Red line for WWII? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By fuser
#14315364
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:In the 1930s France would never trust Germany and conversely Germany would never trust France. It's inconceivable that France would do nothing faced with an expansionist Germany regardless of whether German priority was the east. Hence, German military strategy always involved neutralising the French threat. Hitler himself knew, and said as much as early as the 20s, that it would be necessary to deal with France before attacking the Soviet Union. Even without a declaration of war by France at the time Germany would have expected France to exploit any German weakness.

Apart from Alsace Lorraine it should be noted that Hitler is known to have called Burgundy a German province, too. One of the richest and most beautiful German provinces, in fact.


Fixed. Oh, and I agree with this post completely now.
By Rich
#14315448
What one needs to remember is that Britain had already granted Ireland independence. The White colonies had dominion status. Most people realised that it was only a matter of time before India got Independence. If we were notg oing to rule Ireland, why should we let Germany rule the Poles, Czechs, the Ukrainians and God knows who? A lot of people felt sympathy for Germany because they felt the Versailles treaty had violated the principle of self determination.

Hitler went a long way because both internally and internationally he portrayed himself as a moderate compared to the extremists of his own party. The demand for the Sudentenland was not seen as unreasonable. Hitler's problem that he needed a miracle. To defeat France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union and then go on to confront the United States was virtually impossible. Hitler had an extraordinary run of luck. This extraordinary run of luck makes his goals seem far more achievable than they really were. It leads to people focusing on the wrong questions. Like why did Hitler not capture Moscow, rather than how on earth did he ever get troops in sight of the Kremlin while others looked out on the Atlantic.

There was no sane path to victory for Hitler. He just had to keep going "va Banque" and hope that the numbers kept coming in. Even his great victory in Northern France in May 1940 was only achieved because Guderian disobeyed his orders.
User avatar
By fuser
#14315451
Rich wrote:Even his great victory in Northern France in May 1940 was only achieved because Guderian disobeyed his orders.


No. The victory happened because Hitler defied all his experienced general staff and passed manestein's plan of scissor cut.
By pugsville
#14315483
Hitler ordered the invasion twice iirc on the original plan. wihout opposition from the same generals victory in 1940 was not likely. hitler shaped the whole prewar period pretty much. it was mostly his fault.
User avatar
By fuser
#14315491
Yes, pugsville. Giving any individual all the credit is just silly but I went with it anyway seeing Guderin getting that credit I had to propose someone else name and who better than Hitler.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14315721
Smilin' Dave wrote:What exactly about your linked text actually disproves my argument?


Let's look:
Smilin' Dave on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:12 pm
The text by Meltyukhov that you're referencing actually doesn't endorse the "world revolution/taking over the world" claim your making

ArtAllm on Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:22 pm
You have to read the text in the link....
BTW, More and more historians agree with Vladimir Rezun.


Smilin' Dave on Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:57 am
Yo dawg I read dat link and I still think your shit is whack. You feel me homie?
Are we clear now? Can you stop pretending I didn't read your shitty link?


And here is the link:

Stalin's Missed Chance is a study by Russian military historian Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov, author of several books and articles on Soviet military history.

Stalin's Missed Chance is an extensive study of archive sources, often quoting and summarizing wartime records of the Red Army and the Soviet Union. The book also draws on a legion of published primary sources from the years 1939 to 1941.


The Soviet leadership had the option either to accept the regional status of the USSR or to become a Great Power once again. Having decided for the latter, the Soviet leadership used Communist ideology (the Comintern, the idea of world revolution etc.) to strengthen its position.[1] The key objective was to exclude a possible alliance of Capitalist countries. Although diplomatic relationships had been established with the capitalist countries, the USSR was not accepted as an equal partner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_Missed_Chance


Ant that was the answer to your nonsense:

Smilin' Dave on Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:10 pm
Citation needed.
What you're describing seems contrary to the policy outlined under Socialism in One Country.


I have highlighted the needed citation. Stalin still pushed the Word Revolution via Comintern and pushed for world domination.
I have told you that you can find the citation in the link I have provided.

Meltyukhov, Rezun and Kovalev had access to a huge amount of archive material, they are Russian speakers, their opinion is more important that the opinion of some clowns who do not speak Russian.


Smilin' Dave wrote:So what you're telling me is you don't actually have any legitimate sources to back you up...


What do you mean with "legitimate" sources?

Can somebody outlaw the truth?
Can legislators tell the historians what source is "legitimate" or "legal"?

Well, they try to do this in most European countries, they imprison historians for their historical works.

Smilin' Dave wrote:So the first problem we encounter is there were multiple trials as you note.


The mother of all these trials were the show trials in the USSR and Stalin was the one who believed that trials are necessary.
Churchill did not want any trials, but Stalin insisted, because he had a lot of experience with the trials in the USSR.
If you torture your enemies they will sign any papers and admit everything.

But some decent western politicians were ashamed of these trials:

Taft condemned the trials as a violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards[dubious – discuss] in favor of a politicized version of justice, in which court proceedings became an excuse for vengeance against the defeated.[20] His opposition to the trials was strongly criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike and is sometimes alleged as a main reason for his failure to secure the Republican nomination for president. Other observers, such as Senator John F. Kennedy in his bestselling Profiles in Courage, applauded Taft's principled stand even in the face of great bipartisan criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taf ... erg_Trials



Hitler wrote:Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence.


Smilin' Dave wrote:No where does it say, as you claimed, that lebensraum was just a 'sphere of influence'. The stated purpose was to occupy land, particularly agricultural land.



Well, as already many times mentioned, a lot of German land was stolen after WWI, many Germans were expelled to Germany.
The acquisition of more land in the East was also the goal of the Weimar Republic, and it is obvious that they wanted to restore the possessions of dispossessed German land owners in the East.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Außenpolitik_der_Weimarer_Republik

There is no English translation of this important article, so if you do not speak German, then this is your own problem.

Here is the map of German settlements before WWI:

http://www.migrazioni.altervista.org/de ... inseln.jpg

Image

For examples, the Germans possessed huge farm land areas in the Tsarist Russia:

In the Russian Empire, ethnic Germans were strongly represented among royalty, aristocracy, large land owners, military officers and the upper echelons of the imperial service, engineers, scientists, artists, physicians and the bourgeoisie in general. The Germans of Russia did not necessarily speak Russian; they spoke German, while French was often the language of the high aristocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... viet_Union


These German land was stolen by Bolshewiks, the owners of the land were killed or expelled from the country, and they had to flee to Germany. Here is one example:

The nature reserve was established in 1898 by Friedrich-Jacob Eduardovych Falz-Fein (1863–1920) around the German colony of Askania-Nova, which only in 1890 became an organized settlement, Khutir.

In March 1919, Askania-Nova was confiscated from the Falz-Fein family by the Red Army as part of the state nationalization programme. The last owner refused to evacuate to Germany. She was Sofia-Louise Bohdanivna (Gottlieb) Knauff (1835–1919), the mother of Friedrich Falz-Fein. Her refusal resulted in her summary execution by two Red Army guardsmen who shot her for failing to surrender her estate in Khorly (today a port in Kherson Oblast).[1] On April 1, 1919, Askania-Nova was declared a People's Sanctuary Park by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR; while on February 8, 1921, it was reorganized into a State Steppe Reserve of the Ukrainian SSR.
...
The reserve consists of the acclimatization zoo, arboretum (2.1 km², or 518.9 acre), and virgin steppe sanctuary (110 km², or 42.5 sq mi), the last such area in Europe) and has total area of 825 km² (318.5 sq mi)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ne-Map.png

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Askania-Nova#History



The total German land possessions in Tsarist Russia was as huge as the territory of the former GDR:

In the Black Sea region 647.000 desjatin (1 desjatin = 2.7 acres) were allotted to the Germans at the time of settlement, and until 1914 they bought an additional 4.2 million desjatin (11.34 million acres). For the Volga Germans the comparable figures were l.4 million desjatin and 2.5 million desjatin, respectively (3.78 million and 6.75 million acres). Together, these two groups owned 8.747 million desjatin or 23.617 million acres of land..

If one includes the land ownership of the Germans in Siberia and Volhynia as well as that around St. Petersburg of about 3.5 million desjatin, (9.45 million acres), the result is an ownership of 12.247 million desjatin = 36,142.2 million acres, or 56.5 million square miles; that is more than the entire area of the former DDR! [East Germany].

http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/hist ... eople.html


As we see, Germans owned huge land areas in the East, and that was good farm land.

If the ownership of Germans was restored, then no additional farm land would be needed, it would be sufficient to feed Germany, and there would be enough grain to feed Russia, too.

German farmers were good workers, Tsarist Russia was the Bred Basket of Europe due to the German farmers in the Ukraine and other areas.

The Bolshevik thieves had stolen this German land after the revolution, and that resulted in the Holodomor, the deliberate killing via starvation of millions of Christians by Bolshevik despots.


BTW, Churchill did not like Bolshevism, and he believed that it is necessary to “strangle the Bolshevik baby in its cradle” .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Ch ... tics:_1900–1939

So why did Churchill change his opinion about Bolshevism? Why did he go in the bed with Bolsheviks?

How could the war against Bolsheviks endanger the security or the interests of Great Britain?

Was Churchill's brain damaged by alcohol, or was he just dependent on his bankers?

It is no secret that he was broke and that some bankers and financiers helped him out.

Smilin' Dave wrote: First of all the US didn't set a 'red line' in Poland in 1939. The UK and France did, but they likely hoped Hitler would back down - in effect that war would be averted rather than triggered.


The financial elite of the USA pushed for a big war, that is no secret any more.

And, as already told, the Third Reich accepted the ultimatum and was ready to withdraw the troops from Poland and pay reparation for the inflicted damage. Danzig was not Poland.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Your link to Wikipedia doesn't actually state Nazi Germany agreed and in fact notes that the deadline was reached ....


So what? What is more important, the historical truth or the English Wikipedia?
You are restricted to the English language, but there are a lot of documents in German, Russian and French that give the right picture.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Ultimatums are not typically subject for negotiation.


Of course they are subject for negotiation, and the Syrian crisis was a prove for that.
The same was also the case on the 1st and 2nd September 1939.

Smilin' Dave wrote: The "I'll withdraw but let me carve up this country a bit in the process" clause was rubbish and Hitler would have been aware it wouldn't be accepted.


What are you talking about? Danzig was not Poland.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Care to give an example comperable to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia?


The dismemberment of Germany after WWI.
They promised to the Germans that nothing will be done against the will of the population.

Danzig was chopped off from Germany against the will of the population of this region.

BTW, as already many times repeated, Czechoslovakia was a dead born child.
Can you find this state on the map? It could not exist without brutal dictatorship. This artificial creation of Versailles collapsed on its own before WWII, and it immediately collapsed after the collapse of the communist dictatorship.


