Putin’s historical revisionism - 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.
#15059240
In a nutshell, Western history has it that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed between Germany and Russia on Aug. 23, 1939, is the root of all evil that made Russia complicit in the Nazi invasion of Poland, while the Munich Agreement, which granted Hitler part of Czechoslovakia, signed between Germany and GB, France and Italy on Sept. 30th, 1938, is an expression of the good-hearted naiveté of Western governments, who were trying to appease the dictator to avoid war.

Needless to say, Russia has always contested that interpretation of history. The debate recently flared up again when Putin claiming that Poland was also responsible for WWII because it was complicit with Hitler in annexing part of Czechoslovakia into Poland and that the West by signing the Munich Agreement was just as complicit in Hitler’s aggression as Russia was by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Unsurprisingly, this provoked strong protests from Poland and the West.

Does Putin have a point?
#15059245
Of course he does. What the Soviet Union did to Poland in 1939 was no worse than what Poland had done to Czechoslovakia just a few months earlier. The big fish eat the little fish....
#15059374
No he doesn't.

The two are totally different. Giving the Sudetenland to Germany was absolutely the right thing to do. The only thing that was unseemly about it was the speed of the transfer, but in the overall scheme of things this was not terribly important. The Sudetenland was majority native German. At least as far as I recall British and French troops did not take part in carving up the Sudetenland the way the Soviet Union took part in carving up Poland.

The destruction of Poland was a totally different matter. I think a case could be made for allowing Germany to retake its 1914 Polish territory, but no plausible justification could be made for the destruction of Poland or for that matter the earlier occupation of rCheckoslovakia. The German Soviet pact was the precursor to aggression. It should be noted that the Soviet occupation of Lithuania was not really in accord with the agreement. But what ever, from August 1939 to June 1941 the Soviet union was in effect a non belligerent ally of Nazi Germany as the USA was a non belligerent ally of Britain.

The only thing that was paralleled in the two cases, is that I believe both Chamberlain and Stalin became emotionally invested in their agreements with Hitler. These were to some extent understandable errors. It is only human to over invest emotionally in these things and lose objectivity. Its very easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight.

In my view Chamberlain was the greatest man of the 20th century. Yes he was rabid peace monger. I loved Thatchers line on Yugoslavia: "Dougie, Dougie, You make Nevill chamberlain look like a war monger." However Chamberlain overcame his desire to avoid another war to lead Britain, the Commonwealth and France into war with Germany. This was real leadership. It was vital that the British people, the French people and people in the United States saw Chamberlain going the last mile for peace.

Churchill on the other hand was a first class war monger. No one can take that away from him. And as we know every stopped clock is right twice a day. It was his high handed action that contributed to Turkey's entry into World War 1. His war mongering against the Bolsheviks after WWI was not grounded in reality. People are still whining about our 2003 intervention in Iraq. Imagine if Britain had sent substantial amount of ground troops into Russia after WWI. I'm sure that would have gone well. Then there was his desire to intervene in the Winter War on the side of Finland. Um perhaps its good that Finland surrendered before Churchill could pull that one off.

The funny thing is the one of the few times that Churchill really got it right when no one else would, was his repeated attacks against civilian targets in Berlin in the summer of 1940, that goaded Hitler into retaliation. If Winston Churchill had been a member of PoFo at the time, he'd almost certainly have ended up with a red card.
#15059378
In my view Chamberlain was the greatest man of the 20th century. Yes he was rabid peace monger. I loved Thatchers line on Yugoslavia: "Dougie, Dougie, You make Nevill chamberlain look like a war monger." However Chamberlain overcame his desire to avoid another war to lead Britain, the Commonwealth and France into war with Germany. This was real leadership. It was vital that the British people, the French people and people in the United States saw Chamberlain going the last mile for peace.

I'm glad to see that someone else appreciates the greatness of Neville Chamberlain. He was a visionary statesman, whose desire for peace was betrayed by Hitler. Once he realised Hitler's duplicity, of course, he did not hesitate - he drew a red line around Poland, and when Hitler crossed over that line he promptly declared war on him. What more could anyone have asked of a British statesman in those times?

