Putin has Defended the Nazi-Soviet Pact

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by asianobserve, Nov 10, 2014.

  1. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Putin has defended the Nazi-Soviet pact. Time for the west to wake up | Linas Linkevičius | Comment is free | The Guardian


    Vladimir Putin says there was nothing wrong with Soviet Union's pact with Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany - Telegraph

     
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Putin is right.

    Yes, I know western propaganda masquerading as "news-sites" would have been happier had the war started earlier resulting in deaths of the people of the USSR, but what Stalin did, he did for the benefit of his country. A leader who looks out for his own people is a leader worth respecting.

    Perhaps el-Guardiane should try to explain why the British government secretly supported the rise of Hitler?

    Yet another pathetic article to deflect from the fact that the west is supporting the Ukro-Nazis.
     
    Dovah, Razor and Prometheus like this.
  4. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ensured that WW2 really happened and sooner. The Western powers were doing everything they can to prevent war by appeasing Hitler (they gave him the smaller countries without much grumbling), that Hitler ass-licking defeatest Chamberlain even allowed himself to be fooled by Hitler just so he can have his peace in Europe dream. But POland was a different story since it was allied with UK and France. So he needed the USSR to be on board first so that even if UK and France decides to go to the aid of Poland then at least the USSR is not a threat (he knows that the USSR was salivating to get back what it believes was its rightful territory in Poland). Hitelr does not want to immediately open up 2 fronts (West and East) when they march into Poland.
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I am not disputing what you are saying about the other instances. They are correct.

    Hitler hated the Russians, and the Russians knew it.

    It was a game of chess being played at that time. The west hoped Hitler would invade USSR first, and Stalin's job was to somehow give Hitler a reason not to invade the USSR, but allowing resources from Russia and from the territories controlled by Japan via the Trans-Siberian Railway, and allow the Germans to carry out training and tests on Soviet territory, and in return get some technological knowledge from the Germans, which would eventually give the USSR more capability to produce armaments, in case it had to fight the Germans, because, Stalin knew that a German invasion was going to happen, sooner or later.
     
  6. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    I don't think the West wanted Germany to invade Russia. The West was still in dire financial condition in 1939 and its population was still trying to forget the carnage and devastation of WW1 and was certainly had no appetite for a new European war.

    It was true that the West had no love for the USSR at the time (well until the dissolution of the USSR). But the West was in no mood for a war even between Germany and Russia since it would surely drag them into it. Remember that Poland lie in between Germany and Russia and any war between these two powers will include the violation of Polish sovereignty. And since UK, France and POland were allies at the time, any attack on Poland would have surely sucked UK and France into the War.
     
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Whether the west wanted Germany to invade Russia or not is debatable. What is certain is that Hitler hated the Russians. It is also certain that Hitler wanted to avenge the French for the humiliation of WWI, of which, Hitler was a veteran.

    We can conclude that Hitler deeply wished to attack the Russians (USSR), and the French, which he did eventually.
     
  8. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
  9. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    There's no dispute about Hitler's dislike and ideological differences with the Soviets. But if the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is any indication it appears that he dislikes the West more than the USSR since he is more willing to enter into a pact with the latter against the West (Poland was part of the Western Alliance at the time).
     
  10. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    That is an assumption. His dislike against the west was political, but his dislike against the Russians was racial. Political differences are temporary, racial differences are not. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a product of the circumstances.
     
  11. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    Hitler's dislike for the Soviets were not only racial but also ideological. From the start of the rise of NAZIsm Hitler had consistently declared that Marxism as their enemy (German communists were among the first to be rounded up and exterminated by the NAZIs). But I think Stalin's opportunistic instinct got the best of him when he decided to take German's non-aggression and spheres of influence proposal.

    Had Stalin only resisted the temptation of partaking in Hitler's proposal to carve up Poland then I have no doubt that the latter would have had second thoughts of invading Poland as it would mean that he will simultaneously face the four biggest military powers in Europe (UK, France and Poland, and USSR).
     
  12. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I have a slightly different view.

    Stalin had no choice. He had already purged many of the well trained Russian generals because they were loyal to the Tsarist cause, and knew that his army of peasants was going to have a hard time fighting the trained German army. He had no opportunity, except an opportunity to settle for a crucial peace, even if temporary.

    Carving up Poland was not a temptation. It was merely a buffer. Had Staling not carved up Poland, all of it would have been occupied by Hitler.
     
    Razor likes this.
  13. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    If Stalin's intention in invading Poland was only defensive then why did he order the extermination of the POlish leadership, its military officers and people who could be leaders? You have to reconcile that dark part of Soviet's history in Poland since the extermination order did not come from impulse.

    But you know what I think, Stalin was compelled by these 3 main factors (in the order of importance):

    1. Stalin wants to get Eastern Poland, which it believed it is entitled to;
    2. Stalin wants to avenge Soviet shame when they lost their first war against Poland; and,
    3. Stalin wants a buffer zone for what he believed would be a war between capitalists in Europe.
     
  14. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
  15. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    This indicates that militarily the Germans were not that superduper in their mode of conducting warfare since they were violating most Principles of War.

