Josef Stalin

[ShiftingGears]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/06/world/la-fg-russia-stalin-notebook-20120406

Do Russians have some warped culture where they're willing to embrace a man as "great" who killed millions under his rule?

Or perhaps more generally, are there reasons why Stalin is not viewed as a total monster as Hitler is, besides the lack of Soviet records and the fact that the Soviets didn't start WW2?

[Gregor-y]

I thought Poland started World War 2 in 1920?

[EuroTroll]

I can't even begin to describe how warped the culture is, but then perhaps I shouldn't, as I'm Estonian and very biased.

[Mark]

Or perhaps more generally, are there reasons why Stalin is not viewed as a total monster as Hitler is, besides the lack of Soviet records and the fact that the Soviets didn't start WW2?

"History is written by the winners"

[schmenke]

Cue Eki and his Bush comments...

:uhoh:

[EuroTroll]

Cue Eki and his Bush comments...

:uhoh:

I'd guess Eki likes Stalin even less than Bush.. :eek:

[Gregor-y]

It does make you wonder how bad things must be for some people in Russia today that they look back at Stalin's regime as a better time. There's usually a nostalgia for one's youth, though; no matter how bad things actually were at least you could still move all your joints.

[Rudy Tamasz]

There are two underlying cultural factors for Stalin's cult in Russia (and Belarus, to some extent). One is a pretty low value attached to the human life. Another is Russia's permanent want of "greatness". On the balance it means that if somebody expanded the borders of the country, he is regarded as a great, no matter how many human lives he screwed in the process.

[Eki]

In Russia, Stalin enjoying a revival on school notebooks - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/06/world/la-fg-russia-stalin-notebook-20120406)

Do Russians have some warped culture where they're willing to embrace a man as "great" who killed millions under his rule?

Or perhaps more generally, are there reasons why Stalin is not viewed as a total monster as Hitler is, besides the lack of Soviet records and the fact that the Soviets didn't start WW2?
If Hitler had won the World War 2, he now likely would have been voted for the greatest German ever. He lost, so he's now just a big pathetic loser in the eyes of the Germans.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If Hitler had won the World War 2, he now likely would have been voted for the greatest German ever. He lost, so he's now just a big pathetic loser in the eyes of the Germans.

No vote would have been held. The propaganda machine would have made him the greatest German ever by default.

[schmenke]

There are two underlying cultural factors for Stalin's cult in Russia (and Belarus, to some extent). One is a pretty low value attached to the human life. Another is Russia's permanent want of "greatness". On the balance it means that if somebody expanded the borders of the country, he is regarded as a great, no matter how many human lives he screwed in the process.

Which, in part, explains the historical “greatness” of some of Stalins predecessors, notably Nicholas II, Catherine the Great (although she was moderate by comparison), and even previously, Ivan IV.

[Rollo]

Hitler people killed people next door.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe etc. kill their own people and the world is sort of alright with that. Pol Pot especially probably killed about 3 million people and his his punishment was to be put under house arrest and watch Corrie and eat scones and jam with nice cup of Earl Grey tea.

[EuroTroll]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe etc. kill their own people and the world is sort of alright with that.

Thankfully, I don't think that's the case.

[EuroTroll]

There's a campaign in Russia to put dear papa-Stalin also on buses, to commemorate the victory in the "Great Fatherland War" (aka WW2). In early May, these are supposed to appear in about a dozen Russian cities, as well as Kiev, Minsk, Riga, and Tallinn. Well, I dare say they won't appear in Riga and Tallinn. :)

http://g3.nh.ee/images/pix/900x585/558cc447/file64281131_88eab960.jpg

[BDunnell]

There are two underlying cultural factors for Stalin's cult in Russia (and Belarus, to some extent). One is a pretty low value attached to the human life. Another is Russia's permanent want of "greatness". On the balance it means that if somebody expanded the borders of the country, he is regarded as a great, no matter how many human lives he screwed in the process.

I think you're spot on. It's very sad, almost laughable, to see how a lot of Russians are apparently impressed by the likes of Putin's attempts at miltary muscle-flexing, when in fact the Russian military is in an appalling state.

