Vladimir Putin says there was nothing wrong with Soviet Union's pact with Adolf Hitler's Nazi German

[uhnope]

Source: Telegraph

Vladimir Putin has said there was nothing bad about the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the non-aggression treaty which led to the carve-up of Poland at the outset of the Second World War, suggesting Britain and France were to blame for Adolf Hitler's march into Europe.

The Russian president made the comments at a meeting with young historians in Moscow, during which he urged them to examine the lead-up to the war, among other subjects.

The comments are likely to cause dismay in eastern Europe, amid wider debate in Russia about growing attempts to use history as a means of shoring up Mr Putin's rule.

Mr Putin said that Western historians today try to "hush up" the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which France and Britain – led by Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister – appeased Adolf Hitler by acquiescing to his occupation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11213255/Vladimir-Putin-says-there-was-nothing-wrong-with-Soviet-Unions-pact-with-Adolf-Hitlers-Nazi-Germany.html

[MADem]

1. Awwww. But, ya know, he's just MISUNDERSTOOD, poor Vladdie!

******He doesn't MEAN it!!!!!

******He has soulful eyes!!!! Bush liked him!!!!

******He doesn't ask those thugs to beat up Black and gay people in the street!!!!

******He only took over all the newspapers and media outlets for reasons of efficiency, not for purposes of censorship!!!!!!

******Leave Putin ALONE!!!!!!!!!

I figured I'd save us all some time, and if the dot RU contingent shows up, that's a synopsis of their excuse-making.

[freshwest]

32. You left out Nuland's cookies. But I never forget them. YUM!

[MADem]

43. Delish!!!!! Ha ha! nt

[steve2470]

52. Putin jumped oceans of sharks with that comment

Going to read the excuse-making now.

[DonCoquixote]

2. call in the RT cheeleader squad

in 3...2....1

[Nye Bevan]

108. The real problem is the neo-Nazi fascists in the US and the European Union

ganging up on poor Putin and forcing him to annex Crimea and send troops into Eastern Ukraine.

How's that?

[ColesCountyDem]

3. DU Putinistas arriving to defend Comrade Major Putin in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... n/t

[7962]

4. I dont think the Putin Fan Club will show on this one.

How can they?

[LanternWaste]

5. Is he actively trying to drive eastern Europe more fully into NATO's sphere of influence?

Is he actively trying to drive eastern Europe more fully into NATO's sphere of influence? Because this is one really efficient method of doing so...

[Old Nick]

6. Shark officially Jumped

Still think you saw his soul, Georgie?

[3catwoman3]

16. You can't see...

...what isn't there.

[Old Nick]

19. True

But that Dubya is a BELIEVAH!

[graegoyle]

25. It takes one to see one.

[karynnj]

7. I hope this gets some of the Putin fans to rethink his "brilliance"

Speaking of that, he has made a huge mess of things in Ukraine. He has sanctions against his country and he might have succeeded in creating a unified Ukraine -- if they let him have Donbass as well as Crimea. (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/11/04/guest-post-russia-annexes-donbas-but-loses-ukraine/ - read the Rutgers' professor's suggestion.)

Though it would be tough for any president to give up part of their country, consider that what is left is a Ukraine that is far more pro-western than the entire Ukraine could ever have been.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. That's complete bullshit

I remember studying the 1938 Munich Agreement in high school.

"Peace for Our Time"!!

[christx30]

22. The Onion had it right:

[TomVilmer]

49. The Nazi-Britain Non-Aggression Pact

The paper Chamberlain so proudly is waving on the original photo from 1938, is The Anglo-German Declaration, a non-aggression pact between Germany and Great Britain. It could also be called The Nazi-Britain Non-Aggression Pact since the content is largely similar to the probably more famous The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. The parties agree not to go to war, and to resolve conflicts through diplomatic methods, etc.

[arely staircase]

110. except Germany and Russia took territory with their pact nt

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Do any of Putin's defenders still want to say he is not an imperialist?

An imperialist is still someone who can't read a map, and Putin fits the bill. The place to Russia's west is called Poland and Poles are definitely not Russians. They don't speak Russian, they listen to Polish Music that doesn't sound anything like Russian music and they worship as Roman Catholics, not Eastern Orthodox. I have a very close friend who is a Pole, and she would give Vladimir Vladimirovich a piece of her mind in very blunt language if she could over that.

OK, Stalin couldn't read a map any better than Hitler could, or the Romanovs for that matter. But he so admires Stalin and the Romanovs.

The idea that western historians try to "hush up" the Munich agreement must be for Russia's domestic consumption. Everybody I know is quite aware of what the Munich agreement was about. I only wish more people were aware of what Putin is about.

[BadtotheboneBob]

44. ... and don't forget a Theocrat

Czar Vlad is cheek to jowl with the Russian Orthodox Church where many of the recent draconian 'life-style' edicts are coming from. Maybe we should call 'The Rodina' what it is - The OS (Orthodox State)

[Jack Rabbit]

45. No, we mustn't forget that, either

Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2014, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

No wonder the GOP likes him. He's a Russian teabagger.

Then again, while I believe most teabaggers are sincere, if misguided, in their religious beliefs, I am certain that Vladimir Vladomirovich is about as religious as my cat, Swashbuckler, and not nearly as holy.

[Odin2005]

10. Putin is a Fascist POS, not surprised.

[PatrynXX]

12. yep

bit ironic the ones complaining about Nazi's are in an area where Nazi's are more often found. Eastern Ukraine. What to take away from that. About the same I do with the Tea Party and KKK/Neo Nazi's supporting the tea party. they are more often found in area's tea party folks love to hang out. Simple logic. Which Putin lacks.

[newthinking]

11. The replies on this thread just show the lack of knowledge of history is vast here

First off, this is purposely written to provoke. The pic on the site puts a picture of Putin beside a pic of Adolf.

There were lots of mistakes made. All these countries were still recouperating from WW1 and other conflicts.
Britain also made a "pact" (actually they were peace treaties, but the title shows this is obviously meant to provoke an image).

So now are we going to try and change the image of Russia in ww2? Try to paint them as being on the side of the Nazi's? How dumbed down will we get in our emotional politics?

So he sees it through the eyes of his culture in a history discussion at a school? Like we don't paint our own history in our own cultural terms?

This is much ado about nothing.

People here are embarrassing themselves. "Easy money" for tabloid newsmakers though.

[PatrynXX]

13. Well yes thats also true.

Everyone ignored Germany and hitler. Much to easy to get rid of too. Japan totally different. But everyone has equal blame for Hitler. including Russia.