The funny thing is the one of the few times that Churchill really got it right when no one else would, was his repeated attacks against civilian targets in Berlin in the summer of 1940, that goaded Hitler into retaliation. If Winston Churchill had been a member of PoFo at the time, he'd almost certainly have ended up with a red card.

Churchill was a "mad mascot". He was a military bungler and a political outsider. His main purpose was to rally the masses behind the war effort and to make inspirational speeches. And he was very, very good at that. But a greater statesman than Neville Chamberlain? Not really; he was just luckier than Chamberlain, that's all.
#15059383
The more western media is trying to compare Staling with Hitler the more I come to the conclusion that Stalin did nothing wrong
Example of westerners rewriting history
the claim that Stalin murdered 20 million people is bullshit the amount of people that died in gulags are about 1 million (there are documents that proves that)
"holodomor" was not targeting Ukrainians specifically its a term that was invented in 1989 by Ukrainian Canadian
this was a famine that struck many parts of Russia Belarus and even Kazakhstan Ukraine was affected the most because they had the most grain
the Ukrainians want to be victims like the Jews but they were the ones who controlled the Soviet Union and fought for it (how ironic)
the people who executed the "holodomor" in Ukraine were Ukrainians themselves

Stalin was a cold heart person with not much empathy to others but he was nothing like Hitler and he contributed alot to the victory over the Nazis

Molotov Ribbentrop pact was about taking the lands the rightfully belonged to the Soviet union (former Russian Empire)
and pushing the Nazis a little bit away from Moscow
everyone knew that a war was imminent Stalin did not think it will happen so quickly. the most obvious evidance was that the factories were transported to the urals so quickly when the war begun shows that there were preparations made

Stalin was not a very nice guy but comparing him to Hitler is insulting the veterans who fought and died to crush the Nazi monster
#15059406
Zionist Nationalist wrote:The more western media is trying to compare Staling with Hitler the more I come to the conclusion that Stalin did nothing wrong
Example of westerners rewriting history
the claim that Stalin murdered 20 million people is bullshit the amount of people that died in gulags are about 1 million (there are documents that proves that)
"holodomor" was not targeting Ukrainians specifically its a term that was invented in 1989 by Ukrainian Canadian
this was a famine that struck many parts of Russia Belarus and even Kazakhstan Ukraine was affected the most because they had the most grain
the Ukrainians want to be victims like the Jews but they were the ones who controlled the Soviet Union and fought for it (how ironic)
the people who executed the "holodomor" in Ukraine were Ukrainians themselves

Stalin was a cold heart person with not much empathy to others but he was nothing like Hitler and he contributed alot to the victory over the Nazis

Molotov Ribbentrop pact was about taking the lands the rightfully belonged to the Soviet union (former Russian Empire)
and pushing the Nazis a little bit away from Moscow
everyone knew that a war was imminent Stalin did not think it will happen so quickly. the most obvious evidance was that the factories were transported to the urals so quickly when the war begun shows that there were preparations made

Stalin was not a very nice guy but comparing him to Hitler is insulting the veterans who fought and died to crush the Nazi monster


Absolutely correct, especially, even emphatically, the last part. And to insult and degrade the victors and distort the historical record is the aim of all the would-be Crypto-Fascist/Crypto-Nazi scum of humanity out there.... Because they want to make a comeback and try to exterminate Jews and Slavs and Gypsies and anyone else who crosses them and their dreams of world conquest and enslavement of humanity.
#15059415
Zionist Nationalist wrote:The more western media is trying to compare Staling with Hitler the more I come to the conclusion that Stalin did nothing wrong
Example of westerners rewriting history
the claim that Stalin murdered 20 million people is bullshit the amount of people that died in gulags are about 1 million (there are documents that proves that)
"holodomor" was not targeting Ukrainians specifically its a term that was invented in 1989 by Ukrainian Canadian
this was a famine that struck many parts of Russia Belarus and even Kazakhstan Ukraine was affected the most because they had the most grain
the Ukrainians want to be victims like the Jews but they were the ones who controlled the Soviet Union and fought for it (how ironic)
the people who executed the "holodomor" in Ukraine were Ukrainians themselves