Smilin' Dave wrote:I was actually poking fun of your constant references to opinion in Germany about Danzig.


I was talking about the opinion of the population of Danzig.

Smilin' Dave wrote:So like you I ignored the population of Danzig ....


I have not ignored the population of Danzig, if the population of Danzig voted for the absorption by Poland, then this would be OK.

But the population of Danzig wanted a reunification with Germany, not with Poland.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Like I say, there were a lot of Poles in Poland. Now in your world view that means they all would agree to the same things apparently.


Well, the problem is, that the population of Danzig did not want to be part of Poland.

If you think that somebody can decide about the status of Danzig, without asking the opinion of the population of Danzig, then you have a racist and despotic mindset.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Many of which, if you take their work in its totality, would not agree with his conclusions. So do I believe Pat Buchanan's selectively chosen quotes or his better qualified sources?


If you want to debunk Pat Buchanan, you have to quote him and prove that he is wrong.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Was the Polish Corridor German land too?


Many hundred thousands of Germans were expelled from this area, so I guess that there was a lot of German land in this corridor.
There was no vote, this area was chopped off from Germany without asking the population of this region.

There lived Germans, Poles and Kashubians, who were not Poles. There was a lot of mixed population. But it is obvious that if there was a vote, even a lot of Poles would have voted for German citizenship.

As I have already pointed out, even Jews fled from Poland and were eager to get German citizenship, and it was very difficult to send Jews back to Poland, even after the NS came to power in Germany.

That is the only reason why they chopped off the Corridor and Danzig from Germany without vote, violating the human right of the inhabitants of the region.

The creation of the corridor aroused great resentment in Germany, and all post-war German Weimar governments refused to recognize the eastern borders agreed at Versailles, and refused to follow Germany's acknowledgment of its western borders in the Treaty of Locarno of 1925 with a similar declaration with respect to its eastern borders.[65]

Institutions in Weimar Germany supported and encouraged German minority organizations in Poland, in part radicalized by the Polish policy towards them, in filing close to 10,000 complaints about violations of minority rights to the League of Nations.[65]
...

In the period leading up to the East Prussian plebiscite in July 1920, the Polish authorities tried to prevent traffic through the Corridor, interrupting postal, telegraphic and telephone communication.[72]

On March 10, 1920, the British representative on the Marienwerder Plebiscite Commission, H.D. Beaumont, wrote of numerous continuing difficulties being made by Polish officials and added "as a result, the ill-will between Polish and German nationalities and the irritation due to Polish intolerance towards the German inhabitants in the Corridor (now under their rule), far worse than any former German intolerance of the Poles, are growing to such an extent that it is impossible to believe the present settlement (borders) can have any chance of being permanent.... It can confidently be asserted that not even the most attractive economic advantages would induce any German to vote Polish.

If the frontier is unsatisfactory now, it will be far more so when it has to be drawn on this side (of the river) with no natural line to follow, cutting off Germany from the river bank and within a mile or so of Marienwerder, which is certain to vote German. I know of no similar frontier created by any treaty."[72]

...

Connections by train were also possible by "sealing" the carriages, i.e. passengers were not forced to apply for an official Polish visa in their passport; however, the rigorous inspections by the Polish authorities before and after the sealing were strongly feared by the passengers.[73]

In May 1925 a train, passing through the Corridor on its way to East Prussia, crashed because the spikes had been removed from the tracks for a short distance and the fishplates unbolted. 25 persons, including 12 women and 2 children, were killed, some 30 others were injured.[74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Cor ... _interests




As we see, the Poles were more brutal to Germans than Germans were brutal to Poles at times when this was German territory.
But what did the international community do to guarantee the human rights of Germans in Poland!

Nothing!!!

They encouraged the ethnic cleansing of the corridor!


Smilin' Dave wrote:Could you be more specific? I assume you are not referring to Germans killed in the course of the invasion, that would be totally ridiculous.


Germans were killed even by sabotage on the rail-road, as quoted above.

A lot of Germans (who still lived in Poland) were killed before the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, there were a lot of atrocities against Germans on the former German territory, and the international community just looked and did nothing to protect the human rights of Germans who were under Polish control.
Last edited by ArtAllm on 18 Oct 2013 05:55, edited 1 time in total.
By Rich
#14315795
ArtAllm wrote:If you thing that somebody can decide about the status of Danzig, without asking the opinion of the population of Danzig, then you have a racist and despotic mindset.
LOL And what about the eight and three quarter million strong Czech population? if not caring about the wishes of Danzig Germans makes one racist and despotic you're racist and despotic times 25 times over.
#14315895
Hmmm defending Hitler but accusing others of a despotic and racist mindset?

The Germans of Danzig had a fair bit of political freedom.

Hitler and regime didnt care for political freedoms of anyone. They wanted to expand and were more than willingly to use extreme force. France and Britian were willing for some revisement of the ww1 settlement on the basis of negotiation, after Czechoslovakia they were had run out of patience with the violent expansions lying Nazi regime. They would no longer accept force.

Hitler misjudged the situation and plunged the world into war that saw the complete destruction of his regeime,

The mistake was not the allies declaring war in 1939, but not standing up to aggression before hand. Manchuria and Ethiopia should have met with firm sanctions (oil).
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14315992
Rich wrote:
ArtAllm:
"If you think that somebody can decide about the status of Danzig, without asking the opinion of the population of Danzig, then you have a racist and despotic mindset."
--------

LOL And what about the eight and three quarter million strong Czech population? if not caring about the wishes of Danzig Germans makes one racist and despotic you're racist and despotic times 25 times over.


Well, as already many, many, many times mentioned, Czechoslovakia was an artificial creation, it collapsed without foreign intervention before WWII, and it collapsed again after the collapse of the communist dictatorship.

Parts of former Czechoslovakia were occupied by Poland.

BTW, Bohemia and Moravia (today Czech republic) were protectorates, speak they retained formal sovereignty and had specified obligation.

It was occupied land (like it is today the case with occupied Palestinian land), but not part of the Third Reich.

There was a possibility to solve this problem in the future, if the problem of Danzig was solved.

I think that Czechs deserved an independent state, but they din't have any right to violate the human rights of the minorities, including Germans, which was the case before the collapse of Czechoslovakia.

pugsville wrote:Hmmm defending Hitler but accusing others of a despotic and racist mindset?


Godwin ++

As already many, many times repeated in this forum, the eastern borders of Germany, created by Versailles, were NEVER accepted by ANY German party in the Weimar Republic.

So the policy to get back German land, chopped off from Germany, and protect the human rights of Germans under foreign occupation, was the goal of ALL German governments and ALL German parties since Versailles.

I am not defending Hitler, I am defending the German policy before the NS, and Hitler just had to continue this policy, nothing else.

pugsville wrote:The Germans of Danzig had a fair bit of political freedom.


The Germans in Danzig didn't have the freedom to decide about their status, and that was a violation of their human rights.

The Czechs in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia had some formals freedoms, too, maybe as much as the people in Danzig.

But I think that Czechs deserved to live in an independent state, an that question could have been solved after the question with Danzig was solved.

The question is: What came first, what was the reason and what was the consequence?

The answer is obvious, it began with the violation of the human rights of Germans after WWI, the despots in Versailles chopped off parts of German territory without any votes of the population of these territories.

These guys violated their own promises.

The German Kaiserreich agreed to stop the war, because they promised that the human rights of the population will be respected, and they had broken their promises and violated their declared principles.

Why should Germans trust guys who permitted the violation of their human rights by artificial despotic regimes that ruled the former German land in artificially created states?

pugsville wrote:Hitler and regime didnt care for political freedoms of anyone.


Hitler and NS was a consequence of Versailles, despotism can only spawn more despotism, if not stopped.

The Weimar Republic tried to solve the problem by peaceful means, but the western despotic hypocrites didn't care a rat's ass about the violation of human rights of Germans on the occupied German territory.

The Third Reich also tried to solve the problem peacefully, but it didn't work.

pugsville wrote:France and Britian were willing for some revisement of the ww1 settlement on the basis of negotiation...


If they were willing, why didn't they solve the problems during the Weimar Republic?

There was enough time for that, was't it?

pugsville wrote:... after Czechoslovakia they were had run out of patience with the violent expansions lying Nazi regime.



How many time shall I repeat that Czechoslovakia collapsed without foreign involvement, this was an evil artificial state that could not survive without a brutal dictatorship, and that was proven after the collapse of the Communist dictatorship.

The Czech Republic was not created yet after the collapse of Czechoslovakia, but there was a Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Do you understand what the term "Protectorate" means?

This was a quasi sovereign territory, and if the western powers had agreed to solve the Danzig-Question, there would be no obstacles to negotiate about the status of the future Czech Republic.

pugsville wrote:Hitler misjudged the situation and plunged the world into war that saw the complete destruction of his regeime,


Hitler invaded Poland to solve the Danzig-Problem and stop the atrocities against the German population in Poland.

After this he agreed to withdraw the troops from Poland and pay reparations to the Polish state for the inflicted damage.

France and UK demanded the withdrawal of troops, and they got what they demanded.

The invasion of Poland was just a small local conflict that could be easily solved.

The lobbies that pushed for a big war did not expect that, they already decided to start a big war, and they were reluctant to lose their chance, because they needed a pretext, and that may have been the last pretext.

Why did they need a big war?

Well, the answer is obvious.

Banksters get a lot of money in big wars, that is the reason why the financial elite was pushing for a big war in the 30th.

This guy, called Baruch, who is sitting in the car with Churchill, was preparing the American economy for a big war long time before the Third Reich had any military capabilities to wage a big war. He was a military adviser of American Presidents beginning with the preparations for WWI.

This guy was a representative of the interest of the financial elite of the USA and the UK.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Baruch

Image

Great Britain didn't have any reasons to declare WWII, but Churchill probably had personal reasons to push for a big war.

Well, we can see even today who is pushing for a big war, who calls any foreign leader a "New Hitler" (be it Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Mahmud Ahmadinejad or Bashar Assad), who are presumably threatening the entire world with their non- existing military capabilities, like WMD.

Today the war propaganda of the war mongering banksters can be easily debunked. But who cares that Americans and Brits were intentionally lying about Saddam's WMD?

It is obvious that the Third Reich didn't have the military capabilities to wage a war against the USA, Great Brittain and France.

Any military expert can see that. The Third Reich did't have the capability to wage a war against the Soviet Union, either.

It is obvious that somebody who does not have the military capability to win a big war prefers to solve the problems with peaceful means, isn't it?

The prominent British historian A. J. P. Taylor (expert in European diplomacy of the 20th century) in his book "The origins of the Second World War" quoted all needed documents to prove that Hitler never planned a big war, he just blundered into WWII.

You can find a Pdf-File of his book on the net.
#14316025
ArtAllm wrote:I have highlighted the needed citation. Stalin still pushed the Word Revolution via Comintern and pushed for world domination.
I have told you that you can find the citation in the link I have provided.

