Ukraine Thread

[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

[Sarmatian]

I am not sure what you are arguing.

I don't care - tip you're it.

You take over, I can't do it anymore.

Hats off to Brenus, his perseverance is legendary, but then again, he has seen war and marriage.

[Strike For The South]

It's May 12th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.