Ukraine Thread

[Brenus]

"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).

[Gilrandir]

There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf.

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

[Sarmatian]

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Have you read either? They're not even remotely similar.

[Brenus]

"Have you read either?" he obviously didn't. The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform, but a discussion about Communism...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is April 30th, 2015.

Is Putin still a fascist?

[Sarmatian]

It is April 30th, 2015.

Is Putin still a fascist?

I think he is misunderstood. He just wants to be loved, like all proper cartoon super villains.

[Gilrandir]

"Have you read either?" he obviously didn't. The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform, but a discussion about Communism...

Again jumping to conclusions
I have STUDIED "Manifesto" at school and University.
The basic tenets I referred to:

Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes".
The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves accumulating capital. However by doing so the bourgeoisie "are its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

"Proletarians and Communists", the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists' party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world's proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities.

These basic tenets were further elaborated and developed by Lenin and Stalin, so while communism can't claim that it has a single "Bible" (as nazism does) still its doctrines are expounded in a number of theoretical treatises.
It is true, though, I didn't read Mein Kampf. I know only general ideas expressed in it. Yet, the points I mentioned about communist ideology (exporting socialist revolution, superiority of one social group, annihilation of class enemies and their minions) may be said to be common for both sources and consequently ideologies.

[Gilrandir]

He just wants to be loved, like all proper cartoon super villains.

Loved or made love to?

[Brenus]

“Yet, the points I mentioned about communist ideology (exporting socialist revolution, superiority of one social group, annihilation of class enemies and their minions) may be said to be common for both sources and consequently ideologies.”
Nope, it as comparing salad and carrot under the pretext there are both vegetables. Err, I think carrot is…
Well, export of socialist revolution has been in debate, Stalin vs Lenin, or Trotsky, but was not part of the ideology.
At that time, they were quite busy in keeping the Revolution alive.
The first official Communist Part is around the 1920, when the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, I think (too lazy to check). Not that the URSS didn’t took any advantage in its Foreign Policy to grab territories (i.e. Poland & Finland or after WW2) but unlike Nazism or Colonialism it is not a corner stone. You can’t be a Nazi without conquest, racism and brutality. You can be Communist. Communist ideology does not propose the superiority of one social group (this is more the Aristocratic/Conservative/Tories approach). It recognises a struggle between the (roughly) two classes and describe that the oppression couldn’t stop without struggle. As much I remember, the ideology never mentioned annihilation of class enemies, but the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat which will end when everyone will be equal… Yeah, I know… But there is no appeal to genocide as the Nazi ideology.

[Gilrandir]

Well, export of socialist revolution has been in debate, Stalin vs Lenin, or Trotsky, but was not part of the ideology.

You make claims which must be grouded on your more than cursory awareness of the communist ideology in its enirety. The latter is not limited to the Manifesto. It is the first (AFAIK), but not the last expounding (and interpretation) of it. As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own. So the idea of exporting revolution was introduced later into the ideology.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pea.../08/export.htm

The first official Communist Part is around the 1920.

In name, perhaps. But not in essence. Bosheviks were steering by the ideology since about 1900 (too lazy to find the exact date) when their party was called RSDRP (b).

You can’t be a Nazi without conquest, racism and brutality.

Le Pen manages to thrive without the first and, by and large, without the third. There are civilized nazis now.

Communist ideology does not propose the superiority of one social group (this is more the Aristocratic/Conservative/Tories approach). It recognises a struggle between the (roughly) two classes and describe that the oppression couldn’t stop without struggle. As much I remember, the ideology never mentioned annihilation of class enemies, but the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat which will end when everyone will be equal…
Yeah, I know… But there is no appeal to genocide as the Nazi ideology.

To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...20class&f=true
Page 116, the second sentence in the second paragraph, starting with "The bourgeoisie wouldbe removed as a class".
And other quotations by the classics:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/communists.html

[Brenus]

“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. We could say easily that the Crusades (or the genocide/ethnocide in South America) were in the New Testament under the same description.