Meltyukhov, Rezun and Kovalev had access to a huge amount of archive material, they are Russian speakers, their opinion is more important that the opinion of some clowns who do not speak Russian.

Where to start...
1. Meltyukov actually doesn't endorse Rezun's position. He explicitly ruled out the idea that Hitler was simply conducting a pre-emptive strike. Citing the two together is silly.
2. Even the text you've selectively quoted from Wikipedia (have you actually read this book incidentally?) makes the point of this being a question of power politics and the Soviet Union allegedly wishing to position itself as a great power. Nowhere does it claim, as you say, that this was all part of a plot to take over the world nor does he assert that this policy was driven by ideology.

Being a Russian speaker doesn't make someone's interpretation of history, even of archival documents, perfect. David Glantz speaks Russian, has had access to the archives and labelled Rezun's arguments to be rubbish for example. I'm sure you would disagree with him but by your logic above he must be trustworthy because he speaks Russian and had access to government documents.

ArtAllm wrote:What do you mean with "legitimate" sources?

Something that isn't crackpot nonsense like Vladimir Rezun? Meltyukhov is quite interesting but he isn't actually supporting your claims. So again what you're promoting isn't really Meltyukhov, you're just boosting Rezun and using other historians to distract from this.

ArtAllm wrote:The mother of all these trials were the show trials in the USSR and Stalin was the one who believed that trials are necessary.
Churchill did not want any trials, but Stalin insisted, because he had a lot of experience with the trials in the USSR.

- Precedent existed for the Nuremberg Trials from the Leipzig War Crimes Trials. You know, before the Moscow show trials?
- At the Tehran Conference it was actually Churchill who was opposing summary execution.
- The plan for trial was actually drafted under Henry Stimson, not by the USSR.

ArtAllm wrote:If you torture your enemies they will sign any papers and admit everything.

Much of what I quoted to you is confirmed by documents that were compiled by the Nazis themselves. There is no evidence that torture was used on any significant scale against people present at Nuremberg.

ArtAllm wrote:But some decent western politicians were ashamed of these trials:

Your own quote includes a tag that says "dubious"... great source you've got there.

Robert Taft opposed absolutely everything that FDR had supported. He opposed the New Deal, he opposed US participation in WWII. His opposition to the Nuremberg Trials is hardly significant, again your own source notes he was largely unsupported by his own party for taking this stance.

ArtAllm wrote:Well, as already many times mentioned, a lot of German land was stolen after WWI, many Germans were expelled to Germany.

Which clearly the quoted text is not referring to. Can you cite an example of Hitler saying lebensraum was needed because of territory lost after WWI?

ArtAlim wrote:Here is the map of German settlements before WWI:

You're saying land in the Ukraine was stolen from Germany?

ArtAlim wrote:As we see, Germans owned huge land areas in the East, and that was good farm land.

Do you have any evidence as to how much of this was exported to Germany? Because if the answer is none your argument doesn't even make sense.


ArtAlim wrote:The Bolshevik thieves had stolen this German land after the revolution, and that resulted in the Holodomor, the deliberate killing via starvation of millions of Christians by Bolshevik despots.

Ah yes I remember your German exceptionalist approach to Stalin's crimes. You basically didn't give a fuck about anyone else, it Germans were involved you were obsessed with an idea that it was somehow exceptionally cruel and anyone else in the same boat was not to be mentioned. No wonder you can champion such 'revisionist' positions, you think anything related to Germany is an exception to the rule.

ArtAlim wrote:The financial elite of the USA pushed for a big war, that is no secret any more.

Evidence?


ArtAlim wrote:And, as already told, the Third Reich accepted the ultimatum and was ready to withdraw the troops from Poland and pay reparation for the inflicted damage. Danzig was not Poland.

The Polish Corridor clearly was, and Hitler stated he wasn't withdrawing from there either.


ArtAlim wrote:So what? What is more important, the historical truth or the English Wikipedia?

You cited it as a source and now it is suspect because it isn't in German? Are you shitting me?


ArtAlim wrote:What are you talking about? Danzig was not Poland.

Technically speaking it wasn't Germany either, so on earth do I keep having to hear about what Germany thought about the matter?

ArtAlim wrote:The dismemberment of Germany after WWI.

Not even close.

ArtAlim wrote:Can you find this state on the map? It could not exist without brutal dictatorship.

It existed prior to WWII as a democracy so wrong again.

ArtAlim wrote:I was talking about the opinion of the population of Danzig.

But you said Germany...

ArtAlim wrote:then you have a racist and despotic mindset.

Says the guy who thinks people always vote on ethnic lines...

ArtAlim wrote:If you want to debunk Pat Buchanan, you have to quote him and prove that he is wrong.

Why don't you quote a paragraph that shows he is right first? While you're at it you can cite page 495 of Meltyukhov's work, it seems to be the reference your wikipedia article leans on so it is pretty important.

ArtAlim wrote:Many hundred thousands of Germans were expelled from this area, so I guess that there was a lot of German land in this corridor.

What was the population composition prior to this? I'm seeing a report of population of 528,000 Poles and Kashubians vs. 385,000 Germans as of 1910. So by your logic, majority Polish land so nobody cares what those Germans think and they can just be swept aside... Also when did Germany settlement begin? You see if it turns out there were Poles there before the Germans by your logic the Poles are allowed to reclaim it apparently by any means up to and including war.

ArtAlim wrote:Kashubians, who were not Poles

But they tended to support Poles in elections rather than Germans.

ArtAlim wrote:But it is obvious that if there was a vote, even a lot of Poles would have voted for German citizenship.

So now you want to say that when it might favour Germany you won't try to insist ethnicity determines who people vote for. Now, do you have evidence for this?

ArtAlim wrote:As I have already pointed out, even Jews fled from Poland and were eager to get German citizenship

Even Jews hey? I guess they hadn't heard your 'bankers' speech.

ArtAlim wrote:Germans were killed even by sabotage on the rail-road, as quoted above.

1. Is something that happened in 1925 really justifying something done in 1939?
2. Do you have evidence as to who removed the railway spikes?

ArtAlim wrote:there were a lot of atrocities against Germans on the former German territory

How many died? How many incidents were there?
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14316375
Smilin' Dave wrote:
Where to start...
1. Meltyukov actually doesn't endorse Rezun's position. He explicitly ruled out the idea that Hitler was simply conducting a pre-emptive strike. Citing the two together is silly.

2. Even the text you've selectively quoted from Wikipedia (have you actually read this book incidentally?) makes the point of this being a question of power politics and the Soviet Union allegedly wishing to position itself as a great power. Nowhere does it claim, as you say, that this was all part of a plot to take over the world nor does he assert that this policy was driven by ideology.



Independent and honest historians do not agree on everything, that is normal. But there is no reason to dismiss the entire work of these historians if they were wrong or disagreed in some details.

Only the phony "embedded historians" (who are like the "embedded journalists") always agree with the established official version and do not dare to question anything.

BTW, have you actually read the book you are trying to talk about?

What to me, of course I have read the mentioned book, it is online and everybody who has a sufficient command of Russian can read this book and also the books by Rezun and even talk to the authors and ask questions.

http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html

http://2002.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2002/ ... -s32.shtml

I can easily debunk all your arguments with the quotes from these links.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Being a Russian speaker doesn't make someone's interpretation of history, even of archival documents, perfect. David Glantz speaks Russian, has had access to the archives and labelled Rezun's arguments to be rubbish for example.


Would you care to quote this guy?

Smilin' Dave wrote:I'm sure you would disagree with him but by your logic above he must be trustworthy because he speaks Russian and had access to government documents.


Well, if this guy is able to support his position with facts, then I will agree with him.
If he is just regurgitating the old war propaganda, then there is nothing to discuss about.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Robert Taft opposed absolutely everything that FDR had supported.


No wonder, FDR was an immoral crook.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Can you cite an example of Hitler saying lebensraum was needed because of territory lost after WWI?


That goes without saying, because it was the continuation of the policy of the Weimar Republic.

Smilin' Dave wrote:You're saying land in the Ukraine was stolen from Germany?


No, I am saying that the farm land there was stolen from German owners.

BTW, Zionists always justify the ethnic cleansing and the theft of Palestinian land with the pretext that about 3% of Palestinian land was already owned by Jews.

Germans owned as much land in the Tsarist Russia, as the territory of the former DDR/GDR.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Do you have any evidence as to how much of this was exported to Germany? Because if the answer is none your argument doesn't even make sense.


Yes, of course, Germany was always dependent on grain import from Tsarist Russia, and Bolsheviks also sold grain to Germany in the first years of their dictatorship, and this was one of the causes for Holodomor. They needed money for their cannibalistic regime and did not care about dying Christians in the Ukraine.

Till 1917 Russia was the biggest grain exporter in the world, it supplied Western Europe (including Germany) with 30 to 50% of of grains, consumed in these countries.

These grain was mostly produces by German farmers who owned huge farming land areas in the Tsarist Empire.

Germany was more dependent on the grain imports, than UK and France, counties that had colonies and aboriginal labourers that slaved for these colonial empires to feed their population.


Smilin' Dave wrote:Ah yes I remember your German exceptionalist approach to Stalin's crimes.


Well, what was first? What was the reason and what was the consequence?

Smilin' Dave wrote:Evidence?


Well, there are a lot of witness reports, and these witnesses are prominent people who had access to inner circles of the power:

Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador to the USA (Washington).
Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain.
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador to Germany (Berlin).
Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador to Germany (Berlin).
...

Smilin' Dave wrote:The Polish Corridor clearly was, and Hitler stated he wasn't withdrawing from there either.


The corridor was a Germany territory, cut off from Germany after WWI without asking the opinion of the inhabitants of the region. That was against the human rights of the inhabitants of this region.

Before the invasion there the Third Reich proposed an extraterrestrial route through the Polish Corridor, and Poland could retain a permanent right to use the seaport, but Poland rejected this proposal.

Then there was a last proposal for a plebiscite of the population that lived there before the dismemberment of Germany, but Poland rejected this proposal, too.

Smilin' Dave wrote:You cited it as a source and now it is suspect because it isn't in German?


You have a black and white vision. Either everything in the Wiki must be truth, or everything is lie.

The Wiki-Articles are written by different people, it is a collective work, so some information in the Wiki is true, other is wrong. I do not pay attention to things that are wrong and do not quote wrong information.

Smilin' Dave wrote:What was the population composition prior to this? I'm seeing a report of population of 528,000 Poles and Kashubians vs. 385,000 Germans as of 1910.
So by your logic, majority Polish ...



If you consider that Kashubians were not Poles, then the number of Germans was at least as big as the number of Poles.
BTW, the mother of the German Nobel Prise Winner Günter Grass (and a big part of his family) was of Kashubian origin. Many Germans were of Kashubian origin, but they eventually accepted the German culture and became Germans. Most of Kashubians wanted to be German citizens, and they were regarded in the Third Reich as people "capable of Germanisation".