Stalin was a cold heart person with not much empathy to others but he was nothing like Hitler and he contributed alot to the victory over the Nazis

Molotov Ribbentrop pact was about taking the lands the rightfully belonged to the Soviet union (former Russian Empire)
and pushing the Nazis a little bit away from Moscow
everyone knew that a war was imminent Stalin did not think it will happen so quickly. the most obvious evidance was that the factories were transported to the urals so quickly when the war begun shows that there were preparations made

Stalin was not a very nice guy but comparing him to Hitler is insulting the veterans who fought and died to crush the Nazi monster
Stalin was also anti-Semitic, i.e. an enemy to Jews. It was just that some other pariah had the "bright" idea of exterminating them, thereby making Stalin look considerably better in comparison.

However, in terms of killing and oppressing their own people, Stalin would probably trump Hitler.
#15059484
Patrickov wrote:Stalin was also anti-Semitic, i.e. an enemy to Jews. It was just that some other pariah had the "bright" idea of exterminating them, thereby making Stalin look considerably better in comparison.

However, in terms of killing and oppressing their own people, Stalin would probably trump Hitler.


Stalin even though disliked Jews ironically he helped to establish IsraeL by voting in favor at the UN and sending weapons also his soldiers have fred the Jews from the extermination camps we should never forget that

Stalin did not kill nearly as much as hitler did
this is false western propoganda intended to rewrite history
#15059491
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
Stalin did not kill nearly as much as hitler did
this is false western propoganda intended to rewrite history



Hitler killed 2 or 3 million more than Stalin. That's still several million.

Added together that doesn't come close to equalling the death toll during the Great Leap Forward.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/
#15059507
late wrote:Hitler killed 2 or 3 million more than Stalin. That's still several million.

Added together that doesn't come close to equalling the death toll during the Great Leap Forward.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/


The link seems not talking figures for the Great Purge at all.

For Great Leap Forward's case, to be fair we are talking to a rather large population base. And even more terrifyingly, the population was more or less on the rise, or in the worst case, just suffered a very slight dip.
#15059521
Patrickov wrote:The link seems not talking figures for the Great Purge at all.

For Great Leap Forward's case, to be fair we are talking to a rather large population base. And even more terrifyingly, the population was more or less on the rise, or in the worst case, just suffered a very slight dip.

As Adam Smith once said, "There is much ruin in a nation". What he meant by this was that it takes a lot to utterly destroy a nation. Even Germany rose from the ashes post-1945. Hitler's wars, Stalin's purges and Mao's leaps barely put a dent in the population figures. The Spanish flu killed more people in just a couple of years than all these guys put together. Our response to political oppression is out of all proportion to the actual effects of that oppression, due to the moralistic nature of human thinking. Hong Kong is providing a good example of this right now, as is France.
#15059522
Potemkin wrote:
Our response to political oppression is out of all proportion to the actual effects of that oppression, due to the moralistic nature of human thinking.



Yeah, it's just a few million murdered, after all.
#15059528
late wrote:Yeah, it's just a few million murdered, after all.

Indeed. :)

And how many millions die on our roads every year? How many millions die of starvation or preventable diseases? Yet we let them die with no regrets. Why?
#15059542
Potemkin wrote:
Indeed. :)

And how many millions die on our roads every year?


Yet we let them die with no regrets. Why?



1.25 million.

We have been lowering the death rate for a long time. So saying there are no regrets is quite mistaken.

Beyond that, we are not deliberately killing those people. You've moved the goalposts.
#15059552
Potemkin wrote:Hitler's wars, Stalin's purges and Mao's leaps barely put a dent in the population figures. The Spanish flu killed more people in just a couple of years than all these guys put together.


The German population was reduced by about 50% during the 30-year war, which in today's population figures would be 40 millions.

Despite all the horrors of the 20th century, the number of violent deaths has decreased over history. The scale of murder has increased due to improved weapons, but the number of conflicts is reduced. In ancient times, people lived in constant fear of tribal warfare and most didn't grow older than 40 to 50 years of age because they died a violent death or due to disease.