“In name, perhaps. But not in essence. Bosheviks were steering by the ideology since about 1900 (too lazy to find the exact date) when their party was called RSDRP (b).” In France, the separation between Socialism and Communist was in the Congrès of Tours in Dec 1920:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tours_Congress

“To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.” Not really the same thing no? The Aristocratic Class is forbidden in USA, doesn’t means they kill the UK Royal Family as soon they put a foot of the grounds of USA.
Nobility was abolished by Louis the XVI ins a (vain) attempt to stop the Revolution, and he didn’t kill the Aristocrats…

"The bourgeoisie would be removed as a class". See above. “As a Class”

And the 2nd link is even funnier (especially when you see the names of the authors of the sentences). I can probably (and probably some did) the same with all Regime and ideologies.
In the name of Christianity: Arnaul Amalric: “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His”
Capitalism: See all declaration about law f Market for Irish, Indian and others famines, or the right for nations to have colonies… Too long to do it myself, sorry, I started a new Inquisition character…
Islam: read the book…

[Gilrandir]

“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.

I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.

“To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.” Not really the same thing no? The Aristocratic Class is forbidden in USA, doesn’t means they kill the UK Royal Family as soon they put a foot of the grounds of USA.
Nobility was abolished by Louis the XVI ins a (vain) attempt to stop the Revolution, and he didn’t kill the Aristocrats…

You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.

[Brenus]

“I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.” No you didn’t. I said there is no equivalent Communists My Kampf. You created a link to a document written in 1848 as Political Platform for Parties that really started to exist in the 1920’s (kind of 60/70 years after mind you).
As the similarities, I really don’t see them, except artificially created, as all opponents (ill-informed ones) always do. You can probably find similarity between My Kampf and the Scouts as they are both like fire camps, boys and girls enjoying sports and outdoor activities…

“You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? “ Where are these things you describe are contain in the Communist Manifesto?
It is just stating the evidence which is when a Class (or workers) are not anymore needed or are obsolete, they vanished. When I was a kid we had a blacksmith and a wooden shoes maker in the village. They disappeared when I was a teenager… No confiscation, no murder or others hardship measures, just the fact they were not anymore needed/adequate. So, in an all-equal society, the class “Bourgeoisie” having finished in it social role would just vanish.

“Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.” Don’t know for USA (but I give you that the Class “Slave-owner” did disappear violently), in France it went like this: The “Etats Généraux” were made of three Chambers divided following St Augustin principles: The Nobility (the warriors), the Clergy (the Priests) and the Tiers Etat (the one who feed the 2 others). The French Assembly went for a representation by elections, so the 2 others classes did vanish.
If the King Louis the XVI would be smarter, it should have stay there.
Due to his lack of political finesse; the Kingdom was abolished and the 1st Republic proclaimed (well, not really but de facto), and all the civil wars and foreign wars that ended not in 1815, but for real at the proclamation of the III Republic (1871).

[Gilrandir]

“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation…

Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions.

"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf.

“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.

“I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.” No you didn’t.

You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.
As you can see, we started our discussion with IDEOLOGIES and only three posts later you brought up Mein Kampf. Thus comparing fundamental (foundational) treatises was done for highlighting/specifying the comparison of ideologies.

You can probably find similarity between My Kampf and the Scouts as they are both like fire camps, boys and girls enjoying sports and outdoor activities…

Flawed comparison. You can't compare a book and an organization. You may do it with Hitlerjugend and Scouts, if you wish.

“You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? “ Where are these things you describe are contain in the Communist Manifesto?

As I have shown, they are basic tenets of communist IDEOLOGY. And we are still comparing ideologies.

It is just stating the evidence which is when a Class (or workers) are not anymore needed or are obsolete, they vanished. When I was a kid we had a blacksmith and a wooden shoes maker in the village. They disappeared when I was a teenager… No confiscation, no murder or others hardship measures, just the fact they were not anymore needed/adequate. So, in an all-equal society, the class “Bourgeoisie” having finished in it social role would just vanish.

Once again: communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin) insists on annihilation of a social class by violent methods. It was not just "wait until they become extinct in the process of evolution" or "bereave them of their title and they are not nobility any more" (as your examples tend to show), but "confiscate their assests, put them to socially-useful work, and apply punishment, up to the death penalty". If it is not a call to eradicating a whole strata of population, try to replace "bourgeoisie" with "jews" and see if it works out to be a kind of ?-cide.

“Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.” Don’t know for USA (but I give you that the Class “Slave-owner” did disappear violently), in France it went like this: The “Etats Généraux” were made of three Chambers divided following St Augustin principles: The Nobility (the warriors), the Clergy (the Priests) and the Tiers Etat (the one who feed the 2 others). The French Assembly went for a representation by elections, so the 2 others classes did vanish.
If the King Louis the XVI would be smarter, it should have stay there.
Due to his lack of political finesse; the Kingdom was abolished and the 1st Republic proclaimed (well, not really but de facto), and all the civil wars and foreign wars that ended not in 1815, but for real at the proclamation of the III Republic (1871).

Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued. A group of people was stopped to be CALLED in a certain way, but the PEOPLE didn't disappear. Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.

[Brenus]

“As I have shown” You have shown nothing. I can give you it is difficult as there is no “Communist” My Kampf. You just can describe various episodes of the USRR and others in order to sustain your claim.

“communist IDEOLOGY” You are just plain wrong. What the Communist Manifesto is describing is a consequence, not a tool.

“Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.” Your readings of it (and Lenin and Stalin), not what the Communist Manifesto tells.

“communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin)” Communist Ideology is not define by the two you named, who were as well dictators. So what is part of Dictatorship and Ideology? In Nazism, you don’t have the same problem as Nazism is Dictatorship.

“Flawed comparison. You can't compare a book and an organization. You may do it with Hitlerjugend and Scouts, if you wish.” Well, it is what you do, I just return the favour. You pretend because superficial similarities that Communist Ideology and Nazi Ideology are similar (I know, it is not what you are actually writing, but deeper we go in this exchange, it looks like it is the direction you are aiming to). So I choose an example to show you can do this to each organisation.

“You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.” It is because you are a little bit chaotic, so I have to remind you of what you wrote. "Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions."
My answer to this was: “Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).”
Note that you did cut the part on others violent and aggressive ideologies having much more in common with Nazism than Communism.
You still fail to define the Communist Ideology, as obviously to retract rightly from the idea of the Communist Manifesto could play this role. Just in France, the Anarchist movement produced a lot of literature and ideas about what Communism is/was about (i.e. Manifesto of the Equals (1796)). And the same can be said for the Socialist Movement and indeed the Communist Movement.

"Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued" Really? I just gave you an exemple when one, Nobility, just did.

[Gilrandir]

“As I have shown” You have shown nothing. I can give you it is difficult as there is no “Communist” My Kampf. You just can describe various episodes of the USRR and others in order to sustain your claim.

“communist IDEOLOGY” You are just plain wrong. What the Communist Manifesto is describing is a consequence, not a tool.

“Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.” Your readings of it (and Lenin and Stalin), not what the Communist Manifesto tells.

“communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin)” Communist Ideology is not define by the two you named, who were as well dictators. So what is part of Dictatorship and Ideology? In Nazism, you don’t have the same problem as Nazism is Dictatorship.

“You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.” It is because you are a little bit chaotic, so I have to remind you of what you wrote. "Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions."
My answer to this was: “Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).”
Note that you did cut the part on others violent and aggressive ideologies having much more in common with Nazism than Communism.
You still fail to define the Communist Ideology, as obviously to retract rightly from the idea of the Communist Manifesto could play this role. Just in France, the Anarchist movement produced a lot of literature and ideas about what Communism is/was about (i.e. Manifesto of the Equals (1796)). And the same can be said for the Socialist Movement and indeed the Communist Movement.

Either you don't really understand (as you like to say) or you choose to pretend to.
My final word in this argument:
We started to compare IDEOLOGIES. Ideologies ARE NOT EXHAUSTED/LIMITED by the premises in the books we referred to since they (ideologies) encompass MORE IDEAS than those forwarded in the books (at least this is true for communism, since I don't know much of other basic treatises of nazism if there are any). The ideological background of communism (expounded in works by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and perhaps others) contains at least some similar tenets (those that ultimately lead to gruesome consequences) to those expressed in Mein Kampf. Period.

"Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued" Really? I just gave you an exemple when one, Nobility, just did.

So all the nobles were killed? No. They STOPPED BEING CALLED nobles, but they lived on (at least those that were not executed). Just like slave-owners in America in 1865 stopped owning slaves, but lived on.
In the USSR the communist party (guiding itself by the basic tenets forwarded by Lenin and Stalin) started annihilating PEOPLE who were considered bourgeoisie. For example, during collectivisation rich peasants (Russian kulaki) who were included into "petty bourgeoisie" were exiled to Siberia with their families just because they were richer than others. If they expressed dissatisfaction they were proclaimed "people's enemies who resisted the dictatorship of the proletariat" and consequently executed. Those that obeyed very often died on the way or starved to death at their destination. It is very vividly described in Sholokhov's Virgin Soil Upturned and this is what I termed classocide.
Later this tactics (under similar accusation) was repeated to attempt genocide of Tatars or Volga Germans.