It is obvious that Poles were sure that the vote of the inhabitants of the region will not be in favour of Poland, that is why they always protested against a plebiscite and preferred despotic rule to democracy.

Smilin' Dave wrote:You see if it turns out there were Poles there before the Germans...


No, there were no Poles, there were Kashubs (Pommeranians), and most of them became Germans.

And before the Kashubs there lived Germanic tribes in this region, who came from Scandinavia.
Slavic people didn't have any access to the sea, because they were not seafaring people, like the Germanic tribes.

Here is the area of early Slavic settlements, there were no Slavs on the banks of the Baltic Sea.

Image

Image

And here is the area of Germanic people in the 1st century AD:

Image

Image

The Slavic tribes originated in the Carpathian mountains region and then they spread to the north.

Do you see any Slavs on these maps?



Image

In fact, the Kashubs were considered to be of Germanic origin, but later linguistically assimilated by Slavs that pushed from the south to the north.


Smilin' Dave wrote:ArtAlim: "there were a lot of atrocities against Germans on the former German territory"
----
How many died? How many incidents were there?


There were more dead Germans and more incidents on the border with Germany in 1939 than there were dead Israelis, killed by the Qassam Rockets before the operation "Cast Lead".

But after these actions of Palestinians (who were expelled from their land and driven into the "Gaza-Camp"), the IDF killed about 1400 Palestinians civilians, most of the victims were children, and IDF used white phosphorous.

But guess what?

All western governments declared that Israel has the right to defend itself, and no reparation was proposed to the Palestinians after the destruction of their infrastructure.
#14317184
ArtAllm wrote:Only the phony "embedded historians" (who are like the "embedded journalists") always agree with the established official version and do not dare to question anything.

Who would you describe as an 'embedded historian', give me an example?

ArtAllm wrote:BTW, have you actually read the book you are trying to talk about?

I asked you this question and you haven't actually answered it which I think curious. Now you say you can debunk everything I say with quotes from Meltyukhov's book. So go right on ahead, I'll wait.

ArtAllm wrote:Would you care to quote this guy?

You should read something like Stumbling Colossus to get a full demolition of Rezun, but as a quick one here you go:
On 15 May 1941, General G, K. Zhukov, then Chief of the Red Army General Staff, sent Stalin a proposal for a preventative offensive against German forces concentrating in Eastern Poland. Although Defense Commissar S. K. Timoshenko initialed the proposal, there is no evidence either that Stalin saw it or acted upon it. The proposal and other fragmentary evidence provides the basis for recent claims that Stalin
indeed intended to conduct a preventative war against Germany beginning in July 1941 and that Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa preempted Stalin’s intended actions.

Current evidence refutes that assertion. As subsequent events and archival evidence proves, the Red Army was in no condition to wage war in the summer of 1941 either offensively or, as the actual course of combat indicated, defensively.


ArtAllm wrote:If he is just regurgitating the old war propaganda

The old war propaganda relating to a latter day nut job theory? You'll note that the Nazis didn't really bother to talk up any pre-emptive strike at the time of Barbarossa. They didn't even bother with a Gleiwitz incident equivilent.

ArtAllm wrote:No wonder, FDR was an immoral crook.

That has bugger all to do with the apparent bias of your source.

ArtAllm wrote:That goes without saying, because it was the continuation of the policy of the Weimar Republic.

It does not go without saying, provide quotes from Nazi sources saying this.

Saying something like Mein Kampf was a continuation of Weimar foreign policy is total nonsense.

ArtAllm wrote:No, I am saying that the farm land there was stolen from German owners.

Which you are using to justify the invasion of the Soviet Union, despite the Nazis never really bothering with such a justification themselves, never mind that your logic behind this claim is suspect.

ArtAllm wrote:BTW, Zionists always justify the

If you raise another "example" like this again in the thread I'll be issuing you with a warning for a breach of Rule 15 - it is totally off topic and clearly intended to distract from the discussion at hand.


ArtAllm wrote:Yes, of course, Germany was always dependent on grain import from Tsarist Russia

Source please, with percentages for exports to Germany preferably. Don't bother with 'general' export stats, I want you to prove that ethnic Germans in the Russian empire (ie. pre-revolution) were supplying a majority of food to Germany.

ArtAllm wrote:Well, there are a lot of witness reports

Then cite them, don't just reel off names.

ArtAlim wrote:The corridor was a Germany territory, cut off from Germany after WWI without asking the opinion of the inhabitants of the region.

The majority of the population pre-WWI wasn't German and it certainly wasn't in the interwar period, which is apparently the measure you use to legitimise the action against Danzig.

If you want to go the 'well it used to be in Germany's borders' route I'll just point out it was Polish territory before that.

ArtAlim wrote:Before the invasion there the Third Reich proposed an extraterrestrial route through the Polish Corridor, and Poland could retain a permanent right to use the seaport, but Poland rejected this proposal.

Dismemberment of the Czech state kind of spoiled any diplomatic overtures Hitler could have dreamed of by that point.

ArtAlim wrote:You have a black and white vision.

Actually the forum's colour scheme is more like grey and black, and you quite clearly referenced that source. You only decided you didn't like it when I used it to disprove your arugment.

ArtAlim wrote:If you consider that Kashubians were not Poles, then the number of Germans was at least as big as the number of Poles.

Too bad that Kashubians didn't tend to support German candidates in elections. Your argument is totally invalid.

ArtAlim wrote:No, there were no Poles, there were Kashubs (Pommeranians)

Well then by applying one of your streams of logic the land belongs to the Kashubians, not the Germans or Poles.

ArtAlim wrote:There were more dead Germans and more incidents on the border with Germany in 1939

How many? I don't give a fuck about relative comparisons, tell me how many? Stop stuffing around and answer the question, this isn't even a hard question.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14318390
double
Last edited by ArtAllm on 22 Oct 2013 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14318400
Rich wrote:What one needs to remember is that Britain had already granted Ireland independence. The White colonies had dominion status. Most people realised that it was only a matter of time before India got Independence. If we were notg oing to rule Ireland, why should we let Germany rule the Poles, Czechs, the Ukrainians and God knows who?


That is one of the craziest conspiracy theories I have ever heard!



Britain went to war with Argentina for some colonial possessions that were on the other side of the Globe even in the 80th! Scotland and Northern Ireland are still parts of GB, because some inhabitants of these British colonies want to remain part of GB! But on the other hand they just cut off Danzig and the so-called "corridor" from the rest of Germany, fully ignoring the wish of the inhabitants of this territory! The hypocrisy is just immeasurable! And of course GB hoped to preserve its colonial empire, and of course they had a real chance to preserve huge parts of their Empire, if this country was not run by corrupt imbeciles that could not see, what was in the interest of their country.
- Britain rejected the proposal of the Third Reich to pull out the troops from Poland and to pay reparations to Poland, if they permitted the reunification of Danzig with the rest of Germany.
- The Third Reich proposed to the Brits to dislocate some German troops in order to protect the interests of GB, if GB supported the crusade against Communism.
- The Third Reich could easily destroy the entire British army after the Dünkirchen (Dunkirk) debacle, but the Wehrmacht stopped its advance and allowed the British troops to evacuate.

Instead of killing or capturing more than 200 000 British soldiers (that would have drastically reduced the capabilities of GB to wage a war) the Third Reich displayed genereousity and just let the Brits to return home, in the hope that this gesture will be appreciated.

But, on the other hand, Brits didn't mind the brutality and despotism of Stalin, who at that time not only enslaved Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belorussia , Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia many other Christian people, they permitted Stalin to enslave even more European people, and not only the Poles, but also the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Hungarians, speak the total territory of Eastern Europe. Stalin (who was a leader of a murderous regime that killed since 1917 dozens of Millions of Christians and aimed to totally eradicate Christianity from Russia and from the entire World, and who pushed further for the World Revolution, speak the enslavement of the entire world) became an ally of supposedly freedom loving Christian countries.



After WWII GB was directly and seriously threatened by the Soviet Union, Brits had to spend a lot of their money to prevent the invasion of the Soviet tanks, which could easily invade the British island in a week, if GB was not protected from this threat by the USA. Before WWII GB didn't need any American protection, it could protect itself, and was not threatened by the Third Reich. After WWII GB became a pathetic insular power that needed foreign help, because it could not survive without this help. They were so afraid of the Soviet tanks that they even had to abandon their cannibalistic Morgenthau Plan and re-arm what was left of Germany, in order to prevent the invasion of Soviet tanks.



And this scenario was predictable to anybody with half of a brain!

The Soviets were pushing to the South, too. They supported the enemies of the Brits around the World! The Soviets and the Americans (speak the allies of the Brits) were the grave-diggers of the British Empire, not the Third Reich!

Rich wrote:A lot of people felt sympathy for Germany because they felt the Versailles treaty had violated the principle of self determination.


Yes, the ordinary Brits felt sympathy for Germans, but the corrupt and imbecile British Elite was not sharing the feelings of the population they were supposed to represent. The British Elite was in the service of the Banksters. That was the case before WWI and WWII, and that is also the case today.

Rich wrote:There was no sane path to victory for Hitler. He just had to keep going "va Banque" and hope that the numbers kept coming in. Even his great victory in Northern France in May 1940 was only achieved because Guderian disobeyed his orders.


Hitler was just a fool who blundered into a big war on many fronts. He could not imagine that GB will act against its own interests, he hoped that the West was still Christian and hoped that all Christians Nations will support the crusade against the self-declared militant "Antichrists" that pushed for the destruction of Christianity and the enslavement of the entire Planet.

But Stalin was an opportunist, he just postponed his plans to eradicate the Christianity from the subjugated territory, and that was enough for his western allies.


Smilin' Dave wrote:So go right on ahead, I'll wait.


Here is one of your claims:
Smilin' Dave wrote:1. Meltyukov actually doesn't endorse Rezun's position. He explicitly ruled out the idea that Hitler was simply conducting a pre-emptive strike. Citing the two together is silly.

You said that Meltyukov does not agree with Rezun on the main issue that USSR planned an offensive strike against the Third Reich, and that the Third Reich surprises Stalin with its attack.

It is enough to read the interview of Meltyukov to debunk your claim.
— Что вы можете сказать о главном тезисе Суворова относительно того, что Советский Союз собирался напасть на Германию, но Гитлер опередил Сталина?

— Когда поднялась вся эта буча вокруг Суворова, военные пошли на принцип и рассекретили стратегические планы советского командования.

Хотя некоторые интерпретаторы пытаются на основании этих документов опровергнуть доводы Суворова, на мой взгляд, у них это не особенно получается. В отношении докладных записок Генштаба на имя Сталина и Молотова (а их было не менее четырех) критики говорят, что они якобы носили черновой характер.