[ShiftingGears]

There's a campaign in Russia to put dear papa-Stalin also on buses, to commemorate the victory in the "Great Fatherland War" (aka WW2). In early May, these are supposed to appear in about a dozen Russian cities, as well as Kiev, Minsk, Riga, and Tallinn. Well, I dare say they won't appear in Riga and Tallinn. :)

http://g3.nh.ee/images/pix/900x585/558cc447/file64281131_88eab960.jpg

Crazy.

[F1boat]

There are two underlying cultural factors for Stalin's cult in Russia (and Belarus, to some extent). One is a pretty low value attached to the human life. Another is Russia's permanent want of "greatness". On the balance it means that if somebody expanded the borders of the country, he is regarded as a great, no matter how many human lives he screwed in the process.

Great comment. It is very sad that so many people value "greatness" more than the human life and dignity.

[Garry Walker]

Or perhaps more generally, are there reasons why Stalin is not viewed as a total monster as Hitler is, besides the lack of Soviet records and the fact that the Soviets didn't start WW2? Don't forget that russians still think Soviets freed Europe from facists, when in fact it was like saving someone from rape only to rape that person again. When russian textbooks still make little mention of the crimes committed by Stalin and give an otherwise warped picture of WW2, then it is no surprise. Of course, blame lies on western countries as well. Communism should be condemned and equalled with nazism. As for starting WW2, USSR was at least as much to blame for it as Germany.


There's a campaign in Russia to put dear papa-Stalin also on buses, to commemorate the victory in the "Great Fatherland War" (aka WW2). In early May, these are supposed to appear in about a dozen Russian cities, as well as Kiev, Minsk, Riga, and Tallinn. Well, I dare say they won't appear in Riga and Tallinn. :)
Ah, think I will use that picture of Stalin as a target the next time I go shooting.


I think you're spot on. It's very sad, almost laughable, to see how a lot of Russians are apparently impressed by the likes of Putin's attempts at miltary muscle-flexing, when in fact the Russian military is in an appalling state.
Appalling might the state of it be, but it is still a danger. No reason to underrate the strength of their army.

[gadjo_dilo]

Communism should be condemned and equalled with nazism. As for starting WW2, USSR was at least as much to blame for it as Germany.



But then why mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt didn't take these into account at Yalta conference?

[BDunnell]

As for starting WW2, USSR was at least as much to blame for it as Germany.

In what way?



Appalling might the state of it be, but it is still a danger. No reason to underrate the strength of their army.

Why? I think they are more a danger to their own people and those of former Soviet states than they are the West.

[BDunnell]

But then why mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt didn't take these into account at Yalta conference?

It is an interesting fact — not opinion — that some of the most vehement anti-Communists in the UK after the war were socialists, such as members of Clement Attlee's first post-war Labour administration, something a lot of right-wingers find hard to understand.

[Gregor-y]

The political spectrum is a circle so when you go too far to the perceived left you tend to end up returning via the right.

It works the other way, too.

[Garry Walker]

In what way? History lesson. Stalin wanted Hitler to go to war with other major european countries, drain the resources, then come in and "free" the whole europe from nazis. That was the whole point of MRP for Stalin. He was a smart man and knew well enough what that pact would result in - whole out war in europe, not just the dividing of the baltic states and Poland. That is exactly what he wanted. In fact, according to MRP, Stalin was supposed to attack Poland on 1st september as well, but he said he wasn't ready, so their attack was delayed until 17th september. It is weird how France and UK didn't declare war on USSR, but did on Germany.
Thankfully Hitler did europe a favour by attacking USSR first and forcing such huge losses on them that come 1945, Soviets couldn't go any further.



Why? I think they are more a danger to their own people and those of former Soviet states than they are the West. Aren't former Soviet states european countries? Could you not, based on their economic developments, classify them under western countries?


But then why mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt didn't take these into account at Yalta conference? When the war in europe was less than 2 months from the finish? To be honest, I have zero respect for both of them for siding with USSR in WW2 (nor should they have sided with Germany), but I guess they feared Hitler more than Stalin.


It is an interesting fact — not opinion — that some of the most vehement anti-Communists in the UK after the war were socialists, such as members of Clement Attlee's first post-war Labour administration, something a lot of right-wingers find hard to understand.

Even the rabied communists that are still in existence these days (as sad as that fact might be that some people are so insane) are full of hate towards your average liberal.

[BDunnell]

Aren't former Soviet states european countries? Could you not, based on their economic developments, classify them under western countries?