[Gilrandir]

Speaking of nazis and communists. Apparently I didn't watch the British documentary too carefully. But it appears that when I claimed that Germans in 1939-1940 used Murmansk airdfield to deploy their planes later used in bombing Norway it wasn't a wild shot. I was mistaken in the kind of troops and used rented facilities. It was a naval base near Murmansk that was placed at Gemany's disposal and evidently was instrumenal in conquering Norway.

https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...rmansk&f=false

http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php...,28676,quote=1

So basically I was right about close military cooperation between nazis and communists at the outset of WWII.

[Sarmatian]

So basically I was right about close military cooperation between nazis and communists at the outset of WWII.

No you were not.

Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports. The particular importance of that particular port was that it was small and remote enough and that German ships could dock there and there was little chance they would spied upon or their ships sabotaged. They could have just as well docked in Murmansk or Leningrad...

That is not the proof of close military cooperation. The fact that Graf Spee docked in Montevideo doesn't mean the Germany and Uruguay had close military cooperation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No you were not.

Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports. The particular importance of that particular port was that it was small and remote enough and that German ships could dock there and there was little chance they would spied upon or their ships sabotaged. They could have just as well docked in Murmansk or Leningrad...

That is not the proof of close military cooperation. The fact that Graf Spee docked in Montevideo doesn't mean the Germany and Uruguay had close military cooperation.

What about all the Red Army officers trained in Germany who were interred upon their return to the Motherland upon commencement of hostilities, or Hitler and Stalin's partitioning of Poland?

also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect, the Nobility still exist in France and, as far as I'm aware have furnished the majority of French Presidents.

[Greyblades]

Huh, I didnt know that.

I mean, I knew that the nobility didnt die out in teh revolution and there was a king or two after bonaparte, but I didnt think france still honoured thier titles.

[Brenus]

"also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect": Nope. https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/367/
It is not a legal entity.

"but I didnt think france still honoured thier titles." France doesn't.

"I'm aware have furnished the majority of French Presidents."

Yes, you still have category claiming being part of Nobility, but it is not legal. I can write on my visit card if I had one I am the Count of what ever, no one can challenge or start legal proceeding as I am entitle to do so.

[Sarmatian]

What about all the Red Army officers trained in Germany who were interred upon their return to the Motherland upon commencement of hostilities

All serious military cooperation between Soviet Union and Germany died when Hitler came into power. There were some leftovers, like there usually are, military observers and such... but nothing beyond that. Also, Hitler actually was trying to increase the level of cooperation, to keep the ruse before invading, while Stalin believed him, to an extent that he won't open another front until England's been defeated.

Prior to Hitler coming to power, there was indeed serious military cooperation. Guderian saw first massive tank maneuvers in Soviet Union.

, or Hitler and Stalin's partitioning of Poland?

It is no secret that Stalin wanted to reclaim territories Russian Empire lost after ww1, but cooperation pact with Hitler was a way to buy time to prepare for the eventual war, which everybody knew was coming, even when they signed the NAP.

Worth noting is that NAP was signed after France and UK rebuffed Soviet overtures for an alliance against Nazi Germany. Litvinov was sacked as foreign minister, Molotov appointed when Stalin figured out that western allies weren't ready to commit to fight together against Hitler. He decided that a NAP with Germany would give SU more time to prepare for the inevitable war.

It's really a case of revisionism, where the goal is to equate Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Most people unfortunately don't know enough to really discern the meaning of such statements -> there were German ships in Soviet Unions! Yeah, there were German ships in other neutral countries. There were Soviet officers in Germany! Yes, there were French and British officers also. There were Japanese officers in USA. It doesn't really mean anything, but, unless one is knowledgeable enough, it's a good propaganda effort.

[Gilrandir]

Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports.

