Ukraine Thread

[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.

[Brenus]

I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough. Each time he goes for vocabulary explanation to cover the gaps, he make me laugh. The "well, I was wrong about this, but I am still right as Hitler really said in was for peace, I was right to say Hitler was a peaceful man" kind of argument.
It is a tactic he uses a lot.

[Gilrandir]

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.

Why do you think this occurred?

Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something? Why didn't he do it soon after his saw inadequacies of his military in the Winter war?
I think he was having in view not the vague purpose "to keep up with the Jonses" (or at least not primarily this purpose). He was being engaged in occupation of the Baltic states which put a strain on economy and armed forces. So it WAS a war time, as your source states.

I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough.

It is good to be able to have at least a piece of mind now and then from a sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies, but whose wisdom allows him to grade the sites he dislikes from most revisionist through mildly revisionist down to slightly revisionist.
I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument.

[CrossLOPER]

Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something?

I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.

Same article (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...lwarplans.html).

On August 23, 1939, the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was in Moscow. He and Molotov signed the historic German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The following evening, Stalin hosted prominent members of the Soviet Political Bureau in his apartment. Among the dinner guests were Molotov, Voroshilov, Lavrenti P. Beria and Nikita Khrushchev.

Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time.

Inside the USSR, an intensive armaments production program was under way. During 1938, it had increased by 39 percent, compared to 13 percent in civil industry. Emphasis was placed on armor, development of artillery and aeronautics. In September 1939 the USSR defense committee contracted the construction of nine aircraft production plants, and seven more to manufacture aircraft engines.

This was supplemented by the conversion to fabrication of aviation components of a number of consumer goods factories.

The war in Europe did not develop as Stalin had predicted. In the spring of 1940, the British withdrew from the continent. The German army conquered France in June without suffering appreciable losses. The ground war was wrapping up without England and Germany becoming "sufficiently worn down." Khrushchev later described how Stalin became unusually agitated following the Franco-German cease-fire in June 1940. He cursed the French for letting themselves be beaten and the English for fleeing "as fast as their legs could carry them.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...8postprint.pdf

Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH...Banner&f=false

Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.

[Brenus]

Don't speak of facts with with Gilrandir. He will explain later that well, he was right.
"I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument." The first part explains the second that you as usual misunderstand.

"sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies" Why a sage should know everything? I like when you try irony.
Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation? So share your ignorance once again, I sure you will find something...

[Gilrandir]

Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious

Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".

and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation?

I like this demure "perhaps". You blame other in disregarding the facts, but ... kettle and pot.
But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile, back in DPR. Zakharchenko presides at the parade.
http://empr.media/video/conflict-zon...ade-in-donetsk
Yeltsin said in such cases that he hadn't slept the previous night and was deadly tired the following morning.
And in Russia:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NV06Q20150510
I spotted strange discrepancies between English- and Russian-language versions of this article. The former claims that "some soldiers" are quitting the army, the latter the "whole groups of soldiers" do.
http://ru.reuters.com/article/topNew...150510?sp=true
Any explanation?

[Husar]

Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".

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

[Greyblades]

as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Unless it's something good, in which case everyone magically forgets we had anything to do with it.

[Gilrandir]

I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...8postprint.pdf

Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH...Banner&f=false

Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.

Thank you for the sources. I cursorily looked them through, yet I didn't find anything new that I hadn't known before. Indeed I studied it all at school and university. And I don't see how it gainsays my view that Stalin and Hitler started WWII by partitioning Poland and that until June 1941 they stayed in close cooperation. I heard (don't know if this information is well grounded) that Britain contemplated bombing Baku oil extraction and refinery facilities to prevent gasoline suppies from the USSR to Germany.
http://orientalreview.org/2010/04/22...o-attack-ussr/
And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.
The fact that Stalin didn't expect the assault on June 22 and didn't believe any reports confirming that was bored into the conciousness of all Soviet schollchildren.
Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR. There were numerous armies fighting against both. Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics. The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million). So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Wa...81st_French%29).
So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Die_for_Danzig%3F
I hope I didn't link to any revisionist site.

[Sarmatian]

And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.

And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.

Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR.

It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers. Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives. They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.

It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.

Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics.

"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...

