65th Victory parade in Moscow.

[Kagemusha]

Today the 65th victory day´s parade was held in Moscow.It was the biggest parade ever since 1945. What was different this year was that there were British,American, Polish and French troops also marching at the parade. After watching the parade. I cant help it, but once the Soviet / Russian national anthem sounded off. I got shivers down my spine. While the veterans of my country fought against these countries.Nevertheless the defeat of fascism is something that should be celebrated and not be forgotten.Here are videos of the parade with English commentary:

The full parade, part 1. English commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxPAdmlZCHI
The full parade, part 2. English commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoLKsB1z5Ak&feature=watch_response

[KukriKhan]

I just read this story at Reuters & BBC. We all have indeed come a long way.

[Skullheadhq]

Ah the Sacred War at the start, beautiful music!

[Fragony]

Good for them, hats of for the Russians.

[Beskar]

The city looks beautiful though, has to be said.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh.

Happy they beat the Nazis. Other than that, two cheeks of the same arse. The Red Army was the imperialist army of a dictatorial system that occupied half of Europe for half a century.

[KukriKhan]

OTOH, Merkel sitting next to Putin + the UK, US & France marching = something, yes?

[Pannonian]

Meh.

Happy they beat the Nazis. Other than that, two cheeks of the same arse. The Red Army was the imperialist army of a dictatorial system that occupied half of Europe for half a century.

The Russians didn't try to exterminate half of Europe, and they played the greatest part and paid the greatest price in stomping down those who did, so they deserve credit for that at least. I don't think even Churchill would deny them that.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Russians didn't try to exterminate half of Europe, and they played the greatest part and paid the greatest price in stomping down those who did, so they deserve credit for that at least. I don't think even Churchill would deny them that.We owe it all to the Russians. The war was an East European event, we were all but a sideshow to that.


OTOH, Merkel sitting next to Putin + the UK, US & France marching = something, yes? Yes, something. Hey, at least Russia no longer blames Poland for WWII. The most important, at least surprising, development is the approachement between Poland and Russia over the past few months.



Other than that, I am not interested in whitewashing Stalin together with Putin. If that is too cynical, I am always in favour of trying to establish normal relationships with Russia, which I neither need nor see as a natural enemy of Europe or the US. In that regard, it is good that we acknowledge Russia's sacrifice in WWII. Russia in the past twenty years has felt very frustrated by the difference in Russia's past, the place it thinks it should have in the world, and the perceived lack of respect for that. Resulting in a renewed semi-cold war, imperialist ambitions in Russia's sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

[spmetla]

Thanks for posting the video, we have indeed come a long way. Very sharp looking parade, great seeing the British soldiers marching in their bear skin hats!

[PanzerJaeger]

Yay for half a century of brutal Soviet repression! Yay for the state inflicted deaths of 20,000,000 innocents. This is something to be celebrating.

:rolleyes:

[Strike For The South]

Yay for half a century of brutal Soviet repression! Yay for the state inflicted deaths of 20,000,000 innocents. This is something to be celebrating.

:rolleyes:

Since +1 is now grounds for a trip to the gulag. I must say I agree

Probably for very different reasons but agree none the less

[cegorach]

Actually I am quite positive about the celebrations.

Most recent moves made by Kremlin indicate they've decided that Stalinism must be buried - notice there were no Stalin posters, leaflets or ads.

Political pragmatism played its part for sure - you cannot really afford annoying your neighbours who are getting more influential, apparently possess massive gas resources and there is little sense in uniting the nation around mass murderers while your economy feels the pressure which will not disappear.


Good thing that Polish soldiers marched, especially nice that they were the first from NATO countries represented in the parade.

It is a massive step forward because only one year Russian media were full of nonsense about dozens of anti-Russian conspiracies where Poland was portraited as the chief perpetrator.*

Especially meanigful is the fact that Home Army veterans were invited - only recently they were 'fascist lapdogs, cutt throats who attacked peace-loving Soviet soldiers' etc so to them it is almost a triumph.

Relationship Catholic Church in Poland and Russian Orthodox Church should lead the way on more personal level, much like it happened etween Poland and Germany in the past.


Half-joking, half-mocking and half self-ironic it could be added that another tradition is continued because it is the third time when Polish soldiers march in Moscow, each incident with roughly 200 year long break (1610, 1612, now) - this time peacefully.

None died, noone was mortally offended, no Stalin on billboards - a good day.








*Of course there were conspiracies directed at the Soviet Union which were indeed led and organised by Poland, but it cannot be condemned to attempt to weaken totalitarian regime you have just behind your border.

[Beskar]

Yay for half a century of brutal Soviet repression! Yay for the state inflicted deaths of 20,000,000 innocents. This is something to be celebrating.

:rolleyes:

It could have been worse. The nazi's could have won.

[Pannonian]

It could have been worse. The nazi's could have won.

What's worse, half a century of oppression under the Soviets, or extermination of two or three parts of their number (of Jews) in 5 years of Nazi rule? Depends on whether one's sympathies are with the Allied or the Nazi side I guess.

[Beskar]

What's worse, half a century of oppression under the Soviets, or extermination of two or three parts of their number (of Jews) in 5 years of Nazi rule? Depends on whether one's sympathies are with the Allied or the Nazi side I guess.

It wasn't just the Jews though, it was other minorities as well, such as those with disabilities, gypies, etc. Even the polish were to either become slaves, exiled or exterminated for being 'subhuman slavs'.

You have to be honest, if you are pro-allies, be glad America jumped in, even as late as it was, otherwise Russia would have pretty much solo'd the Germans and taken Western Europe with it.

[Pannonian]

It wasn't just the Jews though, it was other minorities as well, such as those with disabilities, gypies, etc. Even the polish were to either become slaves, exiled or exterminated for being 'subhuman slavs'.


I used the example of the Jews as the group who suffered the greatest proportion of losses. The Soviets of various colours suffered the most losses in numbers. When PJ mentions the deaths of 20 million innocents, is he talking about Soviet actions resulting in that number? Or is he talking about German actions resulting in that number of Soviet dead, even before we start counting the dead in other countries, such as Oradour Sur Glane where the Nazis wiped out a whole French village for the crime of being nearby when an SS division got miffed by delays. Not only were they not content with merely laying waste to the lands in the path of their armies, the Germans even demanded that countries under their domination should independently collect and send their Jews to be fed into German ovens. In comparison with the Nazis, almost anything else is preferable.

[Beskar]

I used the example of the Jews as the group who suffered the greatest proportion of losses. The Soviets of various colours suffered the most losses in numbers. When PJ mentions the deaths of 20 million innocents, is he talking about Soviet actions resulting in that number? Or is he talking about German actions resulting in that number of Soviet dead, even before we start counting the dead in other countries, such as Oradour Sur Glane where the Nazis wiped out a whole French village for the crime of being nearby when an SS division got miffed by delays. Not only were they not content with merely laying waste to the lands in the path of their armies, the Germans even demanded that countries under their domination should independently collect and send their Jews to be fed into German ovens. In comparison with the Nazis, almost anything else is preferable.

PJ is talking about Stalin's gulags and collectivisation programmes, as in 20 million of their own people (I don't know the actual figure for that). He is not on about the number of Russians the German's killed, even though that is right up there in the millions some where.

[Pannonian]

PJ is talking about Stalin's gulags and collectivisation programmes, as in 20 million of their own people (I don't know the actual figure for that). He is not on about the number of Russians the German's killed, even though that is right up there in the millions some where.

20 million is the number usually given, although more recent studies suggest that might be on the low side.