If you carefully read the linked part of the book (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...rmansk&f=false) you will note that it was not just "entering a port" but using it as a base (Basis Nord) and even enlisting the help of Soviet ice-breakers to evade British navy. For which later Raeder personally thanked Kuznetsov.
But the Basis Nord issue wasn't the only evidence of the cooperation (collaboration?) in question. I have already said about guiding German bombers unloading above Poland, intense conatcts between Gestapo and NKVD, parade in Brest and so on.

http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/the-...communist-chic

The film shows footage of Russian and German military officers toasting each other, exchanging salutes at parties, and marching together in parades celebrating the conquest of Poland. When German bombers attacked Poland, radio towers in Minsk guided them; likewise, the Russian port of Murmansk served as the staging ground for the German invasion of Norway. The Soviet Union quickly became the largest supplier of resources for the Nazi war machine.

So the cooperation was more than what you would like to present.

"also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect":
It is not a legal entity.
Yes, you still have category claiming being part of Nobility, but it is not legal. I can write on my visit card if I had one I am the Count of what ever, no one can challenge or start legal proceeding as I am entitle to do so.

Illegal doesn't mean non-existent. Some/many Mexican immigrants in the USA are illegal. Do they not exist?
Social stratum can't be cancelled by laws. It is there as long as any representatives of it are alive and consider themselves as such. And it doesn't depend on the documents they have. There are still people who trace their origin from nobility of the past and thus hold themselves part of it even in such countries where decrees cancelling it were issued and/or modern state system has no place for them (Russia, Japan, Italy). Or some families of New England.
You might as well issue a decree that there is no such nationality as, for example, Jews, Tatars or Gypsies. Does it mean they will disappear?

[Sarmatian]

If you carefully read the linked part of the book (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...rmansk&f=false) you will note that it was not just "entering a port" but using it as a base (Basis Nord) and even enlisting the help of Soviet ice-breakers to evade British navy.

It is quite silly to assume that Soviet had a fully functioning, staffed port, that was encased in ice, and that icebreakers were sitting idly by, only activated to clear the ice for the Germans.

Like I said, if one doesn't approach such "reports" with a critical mind, he or she may end up with a distorted picture.

But the Basis Nord issue wasn't the only evidence of the cooperation (collaboration?) in question. I have already said about guiding German bombers unloading above Poland, intense conatcts between Gestapo and NKVD, parade in Brest and so on.

http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/the-...communist-chic

So the cooperation was more than what you would like to present.

Any cooperation between Soviets and the Germans was (on the Soviet side) a desire to placate Hitler and buy time for modernization of industry and army for the inevitable war between the two countries. After being ignored by the most of Europe in a desire to create a common front against Hitler, they bought time by striking a deal, which included supplying raw materials but very little military cooperation.

The amount of trust was such that Stalin made an urgent order to move into Poland after seeing how fast Wehrmacht was advancing, to ensure Germans don't come into control of eastern Poland, which was supposed to go to the Soviets. It was such a dash that Soviet units moved with little fuel and little to no ammunition, just to get to the demarcation line before Germans.

As I've said - revisionism.

[Gilrandir]

Like I said, if one doesn't approach such "reports" with a critical mind, he or she may end up with a distorted picture.

If one approaches such reports with a distorted mind, I'm afraid the picture will be distorted as well.

The amount of trust was such that Stalin made an urgent order to move into Poland after seeing how fast Wehrmacht was advancing, to ensure Germans don't come into control of eastern Poland, which was supposed to go to the Soviets. It was such a dash that Soviet units moved with little fuel and little to no ammunition, just to get to the demarcation line before Germans.

You seem to know Stalin's mind better than anyone else. Let's remember that these are only your own assumptions.

As I've said - revisionism.

Everything that ruins a deeply entrenched picture is bound to be called a revisionism. Any new discovered fact is disregarded and proclaimed revisionism just because it interferes with the comfortable and traditionally-accepted "truth". This is the way with science in general and the historic science in particular. Russia is especially good at the latter. And evidently, not only Russia.

[Sarmatian]

You seem to know Stalin's mind better than anyone else. Let's remember that these are only your own assumptions.

Soviet political and military leadership was taken by surprise by the speed of the German advance. They frantically mobilized border units, often with little or no supplies and equipment to rush to demarcation line. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.

Everything that ruins a deeply entrenched picture is bound to be called a revisionism. Any new discovered fact is disregarded and proclaimed revisionism just because it interferes with the comfortable and traditionally-accepted "truth". This is the way with science in general and the historic science in particular. Russia is especially good at the latter. And evidently, not only Russia.