Позволю себе категорически с ними не согласиться.

Подчеркиваю: это официальные, а не рабочие документы.

Итак, первая докладная появилась в конце июля 1940 года.

Сталин потребовал переработать ее. Вторая записка (и это наша историография не отвергает) докладывалась Сталину в ночь с 14 на 15 октября.

Это переработанный вариант первой записки, оформленный 18 сентября.

С тех пор он считался официально утвержденным советским стратегическим планом.
[...]
Правда, резолюции Сталина на них нет. Но Сталин вообще был не
любитель писать резолюции, тем более на документах такого порядка.
[...]

В этих документах идет речь о развертывании советских войск.

Наше командование не собиралось ждать, пока на него нападут. Вопрос: зачем?

Здесь я с Суворовым расхожусь.

По-моему, весь этот план надо интерпретировать как «нападение ради обороны». Классическая формула.

[....]

— А было ли Советскому Союзу с чем нападать на Германию?

— Могу «со статистикой в руках» сказать, что никакого немецкого
превосходства в принципе не существовало.

Единственное, в чем Германия превосходила своего восточного соседа на границе, — это численность личного состава.

И то лишь из-за того, что у нас не были отмобилизованы тылы.

Формально в вермахте было больше солдат, но из них почти четверть составляли тыловые службы, не участвовавшие в боях.

А по танкам, самолетам, артиллерии превосходство было как раз за РККА.

Против 4000 немецких танков приходилось почти 14 тысяч советских,
против почти 5000 немецких самолетов — более 10 тысяч наших. По
орудийным и минометным стволам немцы также серьезно уступали:
соотношение было 42 000 к 59 000.

Надо сказать прямо: советские войска были вооружены до зубов!

2002.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2002/66n/n66n-s32.shtml


Well, I do not have the time to do a word by word translation, but here is the gist of what Meltyukov tells in this interview:

The corrupt fools (speak the embedded in the system historians) tried to debunk Rezun, but Meltyukov believes that they were unable to do that. He agrees with Rezun on the main issue, that the SU planned an offensive war, but Hitler launched the first strike and surprised the Soviets. They found the secret documents that say that SU planned an offensive war against the Third Reich as early, as October 1940, but the "embedded Historians" claimed, that the secret documents were not signed by Stalin, and therefore these documents were just drafts without any legal force. Meltyukov debunks this, he says that Stalin did not have to sign these documents. General Vasilevsky was the designated official to write the official memorandums and reports, and the signature of Stalin was not needed on these documents. The first report about an attack on the Third Reich was written in July 1940. Stalin asked to change the document. The second document was dated 15. October 1940, and this document was an official Soviet plan to launch an attack against the Third Reich. Besides that Meltyukov fully supports the facts that were first mentioned by Rezun.

The Third Reich didn't have the capabilities to win a war against the Soviet Union without the support of the western powers.

The SU had the capabilities to win a war against the Third Reich without any external help.
- The TR had only 4000 tanks, the SU 14 000 tanks.
- The TR had only 5 000 planes, the SU 10 000 planes.
- The TR had only 42 000 artillery units, the SU 59 000.
- The TR had had maybe more soldiers, that the SU (because the Soviets neglected to declare a total mobilisation), but it was obvious that the Soviets could easily increase their man power in any time.

As we see, the SU had a real chance to win a war against Germany without any help, but the TR didn't have any chance to win a war against the SU without the help of GB. And the TR didn't have any chance at all to win a war against a coalition of GB, USA and SU.

It is logical to suppose that Hitler hoped to the very last moment that the western powers will stick to their "phony war" and let him deal with the Soviets, or perhaps that they will even help him in his crusade against the "Antichrists". Without the support of the West the attack against the SU would mean a suicide. To wait till the SU attacks first was also like a suicide. Only an idiot could hope for a victory of the TR against a coalition of the SU, USA and GB, huge good armed powers with huge resources.

So the only reasonable explanation why Hitler attacked the SU is the following explanation:
- He knew, that if the SU attacks first, then he has no chance at all, and the Soviets would not stop on the western and southern borders of the Third Reich, they will push further and enslave at least the entire Europe.
- Hitler still had the hope that he could reach some kind an agreement with the Brits, even after the Brits declared war on the Third Reich.
That is why Rudolf Hess flew to GB on 10. May 1941.

Well, Meltyukov believes that Soviets planned to attack first, because they believed that Hitler would sooner or later attack the SU (if the "capitalists" agreed about the destruction of the Soviet Regime). And to launch the first strike is the best strategy to defend itself.

Rezun believes nearly the same, with only difference. Rezun believes that SU would have attacked even if the Soviets didn't believe that the TR was going to attack the SU, and Meltyukov believes that the Soviets planned to attack the TR first because they believed that sooner or later the "capitalists" would have attacked the SU to destroy the Soviet Regime. Meltyukov does not say that he is sure that his opinion is right and Rezun's opinion is wrong, he just says that he has a slightly different opinion, nothing else.

But the crucial point is that the "capitalists" could not reach an agreement about the destruction of the Soviet Regime, they sided with the Soviet Regime, and the rest is history. Hitler's attack against the SU was a desperate step of a desperate man who did not understand who rules the GB and why GB decided to kill itself in order to harm a continental power that never threatened GB, and help a continental power that was eager to destroy Christianity and enslave not only Poland and GB, but the entire world.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Current evidence refutes that assertion. As subsequent events and archival evidence proves, the Red Army was in no condition to wage war in the summer of 1941 either offensively or, as the actual course of combat indicated, defensively.




No comment needed, already debunked.


Smilin' Dave wrote:Saying something like Mein Kampf was a continuation of Weimar foreign policy is total nonsense.


You are constantly talking about "Mein Kampf", a book I have never read because it is prohibited in Germany. You must be an expert in this book, but you are fully ignorant about the foreign policy of the Weimar Republic.

Read Wikipeda, that will be a good start!
By 15 January 1919, the rebellious Polish forces managed to take control of most of the Province of Posen, and engaged in heavy fighting with the regular German army and the forces of the Grenzschutz, up until the renewal of the truce between the Entente and Germany on 16 February, which affected the Wielkopolska or Posen Province part of the front line.
...
The uprising had a significant effect on the Versailles decisions, which granted Poland not only the area won by the insurgents, but a portion of the Province of Pomerania, as well as a few cities which lay beyond the demarcation line: Bydgoszcz, Leszno (then respectively Bromberg and Lissa), as well as Rawicz (the Polish Corridor).

Germany's territorial losses following the Treaty of Versailles incited German revanchism and created problems such that the status of the independent Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor between East Prussia and the rest of Germany became an issue in German politics.

Attending to the issues was part of Adolf Hitler's political platform...

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Poland refused several German proposals for popular referendums, population transfers, highway projects and customs union reform.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_ ... E2%80%9319)

The creation of the corridor aroused great resentment in Germany, and all post-war German Weimar governments refused to recognize the eastern borders agreed at Versailles, and refused to follow Germany's acknowledgment of its western borders in the Treaty of Locarno of 1925 with a similar declaration with respect to its eastern borders.[65]

Institutions in Weimar Germany supported and encouraged German minority organizations in Poland, in part radicalized by the Polish policy towards them, in filing close to 10,000 complaints about violations of minority rights to the League of Nations.
[65]

Poland in 1931 declared her commitment to peace, but pointed out that any attempt to revise its borders would mean war.

Additionally, in conversation with U.S. President Herbert Hoover, Polish delegate Filipowicz noted that any continued provocations by Germany could tempt the Polish side to invade, in order to settle the issue once and for all.[78]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor


As we see, Polish terrorists just grabbed German land, without asking the opinion of the population of the grabbed land, and the powers in Versailles tolerated that. The Weimar Republic never recognised the Eastern Borders of Germany, what else do you need as a prove? Go to the numbers in square brackets and you will find a lot of sources.

The proposals of the Weimar Republic to held a popular referendum was not only ignored, Poles constantly threatened with a war against Germany in order to prevent any referendum.

About 10 000 cases of violation of the human rights of Germans were reported, but the international community did nothing to stop the Polish crimes against Germans on the stolen German land! That was the reason why Germans eventually elected Hitler. Hitler, as a populist and conformist, just had to continue the policy of the Weimar Republic with more radical means. If the Weimar Republic and the western powers could have solved the problem of Eastern Borders (which were never recognised by any government of the Weimar Republic) then there would be no need for Hitler.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Source please, with percentages for exports to Germany preferably. Don't bother with 'general' export stats, I want you to prove that ethnic Germans in the Russian empire (ie. pre-revolution) were supplying a majority of food to Germany.


Are you rally unable to find the needed information?

Germany had for a long time been a large importer of Russian grain annually importing between 1861-80 in the region of 11 to 20 percent of Russian grain export second only to Britain who mainly imported wheat.

Germany also imported from Russia over half it import of rye.

However this period of time saw a huge rise in the role of USA and other nations in the European market.

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/ ... z2iRcOS9Y7


As we see, there was time when Germany used to import about 50% of needed rye from Russia.

After German farmers (who faced Russification in Russia) moved in huge numbers from Russia to the USA (and de facto created the first huge farms there, using the skills they have acquired in Russia, where they also had huge land possessions), Russia was the biggest grain exporter to Germany .

Germany was always dependent on grain exports from Russia, and later from the USA, that is a known fact.

The Russian grain that was shipped to Germany came from the Ukraine, from German colonies, that is why most grain, consumed by Germans, was cultivated by Germans who lived in the Ukraine.

Later the grain, produced by Germans who lived in the USA, was also exported to Germany.

This became a real problem during WWI, Germans starved because they could not feed themselves, and after they lost more land in the East, this problem became even bigger.

Today, due to the introduction of new agricultural technologies, Germany can easily feed its population with their own grain, but this was not the case before WWII.

Today we have artificial fertilisers, but before WWII the natural fertile soil in the Ukraine (that was Virgin Land before the settlement of German pioneers there) made this region an important region, and in this region a huge amount of land belonged to German owners.

Germans owned huge land estates in the region of today South Ukraine. This was Virgin Land before the settlements of Germans in this region, and the former owners became German citizens after they were kicked out from their property by Bolsheviks.

It is obvious that those Germans (who were former Russian citizens) lobbied in Germany for the return of their land, they promised that they can feed with this land the entire Germany, they supported the NS- Regime, because it was in their interest to get back their land.


The contributions that the Mennonites made in Russia, and their cultural achievement, had their foundation in the settlements of Ukraine.
....
The Chortitza and Molotschna settlements developed a pattern of education that spread over Russia and exerted a strong influence on some of the Mennonites in North and South America (see Education among the Mennonites of Russia).

The agricultural and industrial developments of the Mennonites of Ukraine were also decisive for all the daughter settlements in the rest of Russia.

Outposts of industries such as factories and flourmills were established in Mennonite and non-Mennonite communities, many of which became the attraction of businessmen and workers seeking employment (see articles Millerovo, New York).