[spmetla]

I'm certainly no fan of the Soviet Union especially under Stalin but am certainly glad that the Allies beat the Nazis even if it required abandoning half of Europe to the Soviets.

[Megas Methuselah]

This parade is a very... auspicious event to watch. Thanks for posting them.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ is talking about Stalin's gulags and collectivisation programmes, as in 20 million of their own people (I don't know the actual figure for that). He is not on about the number of Russians the German's killed, even though that is right up there in the millions some where.

Indeed. The estimates for the number of Russians killed under Stalin vary widely, but historical consensus has formed around 20 million. Also, fyi, during World War 2 the best estimate of Russian civilian deaths due to all causes is 7 million, and 10 million for military personnel.

[Paltmull]

I'm scared to death when I see this. It might just be the old Swedish fear of "The Russian", but I get the feeling that this is a lot more about showing off than celebrating. Just the fact that they actually had nuclear technology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yH-wFVZza4) in the parade should be enough to get the message. Also, remember that Sovjet did not enter WWII to destroy the evil fascism, they did it because they had no choice, since Nazi Germany broke their pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) with Sovjet by attacking them.



Most recent moves made by Kremlin indicate they've decided that Stalinism must be buried - notice there were no Stalin posters, leaflets or ads.

Oh yes, there were. Not any official ones perhaps, but Swedish television did show celebrating people holding up Stalin posters. I don't know, maybe there were just a few, but still...

[rory_20_uk]

It wasn't just the Jews though, it was other minorities as well, such as those with disabilities, gypies, etc. Even the polish were to either become slaves, exiled or exterminated for being 'subhuman slavs'.

You have to be honest, if you are pro-allies, be glad America jumped in, even as late as it was, otherwise Russia would have pretty much solo'd the Germans and taken Western Europe with it.

Without the USA Germany would have not had to use so many resources in the Western Theatres and would probably have cracked the USSR earlier - not to mention the aid that America gave via the Pacific. It was a small proportion of the total by the end of the war, but it was sorely needed in the earlier days.

The UK managed to get bombed, suffer vast numbers of deaths and bankrupted to replace one megalomaniac in Europe... with another. We have to celebrate as any dispassionate review would reveal the value of neutrality.

[gaelic cowboy]

Lot of post here show a fear of celebrating the parade for fear of erasing soviet crimes perhaps we should reflect on the words of Owen O'Malley a fellow countyman of my own who not only lambasted the soviets for Katyn but warned against dragging the good name of the British Empire down by ignoring the deaths

If, then, morals have become involved with international politics, if it be the case that a monstrous crime has been committed by a foreign Government - albeit a friendly one - and that we, for however valid reasons, have been obliged to behave as if the deed was not theirs, may it not be that we now stand in danger of bemusing not only others but ourselves: of falling

I see no problem with celebrating the victory parade as long as we remember the war in its totality.

[Pannonian]

Lot of post here show a fear of celebrating the parade for fear of erasing soviet crimes perhaps we should reflect on the words of Owen O'Malley a fellow countyman of my own who not only lambasted the soviets for Katyn but warned against dragging the good name of the British Empire down by ignoring the deaths

If, then, morals have become involved with international politics, if it be the case that a monstrous crime has been committed by a foreign Government - albeit a friendly one - and that we, for however valid reasons, have been obliged to behave as if the deed was not theirs, may it not be that we now stand in danger of bemusing not only others but ourselves: of falling

I see no problem with celebrating the victory parade as long as we remember the war in its totality.

We're not celebrating the Soviet victory. We're celebrating kicking Nazi arse. There are no caveats about that.

[gaelic cowboy]

We're not celebrating the Soviet victory. We're celebrating kicking Nazi arse. There are no caveats about that.

But that is a caveat because many posters on here are unable to separate the two I just said as long as we dont abandon the poor innocents who died in ww2 due to the soviets there is no problem in celebrating the end of the war.

[Sarmatian]

One shouldn't ignore Soviet misdeeds, surely but also one shouldn't forget that the lion's share of the fighting was done by the Soviets under enormous hardships. So, even though many countries were directly liberated by the western Allies, it was Soviet destruction of much of Wehrmacht that played an important role in that.

I find it pitiful when people choose the ignore the effort and the sacrifice of Soviet people and focus only the crimes, especially when those crimes were organized and committed by the clique in charge and the sacrifice was made by ordinary guys, both in and out of uniform.

"two cheeks of the same arse" - my arse...

[gaelic cowboy]

One shouldn't ignore Soviet misdeeds, surely but also one shouldn't forget that the lion's share of the fighting was done by the Soviets under enormous hardships. So, even though many countries were directly liberated by the western Allies, it was Soviet destruction of much of Wehrmacht that played an important role in that.

I find it pitiful when people choose the ignore the effort and the sacrifice of Soviet people and focus only the crimes, especially when those crimes were organized and committed by the clique in charge and the sacrifice was made by ordinary guys, both in and out of uniform.

"two cheeks of the same arse" - my arse...

I have no problem with the parade at all but some people do so I will take it that your post is not directed at me personally

[Beskar]

The Russians were fighting the vast majority of the German-armed forces. I believe numbers put it around 75-80%, compared to the Allies 20-25%, and near the end of the world, I believe the Germans basically sent all their forces against the Soviets, because the Soviets would have treated the Germans worse than the Allies. You cannot underestimate the amount the Russians did in defeating the Germans.

It was believed if Russia never ended up in the War, the allies would have been forced to accept Peace with the Germans.

[gaelic cowboy]

It was believed if Russia never ended up in the War, the allies would have been forced to accept Peace with the Germans.

Without a doubt this is the case as the flow of raw materials etc needed for tanks planes would have been virtually limitless allied to german industry UK would have fallen and US would have fought Japan alone thankfully Hitler was a madman and the rest is history.

[Sarmatian]

I have no problem with the parade at all but some people do so I will take it that your post is not directed at me personally

No, not at you, speaking generally.


The Russians were fighting the vast majority of the German-armed forces. I believe numbers put it around 75-80%, compared to the Allies 20-25%, and near the end of the world, I believe the Germans basically sent all their forces against the Soviets, because the Soviets would have treated the Germans worse than the Allies. You cannot underestimate the amount the Russians did in defeating the Germans.


Not that much actually. German armed forces (Wehrmacht) consisted of Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Feldheer and Ersatzheer. Most of the Kriegsmarine was in the west and more than half of the Luftwaffe. Soviets did engage most (and the best of) German land forces, around 80%. It's difficult to assess accurately how much of total German forces were engaged by the Red Army, but it is definitely true that Russian did most of the work. Even though Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe had their moments, the Heer was the killing arm and the reason for their initial successes. Of total German casualties in the war, Red Army inflicted around 75%-80%, perhaps you meant that..

[Beskar]

Not that much actually. German armed forces (Wehrmacht) consisted of Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Feldheer and Ersatzheer. Most of the Kriegsmarine was in the west and more than half of the Luftwaffe. Soviets did engage most (and the best of) German land forces, around 80%. It's difficult to assess accurately how much of total German forces were engaged by the Red Army, but it is definitely true that Russian did most of the work. Even though Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe had their moments, the Heer was the killing arm and the reason for their initial successes. Of total German casualties in the war, Red Army inflicted around 75%-80%, perhaps you meant that..

Possibily, I just remember reading that the Russian's did the most of the world, compared to the Allies and when the Germans were getting pushed back after their big advances, it was basically too late, as the Russian Industry in full-swing.

