Putin has Defended the Nazi-Soviet Pact

[asianobserve]

You are just parroting unnecessary theories for confusing people. You only make accusations. You have no arguments.

USSR was based on an ideology completely different from nationalism. The West fought USSR on the basis of ideology.

The Tsarist empire was based on nationalism rather than an ideology. Putin can be called a nationalist today. His ideas are based on a Russian identity and a Russian nation. He is not opposing the West on ideology.

You read too much into packaging. Learn how to scrutinize the contents.

 

[asianobserve]

If you consider taking control of only real estate, I agree with the Stalin part. I do not however see this "Russian nationalism" angle. That is probably just me.

You will agree with me that Pan-Slavism is an integral part of Russian nationalism? That Russians consider it their duty to unite their Slavic brothers in Eastern Europe (Already sounds like Putin eh?). Then (USSR) and now (Russia) this is the justification of Russian claim to Ukraine and neighbors.

The Baltic states and Finland on the other hand were previously part of Tsarist Russia. The USSR under Stalin used the opportunity presented by Hitler to reacquire these areas. This too it must be said has roots in Russian nationalism.

 

[Ray]

You are just parroting unnecessary theories for confusing people. You only make accusations. You have no arguments.

USSR was based on an ideology completely different from nationalism. The West fought USSR on the basis of ideology.

The Tsarist empire was based on nationalism rather than an ideology. Putin can be called a nationalist today. His ideas are based on a Russian identity and a Russian nation. He is not opposing the West on ideology.

Have you interacted with Russians during the USSR days.

If you had, you would not have made that comment separating ideology with nationalism.

It is the ideology that germinated the nationalism that the Russians had in those days.

Or else a country with 70% East Slavs, 12% Turkic peoples would not have been one and be able to stand the onslaught of Nazi Germany and then of the West.

If there were no nationalism, then the Ukrainians at Kiev would have welcomed the Nazi Germany in the Battle of Kiev and in the Siege of Stalingrad, the heterogeneous population should have done the same.

The Battle of Stalingrad saw perhaps the greatest casualty figures of any battle in warfare (estimates are between 1,250,000 and 1,798,619). The battle began on August 19, 1942, and on Augsut 23, the city suffered heavy aerial bombardment that reduced most of it to rubble. You may see this link to see what a heterogeneous compostion defended the city
Link

I might remind you that German settlement-colony Old Sarepta was also within Stalingrad.

So, now have a second guess about nationalism and the contribution of ideology.

 

[apple]

Just to correct some irrelevant points made in this thread.

Stalin no longer supported the International when he started his purges. He'd said the only, and all, Marxists were found, and were only to be found, in the Soviet Union and there were no Russian nationalists left in Russia when he started his purges.

Am pretty sure Lenin never went to Britain. Some one is getting Lenin and Marx mixed up. Lenin, and other Russian revolutionaries, plotted the revolution in Switzerland.

Britain supporting Lenin is some modern revisionist lunacy. The British Commonwealth, along with France, the US and Japan were involved, against the Bolsheviks, in the Russian Civil War and had troops fighting and dying there into the 1920's.

Lenin didn't believe in nation states and it's wrong to talk about him "giving" countries independence. In Finland's case Lenin armed Finnish revolutionaries and initiated a violent civil war there, in line with his interpretation of Marx's phrase "withering of the state".

Well Marxism should be different from Monarchy but the USSR really was a behemoth driven by and centered around Russia and Russian nationalism. In the end the Soviets used internationalist communist movement (Marxism) to further its national (Russian) imperialist ambitions.

That's why Stalin (then as Putin now) took every opportunity to recover every country that were formerly a part of the Russian Tsarist Empire (Poland, Baltic states, Bassarabia, and it even attempted to get back Finland).

You're a little bit wrong about the period from the 1930's(?) to Stalin's death, there. Stalin didn't believe in international Communism, which at the time (pre World War 2) went by the term the Popular Front. Stalin was trying to fully incorporate the USSR's neighbours.

First I'll requote the post (#43 on this thread) that I made earlier in response to you.



So basically if it's okay for Brits to appease Hitlr, then it is okay for Soviets to appease Hitler too.

Next, reading the article you have given



Putin says: " But what's bad about that if the Soviet Union didn't want to fight? What's bad about it?" and "Serious research should show that those were the methods of foreign policy then,"
Not entirely same as defending the pact.

So in conclusion: Survival is most important and Tough times call for Tough decisions. Nothing wrong with that.

Even if your correct about the "Brits" vs. Soviets, which you're not, am sure you're parents told you that two wrongs don't make a right.