Ukraine with its fertile black soil (chernozem) gave the Mennonites the extraordinary opportunity of experimenting in agriculture and contributing to the development of hard winter wheat, one of the most desirable export items.

In the 1870's this wheat was transplanted from the steppes of Ukraine to the prairies of Kansas.


The fact that Ukraine was agriculturally and industrially an undeveloped territory at the time the Mennonites settled there gave them an excellent opportunity to fulfill a service in this area that they discharged with great success.


Again it must be pointed out that they were only a minority among the numerous German settlers of Ukraine who helped to develop this country in the realm of agriculture and industry.

http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Ukrain ... hievements


When the Mennonites came to Ukraine at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century they settled on the barren steppes.
...
After 1860 Russian grain came more and more into demand in western European countries.
...
Simultaneously grain production on these farms became more and more commercialized, that is, an ever-increasing amount of grain was produced for the market instead of home consumption.

By 1880 wheat had become the predominant crop. Originally mostly summer wheat was raised by the Mennonites. Gradually hard winter wheat was introduced and soon became prominent. This was the native variety grown along the coast of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

About 1850 the London market began to appreciate the quality of this wheat because of the nutritive content of the flour it produced.

A growing demand for this wheat, the concentration of the Mennonites and others on wheat farming, and the opening of ports along the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov soon made the Ukraine the granary of Europe.

According to H. D. Seymour the ports of Berdyansk and Mariupol near the Molotschna colony shipped the best quality of wheat.

Cornelius Jansen stated that the Mennonites of the Molotschna settlement in 1855 produced about half a million bushels of wheat.


The hard red winter wheat variety raised by the Mennonites was known under the name Krimka. In America it became known as the Hard Red Turkey variety.

It was rust resistant, winter hardy, and very suitable for baking.

When the Mennonites coming to Kansas in 1874 brought with them this variety of wheat, Bernhard Warkentin and Mark A. Carlton imported it in larger quantities for seed.

Thus the prairie states and provinces became the breadbasket of America as the Ukraine had become the breadbasket of Europe.

http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Agricu ... _of_Russia

Freedom from military service for all time, 30 deszatine of land, freedom in religious and educational fields, freedom from taxation for a defiant period; all promised by Katherine II by the grace of God. “Empress and ruler in command of all Russians at Moscow, given at Peterhof in the year 1763,” had enticed them to go east.

In Russia, one remained German, settled according to religious point of view-Mennonites together, Catholics and Lutherans for themselves, occasionally separate in villages as Schwaben, Badener, Pfälzer or Elsässer; maintained speech and customs which in the old Heimat (homeland) were overtaken by the time and technology until Russification made strangers of them.

In about 1873 around 300,000 German Russians again chose the road of emigration. Most of them tried it in North America, a land they did not know, whose language was strange to them.

The attempt to organize village life, like in Russia, in Canada and the USA succeeded only in the frontier days. The attempt to live peacefully together with one’s neighbors largely failed, far in the following years “Russia” stood for Communism, “Germany” for the Imperial Crown and National Socialism.

American patriots questioned the build up of the Ku-Klux-Klan. But the Russian Germans obviously gave America more than any immigrant group; with the introduction of winter wheat (Turkey Red) they made the prairie into the grain granary of the world.

http://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/history_cu ... sruhe.html

Baltic professor Adolf Perandi explains how genocide is carried out in the following manner: "Genocide does not necessarily constitute one act. The destruction of a nation cannot ordinarily be achieved through a single act, limited in time. It requires a combination of many acts carried out at different times with different means and for different reasons. Accordingly, many successive acts aimed at the destruction of a nation and interrupted at intervals can be classified as one continuous crime of genocide.

"The genocide committed against the ethnic Germans of Russia comprised a series of mass murders and genocidal actions that unfolded in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. In all, from 1915 to 1945, probably over one million Russian Germans perished from unnatural causes under three successive Russian governments—those of Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin, and Stalin—chiefly by means of mass executions, forced labor, deliberate starvation, and brutal deportations.
...
In countless poems, novels, works of art, and theater pieces being produced by Russian Germans in Russia and in Germany, one finds the common themes of deliberate starvation, the Gulag, deportation, torture, and genocide.

As a consequence of this genocide, the Russian Germans were unable to exceed their combined population level of 1918 (1,621,000) until about 1960 (1959 census - 1,619,655).For three decades, countless Russian Germans suffered the brutal murder of family members, lost relatives, and friends through deportation and were forced to watch helplessly as their loved ones slowly starved to death, were beaten, tortured, harassed daily, driven to insanity and suicide.

Their genocide remains an open wound.

http://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/research/s ... inner.html


An outstanding example of a former Russian German in Tsarist Russia was Alfred Rosenberg. He was a student at a Moscow university at the begin of WWI. He fled from his native Revel to Munich (like many Russians did) after the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia.

In a Nutshell:
No Bolshevik revolution in Russia, no Hitler, no WWII.

Smilin' Dave wrote:The majority of the population pre-WWI wasn't German and it certainly wasn't in the interwar period, which is apparently the measure you use to legitimise the action against Danzig.


Of course it was German or pro-German! If it was not the case, why did the Polish government refuse any referendum and, why did the Poles constantly threaten with an invasion if such a referendum would take place?

There was a bridge of predominantly German and pro-German settlements along the entire coast. You are fooled by the numbers of the total territory which was later called "Polish Corridor".

But Germany needed just a small stripe of land along the coast to built a railway and an Autobahn, and they constantly proposed a referendum of the population of precisely this small territory.

Smilin' Dave wrote:If you want to go the 'well it used to be in Germany's borders' route I'll just point out it was Polish territory before that.


I have already linked the map of German settlements in this region.
Go back and look, there were German settlements along the entire coast.
Or look at these maps:

Image
Image

There was a bridge of German speakers in the region of Neustadt, besides that along the coast in this region lived more Kashubs, than Poles, and many Kashubs were eager to become German citizens.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Dismemberment of the Czech state kind of spoiled any diplomatic overtures Hitler could have dreamed of by that point.

No Czech state was dismembered, because there was no such state, and Czechoslovakia collapsed without foreign intervention, like it was again the case after the collapse of the SU.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Well then by applying one of your streams of logic the land belongs to the Kashubians, not the Germans or Poles.

The land belonged to the population that lived there before the dismemberment of Germany by the Versailles. Only the people themselves had the right to decide what will be their future. That is why the Weimar Republic never recognised the Eastern borders of Germany, and that is why the Weimar republic constantly proposed a referendum.

But Poles knew that in the case of a referendum they will lose big parts of the artificially created corridor, and that is the reason why Poland constantly threatened to invade Danzig and Germany, if the local population was given a chance to decide about their own future.

BTW, most Kashubs didn't have any intention to create a separate state, they were happy to become German citizens.

It is obvious that the policy of Poles and the western powers was immoral and hypocritical, and that is the reason why the Weimar Republic never recognised the eastern borders and fought for the reunification of Germany. Unfortunately, the Weimar Republic could not solve the problem, because the League of Nations closed an eye on the suffering of Germans and the crimes of Poles, and that was the reason why the desperate Germans eventually elected Hitler.
Last edited by Smilin' Dave on 23 Oct 2013 23:06, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Excessive number of carraige returns removed
#14319193
ArtAlim wrote:You said that Meltyukov does not agree with Rezun on the main issue that USSR planned an offensive strike against the Third Reich, and that the Third Reich surprises Stalin with its attack.

No
First of all the point of mine you quoted doesn't say this. I said that Meltyukhov had dismissed the main plank in Suvorov/Rezun's theory - that Hitler was launching a pre-emptive strike knowing that the Soviets planned to invade.

Second of all my primary dispute with your use of Meltyukhov is your insistance that the Soviets planned some kind of ideologically driven crusade to spread the 'world revolution' across all Europe by armed force. The two chapters in Meltyukhov's book ("Evaluation by the Soviet leadership of the Second World War in 1939-1941" and "Place "Eastern Expedition" in German strategy of 1940-1941 and the power of the parties to the beginning of "Operation Barbarossa") quite clearly situate this decision in power politics and opportunism, which isn't too far off what I've been telling you from the start.

ArtAlim wrote:It is enough to read the interview of Meltyukov to debunk your claim.

I am unclear why you've opted to quote an interview with Meltyukhov over his book on the topic after you went to all of that trouble to provide a link for it. Of course if you had never actually read the book you probably wouldn't feel comfortable citing it.

I am also unclear why you would choose to quote in Russian when you could have used translation programs (eg. Google Translate) or just provided the link with the caveat that it was in Russian.

But here are some choice quotes from Meltyukhov from that interview:
Meltyukhov on the quality of the work Rezun did wrote:Suvorov - a brilliant writer. But because we have the opportunity to check out many of his assertions on archival material, some of its versions should be called by its name, ie fantasies. Moreover, he used some of the Soviet fantasy, fantasy imposed on them anti-Soviet and even added something of his own. Most political conclusions are Suvorov journalistic bend. often taking one or two significant facts, he begins to lay out the most incredible of them solitaire .

Meltyukhov framing Soviet policy as practical rather than ideological wrote:...the French and the British were forced to cancel those orders that they did the Soviet Union. Moreover, it has been both a political decision, and dictated by the necessity of economic mobilization. Naturally, Moscow had to react to it, look for other suppliers. Kremlin has behaved in a highly pragmatic.

Meltyukhov describing military plans as pragmatic rather than ideological wrote:Why? Here I disagree with Suvorov. To me, this whole plan should be interpreted as "an attack for the sake of defense." classical formula.

Meltyukhov denying Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike wrote:Speaking Suvorov version of the preventive nature of the war by Hitler. Actually German leaders also did not know anything specific about the plans of Stalin. Neither German source no mention of the fear of Hitler before the might of the Red Army. the contrary, he always spoke with contempt about stupid Russian. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had no documents about a specific threat of attack.


ArtAlim wrote:Well, I do not have the time to do a word by word translation

More likely your cited evidence doesn't directly support what you are about to say...
ArtAlim wrote:The corrupt fools (speak the embedded in the system historians) tried to debunk Rezun, but Meltyukov believes that they were unable to do that.

Meltyukhov actually seems to be differing on historiographical grounds, rather than saying Rezun was completely correct. I think it would be more correct to say he is disputing the approach to certain sources and their importance/meaning rather than saying one side is right or wrong.
ArtAlim wrote:Meltyukov debunks this, he says that Stalin did not have to sign these documents.

That isn't exactly what he says. He only notes that Stalin didn't like writing resolutions. This doesn't mean that he issued orders without signature. Given Stalin's signature and commentary does appear on a lot of orders he authorised (a notorious example being lists of prisoners etc. during the Purges) Meltyukhov couldn't possibly say Stalin made a habit of authorising things without signature.