What you call a "fact" is actually an insignificant piece of information given out of context. It is bombastic enough, if one doesn't understand how it works in reality.

Historical facts have been well documented and there is nothing to warrant revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists and politicians aren't bound by high scientific standards, so they are free to spout nonsense that will increase their sales and rating, or achieve a particular goal.

[Brenus]

“Illegal doesn't mean non-existent. Some/many Mexican immigrants in the USA are illegal. Do they not exist?
Social stratum can't be cancelled by laws. It is there as long as any representatives of it are alive and consider themselves as such. And it doesn't depend on the documents they have. There are still people who trace their origin from nobility of the past and thus hold themselves part of it even in such countries where decrees cancelling it were issued and/or modern state system has no place for them (Russia, Japan, Italy). Or some families of New England.
You might as well issue a decree that there is no such nationality as, for example, Jews, Tatars or Gypsies. Does it mean they will disappear?”
Oh, a lot of things added-up here.
The Nobility was a class when its members had a political/social use. This use disappeared slowly and this fact was matched by the disappearance from the political landscape. The class Nobility vanished by a change of Constitution but not only. No body decide to create the Bourgeoisie but the Class appeared as the system of production and the representation of the world changed.
The warriors were not any more required as the lowest coward could kill the bravest knight from behind his barricade with a musket. Evolution, pure Darwinian evolution… For the same reason, difficult to be a King from Divine Will when less and less people believe in God(s)ess(es).
And yes, you are right, so murderers, thieves and drugs dealers are as well illegal and don’t mean they do not exist. That doesn’t make them a Class in Marxist definition/acceptation sense.
We are not speaking a Social Stratum; we are speaking of Classes, as define by St Augustine or Marx. The old religious model collapse thanks to the Industrial Revolutions(s) and some evolved in high Bourgeoisie as the English Gentry, the others, trying to clench to their Privileges just died, from some of them literally. However, even in England, the Class Nobility ceased in its function so died as Class.
And no, self-determination is not what you are. They can trace whatever they want, and think whatever they want, that doesn’t make Nobility a Class, just a delusion, especially when you study History and learn how Nobility was created... My county of birth was annexed by Louis XV le Bien-Aimé because the biggest provider of “false” Nobility and money. You paid and ding, you were elected Member of the Parliament (Official post leading to Nobility) for 3 days, then you bought a piece of land, you took the mane of the piece of land, and dong, 10 years after you printed a nice visit card with blazon, 2 wolves with a piece if Oak, there you were a Noble. With careful planning, you could by a Castle from a ruined older noble, married your son to his daughter, than would speed up the process... But I digressed.
As the last part of your intervention, as much as I know, Jew is not a nationality but a religion. Not sure that Gypsy is a nationality either. Perhaps Tatars are. And the all three are not Classes but a social/tribal/human link. So comparing them with a legal status or an obsolete occupation/work is absurd.

[Gilrandir]

We are not speaking a Social Stratum; we are speaking of Classes, as define by St Augustine or Marx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

Social class (or simply "class"), as in a class society, is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories, the most common being the upper, middle, and lower classes.

But to cut short a possible terminological debate involving quotations from Augustine, Marx, and (not unlikely) Mein Kampf:
whatever you understand as a "class", violent measures aimed at obliterating a large group of people (bourgeoisie) was what Lenin (and later Stalin) advocated and even found neccessary to do.

They can trace whatever they want, and think whatever they want, that doesn’t make Nobility a Class, just a delusion, especially when you study History and learn how Nobility was created...

Yet such delusions are not punishable by death or confiscation of assets, are they?

as much as I know, Jew is not a nationality but a religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious and ethno-cultural group originating from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East.

Historically, Jews have descended mostly from the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah.

Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

Not sure that Gypsy is a nationality either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

The Romani (also spelled Romany), or Roma, are a traditionally itinerant ethnicity living mostly in Europe and the Americas. Ultimately of Northern Indian origin, the Romani are widely known among English-speaking people by the exonym "Gypsies" (or Gipsies).

Can it be that Brenus may fail to know anything or, God forbid, make a miastake? No no, I must be dreaming.

And the all three are not Classes but a social/tribal/human link. So comparing them with a legal status or an obsolete occupation/work is absurd.