[newthinking]

53. agreed.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. It's almost as if they think that had the USSR not inked the non-aggression pact, Hitler

would not have invaded Poland anyway. The non-aggression pact allowed Hitler the peace of mind of not having to fight a two-front war to acquire Polish territory. But he would still have laid claim to Danzig and the Corridor, non-aggression pact notwithstanding.

[bvar22]

41. It also allowed Stalin the time to build a huge army and many thousands of tanks...

...to defeat Hitler and he NAZIs in 1943.

[840high]

51. ...^ that

[Art_from_Ark]

74. But did Stalin know that Hitler would be stupid enough

to invade Russia? Or was he just preparing to eventually take ALL of Poland (which he eventually did)?

[davidpdx]

90. Who sent Stalin the tanks?

He certainly didn't snap his fingers and make them appear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. The pact had a secret protocol dividing Poland and other countries

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

That's why it's not just a 'peace treaty', and why Putin, when he was trying to be nice to the Poles, called it 'immoral':

"Without any doubt, it is possible to condemn - and with good reason - the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact concluded in August 1939," he wrote, referring to the two ministers who signed the pact.

"In our country, the immoral character of the pact was given an unequivocal evaluation by our parliament," he added - in apparent reference to a 1989 condemnation of the pact.

http://news.sky.com/story/720135/putin-moves-to-calm-poland-wwii-tensions

Yes, the Soviet Union was on the side of the Nazis from September 1939 until the Nazis turned on them. They divided up Poland between them.

[GGJohn]

27. The only one embarrassing themself here is you by trying, and failing,

to excuse Putin.
The Soviet Union was an ally of Hitler's from the signing of the Ribbontrop/Molotov pact in 1939 up until Hitler ordered the start of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[newthinking]

55. Who is "excusing putin"? More like what was the purpose of the article?

It was a candid discussion of history that really would not even make it to the papers except as emotional tabloid.

What Putin said is arguable, but is not at all controversial.

But certainly it is useful if one adds a political "frame" (linguistics) and a catchy title, and then whip up some fear or other emotions. That is unfortunately how many online news sites work.

If the reporter would have been neutral and mentioned (as if you notice the alternative phrasing that is used when not demonizing "some people" might argue it was actually....

[LanternWaste]

100. Creative, though unsupported, allegations you've presented us with.

Creative, though unsupported, allegations you've presented us with.

"People here are embarrassing themselves."
Yes. Yes you are.

[yurbud]

15. the Chamberlain paragraph is the crucial context

[Igel]

34. The pact was hushed up in Soviet times.

It was brought out again in the '90s, and then sort of vanished as an embarrassment.

The Chamberlain agreement was very much what Putin is trying to repeat in Ukraine. German population that needs to be protected by the Fatherland (or Russian population protected by Putin's "otechestvo&quot . Right down to the part where the separation of the Germans from the larger mass of Germans was portrayed as a kind of humiliation and undercutting of ethnic-based might and solidarity.

As part of the rehabilitation and glorification of all things that led to Soviet might, Putin wants to rehabilitate the von-Ribbontrop/Molotov pact instead of cover it up. If it's not an embarrassment, then it's a good thing. And vice-versa. And this kind of ethnocentric ethnic-humiliation rhetoric is perfect for it. First, of course, he has to redefine "ethnicity", but that's largely done: For Germans, it was their origin. For Putin, it's a linguistic/cultural thing. It was hard to become a German. For Hitler, it's easy to become an ethnic Russian--learn the language and culture and swear fealty to both.

However, Putin's also into the division of Poland, which had been Russian territory just a few decades before. There's no parallel with Chamberlain. Britain didn't invade and occupy the remaining portion of Czechoslovakia.

[yurbud]

17. ironically, one of the things McCarthyites went after people for was opposing Hitler TOO SOON

when clearly only commies should have been doing so.

[yurbud]

18. the only solution to this terrible admission is to make Russia a super-sized Somalia

[GeorgeGist]

20. Will somebody put a plug in this asswipe?

Soon.

[muntrv]

21. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't Putin the very "Bolshevist" that Hitler hated?

[watrwefitinfor]

46. Shhhhhhh. You're not supposed to mention that.

Once Brittain and France folded, the Soviets knew Hitler would turn to the east. The 1938 pact was a successful effort to forstall that turn at the pact line long enough for the Soviets to prepare for what they knew was the inevitable.

Stalin also knew (correctly as it turned out) that they couldn't count on the west to come to the rescue of the Soviets - it was only 20 years (and fresh in the national memory) since US troops had been in the Soviet Union fighting with and supplying the counter-revolutionary White Russians in the Civil War.

After the pact, during the time purchased so dearly, Soviet factories were packed up and moved beyond the Urals, production of weaponry stepped up, the army modernized, and many more steps taken that helped make the ultimate Soviet defeat of Hitler's eastern army possible. The plan was to bog the Germans down in western Russia, much as Napoleon's army had been stopped. And it worked only because the Soviets had the time they bought with the pact with Hitler.

This has always been an accepted part of history, and was published in history books in the past, both Soviet and western. It has nothing to do with whether or not one "likes" Putin the Terrible. To watch the incredible efforts of the Soviet people - Russians among others - pissed upon by so many DUers is beyond my comprehension.

I was born in the early 1940s, and I remember the end of the war, and the broad sentiments regarding it, including my own father's observations which pretty much jibed with the history books I later read. I strongly remember the movie newsreels discussing this very subject of the Nazi/Soviet Pact. (I also have very clear memories of watching many newsreels about the battle of Stalingrad, the Seige of Leningrad/St. Petersburg, the Nazi death camps, and the Nuremburg trials.)

It is painful to watch important history being rewritten here. And so arrogantly and insultingly, too. If DU can't even get history right, how can we expect to affect current events?

-------------

I know from painful personal experience how this place works, and I am disinclined to respond to typical DU insults over my honest and well-meant comments regarding history.

Wat

[KoKo]

57. Recommend Read.....

My view is with yours from my own personal reading and background with WWII with Father-in-Law who served in all Theaters of WWII. Thank you for posting on this thread...

[watrwefitinfor]

83. My recommend read: "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"

by William L. Shirer.

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

My father served in the European theatre. He was missing from my early childhood due to his being "overseas' so I had a huge interest in that war from my earliest memory.

Thank you for your comments.