[PanzerJaeger]

One shouldn't ignore Soviet misdeeds, surely but also one shouldn't forget that the lion's share of the fighting was done by the Soviets under enormous hardships. So, even though many countries were directly liberated by the western Allies, it was Soviet destruction of much of Wehrmacht that played an important role in that.

Maybe the reason people think that is because the Russians began the war with the invasion of Poland allied to the Germans and then went on to invade Finland.


I find it pitiful when people choose the ignore the effort and the sacrifice of Soviet people and focus only the crimes, especially when those crimes were organized and committed by the clique in charge and the sacrifice was made by ordinary guys, both in and out of uniform.

You could say the same thing about the Germans. And yes, the Soviet military was very involved in Soviet crimes.




"two cheeks of the same arse" - my arse...

That is actually an apt description. The Soviet Union began the war Allied with the Nazis, carried out the same manner of expansionist warfare, and was led by the same type of ruthless dictator and totalitarian system that was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. The only reason Stalin did not roll over the Allies was the advent of nuclear weapons.

[PanzerJaeger]

The forum is acting screwy and I cannot edit my post, so forgive my double post.

I just wanted to make the final point that the Soviets were content to sit back and watch German conquer all of Europe. They were not fighting for anything or anyone other than themselves, and their brutal repression of the nations that they "liberated" speaks volumes about their intentions.

You could say that the Soviet Union was the lesser of two evils, but it was certainly evil.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You could say that the Soviet Union was the lesser of two evilsWait...now if Nazism and the Western allies were morally equivalent, but the SU was lesser than Nazism, then doesn't that make Communism the most morally commendable system of the lot?



...PJ is a commie, PJ is a commie...nah nah nahnaaah nah :dancing:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Foreign troops in Red Square....

As a child of the Cold War, the image still leaves me all a-goggle. Of course, so did the Wall's demise. The Wall and the Cold War weren't just "issues" but defining constants.

Sorry, "old fart" moment.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I find it pitiful when people choose the ignore the effort and the sacrifice of Soviet people and focus only the crimes, especially when those crimes were organized and committed by the clique in charge and the sacrifice was made by ordinary guys, both in and out of uniform.

"two cheeks of the same arse" - my arse...The German people made a sacrifice too, suffered horrendously. Why focus on their crimes alone, and not acknowledge their effort in fighting Stalin?


I guess there's just no lost love between me and 20th century totalitarianism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Foreign troops in Red Square....

As a child of the Cold War, the image still leaves me all a-goggle. Of course, so did the Wall's demise. The Wall and the Cold War weren't just "issues" but defining constants.

Sorry, "old fart" moment.Yes and no. Or, I do not know quite what to make of it.


I don't like troops, I don't like military parades, and I don't like the Kremlin. The sight makes me uncomfortable. Exactly what was celebrated? The might of Russia? An acknowledgement of Russia's central role in defeating Nazism?
Part of me wonders if the foreign troops were not spectators to a show more than participants.




Here's what makes me teary-eyed: Russia, France, Britain and America together celebrating German re-unification in Berlin*. Europe's anthem, a German song, conducted by a Jew, of a multinational orchestra, in united Berlin in 1989: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsXmOHo7EA.

That to me symbolises an end to the past, an end to WWII by the return of Russian occupational troops, a peaceful Germany, a forward-looking united Europe, a celebration of European culture instead of its arms.

They can keep their military parades.



*well, technically, the end of the wall.

[rory_20_uk]

Really? A few people play in a band, a Jew conducts and it's all happy families?

I like culture I think it's very important. How many cultured societies have been destroyed by uncouth Barbarians with their crude weaponry?

I'd rather not rely on hope and failing that occupation merely to avoid military might.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

I just wanted to make the final point that the Soviets were content to sit back and watch German conquer all of Europe. They were not fighting for anything or anyone other than themselves, and their brutal repression of the nations that they "liberated" speaks volumes about their intentions.

You could say that the Soviet Union was the lesser of two evils, but it was certainly evil.

Except that when Litvinov was foreign minister, he spent most of his term chasing around people in England and France to give him a minute of their time to discuss possible alliance and joint front against Hitler. Unfortunately, he was received by low profile politicians, ignored or given vague answers. Replacing him with Molotov was a sign that Stalin's patience was up. Moscow wasn't even invited to the Munich conference. The later deals with Hitler were about buying time, not friendship. It was clear to everyone that communism and nazism couldn't coexist.


Yes and no. Or, I do not know quite what to make of it.


I don't like troops, I don't like military parades, and I don't like the Kremlin. The sight makes me uncomfortable. Exactly what was celebrated? The might of Russia? An acknowledgement of Russia's central role in defeating Nazism?
Part of me wonders if the foreign troops were not spectators to a show more than participants.

Of course, don't you know that there is always some insidious plot when it comes to Russia? First they have their military parade, next thing you know they want to conquer the world.





Here's what makes me teary-eyed: Russia, France, Britain and America together celebrating German re-unification in Berlin*. Europe's anthem, a German song, conducted by a Jew, of a multinational orchestra, in united Berlin in 1989: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsXmOHo7EA.


Nice

[rory_20_uk]

Except that when Litvinov was foreign minister, he spent most of his term chasing around people in England and France to give him a minute of their time to discuss possible alliance and joint front against Hitler. Unfortunately, he was received by low profile politicians, ignored or given vague answers. Replacing him with Molotov was a sign that Stalin's patience was up. Moscow wasn't even invited to the Munich conference. The later deals with Hitler were about buying time, not friendship. It was clear to everyone that communism and nazism couldn't coexist.

The UK and Russia / USSR had been enemies for over 100 years (war in the Crimea / sending soldiers and supplies to the White Army / troubles in the Middle East). The odds of a lasting alliance was equally microscopic. I imagine the UK was hoping that Germany would blunt itself on Russia (as so many invaders had done), buying us time.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The UK and Russia / USSR had been enemies for over 100 years (war in the Crimea / sending soldiers and supplies to the White Army / troubles in the Middle East). The odds of a lasting alliance was equally microscopic. I imagine the UK was hoping that Germany would blunt itself on Russia (as so many invaders had done), buying us time.

~:smoking:

The classical British strategy. Hope that Germany blunts itself on Russia, thus giving Britain time to defeat France.

[Gregoshi]

Note to self: never
go to a parade with
other Orgahs.
:thinking2:

Personally, I was horrified by the coverage team. Reporters on the parade ground who didn't have a clue what they were looking at other than big, noisy machines painted a horrid shade of green and long shots of the backs of the reporters as they watch the fly overs...riveting stuff. About half way through I was beginning to feel sorry for the Russian military guy that had to try to answer one stupid question after another. On the positive side, I was pleased that TV event coverage elsewhere in the world is just as bad as here in the US.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The UK and Russia / USSR had been enemies for over 100 yearsThe UK and Russia had been allies in WWI.

The problem with UK foreign policy in the 1920's was that it was ill-informed. Britain, by tradition and geopolitical position, had only one foreign policy goal: to maintain a balance of power on the continent. (Not all that different from Pannonian's amusing description above)
Alas, in the 1920's, Britain overestimated the power of France - which Britain tried to curtail, and underestimated the power of Germany - Britain believed the incessant whining that Germany had been turned into eternal servitude and destitution.

As a result, Britain couldn't choose between Germany and France. To the despair of Paris, London in the 1920's and much of the 1930's picked Berlin. When London realised this had been a mistake - both ideological and geopolitical - it was too late.

As late as 1935 Britain struck the deal with Hitler that he could rearm all he wanted, if only he promised not to build ships. This, the foreign office thought, would restore balance of power on the continent, keep France in check, and protect the British Empire.
Well it succeeded in the latter, that much is true, but it was forever eclipsed by the two superpowers of the post-1945 world.