Suspect Putin never said what you're quoting him as saying. The Soviet Union did fight, against Finland and Poland (as they would hypothetically have had to have fought against Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), due to the M-R pact.

I'd recommend you study the link Jouni posted earlier concerning whether the Soviet Union was about to attack Nazi Germany before the Germans got in first.

 

[Razor]

This reasoning falls flat in the face of the ground realities at the time. What are these:

1. The USSR signed a Trade Agreement with Hitler that saw massive amounts of raw materials being supplied to Germany. A lot of scholars agree that without USSR's supply of raw materials Germany would not have been able to put up the war machine she used in starting WW2 (invasion of Poland);

"A lot of scholars agree " and others would say not necessarily.

2. There were actually 2 Pacts available to the USSR in 1939, PAct with the Western Alliance and Pact with Germany. Guess which pact the Soviets chose? This fact alone will tell you that the USSR was not under pressure to give in to Germany;

No. Why exactly should SU sign a pact with West, when they themselves were "appeasing" Hitler.

3. The USSR in 1939 had the biggest army in the World. They could have simply warned Germany that the USSR will intervene in case it invades Poland; and,

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.

4. Most damning of all, why did the USSR massacred thousands of captured Polish military officers and civilian leaders after it invaded Poland when it was under no compulsion under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? This only shows that all along the Soviets were motivated by a desire to get a large chunk of Poland (which was formerly part of the Tsarist Empire) than merely self-defense.

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.

 

[apple]

Have you interacted with Russians during the USSR days.

If you had, you would not have made that comment separating ideology with nationalism.

It is the ideology that germinated the nationalism that the Russians had in those days.

Or else a country with 70% East Slavs, 12% Turkic peoples would not have been one and be able to stand the onslaught of Nazi Germany and then of the West.

If there were no nationalism, then the Ukrainians at Kiev would have welcomed the Nazi Germany in the Battle of Kiev and in the Siege of Stalingrad, the heterogeneous population should have done the same.

The Battle of Stalingrad saw perhaps the greatest casualty figures of any battle in warfare (estimates are between 1,250,000 and 1,798,619). The battle began on August 19, 1942, and on Augsut 23, the city suffered heavy aerial bombardment that reduced most of it to rubble. You may see this link to see what a heterogeneous compostion defended the city
Link

I might remind you that German settlement-colony Old Sarepta was also within Stalingrad.

So, now have a second guess about nationalism and the contribution of ideology.

To continue my instruction in the basic principles of Marxism. Marx said national borders, and nation states, where a false construction of the bourgeoise to divide up the world proletariat.

As to whether the Soviet Union, particularly during the period when Stalin was boss, was actually Marxist, I have no opinion.

 

[Ray]

It is those who have no idea of the Soviet Union who feel that there was no nationalism in USSR.

There is no doubt that Stalin was no Pope, but then to superimpose Stalin's activities to there being no Russian nationalism would be to live in a Fool's paradise.

Likewise, those who have no idea of the USSR or having visited the USSR or interacting with people of the Soviet times, are hardly the benchmarks to the idea of Russian nationalism.

 

[Ray]

To continue my instruction in the basic principles of Marxism. Marx said national borders, and nation states, where a false construction of the bourgeoise to divide up the world proletariat.

As to whether the Soviet Union, particularly during the period when Stalin was boss, was actually Marxist, I have no opinion.

Theory and reality are two different kettles of fish.

Marxism and Communism are not the same thing.

Neither is Democracy and the concept of 'Freedom and Democracy' practised in Iraq and elsewhere.

Democracy as practised in the UK or Australia is no patch of the concept of Democracy practised in ancient Athens, Greece where Democracy was born.

Therefore, the concept being same, the variation in practice are very divergent and tailored to suit the psyche and the environment where it is practised.

Thus, to equate a concept with bareboned reality is comparing chalk with cheese.

Many people quote Karl Marx as saying, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." But did he really say that? Well, yes and no. He never used that exact phrase, but that hasn't stopped millions of people from using that "quote" as an argument against religion. But there is more to this, as we'll see here.

"What he actually said: 'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.' The bastardized quote makes more sense when it's placed in context with Marx's poetic words."

To read that excerpt, you could easily get the incorrect impression that Karl Marx was actually not so anti-religion after all. Listserve.com, ironically, omitted the "context" to which they themselves referred to. They presented only a very small excerpt of what Marx actually wrote in 1844.