Wat

ON EDIT:

I see the Wikipedia entry for the book begins with strong criticism of it. Closer reading shows this is largely based on German criticism of Shirer's lack of perspective on pre-war German history, and on modern criticism of his negative outlook on homosexuality. No doubt there may be other problems with the book. While I regret if my recommending this monumental book offends anyone, I still maintain it stands as a most amazing and revealing account of events surrounding WWII. Perhaps it has been surpassed by some modern work that I am unfamiliar with.

Wat

[happyslug]

58. There are some problems with your thread, but it is more accurate the the rest of this thread

For example Stalin did NOT start to move the factories to the Urals till after Hitler moved East. i.e 1941 NOT 1939 or 1940.

As to Poland proper, Stalin had agreed to protect Poland, if he was permitted to move Troops into Poland. The British and the French BOTH agreed to this in early 1939, but the Poles veto it. That was the doom of Poland for without Soviet support the Polish Army was going to be crushed no matter what France or Britain did.

France was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than was Britain; as a continental power, it was more willing to make concessions, more fearful of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for an alliance with Britain and France while secretly considering propositions from Germany.

By the end of May drafts were formally presented. In mid-June the main Tripartite negotiations started. The discussion was focused on potential guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise. The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an "indirect aggression" towards the Soviet Union.Britain opposed such proposals, because they feared the Soviets' proposed language could justify a Soviet intervention in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany. The discussion about a definition of "indirect aggression" became one of the sticking points between the parties, and by mid-July the tripartite political negotiations effectively stalled, while the parties agreed to start negotiations on a military agreement, which the Soviets insisted must be entered into simultaneously with any political agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations

France had just finished what has been called a non-violent civil war between its Right Wing and its Left Wing. This infighting prevented France from improving its army from 1936 till 1938. The Right refused to fund the Army as long as the Left was in the Government (i.e. you fund the increase, you get to name the officers of the new units). Thus till 1938 France did NOTHING to improve its Military (France did decide in a new rifle, new planes and even new tanks, but few were built till 1938, and then not enough by 1939 and 1940).

The Poles feared the Soviet Union not only because it was a Communist Dictatorship, but that Poland had conflicts with the Russians as to the border between the two nations. Polish Troops had reached Kiev during the Russian Civil War on 1919-1921 and still retained what is today Ukrainian territory. The border was agreed to by drawing a line between the opposing armies, not because of any natural border etc. Thus what Russia considered Russia was unclear (and what Poland considered Poland was equally unclear).

Given the veto of the the alliance with France and Britain by Poland, Stalin looked for the best deal possible and when Hitler made an offer, Stalin could not turn it down. Given the situation in 1939, I do not think ANY ruler of Russia would have turned down the German Offer made in 1939. That is a defendable position and the one that appears Putin is taking. People on this board may think otherwise, but I do not see Putin saying anything more then, given the situation in Eastern Europe in 1939, it was a deal Stalin could not turn down.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

Many historians have said the Poles refusal to work with Stalin lead to their own downfall AND remember WWII started as a war to keep Poland free. That war ended with the fall of France and for any cross channel invasion to occur and win, 90% of German troops had to be tied up elsewhere i.e. Russia. Thus the US and Britain looked to Russia to offset Hitler, even at the cost of having to deal with Stalin.

Yes, Stalin was a butcher, but as a whole he kept his bloodlust on the domestic side. Stalin did send troops into China, Iran and Finland (the wars with the Poles was under Lenin) but his attacks were small compared to Hitler's attacks on Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia and Greece. Stalin did NOT attack his Eastern European neighbors, but only occupied them as part of the war Stalin committed to defeat Hitler AFTER Hitler had attacked Russia. Stalin conversion of those Eastern European Nations to Communism took almost two years after the end of WWII. Non-Communists were in several post WWII Governments in Eastern Europe, there did not last long, but it does show Stalin was NOT going in for complete and total control of those nations (Enough control to make sure they follow Moscow was all Stalin wanted).

Hitler killed 13 million people in the death camps, and Millions of people during the actual fighting of WWII and Hitler wanted to remove whole populations out of Eastern Europe, people forget the Jews were only the first of many that had to be eliminated.

General Jodl, the Head of the German Army during WWII, who was hanged at Nuremberg for supporting Hitler's wars of Aggression stated at his trial, the German Attack in June 1941 was preventive, i.e. to prevent a Soviet Attack.

This was dismissed at the time, but several military historians have recently brought it back up. The reason behind this is Stalin's disposition of his troops in June 1941. Hitler had just delayed the start date of his attack on Russia, so he could handle Yugoslavia and Greece. Yugoslavia had had a coup that replaced a pro Nazo Government with a Anti-Nazi Government AND Italy was losing its war to conquer Greece. That Campaign took a month.

By June 1941 the German Army was back in position to attack Russia. The Russians had been told of this planned attack by their own spies and Churchill. It appears the US also told Stalin of this planned attack. Yet Stalin's troops were position right at the border with their supplies right behind them. If you are going on the defensive, you keep your main troops back to avoid them being hit from the first shell of the enemy. You wait in cover and pounce when the attack least expect it. You have your supplies well behind the lines so you can fall back on them, i.e you get stronger well the attacking force gets weaker.

On the other hand if you want to attack, you move your forces to the border and have their supplies right behind them. The reason for this is the attacking force needs those supplies during its attack and by keeping them near, they minimize the time off the attack to get resupplied.

Now, one of the best time to destroy an army is to attack it before it launches its own attack. You quickly run into the enemy forces and force him to retreat, leaving his supplies to you to use. Remember an army set to attack has its supplies close to its front lines, and thus if forced backward from that line, abandon's its supplies and end up destroyed do to lack of supplies to fight with. Thus preparing for an attack when the enemy can attack is a dangerous position to take, but Hitler and Stalin both did this in June 1941 (Hitler's gamble paid off at least til December 1941).

Thus Stalin's troops were set up to ATTACK not DEFEND. The issue is why? It could be tactical incompetency by Stalin. On a Tactical level Stalin was subgrade, he did some real stupid military maneuvers during WWII (one of which lead to Stalingrad). On the other hand, in his several meetings with Stalin during WWII, the Commander in Chief of the British Army (a man so competent that Churchill REFUSED to leave him command any actual military units, he stayed in London, like George Marshall stayed in DC) after many discussion with Stalin and other Generals and Politicians said that Stalin had the best concept of Military grand Strategy then anyone he had ever meet.

Thus why was Stalin setting up his army to attack? Unlike Hitler, who was a demigod and attacked when he wanted to NOT when his generals said would be the best time to attack, Stalin was a numbers man, he could analyses most things and come out with a solution. Stalin was known to go to a Factory and after a review mention how to improve operations, and the suggestions actually improve production in the factory.