Except that when Litvinov was foreign minister, he spent most of his term chasing around people in England and France to give him a minute of their time to discuss possible alliance and joint front against Hitler. Unfortunately, he was received by low profile politicians, ignored or given vague answers. France had decided it would not strike a deal with communist Russia.

Alas, as Russia of course was France's natural ally against the central powers. This policy of no deal with communism France could afford because there was a rock-solid agreement with the other democratic great powers, the UK and the US, of democratic alliance against renewed aggression by Germany.

As history has shown, this alliance was honoured and as such naturally prevented Germany from trying again, even Hitler was not that stupid to fight France, Britain and the US combined. It also meant that the two Anglo powers did not eventually have to strike a deal with Stalin, which would've meant selling off half of Europe to him.

No wait, that didn't happen. The Anglo powers did not agree that the democracies should stand together to fight Nazism. It was France that stood alone to preserve democracy on the continent. When they realised war would be brought upon them anyway it was too late, and they had become reliant on Stalin.



Of course, don't you know that there is always some insidious plot when it comes to Russia? First they have their military parade, next thing you know they want to conquer the world. Well they did last time, no? The Soviet Union occupied half of Europe for half a century.

The Red Army crushed Hitler. It also crushed Hungary in 1956. Prague in 1968. It crushed democracy on half a continent.

I'm all for recognising the enormity of Russia's sacrifice in defeating Nazism, and for a friendly relationship with Russia. The Red Army, to me, however, will always symbolise conquest and subjugation.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK and Russia had been allies in WWI.

France had been allies with the UK. Didn't mean that the UK liked France.



France had decided it would not strike a deal with communist Russia.

Alas, as Russia of course was France's natural ally against the central powers. This policy of no deal with communism France could afford because there was a rock-solid agreement with the other democratic great powers, the UK and the US, of democratic alliance against renewed aggression by Germany.

As history has shown, this alliance was honoured and as such naturally prevented Germany from trying again, even Hitler was not that stupid to fight France, Britain and the US combined. It also meant that the two Anglo powers did not eventually have to strike a deal with Stalin, which would've meant selling off half of Europe to him.

No wait, that didn't happen. The Anglo powers did not agree that the democracies should stand together to fight Nazism. It was France that stood alone to preserve democracy on the continent. When they realised war would be brought upon them anyway it was too late, and they had become reliant on Stalin.

Britain honoured its alliance and got hung out to dry after France's army collapsed after being attacked by tanks in the same way that had happened in french Wargames the previous year. The French had learnt from WW1 that trench warfare was clearly the way forward and decided to build a massive line right up to the Belgium border... The Germans, having attacked this way last war wouldn't do the same thing twice, so defending here or through thick forest was uneccecary... the whole point of having joined up trenches having been lost.

After a brief struggle, France got down to being occupied.

America wished to hobble Europe and gain Empire on the side which ipso facto would be at the expense of the Europeans, and understandably did not have any alliance whatsoever with the Europeans. Only the thought of a united Europe spurred them into action, although Hitler declaring war also helped.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

France had been allies with the UK. Didn't mean that the UK liked France. Britain did honour the alliance in the end, and paid a very high price in defeating Hitler. No complaints from me about Britain from 1938 onwards.

My frustration is about the democracies not getting their act together in the 1920's and 1930's, to the high cost of all.




Britain honoured its alliance and got hung out to dry after France's army collapsed after being attacked by tanks in the same way that had happened in french Wargames the previous year. The French had learnt from WW1 that trench warfare was clearly the way forward and decided to build a massive line right up to the Belgium border... The Germans, having attacked this way last war wouldn't do the same thing twice, so defending here or through thick forest was uneccecary... the whole point of having joined up trenches having been lost.The Germans attacked where they were expected to attack: not along the Maginot line, but in the north. Hence here were stationed the best French troops, and the entire British expeditionary force, to await them.

Alas, while these both rushed northwards to defend Belgium and the Netherlands - which had refused common defense with the other democratic powers so as not to antagonise Hitler - the Germans blitzkrieged southwards.
The British evacuated, the French were in dissarray and never got a chance to regroup.

[KukriKhan]

I don't like troops, I don't like military parades

Active soldiers don't like 'em either. At least, over here. Takes away valuable training time/primary mission time.


Exactly what was celebrated? The might of Russia? An acknowledgement of Russia's central role in defeating Nazism?

My take-away was this: We saw ^^that^^ (underlined) since 1945. This year we saw Allies joining in, AND the Bundeskanzlerin of Germany (born in Cold War East Germany, no less) attending and participating in a ceremony that said: "Yay solidarity! Boo Dictatorship!". We can cast aspersions on the level of sincerity that that sentiment is held by those leaders, but at least they recognize that the vast majority of (their) people desire it.

[naut]

The Russians really know how to throw a military parade.


The Russians didn't try to exterminate half of Europe, and they played the greatest part and paid the greatest price in stomping down those who did, so they deserve credit for that at least. I don't think even Churchill would deny them that.
They tried to exterminate a massive portion of their own people though. Estimates place Stalins Gulags as killing more than the Holocaust killed Jews.


In the original version of his book The Great Terror, Robert Conquest gave the following estimates of those arrested, executed, and incarcerated during the height of the Purge:

Arrests, 1937-1938 - about 7 million
Executed - about 1 million
Died in camps - about 2 million
In prison, late 1938 - about 1 million
In camps, late 1938 - about 8 million

Conquest concluded that "not more than 10 percent of those then in camp survived." Updating his figures in the late 1980s based on recently-released archival sources, he increased the number of "arrests" to 8 million, but reduced the number in camps to "7 million, or even a little less." This would give a total death toll for the main Purge period of just under ten million people. About 98 percent of the dead were male.

The estimates are "only approximations," Conquest notes, and "anything like complete accuracy on the casualty figures is probably unattainable." But "it now seems that further examination of the data will not go far from the estimates we now have except, perhaps, to show them to be understated"; and "in any case, the sheer magnitudes of the Stalin holocaust are now beyond doubt." He cites Joseph Berger's remark that the atrocities of Stalin's rule "left the Soviet Union in the condition of 'a country devastated by nuclear warfare.'" (All figures and quotes from Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, pp. 485-88.)

[Brenus]

“Active soldiers don't like 'em either”
:shame:I did. Not too often, but I liked it.:shame:
Marseillaise, flag in the wind, and this feeling in the stomach, the movement of the platoon, presenting arms with the noise of the hands on the weapons…
And all these young girls on the road, officially anti-militarist and so attracted by the uniform and all the metallic symbols on ours chest…
I was pathetic, but I did like it…:sweatdrop:

[cegorach]

Louis VI the Fat

My frustration is about the democracies not getting their act together in the 1920's and 1930's, to the high cost of all.

Democracies this, democracies that - really that generation was born and lived and mentally stayed in imperialist age where much of politics is a game of chess with predictable and at least a bit reasonable opponents. That plus the fact suddenly there was a whole bunch of new players with their own ideas who however were barely noticed by leaders of bigger boys, except the revisionists - Hitler and Stalin.









Personally, I was horrified by the coverage team. Reporters on the parade ground who didn't have a clue what they were looking at other than big, noisy machines painted a horrid shade of green and long shots of the backs of the reporters as they watch the fly overs...riveting stuff. About half way through I was beginning to feel sorry for the Russian military guy that had to try to answer one stupid question after another. On the positive side, I was pleased that TV event coverage elsewhere in the world is just as bad as here in the US.