Er... no, because the terms 'eastern' and 'western' are geographical, not economic. You couldn't call Japan a western country, would you?

[Garry Walker]

Er... no, because the terms 'eastern' and 'western' are geographical, not economic. You couldn't call Japan a western country, would you?

Western world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#Economic)

If you want geographical terminology, then Germany is not a western country, as it is in the eastern hemisphere.

Anyway, any comments on MRP or who started the world war 2?

[BDunnell]

Anyway, any comments on MRP or who started the world war 2?

No, because not having myself read about what you describe, I have no way of coming to my own view on it.

[gadjo_dilo]

History lesson. Stalin wanted Hitler to go to war with other major european countries, drain the resources, then come in and "free" the whole europe from nazis. That was the whole point of MRP for Stalin. He was a smart man and knew well enough what that pact would result in - whole out war in europe, not just the dividing of the baltic states and Poland. That is exactly what he wanted. In fact, according to MRP, Stalin was supposed to attack Poland on 1st september as well, but he said he wasn't ready, so their attack was delayed until 17th september. It is weird how France and UK didn't declare war on USSR, but did on Germany.
Thankfully Hitler did europe a favour by attacking USSR first and forcing such huge losses on them that come 1945, Soviets couldn't go any further.

Aren't former Soviet states european countries? Could you not, based on their economic developments, classify them under western countries?

When the war in europe was less than 2 months from the finish? To be honest, I have zero respect for both of them for siding with USSR in WW2 (nor should they have sided with Germany), but I guess they feared Hitler more than Stalin.


The way I perceive the facts is a bit different. By Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in 1939 Hitler and Stalin divided their sphere of their influence in Eastern Europe.

Then, in 1945, at Yalta, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill played again with the destiny of millions of people in the east.

For me all these guys are guilty. I know things are more complicated in politics and national interest is always what it counts ( they say that even Lenin was brought to Russia by german secret services), but still...

I don't care if today my country is classified as western ( now don't make me laugh.....) or eastern. Economic development is relative but the psychic trauma we have suffered for about 50 years will follow us for a very long period of time.

[EuroTroll]

Can I just say that I am wiruwiru and I approve Garry Walker's messages on this thread. :up:

Ben, where would you draw the line between East and West? Still along the Iron Curtain? I don't think the distinction is so much geographical as it is cultural. As Samuel Huntington would probably say, it's a matter of civilizations. Here is his map of civilizations from 1996.

http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t424/studiose1/civ.jpg

[BDunnell]

Can I just say that I am wiruwiru and I approve Garry Walker's messages on this thread. :up:

Ben, where would you draw the line between East and West? Still along the Iron Curtain? I don't think the distinction is so much geographical as it is cultural. As Samuel Huntington would probably say, it's a matter of civilizations. Here is his map of civilizations from 1996.

I take it purely as a geographical term. This doesn't disguise the fact that it is now outdated.

[gadjo_dilo]

Interesting that japanese are on their own like some sort of ET-s.

[Gregor-y]

Here is his map of civilizations from 1996.

http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t424/studiose1/civ.jpg

Bosnia is Orthodox? (oh dear what may I be starting?)

[schmenke]

I’m not sure I understand what that map is trying to achieve.
It's a mix of national boundaries, cultural and religious demarcations.

Why are some countries grouped as, for example, “orthodox” or “Buddhist” whereas others are purely national, e.g. Japanese. Japan could just as easily be grouped as “Buddhist”.
Or, one could throw in “Catholic” and completely change the map :mark: .

[EuroTroll]

I’m not sure I understand what that map is trying to achieve.

It is one political scientist's view on the major civilizations of the world.

[janvanvurpa]

Can I just say that I am wiruwiru and I approve Garry Walker's messages on this thread. :up:

Ben, where would you draw the line between East and West? Still along the Iron Curtain? I don't think the distinction is so much geographical as it is cultural. As Samuel Huntington would probably say, it's a matter of civilizations. Here is his map of civilizations from 1996.

http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t424/studiose1/civ.jpg

What a truly bizarre set of divisions.
What truly simplistic and frankly bizarre assertions of history.

Studlie-ousus, I know you are no fan of what the Soviets did to Estonia, but it smells an awful like what the guy "Walker' is if fact saying is an veiled support for that which the Germans did...or, at best, equivocation... the "they all the same thing" argument.
tsk tsk tsk.....