Given this background I do NOT see Stalin putting his men on the border in an attack formation other then to launch an attack. The issue is why, and the answer appears to be Churchill had convinced him to do so. By 1941, Britain was actually stronger then Germany, Britain was producing more arms, ships, weapons then Germany. Had France lasted till 1941, its production total would have added to that British number AND being on the continent able to attack Germany (Which was the actual French Plan in 1940, hold out till 1941, then attack when Britain and France would be stronger then Germany, till then France and Britain were weaker then Germany.

Unfortunately Germany hit first and defeated and took France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In spring of 1940, even before the German attack on France, Germany had taken Denmark and Norway. Thus Britain had no ally on the Continent that was NOT under German Control. That left the Soviet Union.

Thus it appears Churchill was working overtime to get Stalin to attack Hitler. Officially Churchill failed. But some historians suggest Churchill had not. Stalin was going to launch an attack and that is why his troops were set up as they were. The issue is why the delay? Several answers have been proposed, but the one that is most likely (and may be still classified in Britain and the US for it is embarrassing) is that Stalin wanted not only Churchill agreement of such an attack, but also the opposition parties of both the US and Britain. In Britain that was easy, Labour had joined Churchill's Government during the Fall of France in 1940 and the Government of Britain was no longer a Conservative Government but a Unity Government. The head of the Labour party agreed for he was in the Cabinet of Churchill.

What about the US? Could FDR get the leaders of the GOP to sign a documents supporting a Soviet attack on Hitler? I think this is what Stalin was waiting for and never was able to obtain for FDR could NOT get the GOP to agreed (even if FDR tried and I suspect FDR did not for he knew the GOP).

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. No, Stalin used the pact with Hitler to take Bessarabia and occupy the Baltic states

This part here is a complete misunderstanding of what Stalin did before 1941: " Stalin did NOT attack his Eastern European neighbors, but only occupied them as part of the war Stalin committed to defeat Hitler AFTER Hitler had attacked Russia." Here's the reality:

The occupation of the Baltic states refers to the military occupation of the three Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—by the Soviet Union under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940[1][2] followed by their incorporation into the USSR as constituent republics, unrecognised internationally by most countries.

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

The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina was the military occupation of the formerly Romanian regions of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Hertza by the Soviet Red Army during June 28 – July 4, 1940. These regions, with a total area of 50,762 km2 (19,599 sq mi) and a population of 3,776,309 inhabitants, were subsequently incorporated into the USSR.[1][2]

The Soviet Union had planned to accomplish the annexation with a full-scale invasion, but the Romanian government, responding to a Soviet ultimatum delivered on June 26, agreed to withdraw from the territories in order to avoid a military conflict. Germany, which had acknowledged the Soviet interest in Bessarabia in a secret protocol to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, had been made aware prior to the planned ultimatum on June 24, but had not informed the Romanian authorities, nor were they willing to provide support.[3] The fall of France, a guarantor of Romania's borders, on 22 June, is considered an important factor in the Soviet decision to issue the ultimatum.[4]

On August 2, 1940, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed as a constituent republic of the Soviet Union, encompassing most of Bessarabia, as well as a portion of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, an autonomous republic of the Ukrainian SSR located on the left bank of the Dniester (nowadays, the breakaway Transnistrian state). The Hertza region, and the regions inhabited by Slavic majorities (Northern Bukovina, Northern and Southern Bessarabia) were included in the Ukrainian SSR. The Soviet administration was marked by a series of campaigns of political persecution, including arrests, deportations to labour camps, and executions.

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

And Stalin continued to work closely with Hitler - trade to get Germany the materials that Britain's naval blockade stopped it importing by sea:

The 1940 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement (also known as Economic Agreement of February 11, 1940, Between the German Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was an economic arrangement between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed on February 11, 1940 by which the Soviet Union agreed in period from February 11, 1940 to February 11, 1941, in addition to the deliveries under German–Soviet Commercial Agreement, signed on August 19, 1939 deliver the commodities (oil, raw materials and grain) to the value of 420 to 430 million Reichsmarks. In the period February 11, 1941, to August 11, 1941, there shall be delivered to Germany, likewise in addition to the deliveries provided for in the Credit Agreement of August 19, 1939, commodities to the value of 220 to 230 million Reichsmarks. In payment for the Soviet deliveries, Germany shall supply an own products (war materiel; machinery and technologies; raw materials).

Secret amendment to the Agreement suggest a parties negotiations in regards to the purchase by the Soviet Union of metals and other goods in third countries and to the sale of these metals and goods to Germany. Later also was negotiated a policy of the transit through Soviet territory a third countries commodities purchased by Germany.

The countries followed up the agreement and resolved other issues with the January 10, 1941 German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_%281940%29

They even considered the Soviet Union joining the Axis Pact:

In October and November 1940, German–Soviet Axis talks occurred concerning the Soviet Union's potential entry as a fourth Axis Power. The negotiations included a two-day Berlin conference between Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, followed by both countries trading written proposed agreements. Germany never responded to a November 25, 1940, Soviet proposal, leaving the negotiations unresolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

You think the 1939 pact is 'defendable'. Remember, the secret protocol proposed dividing up Poland between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It pointed out the USSR's desires for Bessarabia, and to have the Baltic states and Finland under its control. It shows Stalin has long term plans to annex independent countries to the USSR, and to do it in concert with Germany taking most of Poland, and he started doing it, maintaining friendly relations and trade with Germany, until Hitler turned on him.

[happyslug]

93. I was discussing the Soviet-Western allies talks

That alliance was the one Stalin would have preferred, Stalin knew England and France were limited in what they could do to Russia long term, Germany was in the way. Thus Stalin preferred an alliance with France and Britain provided they give him freedom in Eastern Europe.

When Hitler offered Stalin complete control over everything between Germany and Russia, Stalin jumped at offer (and kept sweetening the deal for Hitler feared a two front war as Germany had fought for Four years during WWI). Giving Stalin what Hitler thought Stalin wanted was a price Hitler was willing to pay to buy off Stalin. Given the situation in Eastern Europe it was to good a deal for Stalin (or whoever else was in control of Russia at that time) to pass up. That was the point I was making and I suspect Putin was making in regards to that deal.