That is Russia Today - they aren't expected to cover news well, but to convince everybody how prosperous Russia under Putin is, that is why you will hear a lot of 'chaotic Yeltsin years' every couple of minutes. :juggle2:

Be glad it is not one of their special shows i.e. 'how Upper Silesia will soon revolt and declare independence and how it all is the result of Kosovar independence declaration'.

[Louis VI the Fat]

“Active soldiers don't like 'em either”
:shame:I did. Not too often, but I liked it.:shame:
Marseillaise, flag in the wind, and this feeling in the stomach, the movement of the platoon, presenting arms with the noise of the hands on the weapons…
And all these young girls on the road, officially anti-militarist and so attracted by the uniform and all the metallic symbols on ours chest…
I was pathetic, but I did like it…:sweatdrop:Why, you crypto-facho, you! :laugh4:

Girls love all sorts of 'uniforms'. I always thought they are a bit easy and unimaginative like that. The scruffy bohemian costume, shawl, book in hand and dummy book with some scribbled poetry in front of you at your table. Works wonders. A suit and tie - look at me and my succes and ambition. They come running. Athletic uniform. That's girls aged 19, 26 and 15 respectively.



Democracies this, democracies that - really that generation was born and lived and mentally stayed in imperialist age where much of politics is a game of chess with predictable and at least a bit reasonable opponents. That plus the fact suddenly there was a whole bunch of new players with their own ideas who however were barely noticed by leaders of bigger boys, except the revisionists - Hitler and Stalin.Pft. when your democracy is as glorious as ours you'd be imperialist about it too.

Half the threads on the .org right now are about how democracy is really just as bad as the rest of the world. Pah! I say you are all just jealous you didn't think of liberty and equality first. [/smug]

Maybe I'll join the army after all. Belt out the Marseillaise, irritate the rest of the world with our unattainable glory, and attract girls like flies to a pile of , erm as bees to divinely sweet nectar. :smug:

[Sarmatian]

how it all is the result of Kosovar independence declaration'.

That is true actually. It is widely known that anything bad that happens in the world is a result of Kosovo independence. You think the volcano in Iceland was an accident?



Pft. when your democracy is as glorious as ours you'd be imperialist about it too.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



Maybe I'll join the army after all. Belt out the Marseillaise, irritate the rest of the world with our unattainable glory, and attract girls like flies to a pile of , erm as bees to divinely sweet nectar. :smug:

And God help the French army if that ever happens.

[Brenus]

“as bees to divinely sweet nectar.”
Can’t bit the smell after few weeks on the field without shower, days and night of training, walking, shooting, explosives, crouching, hand to hand combat, sleeping rough, never leave your weapon (even If the “censured” thing is the ANF1, 10 kg, all in metal and specially built with angles –sharp ones-) and others things…

Aaah, these mornings after a cold sleepless night in the Vosges, the delicious feeling of the burning for damage lips on the too hot coffee, the fabulous sensation to put back your hard leather boots on your injured feet, the smelly combat jacket completed with the gears, the moment when the weight of the weapon cut your neck at the same moment your back pack carve in your shoulders, when your burning red eyes want some rest, after the cold water shaving (menthol if you really want GREAT sensations) put fire on your chicks…
Now, you can prefer to repair the caterpillar of your APC under the rain mixed with snow in Mailly Camp, in a big hole full of icy water in February!!!

[Brenus]

“Why, you crypto-facho” hé hé hé, je tisse ma toile diabolique (Le génie des Alpages, Fmurr).

\soory for the non French speaking or the one ignoring what a BD is...

[cegorach]

Pft. when your democracy is as glorious as ours you'd be imperialist about it too.

Half the threads on the .org right now are about how democracy is really just as bad as the rest of the world. Pah! I say you are all just jealous you didn't think of liberty and equality first. [/smug]



Been there, did that.
Around the time after which we've elected a french king who escaped to be assassinated by a fundamentalist monk in his homeland. :book:

80 years later our self-centred imperialism triggered another rebellion in Ukraine which wasn't quelled because politically nominated commanders were incompetent and allowed their armies to be destroyed which resulted in rushed elections where mentally challanged brother of a previous king was chosen only to appoint some commanders who were incompetent and led their forces to destruction which triggered a series of invasions from every directions which were defeated, but were followeed by 70 years of wars after which we've woken up as a foreign protectorate.

So, nope - it didn't work for us. :book:

[PanzerJaeger]

Except that when Litvinov was foreign minister, he spent most of his term chasing around people in England and France to give him a minute of their time to discuss possible alliance and joint front against Hitler. Unfortunately, he was received by low profile politicians, ignored or given vague answers. Replacing him with Molotov was a sign that Stalin's patience was up. Moscow wasn't even invited to the Munich conference. The later deals with Hitler were about buying time, not friendship. It was clear to everyone that communism and nazism couldn't coexist.


And Hitler wanted to end the whole messy affair that was WW2 after the Germans crushed the Allies in France, but Churchill just wouldn't play ball.

I'm just not sure how abortive diplomatic efforts make up for joining the German's in invading Poland (and all the assorted atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre) that entailed) and then going on to invade Finland.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And Hitler wanted to end the whole messy affair that was WW2 after the Germans crushed the Allies in France, but Churchill just wouldn't play ball.

I'm just not sure how abortive diplomatic efforts make up for joining the German's in invading Poland (and all the assorted atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre) that entailed) and then going on to invade Finland.

No, Churchill did not play ball and Hitler really did want the UK to bow out -- would have given them very good terms. But PJ, there is no way that Hitler didn't already have Barbarossa in mind. He'd even written that in his book. Hitler just loathed the idea of a two-front war, even if the Western Front was mostly sitzkrieg. WWII was always going to include Germany trying to stomp Soviet Russia.

[Kagemusha]

I think if Hitler would have gained his dream scenario.He would have attacked Soviet Union supported by GB.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think PJ was sarcastic, to show how unrealistic the idea is of a peaceful SU that was left no choice because its overtures to the Western powers were snubbed.

[cegorach]

Reading Soviet plans from 1940-41 is sobering when it comes to that matter.

If someone expects to fight: Finland, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the UK and France at the same time and implements plans or even starts preparing its armed forces to bomb Suez... if you cannot call that paranoid wait a moment.

In 1930s Soviets assumed that Poland will invade soon, Japan will invade, Germany will invade (through Lithuania and Latvia) or Romania will invade - such expectations were of course changing from one year to another, but the idea persisted - everybody wanted to invade the SU so it had to be prevented.
While when it comes to disruptive diplomacy according to Czech sources 1935 agreement between Soviets and Czechoslovakia made clear (according to Stalin's understanding) that Czechoslovakia will NOT arrange any agreements with Poland or Romania. Hardly an exception, rather an example how the SU acted before Molotov.

[Sarmatian]

I think PJ was sarcastic, to show how unrealistic the idea is of a peaceful SU that was left no choice because its overtures to the Western powers were snubbed. I wasn't talking about a peaceful SU but the fact that USSR was never a friend of Nazi Germany. Stalin naturally didn't want to commit the Red Army to fight the Wehrmacht unless a part of a greater coalition.


Reading Soviet plans from 1940-41 is sobering when it comes to that matter.

If someone expects to fight: Finland, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the UK and France at the same time and implements plans or even starts preparing its armed forces to bomb Suez... if you cannot call that paranoid wait a moment.