[EuroTroll]

Studlie-ousus, I know you are no fan of what the Soviets did to Estonia, but it smells an awful like what the guy "Walker' is if fact saying is an veiled support for that which the Germans did...or, at best, equivocation... the "they all the same thing" argument.
tsk tsk tsk.....

I see no support for what the Germans did in Garry Walker's posts. And would you prefer one murderous dictator to another, especially given that Stalin's death toll was higher than Hitler's, and they essentially started the war together?

Yes, "they all the same thing".

[Malbec]

Can I just say that I am wiruwiru and I approve Garry Walker's messages on this thread. :up:

Ben, where would you draw the line between East and West? Still along the Iron Curtain? I don't think the distinction is so much geographical as it is cultural. As Samuel Huntington would probably say, it's a matter of civilizations. Here is his map of civilizations from 1996.

http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t424/studiose1/civ.jpg

I read his book clash of civilisations and its pretty poorly thought out. As for the map, its nonsensical and ignores political alignments. There have been more wars between states in a particular civilisation area than there are between them, just look at Europe.

Any map that classifies, say, Turkey (which is still closely tied to Israel) with the Arab states and Iran as one monolithic bloc is worthless, even a cursory look at the history of the last 200 years in that area would show you that.

As for the assertion that the USSR was looking to get involved in WW2 Stalin certainly had an odd way of getting ready by purging his armed forces of its best officers and keeping units deliberately short of ammunition so they wouldn't cause much damage if/when they rebelled. Stalin agreed to take Eastern Poland as part of the RMP as it was a 'freebie'. Why shouldn't he have taken it if he was offered it in return for a guarantee that the Soviets would not intervene in Poland?

[EuroTroll]

As for the assertion that the USSR was looking to get involved in WW2 Stalin certainly had an odd way of getting ready by purging his armed forces of its best officers and keeping units deliberately short of ammunition so they wouldn't cause much damage if/when they rebelled. Stalin agreed to take Eastern Poland as part of the RMP as it was a 'freebie'. Why shouldn't he have taken it if he was offered it in return for a guarantee that the Soviets would not intervene in Poland?

That's a curious morality you're arguing under... Why not? :rolleyes: Because Poland was a sovereign nation, as were Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, which Stalin attacked in late 1939.

Yes, the USSR was not ready to fight a major power in 1939. (It was hardly ready in 1941..) But the fact remains that the war started 7 days after the signing of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, and within a few months the USSR had annexed Eastern Poland, the Baltics and several other territories, as well as starting a war against Finland.

They seemed to be involved pretty damned quickly..

[Gregor-y]

Stalin was looking for low hanging fruit (though Finland proved tougher than expected) and Poland with it's forces fighting Germany was not only the easiest grab but also the largest potential threat and the most bitter memory in the minds of Russians. Poland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1920, took Vilnius for its own in the same year, then took a piece of Czechoslovakia in league with Germany in 1938 so there wasn't as much sympathy for them in the USSR.

[jens]

What do you think, which kind of map would be a good one then? As far as I am concerned, as dividing a world into parts is subjective, it is open to interpreration, depends on the goal and is easily debatable.

[Malbec]

That's a curious morality you're arguing under... Why not? :rolleyes: Because Poland was a sovereign nation, as were Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, which Stalin attacked in late 1939.

I'm not arguing morality, after all I think that was an alien concept to Stalin anyway. All those countries you mention are in the USSR and in particular Russia's sphere of influence. It is one thing to suggest that Stalin wanted to reassert Soviet power in its sphere of influence and quite another to say that he wanted to expand into areas where Russia had never before extended like Eastern and Central Europe.

Likewise China since the revolution has been extremely aggressive in its assertion of power in its own local sphere of influence but until recently was completely absent outside it. It is possible to behave completely differently inside and outside your sphere of influence, and that is what Stalin did.

[janvanvurpa]

That's a curious morality you're arguing under... Why not? :rolleyes: Because Poland was a sovereign nation, as were Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, which Stalin attacked in late 1939.

Yes, the USSR was not ready to fight a major power in 1939. (It was hardly ready in 1941..) But the fact remains that the war started 7 days after the signing of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, and within a few months the USSR had annexed Eastern Poland, the Baltics and several other territories, as well as starting a war against Finland.