I was talking not of any statuses, but of the ideologically substantiated appeal (with further implementation) to put an end to a large stratum of people, be it a social class (in any meaning) or nationality/ethnicity. In my view, both are crimes one of which was commited by nazis, and both (e.g. a crackdown on kulaki and Tatars) by communists.

[Gilrandir]

What you call a "fact" is actually an insignificant piece of information given out of context. It is bombastic enough, if one doesn't understand how it works in reality.

Historical facts have been well documented and there is nothing to warrant revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists and politicians aren't bound by high scientific standards, so they are free to spout nonsense that will increase their sales and rating, or achieve a particular goal.

Historical facts are there OK, but their interpretation may be different. Some people call them "insignificant pieces of information", others try to see a system behind them. Each approach is arbitrary so categories "right" or "wrong" don't work here.
"Revisionism" and "collaboration" are very good stigmata to brand your opponents. They don't need substantiation. One just pastes the label on the forehead of the opponent and says: "How can we have any discussion with revisionists who glorify collaborators?" No further arguments are paid attention to. This tactics works especially well with those who see a black-and-white image of real life events.

For example, it has always been (and has even become more fiercely done) an approach practised in the USSR and now Russia to brand those who sport red-black flags or Bandera's portraits as people who try to glorify traitors and collaborators (and their symbols) and thus involved into revisionism. Such adepts choose to disregard the fact that modern Russia uses official flags of Russian liberation Army headed by Vlasov as their state flag and navy flag.
http://info-news.eu/russian-armies-of-nazi-germany/
Why don't they advocate forbidding them either?
They also choose to disregard the fact that German army held special operations against UPA (which was mentioned at Nuremberg trial) and that the leader of the movement (the ultimate villain) was arrested by nazis on July 5 1941 and spent next three years first in prison in Berlin and later in the concentration camp. Since these facts don't fit the officially blessed tradition it is better not to see them and proclaim any attempts to pay attention to them revisionism.

You are so devoted to seeing events in their broad context. Let's do it on the example of Organization of Ukrainian nationalists (OUN). Their ultimate goal was to win independence for Ukraine - from Poland and the USSR. Who could give them hope of re-drawing European borders between the world wars? Evidently not the winners of WWI, who were quite satisfied with the map they formated in 1918-1920. So OUN turned to the only powerful driving force that yearned for destroying the stability of the after-Versailles Europe. Thus, OUN and nazis became situational allies. When it was evident that nazis wouldn't tolerate any independent country out of their control the former allies became enemies.
Such stories of fluctuating political stance could be found in many European countries in those times, so stigmatizing should either cease altogether or be ubiquitous and comprehensive and no one should be exempt just because it may look to someone an attempt at revisionism. The same as facts pointing to close German-Soviet cooperation on the eve of WWII, which you consider "insignificant pieces of information".

Soviet political and military leadership was taken by surprise by the speed of the German advance. They frantically mobilized border units, often with little or no supplies and equipment to rush to demarcation line. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.

Yet, Ribbentrop and Molotov signed a protocol, so the Soviet party must have been aware of what ought to happen and have taken the neccessary steps, especially if there was such a distrust as you claim. You make it sound like Stalin was an agent of events carried on by the turbulent stream who didn't participate in decision making and was only reacting (and saving what he could) to those insidious and cunning nazis doing their dirty deeds on their own. Wait, it sounds somehow familiar.... Got it! Replace Stalin with Putin and we may return the derailed thread to your vision of the Ukrainian crisis. And if anyone still wants more insights on it:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/a...ue#pageIndex_2

[CrossLOPER]

You make it sound like Stalin was an agent of events carried on by the turbulent stream who didn't participate in decision making and was only reacting (and saving what he could) to those insidious and cunning nazis doing their dirty deeds on their own. Wait, it sounds somehow familiar.... Got it!

I am not sure what you are arguing. The Red Army was in no shape to combat the Wehrmacht, and Stalin was fully aware of this. He was trying to place the Soviet Union in a more favorable position for when Hitler inevitably gave the order to attack.

On June 26, 1940, a law was enacted extending the Soviet workday from seven to eight hours, and to seven days per week. Disciplinary action for tardiness or slothfulness in the factories was imposed on the work force. These are measures normally introduced during wartime.

Why do you think this occurred?

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...lwarplans.html