In 1930s Soviets assumed that Poland will invade soon, Japan will invade, Germany will invade (through Lithuania and Latvia) or Romania will invade - such expectations were of course changing from one year to another, but the idea persisted - everybody wanted to invade the SU so it had to be prevented.
While when it comes to disruptive diplomacy according to Czech sources 1935 agreement between Soviets and Czechoslovakia made clear (according to Stalin's understanding) that Czechoslovakia will NOT arrange any agreements with Poland or Romania. Hardly an exception, rather an example how the SU acted before Molotov.

Well, Bulgaria, Romania, Finland, Germany DID invade USSR and Japan probed twice to test their defense and resolve (lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol), so it wasn't all paranoia. Some of it proved correct.

[cegorach]

Well, Bulgaria, Romania, Finland, Germany DID invade USSR and Japan probed twice to test their defense and resolve (lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol), so it wasn't all paranoia. Some of it proved correct.

Of course which obviously gives the ultimate proof that Soviets were right and hurrah to ahistorical thinking BTW!

Finland wouldn't invade if it wasn't invaded in 1939.
Romania might attack (under heavy, German pressure), but would be less interested if it wasn't blackmailed in 1940.

Bulgaria never fought (resisted declaring war against the Soviets) the Soviets only allowed their ports to be used by German ships.

German indeed invaded, but not through Lithuania and Latvia as Soviet 'experts' predicted, not with Poland like Soviet leaders claimed, not through Romania as Soviet intelligence reported.

With Japan it is complicated - both incidents are still unclear. Previously it was certain that Japan attacked, but claims it was Mongolian cavalry or Soviet activities in border territories which were treated by both sides as theirs cannot be dismissed so easily anymore.



Really.

If you are expecting EVERYBODY (I forgot about Norway which was another 'would be aggressor') except Afghanistan to attack you you can be right eventually especially if you give a damn good reason to seek revenge or create a situation where you can be attacked.:juggle2:

So every paranoid egomaniac can be right, though in this particular situation Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia (I forgot about them too - sorry), Turkey, Greece, Norway, Iraq and Iraq, neither the UK or France didn't attack.

[Pannonian]

If you are expecting EVERYBODY (I forgot about Norway which was another 'would be aggressor') except Afghanistan to attack you you can be right eventually especially if you give a damn good reason to seek revenge or create a situation where you can be attacked.:juggle2:

So every paranoid egomaniac can be right, though in this particular situation Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia (I forgot about them too - sorry), Turkey, Greece, Norway, Iraq and Iraq, neither the UK or France didn't attack.

WW1, Civil War, Russo-Polish War. Russia had been invaded three times in the past 20-30 years, with absolutely everyone getting in on the act during the Civil War, so it wasn't unreasonable for them to expect the west to attack again at some point (as did happen). Churchill in particular was well-known for advocating foreign "intervention" during the USSR's early years.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think PJ was sarcastic, to show how unrealistic the idea is of a peaceful SU that was left no choice because its overtures to the Western powers were snubbed.

:bow:


I wasn't talking about a peaceful SU but the fact that USSR was never a friend of Nazi Germany. Stalin naturally didn't want to commit the Red Army to fight the Wehrmacht unless a part of a greater coalition.

Well, Hitler was no friend of the Soviet Union, but by all accounts Stalin was quite pleased with his pact, and his Soviet sphere of influence. The reason he tried to form an alliance with the Western powers first was because Hitler was viscerally opposed to communism. When Hitler offered an alliance, Stalin jumped at the opportunity. He was certainly taken aback at the start of Barbarossa. Based on the information we have about his reaction to the invasion, I'm not entirely convinced that Molotov–Ribbentrop was seen by Stalin as some sort of desperate bid for time before the inevitable German onslaught. It seems more likely that he believed that Hitler would be content with Western Europe while he would have a free hand with his weaker neighbors without worrying about drawing Russia into a larger conflict, at least for some time. And if one subscribes to the idea that Stalin himself was planning his own expansion westward, things get even more complicated.

That's not really my point, though. It doesn't really matter if Stalin and Hitler hated each other or not, the Soviet Union was well aware of the impending invasion of Poland at the signing of the pact and instead of warning Poland or the other Western Powers, they collaborated with the Germans in the invasion for their own gain. A combined British, French, Polish, and Russian action would have overwhelmed Germany in 1939, if thats truly what Stalin wanted. Instead, while Hitler was trouncing the Allies, Stalin saw fit to invade Finland, not to mention the all too often forgotten nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

[Sarmatian]

Of course which obviously gives the ultimate proof that Soviets were right and hurrah to ahistorical thinking BTW!

Finland wouldn't invade if it wasn't invaded in 1939.
Romania might attack (under heavy, German pressure), but would be less interested if it wasn't blackmailed in 1940.

Bulgaria never fought (resisted declaring war against the Soviets) the Soviets only allowed their ports to be used by German ships.

German indeed invaded, but not through Lithuania and Latvia as Soviet 'experts' predicted, not with Poland like Soviet leaders claimed, not through Romania as Soviet intelligence reported.

With Japan it is complicated - both incidents are still unclear. Previously it was certain that Japan attacked, but claims it was Mongolian cavalry or Soviet activities in border territories which were treated by both sides as theirs cannot be dismissed so easily anymore.



Really.

If you are expecting EVERYBODY (I forgot about Norway which was another 'would be aggressor') except Afghanistan to attack you you can be right eventually especially if you give a damn good reason to seek revenge or create a situation where you can be attacked.:juggle2:

So every paranoid egomaniac can be right, though in this particular situation Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia (I forgot about them too - sorry), Turkey, Greece, Norway, Iraq and Iraq, neither the UK or France didn't attack.

See Pannonian's post. During the civil war, there were French, British, German, Czech, Polish, American and Japanese troops in Russia, usually doing what they bloody liked. WW2 was in the air and USSR was the only communist country in the world, pretty much disliked by everybody. It was quite prudent from them to have defense plans from potential invasions. Nowadays, USA has a plan for an invasion of Canada, that doesn't mean that US is actively seeking to attack Canada. Military plans are made so that the country would know what to do in the event of an invasion, not when invasion is imminent or when it has already started. Since USSR had tense relations at best with many of the countries in their vicinity, it was only natural for them to have some sort of plan what to do if it happens.



Well, Hitler was no friend of the Soviet Union, but by all accounts Stalin was quite pleased with his pact, and his Soviet sphere of influence. The reason he tried to form an alliance with the Western powers first was because Hitler was viscerally opposed to communism. When Hitler offered an alliance, Stalin jumped at the opportunity. He was certainly taken aback at the start of Barbarossa. Based on the information we have about his reaction to the invasion, I'm not entirely convinced that Molotov–Ribbentrop was seen by Stalin as some sort of desperate bid for time before the inevitable German onslaught. It seems more likely that he believed that Hitler would be content with Western Europe while he would have a free hand with his weaker neighbors without worrying about drawing Russia into a larger conflict, at least for some time. And if one subscribes to the idea that Stalin himself was planning his own expansion westward, things get even more complicated.

Well, yes. One would have to subscribe to that opinion beforehand and then use a lot of imagination to get to those conclusions because facts say different things. From the start, it was clear the Stalin wanted to reclaim territories lost by the Imperial Russia after WW1, no doubt about that. A westward expansion by Stalin was highly unlikely. Trotsky was the guy who wanted world wide revolution and he criticized Stalin for not doing anything to spread the revolution to other countries.

Stalin was taken aback by Barbarossa because he didn't expect Hitler to start a two front war. He didn't expect the attack at least until Germany had defeated Britain. Clever ruse by Germans also contributed to that. In the months prior to invasion, Germany signed long-term deals with the Soviet Union, even a deal to build a huge synthetic material plant in Russia on 15th of June and first 10 million reichmarks in gold was supposed to transfered on the 30th of June.