They seemed to be involved pretty damned quickly..

My reading was they the Soviets, under economic attack from the Democracies since 1917, had been negotiating with Britain and France for the establishment of basically a buffer zone between its borders and Nazi Germany---and that would have been essentially the same countries that post war were the old "Warsava Pact". They were demanding that those countries---including Poland---be neutral and that the Red Army could enter those countries if foreign troops entered. In short they wanted to fight on somebody else's soil rather than their territory..
They dod not trust the Democracies will as they had seen how France and Britain and USA did nothing to support the democratically elected government in Spain--indeed they (the Democracies) criminalized support of the legal democratically elected Spanish government... They had seen the West did nothing when Germany began to re-arm, did nothing when the Alscace was grabbed back, nothing when Sudetenland was grabbed, nothing when Czechoslovakia disappeared, nothing when Austria was absorbed...

And of course they read the Nazi fantasy books about superiority of "Aryan" peoples and their "right" to subjugate, kill, exterminate Slavs....

When the West would not negotiate some sort of buffer, in early August, the negotiations were broken off and since the Nazis had been promising a "better deal' the Soviets took the only deal they could...

Virru-virrruuu there is/was no excuse for the barbarity of Stalin and his gang but this "they were all the same" is crazy talk.... The Soviets own mythology did not include phony mystical superiorty of one Nationality and the total dismaissal of the humanity of whole races..... the Nazi's did and they made national Policy based on their "rights " as superior beings...

In the end, the philosophical underpinnings of a regime do count just like in law (law descended from N Germanic/Saxon/English/American) and act may be legal or illegal all depending on what is in the mind of "the perpetrator ".

[jens]

Virru-virrruuu there is/was no excuse for the barbarity of Stalin and his gang but this "they were all the same" is crazy talk.... The Soviets own mythology did not include phony mystical superiorty of one Nationality and the total dismaissal of the humanity of whole races..... the Nazi's did and they made national Policy based on their "rights " as superior beings...


But it could be claimed that their ideology of "mystical superiority" included something else - instead of nationality it was a political ideology, in this case communism. After all, Soviet leaders were keen to speak about "world revolution" and were looking for ways to widen the "sphere of communism" as far as possible.

[janvanvurpa]

But it could be claimed that their ideology of "mystical superiority" included something else - instead of nationality it was a political ideology, in this case communism. After all, Soviet leaders were keen to speak about "world revolution" and were looking for ways to widen the "sphere of communism" as far as possible.

Sorry history disagrees with you..
Not really since before Lenin died had they been doing much about that the spreading the "word'

Indeed the whole Stalinist push was to "bureaucratize the Revolution in the institutions". Trotsky was the one pushing the "safeguard the Soviet Revolution by supporting revolutions in all the other counties" and he and his comrades were either forced out, or simply shot...



Now like my friend Viiiiiruuu-viiiiruuuuu we all have our personal inclinations which color our perceptions of everywhere, and everything and I know personally I have always dispised injustice and hate bureaucrats (living almost 8 years in Sweden really help fine tune the my attitude toward bureaucrats, and think the solution was simple: about 7.62 x 54) so no love for Stalin from me, and I do believe every man is my brother, the basis for "Internationalism" so I admit some sympathy for Trotsky's ideas.

But he lost, the Bureaucrats won....and the old saying came to pass "A Chicken in every pot, and an icepick in every Trot!"...

The Communist mythos was the "inevitability" of violent revolutions being an absolute necessity, ignoring the experience in France in the 1890s where political power was won at the ballot box.

[Malbec]

did nothing when the Alscace was grabbed back,

???

Alsace was one of the last French territories to fall in 1940 as the Germans could not break through the Maginot line and had to breakthrough the Belgian border and attack it from behind. It certainly wasn't grabbed back as part of the buildup to WW2...


When the West would not negotiate some sort of buffer, in early August, the negotiations were broken off and since the Nazis had been promising a "better deal' the Soviets took the only deal they could...

The alliance between the Nazis and the USSR predates many of Nazi Germany's aggressive moves, certainly German tank and submarine crews were training at Soviet bases from the mid-30s.


Virru-virrruuu there is/was no excuse for the barbarity of Stalin and his gang but this "they were all the same" is crazy talk.... The Soviets own mythology did not include phony mystical superiorty of one Nationality and the total dismaissal of the humanity of whole races..... the Nazi's did and they made national Policy based on their "rights " as superior beings...