Let's look at the "context" that listserve.com left out.
For that, we turn to the fourth paragraph of the introduction to Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," published as an essay in "Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher" in Paris, February 1844 (my emphasis added):
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
Marx had more to say about religion in his introduction. A little over half-way through, he wrote this (my emphasis added):
To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that is proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence...
From these passages it is clear that Karl Marx was no friend of religion, organized or otherwise.

Marx made no bones about calling for the abolishing of religion, calling it a "chain" on people, and for the replacement of the worship of God with the worship of Man ("man is the highest essence for man").

Marx said that religion has treated people as "a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence."

So, Marx did not say or write "Religion is the opiate of the masses," but he did write that it "is the opium of the people." While that's not the same phrase verbatim, it's very close and has exactly the same meaning. Marx essentially said that religion was used to cover up the hurt and pain of reality, and that often the misery was caused by religion itself by causing people to loath themselves ("self-estrangement in its unholy forms") and that religion is "illusory happiness."

Of course, Marx never said or wrote that communism is the hallucinogen of the masses, with its false promise of illusory Utopian happiness in which people are debased, enslaved and abandoned by the despicable essence of collectivist statism. Marx may or may not have been able to anticipate that the philosophy that would be named for him would itself become a religion (watch this video).

Marx had hoped to write a full critical analysis of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right," but that project was never completed. His introduction to his critique is brief (5,614 words, or 8.5 pages), and worth reading (you can read the entire text of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" as a pdf).
http://homelesspatriot.blogspot.in/2012/02/did-marx-really-call-religion-opiate-of.html

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.
Maya Angelou - an American author, poet, dancer, actress and singer.

 

[Razor]

You will agree with me that Pan-Slavism is an integral part of Russian nationalism?

Nope. There are people who suport pan-slavonic movemet. But it not the same as Russian nationalism.

That Russians consider it their duty to unite their Slavic brothers in Eastern Europe (Already sounds like Putin eh?).

I wonder when Putin has said anything about uniting Slavic brothers in Eastern Europe. You may give links, if you can.

Then (USSR) and now (Russia) this is the justification of Russian claim to Ukraine and neighbors.

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.

The Baltic states and Finland on the other hand were previously part of Tsarist Russia. The USSR under Stalin used the opportunity presented by Hitler to reacquire these areas. This too it must be said has roots in Russian nationalism.

How do you claim that Soviet Union trying to "re-acquire" areas, is rooted in Russian nationalism ?

 

[sgarg]

You read too much into packaging. Learn how to scrutinize the contents.

The unnecessary revisionism helps nobody. Stalin did what what he did. Putin is no dictator. Putin cannot be a dictator even if he wished.

The circumstances have changed.

Putin makes very calculated moves in tune with public opinion. This is the reason why Putin has enjoyed high ratings in Russia.
Putin is not starving Russian people or even cancelling social welfare for military.

You can harp endless about Stalin. Criticizing dead person is easy as he is not available to hit you back. No need for such BS here.

 

[sgarg]

Nope. There are people who suport pan-slavonic movemet. But it not the same as Russian nationalism.
I wonder when Putin has said anything about uniting Slavic brothers in Eastern Europe. You may give links, if you can.

It is very reasonable to talk about Slavic unity. Why not??
We talk about unity of Hindus worldwide. There is a cultural affinity in all Hindus despite wherever they live.

Every nation has an identity. Russian identifies itself on the basis of Slavic roots.
If Putin talks about slavic brothers in Eastern Europe, we do not have to be apologetic about it.

I find it very funny that West can fight any war on the basis of its narrow interests but anybody else is subjected to all the BS that Western press can possibly publish.

 

[Razor]

You're a little bit wrong about the period from the 1930's(?) to Stalin's death, there. Stalin didn't believe in international Communism, which at the time (pre World War 2) went by the term the Popular Front.

You are right about this.

Even if your correct about the "Brits" vs. Soviets, which you're not, am sure you're parents told you that two wrongs don't make a right.

Unfortunately in geopolitics, "right" and "wrong" are based on strategic gain rather than subjective morality.

Suspect Putin never said what you're quoting him as saying. The Soviet Union did fight, against Finland and Poland (as they would hypothetically have had to have fought against Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), due to the M-R pact.

The quote I made in that post, with regards to Putin, was from the article originally posted by asianobserve.

 

[sgarg]

Theory and reality are two different kettles of fish.

Racism is rampant in European society. Only American society is different due to its evolution in different circumstances. However the wily Europeans have destroyed USA. Euro is now more valuable than dollar due to hollowing out of USA (USA spends while Europeans enjoy). Now there is talk of collapse of US dollar while Euro becomes the new boss.

