Putin has Defended the Nazi-Soviet Pact

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Look who's talking about propaganda and imaginary enemies.











Dehumanizing the East (making them look like monkeys, bear, weird humanoids etc) was one of West's trademarks.

Propaganda oozes out of every aspect of Western society.

Back in the day it was more "in your face", these days it is subtle and more effective.

The level of paranioa in the USSR was on a different field as that of the West. The Soviet authorities has essentially locked down the whole Soviet Union so that they can control information going into it and prevent people from going out.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Jouni, your (EU) support of Poroshenko will kill your standard of living. I have told you earlier that EU is underestimating Russia.
Russia is a continent size country with enormous mineral wealth. Russians are also fairly good in science. Russia is NO Saudi Arabia.
Russia is bigger than the surface of Pluto. :)
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
"A lot of scholars agree " and others would say not necessarily.
Just look at these figures:

1,600,000 tons of grains
900,000 tons of oil
200,000 tons of cotton
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
100,000 tons of soybeans
500,000 tons of iron ores
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinum
These are the amounts of materials sent by the USSR to Germany. These materials no doubt allowed Germany to build up its military to attack Poland and start WW2 (and ironically attack the USSR).


No. Why exactly should SU sign a pact with West, when they themselves were "appeasing" Hitler.
Had a Defence PAct been signed between the USSR and the Western powers then it would have created a very significant and powerful counterbalance to Germany that would have given it serious worries about starting WW2.

The USSR alone had the biggest military that worried Hitler to a point that he swallowed his ideological disgust against the Soviets to enter into a pact with them. Hitler needed an assurance that the USSR will not intervene against it when it invades Poland and Stalin gave it to him.


That's a theory at best.
Nazi's didn't honor some of their agreements, you think warning them will work.
And no point having the largest army, if you are a non-industrialized country.
What Hitler did not want was a 2 front war with the combined Anglo-French forces on the West and the USSR on the East. That's why he wanted the Pact with Stalin.

Knowing the rabid dislike of Hitler against the Soviets, he would not have entered into security pacts with them if he do not really need it.


But this was not part of the Pact and therefore does not conflict with the reasoning that the pact was intended to be profitable bargain that at the same time "appeases" Hitler.
This mightt have been done as a consequence of the evolving situations.
The massacre of the POlish elite by the Soviets show that the USSR does not have defense as its primary motivation for invading Poland. It wanted to annex Polish territory first and foremost. Hence, the Soviets have to liquidate the POlish leadership that could pose serious threat to them later on.

If the Soviets only wanted to defend itself against the Germans then there was no need to massacre thousands of Polish officers.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
@Razor, Stalin did many things which can be questioned today. I am sure today's leaders will be questioned tomorrow. This cycle will go on.

Putin's situation is NOT AT ALL similar to Stalin. Russia is NO USSR. Putin cannot take unilateral decisions.

Putin has taken very calculated small steps so far, which Russia can back militarily. This is very different from Stalin's time. Stalin never cared for cost to the State.

Putin is dealing with an international and economic structure very different from Stalin's time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
It is not hard to notice that Putin has been very careful not to take action against civilian infrastructure. While Kiev is bombing apartments and water supply plants, Moscow has not responded in kind.

The Western propaganda is to put USSR and Russia in the same bracket, where reality is completely different.

Russia is winning on the ground. Ultimately propaganda has limited utility.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
It is not hard to notice that Putin has been very careful not to take action against civilian infrastructure. While Kiev is bombing apartments and water supply plants, Moscow has not responded in kind.

The Western propaganda is to put USSR and Russia in the same bracket, where reality is completely different.

Russia is winning on the ground. Ultimately propaganda has limited utility.
@sgarg, if you have not already, please read about Tsarist Russia's conquest of Central Asia.

The giant Soviet hammer (to borrow from another article) is gone. Russia is playing this game very intelligently. I think Putin is allowing public opinion in Russia to turn in favour of an escalation of the conflict, so that he can take a more direct approach.

In the meanwhile, I welcome the artillery-detecting mobile radars, and assuming Putin sent them, he did a good job, and the Kiev thugs will find it difficult to shell the civilians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Nope. There are people who suport pan-slavonic movemet. But it not the same as Russian nationalism.
Pan-Slavism is an integral part of Russian nationalism. I guess you have to read more on this.


There are a lot of analysis on Putin's Pan-Slavism quest. But if you;re asking for a quote then I don;t know of any. This is the closest I can get:

I wonder when Putin has said anything about uniting Slavic brothers in Eastern Europe. You may give links, if you can.
"If we really say that [the Ukrainian people] are a brother people, and a brother country, then we are obliged to conduct ourselves as a close relative and help the Ukrainian people in this difficult situation," said Putin.