Ask yourself this question, if you were in charge of Russia and Hitler sent you that offer, would you have turned it down? Put yourself in Stalin's shoes, you are dealing with someone whose long term plans involve invading your home land. Your potential allies have all said NO to your plans for defence. Then that enemy makes an offer giving you some space between him and you, would you turn it down knowing that country has the ability to not only take up what he wants, but the territory being offered to you?

Please note, neither Britain nor France declared war on the Soviet Union after the Soviet intervention into Poland. That shows both nations were still hoping for an alliance with Russia against Germany, for that was the Alliance that tied up so many German Troops during WWI that Germany was defeated. Subsequent Soviet acts in Eastern Europe (including taking Bessarabia, occupying the Baltic States and attacking Finland) clearly showed that an at least an understanding existed between Stalin and Hitler from 1939 onward, yet no declaration of war on the Soviet Union. The reason was simple, both Britain and France (and also the US) wanted Russia on their side and willing to give all of Eastern Europe to Russia in exchange for that alliance. In public both France and Britain condemned the Soviet actions between 1939 and 1941, but neither did anything but give a verbal (and sometimes a written) rebuke. Yes France was under German Occupation from June 1940 onward, but Stalin went into Poland in 1939 AND Finland in 1939, thus France had the time to do something but did nothing. Now the occupation of Bessarabia occurred after the fall of France, so France was no longer in a position to speak freely about it, but Britain could and again verbally condemned it but did nothing else (and the same for the US, verbal condemnation but no actual acts that could harm Russia).

Yes, Stalin used the pact to take over the parts of Eastern Europe given to the Soviet Union by Hitler, but the western allies did nothing to oppose those takeovers, i.e. they also agreed to them. Thus Putin's position, was Stalin right in taking up the offer given to him by Hitler? Given Hitler's long term plans, it appears not only Hitler but the Western Allies were willing to pay the price Stalin wanted, Hitler just jumped quicker and more willing to put it down on paper then were the Western Allies AND Hitler was the only country that could object to the Soviet Actions thus German's offer gave Stalin the freedom to do what he wanted, as opposed to Western Allies who were also willing to leave Stalin take those areas, but Stalin would have to fight Hitler for those areas.

From the position of Moscow, the offer was to good to pass up and Stalin took up the offer. That is what Putin is saying and I am saying. Neither one is saying was it something good, but it was an offer to good to pass up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. There's a world of difference between "too good to pass up, because it allows land grabs"

which is how you're now putting Stalin's decision, and "Stalin had agreed to protect Poland", " Stalin did NOT attack his Eastern European neighbors" which was how you tried to put it before. Now, you're admitting that Stalin did attack them, to enlarge the USSR. Putin is saying there was nothing wrong with that. I hope you think there was something wrong with it.

[happyslug]

101. Stalin did NOT start WWII, he did attack Poland, he did NOT attack Romania

Stalin also did NOT attack the Baltic Nations, in the case of Romania he gave the Romanians a choice and they decided to leave Stalin have what he wanted. In the case of the Baltic nations, Stalin demanded that his troops be left in, and they were left in and then he slowly took over the country. Technically Stalin did not invade them, he just took them over.

You can also say the same thing about Poland. Stalin did not move into the areas reserved for the Soviet Union for almost two weeks after the German Attack and again given that most Polish troops were in Western Poland fighting the Germans, it was more a peaceful takeover when compared to the German Attack. Remember by the time of the Soviet Intervention, the Germans already has Warsaw.

In fact when the Red Army Crossed the Border, the Polish reaction was to order its troops NOT to fight unless attacked. Do to the confusion do to lack of communications some fighting did occur, but it was all minor compared to the attacks by the Germans.

At 04:00 on 17 September, Rydz-Śmigły ordered the Polish troops to fall back, stipulating that they only engage Soviet troops in self-defence.

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

Just a comment on Poland and Russia in 1939, even the Poles came to view the Russian Intervention as NOT an attack (Till after WWII, when it became fashionable to do so, except in Poland itself, and in Poland itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union).

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. Katyn.

[happyslug]

105. We are discussing the Russian German treaty

Yes Katyn was a result but that was not why Stalin signed the pact. To bring up Katyn is liking bringing up Mi Lai for Vietnam. Yes it is an result but Stalin did not sign the treaty just to kill Polish officers, just like the US did NOT go into Vietnam to kill women and children. Yes women and children were killed but the US had other reasons to go into Vietnam.

The same for Stalin in 1939, Stalin did not go to war with Poland to kill Poles but to extend the power of the USSR.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. "to extend the power of the USSR" - that's alright with you?

[watrwefitinfor]

82. Thank you. I laud your efforts at correcting me and doing it so civilly.

It is good to read your detailed and studied comments.

My own effort to break through to rationality on this board was muddied by being based largely on personal memories and impressions of nearly 70 years ago that have faded somewhat with time.

William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was the most amazing book I have ever read, and I highly recommend it to anyone who would like the story from a brilliant and analytical journalist who was there. I read it cover to cover in my twenties, and many details and dates have faded or become entertwined with other similar events of the time. But no one who has ever read it can fail to absorb some of the key elements and lessons of those times.

Your careful, thoughtful post helped tremendously in sorting it out. I hope our dialog encourages some Duers under the sway of the GOP mass media/propaganda to learn more actual history.

Wat

[newthinking]

59. Don't feel that way. It is a very nasty minority.

Pay attention to the names. It is mostly the same folks.

(at least) One of them is so consistent with the propaganda points that they are likely paid.

I agree with you though that it is somewhat disturbing because that many democrats having yet figured out the extent to which they have to be careful with accepting the media presentations of events. I too was naive and like most liberals knew that media was biased, but I have been particularly shocked about how well it is now able to be exploited to produce a wanted narrative about a major events.

[watrwefitinfor]

84. Yes, the era of Big Propaganda is upon us.

Thank you for your encouraging comments.

Wat

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT) also had dealings with Nazi financiers.

Prescott was George H. W. Bush's father.

[Javaman]

26. Wow! Just Wow! nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

28. But but but

Ukraine has the real fascists. Victoria Nuland!!!!!

[GGJohn]

30. And don't forget her fascist cookies.

[newthinking]

64. Well she is the wife of the founder of PNAC. Ever heard of it?

If you have not you should do a little research.
Inconveniently many here find themselves protecting the same bunch that brought us the "Axis of Evil" and the war in Iraq.

[freshwest]

31. Seducing the populace with rainbow cookies. Gratuitous image:

Excuse me, but I just love that picture.

[GGJohn]

33. In Russia, Putin would have those cookies arrested and tortured

for being the "wrong sexual orientation".

