshevism in Moscow, but Churchill had similar intentions.
Churchill was a staunch advocate of foreign intervention, declaring that Bolshevism must be "strangled in its cradle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Ch ... tics:_1900–1939
As we see, Hitler and Churchill agreed on this issues, they had the same intentions.
To have an intention and to have a real plan to do this - that are different things. If you do not have the strength, then your intentions are null and void.
With other words: Hitler could have any chance to strangled Bolshevism in its cradle, if UK would not mind it.
The attack against the SU was just a desperate attack, in the hope, that the UK will (despite their verbal declaration) not intervene and not prevent the destruction of Bolshevism in its cradle, which was a miscalculation.
Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:Stalin wants to take advantage of the problems of impoverished Europe, he needs a success, he is pressing towards the West. Stalin can understand that after German's victory in Europe, he will be in a very bad situation.
Smilin' Dave wrote:You want want to clarify that you are quoting Hitler here.
So what? He agrees with the quoted text.
The gigantic territory of Russia has huge natural reserves.
Germany must have an economical and political dominance over these territories, but not annex them.
ArtAlim wrote:And Meltyukhov quotes a German source according to which the Third Reich wanted to increase the sphere of influence and have a political and economic dominion over some parts of Russian territory, but has no intention to annex these territories.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Wow a single statement by the Germans stating that they totally didn't plan to annex Eastern Europe.
Are you sure that this is a single statement?
Smilin' Dave wrote:Too bad Hitler was laying out plans for this as far back as 1937 in the Hossbach Memorandum. There is also the matter of the documents comprising 'Generalplan Ost' compiled 1939-1941...
Can you quote these documents? I mean the original documents, not the "testimonies" of "witnesses".
Smilin' Dave wrote:You didn't prove all that reliable and it seems wat0n has had similar issues with your translations in the past as well.
Wat0n does not speak German, and you do not speak Russian.
Who are you to tell me what translation is good?
ArtAlim wrote:There was an official Soviet plan to attack Germany before Germany attacked the USSR
Smilin' Dave wrote:Which is totally different to what you have been claiming.
Only in your imagination!
Smilin' Dave wrote:Go back and read your nonsense about the 'evil empire' and planning to invade all Europe as part of an ideological crusade.
Well, that is what Meltyhkhov sais in his book. They planned to invade Europe, and the "big war between capitalists" was a good opportunity to fulfil their palns for the destruction of capitalism.
ArtAlim wrote:Not on the soil that produced grain for the export, and not in this huge amounts.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Ah so suddenly maybe it wasn't "virgin land" but it just wasn't relevant because not enough work was being done.
It WAS Virgin Land, and it WAS relevant.
ArtAlim wrote:Yes, please do this.
Smilin' Dave wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 920-38.jpg
This map even appears on super duper German Wikipedia so it must be good
So what can you see on this map?
This is the map of Czecho-Slovakia, you talked about the "Czech Republic".
I have told you that there was not "Czech Republic" back in 1938.
The artificial creation, called Czecho-Slovakia, was an evil empire that subjugated its minorities. The Czechs subjugated the Slovaks and the Germans. That is why this empire collapsed in 1938. It was re-animated after WWII, but collapsed again after the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
Smilin' Dave wrote:If you can't see why calls for a referendum that clearly have insufficent popular support would be a waste of time ....
That is a ridiculous statement that does not make any sense. If the Poles were sure that they would profit from a referendum, why should they oppose it?
You talk like a dictator who rejects any voting as "waste of time". This right was reserved by the international law, and the League of Nation violated the principles it was verbally advocating.
The League of Nation was ruled by pathetic liars and hypocrits, like it is today the case with the UNO.
ArtAlim wrote:I have repeated many times that this was the policy of the Weimar Republic
Smilin' Dave wrote:Ah so the policy of the Weimar Republic was also immoral and hypocritical?
Is sticking to the international law and the declared principles of the League of Nations immoral and hypocritical?
ArtAlim wrote:Hitler had just to continued this policy, nothing else.
Smilin' Dave wrote:Not according to Mein Kampf.
I do not know what you are talking about, because I cannot read this book.
It is prohibited in today very free Germany.
BTW, this book was written in the Weimar Republic.
Well, I can see that you are not interested in a free and honest discussion, you have already sent me a warning, and that speaks volumes!
_________________________________________________________________________________
"I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them".
J. Stein