Soviet concepts of superiority didn't rest on race, they rested on the superiority of their Communist ideology and need to 'liberate' other peoples. You could argue that this was a far more expansionist philosophy, after all there was a limit to how much land Germany could reasonably use and therefore needed to be taken from other people, but if your goal is to liberate workers everywhere there is no limit to how widely the Soviet cause should be spread.

[janvanvurpa]

Saarland, I meant..

[Lousada]

The alliance between the Nazis and the USSR predates many of Nazi Germany's aggressive moves, certainly German tank and submarine crews were training at Soviet bases from the mid-30s.
The German and Soviet armed forces started friendly exchanges already right after the First World War. The western powers were unhappy with Russias premature exit from WWI, and Germany was under the strict rules of the Versailles treaty. This drove the former enemies back together again. Quite a few Germans served in the Russian army between the wars as officer or trainer or adviser. What influence this had on the grander scale of things, I can't tell you, but the contacts and mutual interest were always there.

[Lousada]

Saarland, I meant..

Saarland re-entered the German Reich by an election in 1935. An election which was granted to them in the Versailles treaty....

[janvanvurpa]

Saarland re-entered the German Reich by an election in 1935. An election which was granted to them in the Versailles treaty....

Rhineland Saar land whatever you guys what the fawk?? The POINT is the in the context replying to stuiose wiiiirrrru wiiiiruuu is the Soviets saw the West do nothing at REPEATED gawddamn Nazui aggressive moves. It's all busllshiiiiit now, so whatever, if this damn forum allowed editing like any reasonable place one could correct the slips of the tongue or mind, and the we could correct our slight errors.


Too busy to argue but the point was the Europe teetered on the edge:


The remilitarization of the Rhineland by the German Army took place on 7 March 1936 when German military forces entered the Rhineland. This was significant because it violated the terms of the Locarno Treaties and was the first time since the end of World War I that German troops had been in this region.
Under Articles 42, 43 and 44 of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles—imposed on Germany by the Allies after the Great War—Germany was "forbidden to maintain or construct any fortification either on the Left bank of the Rhine or on the Right bank to the west of a line drawn fifty kilometers to the East of the Rhine". If a violation "in any manner whatsoever" of this Article took place, this "shall be regarded as committing a hostile act...and as calculated to disturb the peace of the world".[1] The Locarno Treaties, signed in 1925 by Germany, France, Italy and Britain, stated that the Rhineland should continue its demilitarized status permanently.[2] Locarno was regarded as important as it was a voluntary German acceptance of the Rhineland's demilitarized status as opposed to the diktat (dictate) of Versailles.[3] Under the terms of Locarno, Britain and Italy guaranteed the Franco-German border and the continued demilitarized status of the Rhineland against a "flagrant violation" without however defining what constituted a "flagrant violation".
Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen".[29] Hitler himself said:

The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.[30]

[Malbec]

Rhineland Saar land whatever you guys what the fawk?? The POINT is the in the context replying to stuiose wiiiirrrru wiiiiruuu is the Soviets saw the West do nothing at REPEATED gawddamn Nazui aggressive moves. It's all busllshiiiiit now, so whatever, if this damn forum allowed editing like any reasonable place one could correct the slips of the tongue or mind, and the we could correct our slight errors.

Actually I think the Soviets were playing off both sides against each other, knowing that an alliance with the USSR would be of great value to both the Nazis and UK/France. I agree that their objective was to secure their borders from invasion but I don't think they waited till the UK/France demonstrated a lack of spine in standing up to the Nazis before courting the Germans. The cozy relationship between Germany and the USSR particularly with respect to military training/research on Soviet territory to circumvent the military restrictions placed on Germany via the Versailles treaty is evidence of that.

I still see little evidence that the USSR was planning to take over the whole of central/eastern Europe, noone has offered significant evidence to back that line up.

[Gregor-y]

I'm sure Stalin in 1945 had a lot more flexibility for determining his boundaries than Stalin in 1939. When was the Lublin government set up? That would be a good indicator of when future plans really started. That's assuming Katyn was primarily done for spite.

[luke]

"History is written by the winners"

History is going to be written by Charlie Sheen? :s hock:

[harsha]

Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi , I'm the Cult of Personality
- Living Colour