Stalin took all precautions not to provoke Germany. He refused to mobilize fully, he refused to man border positions properly, he slowed down with construction of the forts in the border areas etc...



That's not really my point, though. It doesn't really matter if Stalin and Hitler hated each other or not, the Soviet Union was well aware of the impending invasion of Poland at the signing of the pact and instead of warning Poland or the other Western Powers, they collaborated with the Germans in the invasion for their own gain. A combined British, French, Polish, and Russian action would have overwhelmed Germany in 1939, if thats truly what Stalin wanted. Instead, while Hitler was trouncing the Allies, Stalin saw fit to invade Finland, not to mention the all too often forgotten nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

That's what Stalin truly wanted and that's why Litvinov was spending so much time sucking up to western allies, but the idea was received with lukewarm support in France and Britain and with rejection in Poland. Red Army needed right of passage through Poland to fight Germany but Poland refused to give it. Only when it became clear that the war is imminent, France unilaterally pledged that Soviet troops would be allowed military access through Poland, but by then it was too late. After half a decade of being ignored and played for a fool by the western allies, Ribbentrop's clear proposition was a sight for the sore eyes. It allowed Soviets to recover parts of Belorussia and Ukraine that was a part of Poland at the time and it postponed the conflict for some time. Red Army theorists didn't expect Poland to fall so quickly, they expected months of heavy fighting.

[rory_20_uk]

Stalin mistrusted the Allies to such an extent that although he'd been warned very precise (and accurate) times as when it would start he did nothing to upset the Germans. No troops were put on alert, no planes in the area, no gear was even hidden / hardened. In the first few hours more planes were destroyed on the ground than the RAF had in total (although many were fairly obsolete).

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

“as bees to divinely sweet nectar.”
Can’t bit the smell after few weeks on the field without shower, days and night of training, walking, shooting, explosives, crouching, hand to hand combat, sleeping rough, never leave your weapon (even If the “censured” thing is the ANF1, 10 kg, all in metal and specially built with angles –sharp ones-) and others things…

Aaah, these mornings after a cold sleepless night in the Vosges, the delicious feeling of the burning for damage lips on the too hot coffee, the fabulous sensation to put back your hard leather boots on your injured feet, the smelly combat jacket completed with the gears, the moment when the weight of the weapon cut your neck at the same moment your back pack carve in your shoulders, when your burning red eyes want some rest, after the cold water shaving (menthol if you really want GREAT sensations) put fire on your chicks…
Now, you can prefer to repair the caterpillar of your APC under the rain mixed with snow in Mailly Camp, in a big hole full of icy water in February!!!

Mon Dieu! If only I could find a woman to speak to me like that...

[cegorach]

WW1, Civil War, Russo-Polish War. Russia had been invaded three times in the past 20-30 years, with absolutely everyone getting in on the act during the Civil War, so it wasn't unreasonable for them to expect the west to attack again at some point (as did happen). Churchill in particular was well-known for advocating foreign "intervention" during the USSR's early years.

Oh really? Invaded it was? How so exactly?

Last time I've checked WW1 was started by both sides in the eastern front with Rusian armies invading Eastern Prussia and Austro-Hungary while A-H army invaded Russia. 1 to 1 no more.

Russo-Polish War? Are you joking?

Do you even know where first battles of the war were fought and when?

Again the fighting started in several areas where local Polish militias were fighting against Soviet forces.
If so the 'invaders' can be accused of invading their own homes.
Much like Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Finnes, Georgians, Azeris, Crimean Tartars, Armenians etc.
If you want to balame someone - use the Germans, they were leaving and everybody took what they left so they are the perpetrator, the bad guy. Besides they already cause the 2nd WW so can be blamed for something else and won't protest...

Civil War? Questionable too. When miltinational empire implodes it is obvious that chaos is the direct consequence and if even we call the interventionist forces - half-hearted as they were it is pale in comparison to proper interventionist forces from the past.
Most likely the historical comparison was used for propaganda (as always) and exported to the world conveniently forgetting about the 'white armies', peasant rebellions and opposition who either emigrated or got shot.


Considering that the Soviets supported terrorist activities in neighbouring countries, invaded half of them and continued with this attitute for the whole Interbellum I guess someone else can claim the moral high ground there.


May I also ask what this legendary 'west' is?
How much political interests of Finland have to do with that of Bulgaria or Greece?
Since when Norway is conspiring with Turkey and Iran?
What were the secret plans between Poland and Iraq?

There is no west. There is no side, no faction, no country called west. It is not the fault of Soviet neighbours that they were treated as enemies - all prepared defensive plans against the SU, but there is no question that they were going to attack the Soviets. None at all.

It is nothing else but pure, old fashioned paranoia that they managed to think that this non-existent enemy spends most of their time doing nothing else, but planning invasions against the 'workers' paradise'. And so they claimed. Maybe because they did prepare, they did plan and they did form the largest armed forces on Earth.



I am sorry, but if the largest country of the world sees everybody conspiring against them, builts the largest army in the world and annoyes alsmot everybody from its neighbours it is like a mobster with a crowd of bodyguards and an arsenal of machine guns fearing its neighbours who have other things to do than planning to rob a guy who can kill them all, threatened them in the past and beaten some of them.

Surely they may eventually buy guns and hire some people too, but what should they do? Disarm themselves? Or 'voluntarily' join the Soviet Union just like it (not) happened to Georgia in 1921?




@Sarmatian



See Pannonian's post. During the civil war, there were French, British, German, Czech, Polish, American and Japanese troops in Russia, usually doing what they bloody liked.

Oh my God! They did what they wanted? How dared they?


Frankly - let's stop with this nonsense. If we are really discussing it why not ask who fought the battles of the Civil War and why is it called civil in the first place?
Frankly only stranded Czechs and some Poles (in Siberia) really fought in the Civil War and against their wishes trying to get out, are they the invaders too?



WW2 was in the air and USSR was the only communist country in the world, pretty much disliked by everybody.

How unfair it was! After all it only supported terrorists, military coups, rebellions, 'revolutions' and factions in civil wars in almost all neighbouring countries,
Disliked doesn't equal 'to be invaded soon by everybody'. Southern African Republic was also disliked. Iran is disliked. Northern Korea is disliked etc - should we give them rights to demand special privilages?

We are talking about warmongering country which openly preached the end of 'imperialist regimes' around the world - starting with their neighbours. So what did they do? Almost all of them prepared defensive agreements, built fortifications close to borders and banned communist parties (usually after some time - especially some terrorist attacks...) but does it mean they were going to ATTACK?

Simple question - simple answer. Was Finland or Latvia going to invade the country which formed the largest armed forces on the planet and with what?




It was quite prudent from them to have defense plans from potential invasions. Nowadays, USA has a plan for an invasion of Canada, that doesn't mean that US is actively seeking to attack Canada. Military plans are made so that the country would know what to do in the event of an invasion, not when invasion is imminent or when it has already started. Since USSR had tense relations at best with many of the countries in their vicinity, it was only natural for them to have some sort of plan what to do if it happens.

Prudence and war games is one thing, but LIVING in a reality where everybody is going to attack anytime, anywhere, anyhow you is another.

Soviet Union didn't prepare plans just in case - they KNEW they will be attacked, they were certain they will and everything confirmed their expectations
famines were sabotage of foreign agents,
protests of hungry peasants - clear sign of foreign inflitrations,
problems in industry - inspired by Britain,
dissent in Ukraine - caused by activities of Polish spies,
and their intelligence agencies, their security and through police, their media and propaganda ALL were proving that undisputed fact -
'The west will invade and here is the latest proof - another traitor admitted he works for Swiss intelligence'.
In this reality even a plague of bugs was caused by American sabotage...