[MADem]

50. No, he would have gangs of thugs beat down those cookies in brutal fashion, and then claim he

had absolutely nothing to do with it!

Now, if those cookies were FOREIGN cookies, he might jail them and rough them up, just to let them know he means business!!!!

[freshwest]

77. OMG. Now. I. Must. Have. Some. Cookies!

Oooh, Chocolate...

[NordicLeft]

54. some real fascists ----- Ukraine’s 'Right Sector' Leader Recognized as Elected Member of Parliament

http://en.ria.ru/politics/20141106/195221622/Ukraines-Right-Sector-Leader-Recognized-as-Elected-Member-of.html



Profile: Ukraine's ultra-nationalist Right Sector

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27173857

The Battle in Ukraine Means Everything
Fascism returns to the continent it once destroyed

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117692/fascism-returns-ukraine

Preparing for War With Ukraine's Fascist Defenders of Freedom
On the frontlines of the new offensive in eastern Ukraine, the hardcore Azov Battalion is ready for battle with Russia.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/30/preparing_for_war_with_ukraine_s_fascist_defenders_of_freedom

Fascism: an “Ism” for the 21st Century
The Durability of Ukrainian Fascism

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/the-durability-of-ukrainian-fascism/

Svoboda: The Rising Spectre Of Neo-Nazism In The Ukraine

http://www.ibtimes.com/svoboda-rising-spectre-neo-nazism-ukraine-974110


Is the US backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/


Civil War Has Begun in Ukraine; U.S. Backs Neo-Nazis against the Democrats; U.S. Media Suppress that News

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/civil-war-begun-ukraine-u-s-backs-neo-nazis-democrats-u-s-media-suppress-news.html

Svoboda


Right Sector


Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok


Ukrainian opposition leaders Oleh Tyahnybok (L), Vitaly Klitschko (2nd R, back) and Arseny Yatsenyuk (R) pose for a picture with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

56. Using a Russian website to make your point

[NordicLeft]

62. So,the BBC, The New Republic, Foreign Policy, Counterpunch, Salon, Intl. Business Times are Russian?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

A weak attempt (and logical fallacy) to deflect your willful denial/sarcasm as to the the fact that the US is supporting fascists in the Ukraine. You were the poster who introduced the "there are no Ukrainian fascists the USA supports", meme, not me. Then you made your snide little Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland reference, as if she isn't exactly what she appears to be, a boorish enabler of American empiric projections.

‘Fuck the EU’: US diplomat Victoria Nuland's phonecall leaked - video
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-diplomat-victoria-nuland-phonecall-leaked-video

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/06/state-dept-official-caught-on-tape-fuck-the-eu.html

And NO, The Guardian is NOT Russian. Nor is the Daily Beast.


As for RIA Novosti, it is simply a link to a news event, not commentary. What's next? Are you going to deny Dmytro Yarosh (a completely unapologetic neo-Nazi) wasn't elected to parliament simply because the source is one of the major news bureaus in Russia?

Right Sector Yarosh wins elections in Dnipropetrovsk region constituency

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/right-sector-yarosh-wins-elections-in-dnipropetrovsk-region-constituency-369748.html

(The Kyiv Post is Ukraine's largest English-language newspaper, and not under some imagined state control of Putin, btw)


John McCain Meets Oleh Tyahnybok In Ukraine



As for laughing smileys, I see no laughing matter in any of this.

[newthinking]

63. This is his publicity video - seriously... it really was made by and for him as head

of Right sector.

Tell me how anyone can be comfortable supporting this:

[NordicLeft]

65. Fascism is on the march across the EU, and its certainly not springing from Putin

Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, who are the nations most abused (so far) by the ECB, IMF, World Bank and BoE are at the vanguard, but France, Germany, the UK, Finland, (even here in Sweden), etc, are also seeing a large uptick in right wing extremism. It is eerily reminiscent of the late 1930's.

Greece's Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Registers As A Political Party In... Spain

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-05/greeces-neo-nazi-golden-dawn-registers-political-party-spain

Spain's Newest Political Party "We Can" Surges Ahead Of Incumbents

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/11/03/the-brand-new-podemos-party-surges-ahead-of-incumbents-in-spain-as-catalans-prepare-informal-independence-vote/

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

68. Yes that poor Putin is misunderstood right?

No doubt there are right wing movements in Europe but that doesn't excuse the bullshit comment by Putin that started this thread.

Nor for that matter does it excused the anti-gay crap by him or the attempt to annex Ukrainian territory.

[NordicLeft]

70. Tom Parfitt (the author of the Telegraph OP) is a well-known rightwing pro NATO/US/UK hack

He actually still tries to push such claptrap as "Russia started the 2008 conflict with Georgia" when that has been profoundly debunked for over 6 years. You certainly like your empiric war machine pushers, don't you? You would fit right in the neocon end of the Republicans.

Btw, you know you were bested in the first 2 replies by me. I tire of you. If you are truly representative of a typical USA Democrat, then there is little hope for the end of empire. I lay wager you are not.

Go play "let's start a war" in a different sandbox.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

72. I was bested by you?

Hey if it makes you feel better to believe that fantasy have at it.

You haven't addressed Putin's persecution of gays or the attempts to annex Ukrainian territory. This a progressive site and those actions are antithetical to anything progressive.

[newthinking]

69. People here have not yet figured out that the Republicans have been working on world domination for

years.

While we have been busy fighting them on this front, they have been working over there with their Machiavellian approach treating the area like a new frontier with their hands in everything.

I have tried to explain to people that much of what we are seeing in Europe, the rise of the right, is the same forces that they are cheering on in Ukraine.

We are sleeping through very serious events. Even the rise of the Right in Ukraine and yes in Russia is tied to them (and our conservative religious orgs, who are radicalizing the Christian religion throughout the world).