By "this" if you mean pan-slavism , then you are wrong. The idea of uniting Ukr (East), Belarus and Russia stems from the three nations being considered a single Russian nation (Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia.)
But I'm still not sure how you have Putin involved in this. As he has not said anything, at least from what I see, about uniting Ukr, Rus, Belrus.
Though it was purported that he once said that if Ukr joins NATO, Russia will take back E.Ukr, because of the strong pro-Russia sentiment there. But I don't know if this is an accurate quote.
I saw on TV earlier the right hand of Putin saying that.


How do you claim that Soviet Union trying to "re-acquire" areas, is rooted in Russian nationalism ?
The expansion of the USSR into Eastern Europe and Baltics has very little to do with communism as it was to reclaim territories previously part of Tsarist Russia.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Last edited by a moderator:

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Pan-Slavism is an integral part of Russian nationalism. I guess you have to read more on this.
There are a lot of analysis on Putin's Pan-Slavism quest. But if you;re asking for a quote then I don;t know of any. This is the closest I can get:
I saw on TV earlier the right hand of Putin saying that.
The expansion of the USSR into Eastern Europe and Baltics has very little to do with communism as it was to reclaim territories previously part of Tsarist Russia.
You miss the basic theme of USSR. USSR was expansionist on the basis of its ideology. USSR took its ideology to the four corners of the world.

USSR tried to assimilate many nations - why you single out Poland.

The Russian Federation does not exist on the basis of Soviet ideology. We have seen these changes quite clearly in our dealing with Russia and previous USSR.

Russian Federation defines its political existence on the basis of a Russian identity which is a successor of Slavic ethnic identity.

There is no reason for you and me to question this Russian identity as a Russian State exists on this basis.
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Jouni, your (EU) support of Poroshenko will kill your standard of living. I have told you earlier that EU is underestimating Russia.
Russia is a continent size country with enormous mineral wealth. Russians are also fairly good in science. Russia is NO Saudi Arabia.
I think it is not possible to underestimate Russia enough. They will always surprise you.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
You miss the basic theme of USSR. USSR was expansionist on the basis of its ideology. USSR took its ideology to the four corners of the world.

USSR tried to assimilate many nations - why you single out Poland.

The Russian Federation does not exist on the basis of Soviet ideology. We have seen these changes quite clearly in our dealing with Russia and previous USSR.

Russian Federation defines its political existence on the basis of a Russian identity which is a successor of Slavic ethnic identity.

There is no reason for you and me to question this Russian identity as a Russian State exists on this basis.

That's a lonely position you got there. Even members who are loudly pro-Russia does not share that view, for good reason. You see communism was just a means to an end for the Russians. They needed an idea to change the prevailing corrupted system in Tsarist Russia so they embraced Marxism (never mind if Russia was not in the Capitalist stage invisaged in MArxism, Russia was mostly still in the Feudal stage at the time of the revolution if you follow the Marxist social development strata). They needed an excuse to justify their expansion to territories previously part of Tsarist Russia (not only Eatsern Europe but even the Baltic states and Finland), so they invoke the internationalist part of communism.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Our food is pretty clean Top 20 World's cleanest countries - iip albanjary's blog | Earth

Regarding Marshall aid: It was also offered to eastern Europe and Russia, and yes Russia turned it down...
The issue is not about Finland and Finnish food. In fact, when I was a child, one Finnish visiting professor gave me a huge box of chocolate from Finnair. They were even better than Swiss chocolates or so I felt.

The issue that you raised was the decent living being the sole proprietorship of the West.

I just brought out that it was not so.

I said that what may superficially appear as 'decent living', may actually be retrogressive to human well being and health.

If USSR did not accept the Marshall Plan, it in no way means that they had spurred a 'great' offer and hence they are guilty. Why should they have taken on that offer and become enslaved to Western magnanimity and appear holding out a begging bowl as they others had done under duress.

Germany or even Japan could have risen as the phoenix without the Marshall Plan. Germany had showed that in the intervening 20 years of the two World Wars and inspite the punitive and unfair provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany not only industrialised itself, but militarily shook the World. Therefore, Germans do not require the 'begging bowl' which the others like Poland requires.

So, let us not compare Poland with Germany or compare Polish resurgence assisted by the US and others and Russia.

One is an independent country charting its own course, while the other (Poland) is but a vassal under the economic protection of the West.
 
Last edited:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Ok, just wandering what those raw facts are. I agree that economics don't tell the whole story. I think all who write to this forum have good and happy live, regardless where they live.
That depends on the quantity/quality being measured.
Essentially "trying to get to the very bottom of things."
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
The level of paranioa in the USSR was on a different field as that of the West. The Soviet authorities has essentially locked down the whole Soviet Union so that they can control information going into it and prevent people from going out.
The "level of paranoia" as you put it, is a subjective measure.
So, to some the level of American propaganda and paranoia would be insane/creepy.