Really, EVERYTHING was perceived through the looking glss which made every activity everywhere somehow suspicious.

In other words they, the leadership breed in a reality of intrigue, thought controll and where it could easily mean the death of you, of your family and every relative just because your cousin collects foreing stamps is NOT reasonable at all and demaing they should be treated as normal thinking people is counterproductive.

In their reality if suddenly someone declares he is disarming itself it is either a disguise, another conspiracy or worse - the self-claiming pacifist is most likely so certain he can win he doesn't need normal armed forces so should be treated with even greater attention as even more probable enemy and even... attacked (preventively of course).






Really I don't know why I am even writing it - it is the XXIst century for Christ's sake! Re-inventing the wheel might be fun, but it already happened and is not necessary anymore. :book:

[Sarmatian]

@Sarmatian
Oh my God! They did what they wanted? How dared they?


Frankly - let's stop with this nonsense. If we are really discussing it why not ask who fought the battles of the Civil War and why is it called civil in the first place?
Frankly only stranded Czechs and some Poles (in Siberia) really fought in the Civil War and against their wishes trying to get out, are they the invaders too?

Of course not. Why would anyone consider Czechs and Poles in Russia as invaders? Or Americans, French, British or Japanese? Russia was just a hit holiday place in the 20's.



How unfair it was! After all it only supported terrorists, military coups, rebellions, 'revolutions' and factions in civil wars in almost all neighbouring countries,
Disliked doesn't equal 'to be invaded soon by everybody'. Southern African Republic was also disliked. Iran is disliked. Northern Korea is disliked etc - should we give them rights to demand special privilages?

Very different situation in the modern day, mate.



We are talking about warmongering country which openly preached the end of 'imperialist regimes' around the world - starting with their neighbours. So what did they do? Almost all of them prepared defensive agreements, built fortifications close to borders and banned communist parties (usually after some time - especially some terrorist attacks...) but does it mean they were going to ATTACK?

Who preached it? Stalin? I'm sorry but that's bollox. Read Stalin's interviews, you can find them on the net. He preached that USSR wasn't gonna spread its revolution around the world pretty much all the time. For this precise reason Trotsky attacked him as a spineless coward who shouldn't be leading Soviet Union because he doesn't want to spread the revolution and wants to have cordial relations with non-communist countries. Definitely not "preaching the end of imperialist regimes" mate.

Howard interview with Stalin, 1st March 1936: (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm)

Howard : May there not be an element of danger in the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force its political theories on other nations?

Stalin : There is no justification whatever for such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.

But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.

Or if you want a short version (H.G.Wells, July 23rd, 1934 (http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm)):

WELLS: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation With President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to you to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . . .

STALIN: Not so very much. . . .



Simple question - simple answer. Was Finland or Latvia going to invade the country which formed the largest armed forces on the planet and with what?

On their own, no. As a part of a greater coallition, quite possibly, as actually happened in the case of Finland. More importantly, they could have been used a staging point for invasion by another army.



Prudence and war games is one thing, but LIVING in a reality where everybody is going to attack anytime, anywhere, anyhow you is another.

Soviet Union didn't prepare plans just in case - they KNEW they will be attacked, they were certain they will and everything confirmed their expectations


So, when Soviets prepare defense plans, that's paranoia because they were actually believing they might be attacked but it is prudent when other countries make them because they prepare them "just in case"? :dizzy2:

[Beskar]

Some big replies, saying what I was mostly going to say. But, Stalin did have emergency plans (the factory movements). Stalin also never expected Germany to attack the USSR, not because of the pacts and deals, he saw right through those (he knew there would be a war, it was even written in Hitlers book), the fact was, Stalin thought it was suicidal of Germany to attack when they did.

However, Germany on the otherhand needed to attack when they did, because Russia was getting very powerful and the longer they waited, the stronger Russia would have been.

[Kagemusha]

On their own, no. As a part of a greater coallition, quite possibly, as actually happened in the case of Finland. More importantly, they could have been used a staging point for invasion by another army.

This is pretty rich already. As it was me who started this thread and have no problems understanding that while Soviet Union was the enemy of my coutry in 40´s. Their input in defeating Nazi Germany was most valuable. Still it was Soviet Union´s own fault that they made an enemy out of Finland by their own aggression. Finland had no other choice then choose between two devils and after Winter War started by Soviet Union and 500 000 Finnish loosing their homes out of less then 4 million it became quite certain which side Finland would choose would there be war between the two forementioned devils.

[PanzerJaeger]

From the start, it was clear the Stalin wanted to reclaim territories lost by the Imperial Russia after WW1, no doubt about that.

And Poland and a large part of Russia were territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1. Unfortunately, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania were all sovereign nations - just as Belgium, Norway, and Greece were.


Stalin was taken aback by Barbarossa because he didn't expect Hitler to start a two front war. He didn't expect the attack at least until Germany had defeated Britain.

I'm not entirely convinced that Stalin "expected" an attack at all. The oft-quoted statements he made about Germany not invading until after the defeat of Britain and his hopes to delay such an attack until 1942 were supposedly made to silence aids who suggested the possibility of an invasion, and are based on notoriously unreliable declassified Soviet correspondence. Some have taken that to mean that he expected an invasion, but his actions suggest otherwise . It should be noted that he expected to join the Axis and split the world four ways.

It seems more likely that Stalin's feelings toward Germany evolved over time. While he was at first fearful and adversarial, by the time of Barbarossa he was in the palm of Hitler's hand, expecting to join Japan and Italy on his team. As has been said, Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.


That's what Stalin truly wanted and that's why Litvinov was spending so much time sucking up to western allies, but the idea was received with lukewarm support in France and Britain and with rejection in Poland. Red Army needed right of passage through Poland to fight Germany but Poland refused to give it. Only when it became clear that the war is imminent, France unilaterally pledged that Soviet troops would be allowed military access through Poland, but by then it was too late. After half a decade of being ignored and played for a fool by the western allies, Ribbentrop's clear proposition was a sight for the sore eyes. It allowed Soviets to recover parts of Belorussia and Ukraine that was a part of Poland at the time and it postponed the conflict for some time. Red Army theorists didn't expect Poland to fall so quickly, they expected months of heavy fighting.

Yes, Stalin was very fearful of a resurgent Germany as Hitler had positioned himself as a an arch enemy of communism. Thus, he did everything he could to contain him. However, when Hitler offered an alliance, Stalin jumped at the chance. I think your assessment of this move as simply an effort to buy time in preparation for a German invasion is slightly apologetic. It seems more likely, Stalin saw an opportunity to expand his holdings and sphere of influence.

Regardless, I think we're starting to lose sight of the forest for the trees. I just don't think your assertion that Germany and the Soviet Union and their respective leaders were not "two cheeks of the same arse" is correct. In fact, the two nation's paths were remarkably similar, from the ruthless leadership, the totalitarian system, the state sponsored deaths of millions, and even the conquest of their weaker neighbors.

The simple truth is that Stalin's early attempts to contain Hitler had to do with fear, not any moral stance. When Hitler offered Stalin the opportunity to split Western and Eastern Europe between them, he had no problem accepting. Stalin knew full well what Hitler's intention's were in regards to Poland and Western Europe long before the war started, and until Hitler broke their alliance, he was content to sit back, engage in his own expansionist binge, and profit from the situation.