That is why it is so important that people start examining these things accurately and with a more nuanced understanding. If we are going to stop this worldwide tide that our right has unleashed we need to not get caught in their propaganda traps.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. Okay

[newthinking]

78. Be ignorant if you wish

Do a search on the "International Republican Institute".
I stumbled upon the organization while living outside the country. They were active in Eastern Europe even before 9/11.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. European fascists support Putin

In Hungary, for example, Putin has taken the Jobbik party under his wing. The third-largest party in the country, Jobbik has supporters who dress in Nazi-type uniforms, spout anti-Semitic rhetoric, and express concern about Israeli “colonization” of Hungary. The party has capitalized on rising support for nationalist economic policies, which are seen as an antidote for unpopular austerity policies and for Hungary’s economic liberalization in recent years. Russia is bent on tapping into that sentiment. In May 2013, Kremlin-connected right-wing Russian nationalists at the prestigious Moscow State University invited Jobbik party president Gabor Vona to speak. Vona also met with Russia Duma leaders including Ivan Grachev, chairman of the State Duma Committee for Energy and Vasily Tarasyuk, deputy chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Utilization, among others. On the Jobbik website, the visit is characterized as “a major breakthrough” which made “clear that Russian leaders consider Jobbik as a partner.” In fact, there have been persistent rumors that Jobbik’s enthusiasm is paid for with Russian rubles. The party has also repeatedly criticized Hungary’s “Euro-Atlantic connections” and the European Union. And, more recently, it called the referendum in Crimea “exemplary,” a dangerous word in a country with extensive co-ethnic populations in Romania and Slovakia. It seems that the party sees Putin’s new ethnic politics as being aligned with its own revisionist nationalism.

The Kremlin’s ties to France’s extreme-right National Front have also been growing stronger. Marine Le Pen, the party leader, visited Moscow in June 2013 at the invitation of State Duma leader Sergei Naryshkin, a close associate of Putin’s. She also met with Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and discussed issues of common concern, such as Syria, EU enlargement, and gay marriage. France’s ProRussia TV, which is funded by the Kremlin, is staffed by editors with close ties to the National Front who use the station to espouse views close to National Front’s own perspective on domestic and international politics. The National Front wishes to replace the EU and NATO with a pan-European partnership of independent nations, which, incidentally, includes Russia and would be driven by a trilateral Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance. Le Pen’s spokesman, Ludovic De Danne, recently recognized the results of the Crimea referendum and stated in an interview with Voice of Russia radio that, “historically, Crimea is part of Mother Russia.” In the same interview, he mentioned that he had visited Crimea several times in the past year. Marine Le Pen also visited Crimea in June 2013.

The list of parties goes on. Remember Golden Dawn, the Greek fascist party that won 18 seats in Greece’s parliament in 2012? Members use Nazi symbols at rallies, emphasize street fighting, and sing the Greek version of the Nazi Party anthem. The Greek government imprisoned Nikos Michaloliakos, its leader, and stripped parliamentary deputies of their political immunity before slapping them with charges of organized violence. But the party continues to take to the streets. Golden Dawn has never hidden its close connections to Russia’s extreme right, and is thought to receive funds from Russia. One Golden Dawn­­–linked website reports that Michaloliakos even received a letter in prison from Moscow State University professor and former Kremlin adviser Alexander Dugin, one of the authors of Putin’s “Eurasian” ideology. It was also Dugin who hosted Jobbik leader Vona when he visited Moscow. In his letter, Dugin expressed support for Golden Dawn’s geopolitical positions and requested to open a line of communication between Golden Dawn and his think tank in Moscow. Golden Dawn’s New York website reports that Michaloliakos “has spoken out clearly in favor of an alliance and cooperation with Russia, and away from the ‘naval forces’ of the ‘Atlantic.’”

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141067/mitchell-a-orenstein/putins-western-allies

So, yes, it really is springing from Putin.

Why have you linked to an article about Podemos? They are left wing:

A Metroscopia poll published in Spanish daily El Pais on Sunday shows leftwing party Podemos ahead of both the centre-right governing People’s Party (PP) and the main opposition socialists, the PSOE.

1. the party was only founded in January of this year, with the goal of translating Spain’s indignados protest movement into a more structured citizen-led political formation.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/06/podemos-a-crisis-of-trust-and-the-rise-of-new-political-parties

If one wants to look for ideological points of reference for the team behind Podemos probably Gramsci and Subcomandante Marcos would be the logical place to start. But it is precisely an anti-ideological stance, a refusal to self-define in terms of political ideologies, typical of autonomous social movements and 15-M that has marked an important element of the effective Podemos strategy.

It is here that Podemos has distinguished itself from it’s closest political rival, leftist coalition formation Izquierda Unida (IU). If many of their positions are the same, the language and framing has been very different. To many, IU seems old, tired and stuck in the past, and has for quite some time. By contrast, Podemos has understood that if people are not willing to think in terms of anti-capitalism, they are very open to criticisms of fraudulent bankers and corrupt politicians.

Podemos has presented itself as a party of "decent ordinary people”, who understand the needs of ordinary citizens and are open to taking their lead from them through the participatory process (as opposed to positioning themselves as the intellectual vanguard). They want to go “beyond acronyms” (again a very typical stance of progressive autonomous social movements in Spain[1].)

Clearly the strategy has worked very well, and the capture of 1.25 million votes for a very young party is nothing short of remarkable. The political fallout has been immediate. PSOE leader Rubalcaba announced he will be stepping down and opening the process for the election of a new leader (many bets are on Susana Díaz, after her excellent results in Andalucía). IU is also going through a significant internal shakeup and period of self-reflection. And, of course, what everyone wants to know is who actually voted for Podemos.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/cristina-flesher-fominaya/%E2%80%9Cspain-is-different%E2%80%9D-podemos-and-15m

[NordicLeft]

102. you are saying Svoboda and Right Sector support Putin???

That's beyond comprehension.

I linked to an article about Podemos (who are, as you correctly point out, left) in Spain as a reference point for the first Amanecer Dorado article. I was not clear in the segue, and I apologize.

Here are some more linkages between EU fascism and another very problematic country, Israel.

Far-right Europeans and Israelis: this toxic alliance spells trouble

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/israel-rightwing-europeans-migration-toxic

Strange bedfellows: new nexus between Israel and far Right

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/25/strange-bedfellows-new-nexus-between-israel-and-far-right/

The Likud Connection: Europe's Right-Wing Populists Find Allies in Israel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-likud-connection-europe-s-right-wing-populists-find-allies-in-israel-a-777175.html

More French Jews drifting to National Front party

http://www.timesofisrael.com/more-french-jews-drifting-toward-natl-front-party/

In pro-Palestine Sweden, far-right Jewish lawmaker embraces Israel

http://www.timesofisrael.com/swedish-proudly-nationalist-jewish/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, several left-wing EU parties support Putin in major areas (whilst criticising him, and rightly so, in other arenas)

Some of these parties very much have my support for their anti-NATO, anti-ECB/IMF/BIS stances and pro union, pro growth " Dirigisme" agendas)

For more on Dirigisme see this, btw http://jackwilliams23thequagmire.wordpress.com/ (go to the "What can solve this crisis part&quot