ArtAlim wrote:So the only reasonable explanation why Hitler attacked the SU is the following explanation.... He knew, that if the SU attacks first, then he has no chance at all, and the Soviets would not stop on the western and southern borders of the Third Reich, they will push further and enslave at least the entire Europe.

Except Meltyukhov does not support this ideological interpretation of Soviet policy. He further rejected the idea that Hitler had ever seriously considered the threat of a Soviet invasion.

ArtAlim wrote:Meltyukov does not say that he is sure that his opinion is right and Rezun's opinion is wrong

Describing someone's work as 'fantasy' or historical work as 'journalistic' clearly is a comment on the quality of Rezun's work.

ArtAlim wrote:You are constantly talking about "Mein Kampf", a book I have never read because it is prohibited in Germany.

The quote I provided you is actually readily available over the internet - from memory I actually found it on Wikipedia, which you seem to spend a lot of time on.

Also Mein Kampf isn't strictly speaking illegal in Germany - it was just out of print.
Source wrote:While Germany has strong laws against hate speech and stringent regulations prohibiting Nazi symbols, the book itself is not specifically banned, except when used or displayed in violation of those laws

The text you subsequently quote from Wikipedia about Weimar policy actually doesn't align with what is written in Mein Kampf with regard to lebensraum. Now that you now the book is legal for you to read perhaps you ought to seek it out and exand your knowledge on these matters.

ArtAlim wrote:Are you really unable to find the needed information?

I think you've missed the point in a couple of ways. I'm not disputing Tsarist Russia exported a lot of wheat etc. What I am disputing is that ethnic Germans were responsible for the bulk of those exports.

I also don't see any proof from your end that lebensraum was truly motivated by a desire to reclaim farm land lost by those ethnic Germans. I've no doubt the Germans returning to Germany from the east were politically notable to the Nazis, but reclaiming lost farmland wasn't the overarching theme of Nazi foreign policy.

ArtAlim wrote:After German farmers (who faced Russification in Russia) moved in huge numbers from Russia to the USA (and de facto created the first huge farms there, using the skills they have acquired in Russia, where they also had huge land possessions), Russia was the biggest grain exporter to Germany .

Germany was always dependent on grain exports from Russia, and later from the USA, that is a known fact.

You seem to contradict yourself here. First you tell me it was wall to wall German farmers then you tell me they departed Russia for the United States in 'huge numbers'. Then you go further off track and note that Germany was now getting a lot of its grain from the US instead of Tsarist Russia.

ArtAlim wrote:The Russian grain that was shipped to Germany came from the Ukraine, from German colonies

Unproven.

ArtAlim wrote:Ukraine (that was Virgin Land before the settlement of German pioneers there)

Holy shit seriously?

People were farming in the 'black soil' region long before mass German migration to Ukraine. Further as a technical note "Virgin Lands" (note those capital letters) is typically a reference to lands cultivated in Kazakhstan during the Khrushchev era.

The source you cite for this is biased - it is a faux wikipedia for Mennonites. So surprise surprise it talks about how wonderful they were and how no one lived on the steppes before they got there.

ArtAlim wrote:Of course it was German or pro-German! If it was not the case, why did the Polish government refuse any referendum and, why did the Poles constantly threaten with an invasion if such a referendum would take place?

The evidence actually shows the Polish Corridor was not majority German/pro-German, you haven't provided a shred of proof that Kashubians were pro-German. No referendum was held because it was a waste of time or a stupid political game run by the Germans who were crying about having lost their partition of Poland.

ArtAlim wrote:No Czech state was dismembered, because there was no such state

I could get a map out for you and point it out if you like?

ArtAlim wrote:The land belonged to the population that lived there before the dismemberment of Germany by the Versailles.

No dice, you see this is a rubbish game you're playing. If we are going to go solely by historical claims at what point do we stop going backward? Naturally you want to stop at certain points where Germans had political power over the region, or alternatively you'll play the 'majority ethnicity' card. Notice that you think you can set the standard every time and somehow it always ends with "Germans get all the land, everyone else stole it"? I wonder what it will take to get it through your head that Germans are not special?

ArtAlim wrote:It is obvious that the policy of Poles and the western powers was immoral and hypocritical

Says the guy making constant excuses for Hitler
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14320192
Smilin' Dave wrote: The two chapters in Meltyukhov's book ("Evaluation by the Soviet leadership of the Second World War in 1939-1941" and "Place "Eastern Expedition" in German strategy of 1940-1941 and the power of the parties to the beginning of "Operation Barbarossa") quite clearly situate this decision in power politics and opportunism, which isn't too far off what I've been telling you from the start.


You have not read these chapters, and the same can be said about the fools who write the English wikipedia.

Оценка советским руководством событий Второй мировой войны в 1939-1941 гг.
"Evaluation by the Soviet leadership of the Second World War in 1939-1941"

http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/11.html


In this chapter Meltyukhov fully supports Rezun's claim, that from the point of view of Stalin Hitler was just an icebreaker of the world revolution. Rezun claimed that Nazi military aggression plays the role of the icebreaker for a communist invasion.

In this chapter Meltukov quotes Stalin, who believed that socialism in the USSR cannot survive on the long run without the destruction of the capitalistic surrounding.

To destroy capitalism USSR needed a strong army, and Stalin was building a strong army and a huge Military–industrial complex in the 30th, before the Third Reich started their own military programm.

The idea about the world revolution was an abstract idea in the times of Lenin. Lenin believed that a war between the capitalistic countries is good for the World Revolution. Lenin believed that the WWI permitted the Bolsheviks to inslave Russia, and he believed that WWII will give the Bolsheviks to enslave the entire Europe.

Stalin worked precisely towards this goal, he believed that WWII will give him the chance to enslave the entire Europe, because Hitler is weakening France and UK. Stalin believed that when the Capitalists will exhost each others in a big war, then he will invade Europe and finish all Capitalists.

1 сентября Германия напала на Польшу, а 3 сентября Англия и Франция объявили Германии войну. Оценивая начавшуюся войну в Европе, Сталин в беседе с руководством Коминтерна 7 сентября 1939 г. заявил, что "война идет между двумя группами капиталистических стран (бедные и богатые в отношении колоний, сырья и т.д.) за передел мира, за господство над миром! Мы не прочь, чтобы они подрались хорошенько и ослабили друг друга. Неплохо, если руками Германии будет расшатано положение богатейших капиталистических стран (в особенности Англии).

[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)]

As we see, Hitler was doing what was good for Stalin who had his own plans to invade and enslave Europe, after the UK is weakened by Hitler.


Пакт о ненападении, в некоторой степени помогает Германии. Следующий момент — подталкивать другую сторону"{1348}. Это сталинское высказывание не осталось в тайне, и 10 ноября 1939 г. начальник Политуправления РККА армейский комиссар 1 ранга Л.З. Мехлис на совещании с писателями заявил, что "Германия делает в общем полезное дело, расшатывая британскую империю. Разрушение ее поведет к общему краху капитализма — это ясно"{1349}.


[The non-agression pact with Germany is a small help for Hitler to weaken the capitalist. In the next step we will help the other side. 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".]


"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 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.]

Как заявил 15 мая Жданов на совещании работников кино в ЦК ВКП(б), "если обстоятельства нам позволят, то мы и дальше будем расширять фронт социализма"{1414}.

[Zhdanov told on 15. Mai 1941 "If we will get the opportunity, we will expand the the front of socialism". ]


Калинин ... 5 июня он сформулировал эту мысль более кратко: "ведь война такой момент, когда можно расширить коммунизм"{1416}.

[Kalinin told on 5th June 1941: "War is the best opportunity to increase the sphere of Communism".]


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"{1449}

[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.]

...основной целью CСCP являлось расширение "фронта социализма" на максимально возможную территорию. По мнению советского руководства, обстановка благоприятствовала осуществлению этой задачи. Оккупация Германией большей части континента, затяжная, бесперспективная война, рост недовольства населения оккупированных стран, распыление сил вермахта на разных фронтах, близкий японо-американский конфликт — все это давало советскому руководству уникальный шанс внезапным ударом разгромить Германию и "освободить" Европу от "загнивающего капитализма".

[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 (speak enslave) the entire Europe from capitalism.]


Место "Восточного похода" в стратегии Германии 1940—1941 гг. и силы сторон к началу операции

"Place "Eastern Expedition" in German strategy of 1940-1941 and the power of the parties to the beginning of "Operation Barbarossa"
http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/12.html


В ряду побудительных мотивов, которыми руководствовались в Берлине, принимая решение о начале войны с СССР, не последнее место занимали идеологические соображения. Традиционный антикоммунизм, являвшийся одной из основ национал-социалистической идеологии, объявившей себя единственной силой, способной противостоять коммунизму, разгром коммунистического движения в Германии и идеологическая борьба с ним в оккупированных странах Европы, казалось, подталкивали национал-социалистическое руководство к сокрушению центра коммунистической пропаганды в Москве.

[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.]


Он [Stalin] хочет вступить во владение наследством обедневшей Европы, ему тоже нужны успехи, его воодушевляет "Дранг нах Вестен". Ему также совершенно ясно, что после полной победы Германии положение России станет очень трудным.

[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.]

Гигантские пространства России таят в себе неисчислимые богатства. Германия должна экономически и политически овладеть этими пространствами, но не присоединять их к себе.

[The gigantic territory of Russia has huge natural reserves.
Germany must have an economical and political dominance over these territories, but not annex them.]

Source: Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (далее — KTB OKW). Frankfurt a.M. 1965. Bd.l. S.257—258; Вторая мировая война: два взгляда. М.,1995. С.136; Дашичев В.И. Указ. соч. Т.2. С.93—94

As we see, according to Meltyukhov Stalin was pushing for expansion, and he believed that Hitler is doing his bidding, weakening UK, one of the richest capitalist countries that must be destroyed in order to destroy the entire capitalist system. That was no secret at all, he told this in 1939 to the Comintern.

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.

[removed. off topic - SD]

Smilin' Dave, you don not speak Russian, and you were fooled by the authors of Wikipedia who either do not understand the Russian text, or are just liars.


Smilin' Dave wrote:
I am also unclear why you would choose to quote in Russian when you could have used translation programs (eg. Google Translate) or just provided the link with the caveat that it was in Russian.


Well, I have quoted the original text, and it is written in Russian. Machine translation is not good enough and sometimes misleading, and anybody can do this kind of machine translation himself.


Smilin' Dave wrote:
Actually German leaders also did not know anything specific about the plans of Stalin. Neither German source no mention of the fear of Hitler before the might of the Red Army.


The NS were aware of the huge resources of Russia, but they didn't know that the superiority of the SU was so astronomical.

Smilin' Dave wrote:
the contrary, he always spoke with contempt about stupid Russian.


Would you please support your statement with some quotes?

Smilin' Dave wrote:
Meltyukhov actually seems to be differing on historiographical grounds, rather than saying Rezun was completely correct.