Germany is the new big boss. It gives orders to the world.

 

[Ray]

I would like to put the facts on the table as far as my posts are concerned.

I am no votary of the Soviet Union, Russia, nor of the US or the West.

Each is pursuing their agenda and rightly so since they have to find and ensure their place in the sun.

I am only interested in a fair and level playing field and so my comments cannot find favour with partisan viewpoints and I appreciate that.

For instance, many would be gleeful that five Western leaders 'shirtfronted' Putin in the G20 and acclaim that the world has condemned him on Ukraine.

I look at it differently.

It is true that the West is peeved at Russia over Ukraine. But since the remainder in the G20 have not 'shirtfronted' Putin, can one assume that the world has condemned him?

Obviously not.

Therefore, not joining the cheerleaders to believe the world has 'condemned' Putin for Ukraine would not be the line that I would adopt.

Nor that it means I am delighted with Russia and Putin.

I am aware it takes two hands to clap-.

 

[Ray]

Racism is rampant in European society. Only American society is different due to its evolution in different circumstances. However the wily Europeans have destroyed USA. Euro is now more valuable than dollar due to hollowing out of USA (USA spends while Europeans enjoy). Now there is talk of collapse of US dollar while Euro becomes the new boss.

Germany is the new big boss. It gives orders to the world.

I would say that racism in some form or the other is evident in all societies.

Some make it a business to be racist and some do it with finesse.

 

[Ray]

It is very reasonable to talk about Slavic unity. Why not??
We talk about unity of Hindus worldwide. There is a cultural affinity in all Hindus despite wherever they live.

Every nation has an identity. Russian identifies itself on the basis of Slavic roots.
If Putin talks about slavic brothers in Eastern Europe, we do not have to be apologetic about it.

I find it very funny that West can fight any war on the basis of its narrow interests but anybody else is subjected to all the BS that Western press can possibly publish.

I would not say there is a cultural affinity amongst Hindus.

Bengalis are culturally not in synch with say, the North Indian or South Indian Hindu cultural mosaic.

It is just that the religion is similar, even there the ritual are totally different.

 

[jouni]

Ukrainian crisis was a long planned operation, root cause is the same as with Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.

It was in 2005, when the Kremlin's siloviki revitalized their support for pro-Russian separatists in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That year, the organization "Donetsk Republic" – a Russian proxy in the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine – was created. Its leaders went to Russia in 2006 to participate in the summer camp of the Eurasian Youth Union that was established in 2005 with the money from the Presidential Administration of Russia on the initiative of Aleksandr Dugin, major ideologue of the Russia-led Eurasian Empire, and Vladislav Surkov, then deputy head of the Presidential Administration. This summer camp was aimed at further indoctrination of the activists and training for fighting against democratic movements in the neighbouring states. Instructors from security services taught methods of espionage, sabotage and guerrilla tactics. Among the participants of the summer camp was Andrey Purgin, who is now "First Prime Minister" of the "Donetsk People's Republic".

Anton Shekhovtsov's blog: The "Ukraine crisis" is a long-planned operation

 

[sgarg]

I would not say there is a cultural affinity amongst Hindus.

Bengalis are culturally not in synch with say, the North Indian or South Indian Hindu cultural mosaic.

It is just that the religion is similar, even there the ritual are totally different.

There are cultural differences but these are minor. The nation has to be defined on some basis. The political unity cannot be achieved until some concept of nationality is defined and accepted.

My point is Russians identify with Slavic identity. Slavs live outside Russia too and speak many languages. If Putin talks about Slavic brotherhood, that is fine.

 

[sgarg]

Ukrainian crisis was a long planned operation, root cause is the same as with Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.

Anton Shekhovtsov's blog: The "Ukraine crisis" is a long-planned operation

I have already told you that the Ukraine-Russia problems were well known in late nineties. The West took full advantage of the rift and propaganda has been very thick. Learn about Soros and his organization in Ukraine.

The anti-Russia forces have been very vocal and strong in Ukraine.

 

[Ray]

There are cultural differences but these are minor. The nation has to be defined on some basis. The political unity cannot be achieved until some concept of nationality is defined and accepted.

My point is Russians identify with Slavic identity. Slavs live outside Russia too and speak many languages. If Putin talks about Slavic brotherhood, that is fine.

I would not say the cultural differences are minor.

Culture embodies Customs, laws, dress, architectural style, social standards, religious beliefs, and traditions amongst many other issues.

If that is applied then every State and even within a State there will be variations and serious one at that too.

We are all Indians, but we are a diverse people.

Even religious practices and rituals are different.