We know of the psychological/propaganda operations of anti-Soviet nature carried out in Europe and in Mainland America.
According to American propaganda, the "commies" seemed to be behind everything "evil". There is a large percentage of American movies were Russians and Soviets are "bad guys". A counterpart of such movies are rare in the Soviet Union.

They even tried to corrupt and contaminate the minds of young children, who are entitled to a happy childhood by filling their hatred into comics. There are plenty, a few below:







The Americans are the undisputed and reigning champions of propaganda.
The Americans even had crazy ideas like air-dropping XXL condoms on to Soviet cities after marking them as "Medium" so as "to demoralize them against an anatomically superior American army."
This "genius" plan wasn't carried out, though.
 
Last edited:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Last edited by a moderator:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Just look at these figures:
These are the amounts of materials sent by the USSR to Germany. These materials no doubt allowed Germany to build up its military to attack Poland and start WW2 (and ironically attack the USSR).
You have not provided a source for the "figures."
Even when you do my question would be, can't the SU trade with Germany ?
If you blame that for strengthening Germany, then no trade can be done on this planet.

Had a Defence PAct been signed between the USSR and the Western powers then it would have created a very significant and powerful counterbalance to Germany that would have given it serious worries about starting WW2.
That's a theory. Clearly Stalin did not buy it because of the back-stabbing nature of the Western powers.

The USSR alone had the biggest military that worried Hitler to a point that he swallowed his ideological disgust against the Soviets to enter into a pact with them. Hitler needed an assurance that the USSR will not intervene against it when it invades Poland and Stalin gave it to him.
And Stalin needed assurance that Hitler wouldn't attack him, and Hitler gave it to him. Thus enabling Stalin to keep his country safe, at least that's what he thought.

What Hitler did not want was a 2 front war with the combined Anglo-French forces on the West and the USSR on the East. That's why he wanted the Pact with Stalin.
And what Stalin wanted was safety of his non-industrialized peasant country.


Pan-Slavism is an integral part of Russian nationalism. I guess you have to read more on this.
If by pan-slavism you mean uniting of Russia, ukr, belorus, then of course Yes.
If by pan-slavism you mean you mean uniting all Slavs, then No. This is what I meant in previous post in case not clear.


There are a lot of analysis on Putin's Pan-Slavism quest. But if you;re asking for a quote then I don;t know of any. This is the closest I can get:
"If we really say that [the Ukrainian people] are a brother people, and a brother country, then we are obliged to conduct ourselves as a close relative and help the Ukrainian people in this difficult situation," said Putin.
:lol:
So you implied in earlier post that Putin wants to conquer all Slavs. And I asked when and where Putin said that and on What you are basing it. You couldn't give any answer to that, and you quote (without any link) Putin talking about Ukrainians as a brotherly nation (which they are), and construe it as a call to unite Slavs. Laughable.

The expansion of the USSR into Eastern Europe and Baltics has very little to do with communism as it was to reclaim territories previously part of Tsarist Russia.
That's a lonely position you got there. Even members who are loudly pro-Russia does not share that view, for good reason. You see communism was just a means to an end for the Russians. They needed an idea to change the prevailing corrupted system in Tsarist Russia so they embraced Marxism (never mind if Russia was not in the Capitalist stage invisaged in MArxism, Russia was mostly still in the Feudal stage at the time of the revolution if you follow the Marxist social development strata). They needed an excuse to justify their expansion to territories previously part of Tsarist Russia (not only Eatsern Europe but even the Baltic states and Finland), so they invoke the internationalist part of communism.
No. And I call BS. You need to get your facts straight before spreading false info.
The USSR especially in its earlier days was strongly anti-Russian.
Lenin was a Russophobe and looked at Russian culture, history and faith, with disdain.
Leaders like Krushchev, Stalin, Lenin etc weren't even Russian. An abnormally large percentage of Bolsheviks leaders were non-Russian, who viewed any attachment to culture and religion with disgust and contempt.
And considering that Russian Empire was torn to pieces (and land and population freely donated to others) and Russian culture and faith had to survive "underground" due to persecution and destruction of historic monuments and churches, your idea that SU was an element of Russian nationalism is hilarious to some and insulting to others.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
@Razor, Lenin is Russian in my books. He is part Chuvash and part Kalmyk, among many other things. These two ethnicities, although non-Slavic, are Russian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
@Razor, Lenin is Russian in my books. He is part Chuvash and part Kalmyk, among many other things. These two ethnicities, although non-Slavic, are Russian.
Well, I don't know.

I mean there are two ways one could adhere to an ethnicity:
1. one considers himself to be of a particular ethnicity because is was brought up in a particular culture and sticks to that culture, i.e culturally
2. one is born into an ethnicity, i.e., genetically

For
1. Well, he may have been brought up in Russian culture, but it is clear that he is mostly not fond of it, except when useful
2. According to a post about Lenin's ancestors that I made in another thread, Lenin is at best 1/4th ethnically Russian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top