The difference between the opinion of Rezun and Meltyukov is insignificant, they agree on main issues.

There was an official Soviet plan to attack Germany before Germany attacked the USSR, and Meltyukov agrees on this issue with Rezun. Period.

Smilin' Dave wrote:
I also don't see any proof from your end that lebensraum was truly motivated by a desire to reclaim farm land lost by those ethnic Germans.


Maybe the source, quoted by Meltyukov (see above) will help you.


Smilin' Dave wrote:
People were farming in the 'black soil' region long before mass German migration to Ukraine.


Not on the soil that produced grain for the export, and not in this huge amounts.

Smilin' Dave wrote:
Further as a technical note "Virgin Lands" (note those capital letters) is typically a reference to lands cultivated in Kazakhstan during the Khrushchev era.



Поднятая целина - Neuland unterm Pflug - Virgin Soil/Land Upturned

That is one of the major literary works Mikhail Sholokhov, and he wrote about the Ukrain.
There were still enough Virgin Land in the Ukraine even after the Revolution.

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

It seems that you do not know a lot about Russian and Soviet culture, literature and history.




Smilin' Dave wrote:
The source you cite for this is biased ...


I can quote a lot of Russian and German sources, if you want, that say the same. Sorry, but there is not much translated into English.


ArtAlim wrote:No Czech state was dismembered, because there was no such state

Smilin' Dave wrote:
I could get a map out for you and point it out if you like?


Yes, please do this.


Smilin' Dave wrote: If we are going to go solely by historical claims at what point do we stop going backward?


There is no need to go backward 2000 years, though some people do that to justify their land robbery.
I was talking about the population that was living on the mentioned land before it was stolen by the Poles (1917-1918).
These people were the only ones who had the right to decide about their future via a referendum. That was promised to them before the end of WWI, that was required by the international law.

Smilin' Dave wrote:
No referendum was held because it was a waste of time or a stupid political game run by the Germans who were crying about having lost their partition of Poland.


That is a very pathetic argument that shows your real face.
No more comments are needed, we can stop the discussion there.

ArtAlim wrote:It is obvious that the policy of Poles and the western powers was immoral and hypocritical

Smilin' Dave wrote: Says the guy making constant excuses for Hitler


I have repeated many times that this was the policy of the Weimar Republic, I am talking about the Weimar Republic, which was very liberal. Poles and western powers were immoral powers, they violated the human rights of people on the subjugated territories. The French and Brits violated the human rights of Blacks and Asians, Poles violated the human rights of Germans, Jews and other minorities they had subjugated after WWI.

You are so eager to have a discussion about Hitler and "them Nazis", and your refuse to have a discussion about the policy of the Weimar Republic, and this speaks volumes.


Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is a term coined by conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card."[2] According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[2]

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


You are constantly playing the "Nazi card", though the problem with the East Provinces of Germany is a problem of the Weimar Republic.

Hitler had just to continued this policy, nothing else.
#14320275
ArtAllm wrote:You have not read these chapters, and the same can be said about the fools who write the English wikipedia.

ArtAllm wrote:Smilin' Dave, you don not speak Russian, and you were fooled by the authors of Wikipedia who either do not understand the Russian text, or are just liars.

Have read those chapters and they actually are not discussed in any length in "English Wikipedia" (is that a bit like Perfidious Albion? ), when they do reference it they do so selectively much like yourself. "English Wikipedia" actually would read as tacit support for your position - I wouldn't say the editors of Wikipedia are lying, I would say they just haven't taken the whole of Meltyukhov's text into consideration in their rush to turn it into a neo-Rezun text.

For reference I'm using Google Translate for speed - I can read Russian but am still very slow when doing so.

I would argue on the few occasions Meltyukhov appears to be endorsing Rezun his work is either being misinterpreted or (in a sense) worse, Meltyukhov is presenting material out of context.

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)

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. See for example his dismissal of Volkogonov, Nikolaev and Molodyakov at the start of chapter 11. If you read those first few paragraphs you'll see Meltyukhov appears to dismiss an ideological drive for Soviet foreign policy and instead characterises it as essentially great power politics with an ideological cover on the front.

Is a speech Stalin gave to justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to the 'Communist world' really a good indicator of his true opinion? Wind the clock back a few years and Stalin would have been giving a speech about the need for a popular front. Further the quoted text does not explicitly state the purpose of allowing two 'capitalist' countries to weaken each other is to serve as an "icebreaker" as you contend. All he says is it is in the Soviet interest - which could be taken as meaning it will weaken external threats, which would be in line with Stalin's prior public policy from the late 1920s onward ('capitalist encirclement').

Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:The non-agression pact with Germany is a small help for Hitler to weaken the capitalist. In the next step we will help the other side. 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:
- 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.
- You'll also note for a skim of the end notes that a lot of these later chapters are not based in archival research but the work of others. Dare I suggest a lot of Meltyukhov's archival work related to his research of the Soviet military rather than foreign policy? The concentration of archival references seems higher in chapters relating to those topics.
- 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.

Anyway enough historiography for the moment, back to quoted text. The comment by Stalin only mentions the destruction of the capitalist system, nowhere does it suggest Stalin plans to make this happen himself. 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? Finally in 1941 the Soviets did join the Allies. Was that indicative of a plan to destroy capitalism?

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.

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:
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 makes it look entirely like an ideological crusade, the direct translation returns us to a power politics perspective by the end of the passage.

Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:Zhdanov told on 15. Mai 1941 "If we will get the opportunity, we will expand the the front of socialism".

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"

"If circumstances allow" isn't exactly a sign of a deliberate plan. 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.

Meltyukhov via ArtAllm wrote:Kalinin told on 5th June 1941: "War is the best opportunity to increase the sphere of Communism".

Firstly Kalinin had no real role in policy formulation, he was appointed precisely because he was not a political threat to anyone. 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?

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.

If you care going to translate, I suggest you avoid editorialisng - it just makes you look even more biased. Nowhere does Meltyukhov mention enslavement
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".

Given there were German speakers in the Baltic states and that 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. Once again I point out that June 1941 is probably a bit late in the piece to be preparing for an offensive.

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.

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 disagree with Meltyukhov's conclusion here in that he is interpreting the extention of the 'front of socialism' to mean invasion of Axis controlled territory. It could also have been a reference to the annexation of the Baltic states, Bessarabia/North Bukovina and the war with Finland. Nowhere does Meltyukhov supply a quote to the contrary. 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), Shcherbakov explicitly links the "front of socialism" with 'liberated' parts of the Ukraine and Belarus (endnote 1409). Meltyukhov's conclusion actually seems to be invented rather than a result of his study of sources - much of his evidence seems to be in the context of Soviet annexations rather than as part of pronouncements aimed at a future war with Nazi Germany.

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.

This totally contradicts your position - that Hitler was planning a pre-emptive strike. But good on you for referencing it anyway, so brave.

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.

You want want to clarify that you are quoting Hitler here.

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.

Wow a single statement by the Germans stating that they totally didn't plan to annex Eastern Europe. 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, which clearly do call for annexation. Finally you're citing the Nazis as planning an invasion for economic expansionist reasons... while trying to say that it was all just a pre-emptive strike a la Rezun. So you contradict yourself again too.

ArtAlim wrote:Machine translation is not good enough and sometimes misleading

You didn't prove all that reliable and it seems wat0n has had similar issues with your translations in the past as well.

ArtAlim wrote:Would you please support your statement with some quotes?

The quote you've got there is actually from Meltyukov, maybe you could ask him for an endorsement of the statement since you are his biggest fan?

ArtAlim wrote:The difference between the opinion of Rezun and Meltyukov is insignificant, they agree on main issues.

The differences are huge if you bother to look at them but most importantly of all Meltyukhov doesn't support your conclusions. That leaves you with Rezun's tripe about flying tanks and such, which has been totally debunked for some years now.

ArtAlim wrote:There was an official Soviet plan to attack Germany before Germany attacked the USSR

Which is totally different to what you have been claiming. Go back and read your nonsense about the 'evil empire' and planning to invade all Europe as part of an ideological crusade. Don't move the goal posts.

ArtAlim wrote:Maybe the source, quoted by Meltyukov (see above) will help you.

They say no such thing even without your defective translations.

ArtAlim wrote:Not on the soil that produced grain for the export, and not in this huge amounts.

Ah so suddenly maybe it wasn't "virgin land" but it just wasn't relevant because not enough work was being done. So suddenly two stupid settlements are the most important thing in the world because you found some ethnic Germans there.

ArtAlim wrote:Yes, please do this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 920-38.jpg
This map even appears on super duper German Wikipedia so it must be good

ArtAlim wrote:There is no need to go backward 2000 years, though some people do that to justify their land robbery.

So how far back can we go? The only formula you can produce is "as far back as necessary to suit me" which as I say is rubbish and I'm uninterested in debating this other than to make you look foolish.

No more comments are needed, we can stop the discussion there.

If you can't see why calls for a referendum that clearly have insufficent popular support would be a waste of time then yes, I think you should go somewhere else. Alternatively I have a long list of nonsense topics your country should take to a vote right now. If you don't I'll pretend to care about human rights.

ArtAlim wrote:I have repeated many times that this was the policy of the Weimar Republic

Ah so the policy of the Weimar Republic was also immoral and hypocritical?

Also what does this have to do with your arguments and the inability for anyone to take you seriously as a result?

ArtAlim wrote:You are so eager to have a discussion about Hitler and "them Nazis"

It is a discussion about foreign policy and WWII. Insisting we leave Hitler out of it would be totally stupid. Your attempts to exclude references to Hitler when it doesn't suit you is absurd.

ArtAlim wrote:Hitler had just to continued this policy, nothing else.

Not according to Mein Kampf.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14321143
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!
#14321255
ArtAllm wrote:I have omitted the unimportant details.

They were not unimportant, you changed the meaning on the quoted text to suit your argument. I would rather read slowly then mislead people.

ArtAllm wrote:I do not know what you are talking about, because I cannot read this book.

As I've already noted Mein Kampf is not illegal to read in Germany. In fact you could happily own a copy of it. I have even provided a quote from the text which you refuse to actually discuss, instead telling me that contrary to all appearances black is white and down is up.

I am not going to debate further with someone exhibiting such a significant level of cognitive dissonance as yourself.

ArtAllm wrote: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!

1. If you have a complaint about being sanctioned for something on this forum there are specific sub-forums for you to do so. I direct you not to raise this matter here again.
2. You tried to bring something totally irrelevant into the debate, you were told not to do it as a clear instruction, then you did it again. If you can't read the rules and can't do as you are told I don't think you belong on this forum. Lame attempts to play the martyr won't do you slightest bit of good.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I never said it was our brightest hour Rich. You […]

A long war with a lot of mistakes. Listen to thi[…]

Hitler lost WW2 because he had no oil... except R[…]