    But then it must be that the others were worse.
     
  16. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    I have always maintained and held the opinion that history is never the real and full truth, but that of half truth, conjecture, imagination and agenda driven,

    It is the view made popular by vested interests who dictate the terms of the world.
     
  17. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
    It is pretty certain that Germany carried out in 1941 a preemptive strike against Russia. History is written by the winners.
     
  18. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    @Ray

    That the Soviets were planning of dominating by invasion Europe should not have been remote to World leaders at the time since Marxism is an internationalist ideology. The first time that it tried to do it (in 1920) after the Bolshivek's consolidation of power in Russia was stopped by the Polish. But by the late 1930's Stalin was dusting up plans for Soviet expansion to Europe. But In 1939, when it was becoming increasingly clear that Europe was about to be plunged into another great war thanks to Hitler, Stalin strategized that the USSR will stay neutral and let the Western "imperialists" destroy each other. And when they are severely weakened by their own war the USSR will roll into Europe.

    Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. Richard Tedor.

    Unfortunately for Stalin, German concluded the war in the West quickly with France's early capitulation. As a result of its quick victory Germany was not exhausted when it turned its attention to the USSR (after abandoning its attempt to invade Britain). The UK was also able to preserved a lot of its manpower through Dunkirk.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  19. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    @asianobserve,

    I am aware of military history, as has been written from the Western perspective, after the defeat of Germany and Japan.

    However, I have always wondered if the German lost all because of Hitler's rants and insanity.

    All said and done, to believe that the Germans were some superior military to cover Allied defeats was a perplexing issue to digest. Defeat does not happen because someone is beyond challenge. It happens because someone has also blundered against the better machine & better leadership. The defence of Leningrad and Stalingrad are cases in point.

    Further, cases in point is the fact that while Patton moved through the Germans with the ease of a knife cutting butter, Montgomery was floundering all through. Same enemy and near same conditions. And Patton was held back so that the British image is not tarnished!!!!!!

    These cases in point highlight the fraud that is perpetuated in historical accounts, of course couched and conjured with some rationale to appear presentable and 'fair'.

    BTW has there been any films to show WW II from the German or the Japanese point of view?

    How come there are none, except the one allowed to be released that have been very cautious and has in no way indicated the real Japanese and German nationalist viewpoint and justification of teh rationale of that time.

    It is only of late, that some Japanese films on WWII have been allowed, even so they are politically very cautious.

    Are we to understand that the Germans and Japanese were only villainous blokes with no victories to talk about?

    You can revel in what the Western historians pan out as the sole truth.

    Take the case of history of India written by the British Raj British historians. I believed it. However, now that facts are tumbling out, the fraud is being unravelled.

    As I said earlier, I am not gullible. I analyse and I also have the faculty to question when I am not convinced.

    Take the case of Gorbachev. He is a good chap as per the West. Is he? Was he not heading the same apparatus that all other Communist headed? And had that apparatus become benign and cute just because of him? That would be codswallop to believe.

    And was the world not fooled that Saddam was sitting on a huge pile of WMD that would be released within 45 mins as per Blair?

    If it did not come out, thanks to the failure to produce evidence, the world would have indeed believed that it was the case so.

    Likewise, notwithstanding all the theories put out about the Malaysian Airline flight going to China, I refuse to believe that it just fell off from the air. There has to be a reason and someone is not telling the truth.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Peter likes this.
  20. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    I don't know where you got your claim that Western sources does not depict German and Japanese victories in some of the battles in WW2. From SEA perspective, I have always known the German and Japanese victories in numerous battles specially at the start of WW2 (we know in Malaya how ruthless and effective the Japanese Imperial Forces were). But when attrition came in and the ability to keep on producing weapons and men, hands down the Allies (+USSR) had the initiative. Both Japan and Germany cannot replace the soldiers that they were losing as the war progressed. Hence, towards the end of the war you only had children and the elderly fighting for Germany. Japan on the other hand cannot resupply fast enough their garrisons all over Asia towards the latter part of the war. The allies on the other hand, especially UK and the US which are pratically untouched by war (except for few bomb damage in London for UK), were able to produce both men and material on a continuous basis until the end of the war. Their resupply system kept on getting better as the war progressed.
     
  21. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    I get it from reading military history.

    You read history as a reader of historical events.

    We read military history for analysis.

    Of course you do not recall atrocties of the British in Malaysia. Why should you? It serves your purpose and your complacency to bask in ignorance and believe what you are told.

    How about this to open your eyes?

    These are just a few links.

    But then ofcourse, you will declare them as fiction, even though it is from the Western media, right?

    Lesson to be learnt is that ALL AGGRESSORS AND IMPERIALIST are cruel and have to be so to ensure that there is no opposition to their rule.

    I am surprised that you know so little of your country and its history.

    Enjoy your reverie.

    ******************************

    I am awaiting your comments on this

    Interesting that you are silent to Post #18 and your silence is very conspicuous.

    Focus and not be light scattering though the irregularities in the propagation medium i.e your vision of history and biases.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
    Peter likes this.

Share This Page