Since WWII, Western Europe has experienced the most peaceful period in history. So much so that thousands of Europeans go to join the fighting in the ME out of shear boredom. They yearn for blood, gore and destruction. The post-war generation which wanted to make love and not war is long forgotten.
#15059560
All the millions of dead in under Lenin and Stalin would have been justified if it had really led to paradise on earth. If it had really led to the unleashing of the human potential, the end of war, prosperity, equality and an end to alienation. Particularly at the time, not long after the First World War and then with the onset of the depression and the rise of fascism, the established order left a lot to be desired. It was quite possible to convince oneself that it was Stalin or barbarism.

Hitler on the other hand would have been fine if he'd been dictator of El Salvador. A Hitler dictatorship in Salvador would probably have been preferable and more humane than a communist dictatorship. However Hitler could just not be trusted as leader of Germany. Every leader he made a deal with bar one he betrayed to a greater or lesser extent. The one leader he never betrayed, was Mussolini. He was of course the one leader that he should have betrayed.

Wilhelm Keitel: Mein Fuhrer, mein Fuhrer, the Italians have just entered the war.
Hitler: Send a couple of divisions that should deal with them.
Keitel: No, no mein Fuhrer they have entered the war on our side.
Hitler: In that case send ten.

Because of Hitler's pathological racist outlook, its very difficult to justify Hitler's killings, even as a regrettable mistake. However just because there was a need to prioritise the containment of Germany and regime change against the Nazis at a particular point in history, doesn't mean that chasing around Nazis should be a priority today. Indeed even from the end of November 1942, although we still had to defeat the Nazi regime we should also have prioritised containing Stalin . There should certainly have been no demand for unconditional surrender.
#15059561
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. :)

And how many millions die on our roads every year? How many millions die of starvation or preventable diseases? Yet we let them die with no regrets. Why?


It seems cynical and cruel when not considered in the abstract; someone's son or brother, wife or aunt or grandmother, might have been caught up in the terrors... Whether the Nazi murders or whatever.

But Revolutions are cruel and messy affairs, every one, and on that personal level can appear to be quite unjust. But whether you call it Hegel's ''Cunning of History'' or Joseph de Maistre's ''Workings of Divine Providence'' (because Revolutions, like Great Men, never accomplish what they mightily strive to do, but other objects of history which are mysterious and strange), it is what it is. It's best for everyone to forgive, hard as it may sound, and move on with our lives without being contestants of the "Victim Olympics'' into eternity.
#15059565
Image

Putin criticized a resolution passed by the European Parliament in September, which blames both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for World War II’s 1939 outbreak following Hitler’s invasion of Poland. The resolution was passed on the urging of Poland’s nationalist ruling party, Law and Justice, which wants the EU to maintain a hard line against Russia. This is why Putin wrongly blamed Poland for the Nazi takeover of the Sudetenland, which was arranged by Chamberlain. Poland was Britain's client state at the time that was totally reliant on Britain to maintain its security. Poland was in no position to oppose Chamberlain's deal with Hitler in an effort to appease him. What I like about Chamberlain is his upper-class snobbishness. He dressed stylishly with an umbrella and he almost handed his hat to Hitler, who was mistaken as a bellboy when they first met because of his lower-class origin. The main point of Putin's argument is largely valid:

Putin described the European parliament’s document as part of what he cast as Western efforts to downplay a decisive role that the Soviet Union played in defeating the Nazis.

“They want to shift the blame for unleashing World War II from the Nazis to Communists,” Putin said.

In a highly emotional speech, the Russian president pointed at the removal of monuments to Red Army soldiers in eastern and central Europe as an insult to their memory.

“Those Red Army soldiers were simple people — workers and farmers — and many of them suffered from Stalin’s regime,” he said. “These people sacrificed their lives to free Europe from the Nazis, and now they tear down monuments to them. They do it to cover up what effectively was a collusion of European leaders with Hitler.”

https://apnews.com/5fd1ed7dafc9918673a13b2fa8893c2f
Syrian war thread

https://twitter.com/UrOrientalist/status/12889628[…]

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1290011636888[…]

https://twitter.com/MrsC_Assange/status/1278903120[…]

https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/127723917650[…]