The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million).
So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division

Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from. It was used as a propaganda tool by Nazis and basically only existed on paper, because Hitler didn't trust them. Himmler persuaded Hitler to allow him to arm several Russian division in 1944. By 1945, only one was formed, and it's first major combat involvement was in Prague, when they promptly decide to help Czechoslovakians and fought against the Germans for liberation of Prague. After the war, Vlassov was hanged.

There were individual Russian soldiers and small units who fought within the SS, just like there were other nationalities.

It is not so much an issue whether there were, but how they are treated today. If they are honoured as heroes instead of ignored as traitors, something is very wrong.

So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.

If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany. Tell them there is no difference between Weimar Republic and Nazis. I'm sure they won't have any objection.

In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.

[Gilrandir]

“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.

How long it must be before you learn
1) not to jump to conclusions and
2) read carefully into the message.
I spoke of the ATTITUDE epitomized by the statement. It was evident in Europe before Danzig and didn't refer to Danzig only. It was adopted after the Anschluss and transpired vividly during the occupation of the Sudets and later the whole of Czechoslovakia. The same attitude as today's "why go to war for Ukraine".

“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…

Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.

If this philippic refers to UPA, it is mostly not true: they had their own their uniform and are not proclaimed guilty at Nuremberg. It is true, though, that they participated in slaughters of Poles ans (perhaps) Jews.
If you are speaking about SS division Galichyna, it is also not true, as they are not venerated as heroes and their (nazi) uniforms are not worn by any Ukrainian army detachments. And, by the way, UPA, AFAIK, didn't approve of its creation.

And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.

This is your own interpretation of the fact. Trading (especially strategic goods) is the worst thing to buy time with if one knows (as you claim Stalin did) that some day you will have to fight your trade partner.
But this trade was only a part of multi-faceted cooperation that I spoke of, so I don't buy the buying time explanation.

It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers.

In Lithuania, Forest brothers fought against the Soviets, yet they were not allied with the Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_partisans
History is never black-and-white, as you try to paint it.

Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives.

This is again your assumption (on the primary targets of UPA). I would say that they equally targeted anyone they considered an enemy in their fight for independent Ukraine.

They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.

It is the first time I hear of any Poles living in eastern Ukraine and any ethnic cleansings of them. If I were Brenus I would say something like "You see, he has no clue of geography".
As for massacres, cruelty and violence, it was the time abundant in those. The husband of my grandmother's sister told me a lot how "kind and gentle" were Soviet troops to the civilians in Germany. And also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw%C5%82okoma_massacre

It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.

As I have said, history is never black-and-white. For example, Bohdan Khmelnitsky is considered to be the greatest hetman in Ukrainian history, the founder of the first independent Ukrainian state and his monuments are everywhere. Pro-Russians venerate him because he united Ukraine with Russia, pro-Ukrainians venerate him because he fought against the Polish. Yet people choose to forget that this struggle for independence involved massacres of the Poles and Jews, and those who opposed him massacred Ukrainians most gladly. Is he to be venerated? I'm sure that in the history of every country there are plenty of such figures.

"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...

Tell it to Putin, this is one of his favorite myths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dS02yonos
Is it a revisionism?

Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from.

I didn't phrase it correctly: the whole number of Russians fighting on the nazi side was about that:
http://bintel.com.ua/en/article/kem-...-antifashisty/

As part of SS, RONA was suppressing the Warsaw uprising in August-September 1944. RONA soldiers were engaged in looting, exhibiting a bestial cruelty, for what Kaminsky was arrested by Germans and shot. In 1944, RONA was included into Hitler's army of collaborator Vlasov.

Apart from RONA in the service of the German fascists were other Russian formations: “Russian National People's Army” (RNNA), Brigade “Druzhina”, Cossack units which received after 3 April 1943 their general name “Russian Liberation Army” (ROA) under command of General Vlasov. At the beginning of its formation, Vlasov's army numbered about 45 thousand people, And his Air Force — 5 thousand military servicemen. In total, according to different estimates, during World War II on the side of Nazi Germany fought from 1 million to 1.7 million Russians, among them were Russians of the Crimea.

If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany.

Or in Croatia. Or in Lithuania. Or in Latvia. Evidenlty, some countries are at odds with you on who to consider a (pro) nazi.

In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.

I guess, it is me who wasn't clear or else you didn't read my post carefully.
I spoke of stopping charging each other with COLLABORATIONISM and TREASON, since collaborators and (ideals of the free world)'s traitors were ALL, starting from Chamberlain and Stalin (and other leaders) down to numerous petty ones.