Germany’s Die Linke

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/linkspartei-in-der-krim-krise-putins-freunde-in-berlin-a-959041.html

translation


https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Flinkspartei-in-der-krim-krise-putins-freunde-in-berlin-a-959041.html&edit-text=


Socialistische Partij (Dutch socialists)


SYRIZA (Greece, who are, this Putin debate notwithstanding, the best template for overall governance, a template the USA Democrats could take more than a few lessons from)

http://www.matrix24.gr/2014/04/tsipras-kali-poutin/

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=el&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrix24.gr%2F2014%2F04%2Ftsipras-kali-poutin%2F&edit-text=

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. No, that's not what I was saying; I was replying to your incorrect claim that EU fascism and Putin

aren't connected. You were completely wrong about that. You said:

"Fascism is on the march across the EU, and its certainly not springing from Putin

Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, who are the nations most abused (so far) by the ECB, IMF, World Bank and BoE are at the vanguard, but France, Germany, the UK, Finland, (even here in Sweden), etc, are also seeing a large uptick in right wing extremism."

As my link shows, there is good evidence Putin is funding Golden Dawn. The far right parties in the countries you name support Putin. I said 'European' to describe these, and you think that means I said "Svoboda and Right Sector support Putin". Don't be ridiculous. But you should acknowledge that the fascists in the EU support Putin. That some left wing parties are flirting with him too doesn't make it right.

[nilesobek]

75. Keep shining bright lights on this.

Notice: More masked men. Mercs? I heard rebels have killed 9 high profile mercs in E. Ukraine in the last few weeks. The majority are from out of the country. The West is trying to buy Ukraine.

[tabasco]

29. I'm sure he likes the "secret protocol" best of all ....

the part about dividing up Poland.

[Starry Messenger]

35. Well, I'm glad to see the US has run out of problems so we can refight the Cold War.

[uhnope]

36. yeah because everything is always the fault of the US, right

even the words that fly out of Putin's mouth

[Starry Messenger]

37. That had zero to do with what I posted.

[uhnope]

38. then please elaborate on your subtle yet expansive point

[Starry Messenger]

39. No, thanks. It was pretty obvious.

[uhnope]

40. thanks

for my first chuckle of the day

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Does that mean you're not going to comment on DU about anything outside the US

until all the US's problems are fixed? That's what you seem to be saying others should do.

[Starry Messenger]

66. The Soviet Union still exists? News to me.

[7962]

67. It will again if Vlad gets his way.

[Starry Messenger]

71. Not really.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. That's a remarkable non sequitur

You berate a DUer for posting a British news story about Putin saying there was nothing wrong about the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact (which indicates his love of nationalism, authoritatianism and imperialism), because the story is not about the US's problems; and you then point out to me the Soviet Union doesn't exist. The story is about Putin's attitude. It doesn't need the continued existence of the Soviet Union to be relevant. Putin's longing for the days of the USSR does seem to play a part in his admiration for the way Stalin carved up Poland with Hitler, though.

[Starry Messenger]

85. I beg your humble pardon.

The right-wing just swept through my country and I'm in a pissy mood over it. I think fear-mongering shit like the OP plays into the kind of fears the right-wing loves in the US, while ignoring bigger problems. But if you think that Putin's opinion over a treaty over 50 years old that most Americans don't remember, but will love hearing about again from Ted Cruz because OMG RED SCARE!!! than fucking carry on then.

I'm sure the Telegraph has nothing but our best interests at heart. Pardon me for breathing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. I agree the right wing is a problem, and that includes Putin

There's no reason that he should get a pass on his right wing views, just because he grew up in the Soviet Union. Talking about Putin is not 'RED SCARE'; he is nothing like a socialist or communist. See, for example, how much the European far right love him - reply #81.

[Starry Messenger]

87. The American right-wing hates him and thinks he's a crypto-commie.

I speak of what I know of, muriel. I wasn't giving "a pass" to anything.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-prays-god-will-kill-putin-stop-rebuilt-soviet-union-new-world-order

There's a troll on this thread who also posted that Putin wants to bring back the USSR. If you aren't familiar with US red scare tactics, get comfy: you don't need to be an actual anti-capitalist to fuel red-baiting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. You wanted this story to disappear

That was giving Putin a pass. Your complaint was that it was posted on DU, while there remain problems in the US. You want Putin ignored.

You shouldn't let yourself be defined by what the American right wing thinks. You should look at Putin sending troops into other countries, passing anti-gay laws in close cooperation with the Russian Orthodox church, and presiding over the country with the greatest inequality of wealth in the world, and realise that he's right wing, and his excuses for Germany and the USSR carving up Poland should be rejected.

[Starry Messenger]

89. Oh, ok.

The right-wing in the US doesn't matter. I'll remember that the next election cycle.

Pedantry is no replacement for a familiarity with actual knowledge of the American right-wing.

LOL, on wanting this story to disappear. I rarely comment on the OMG PUTIN HAIR ON FIRE stories posted here, but when I do, I have posted criticism of Putin and the horrible right-wing shift in Russian culture.

I accept your non-stated apology for not being aware that people like Glenn Beck think Putin is a commie. And if you think Beck has no influence on the American electorate, I have a bridge to sell you.

You can take the last word, since you are obviously obsessed with this topic.

[uhnope]

99. Wrong. FOX News loves him. Try all you want, you can't pretend that...

...Putin is just a sad little victim of RW bullies. Because Putin IS a RW bully

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/explaining-the-conservative-love-affair-with-vladimir-putin-its-all-about-opposing-obama/

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/07/jon-stewart-nails-conservatives-love-affair-vladimir-putin.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/those-who-long-putin-head-the-united-states

[Le Taz Hot]

47. My understanding was that

the Soviet Union, Britain, France and the U.S. were all pretty much in the same predicament in the late 1930's -- they hadn't had a chance to rebuild their military after WWI. The world was in a Depression and the funds were needed in other places. People denigrate Neville Chamberlain for "appeasing" the Nazi's when, in fact, he was just buying time. Stalin was in the same predicament with one BIG caveat, Stalin purged (as in killed) his war-experienced generals right before the outbreak of WWII because he was paranoid of a military coup. That left him with virtually leaderless armies. It's why they were slaughtered so massively by the Germans. The Soviet Union blames the Europeans, the Americans, the Germans for their great loss of life in WWII (10 to 20 million Russians, not counting the purges which was good for another 20 million) when the fault was a) lack of arms to fight another WW so soon and b) Stalin.

[bemildred]

61. Yes.

I would have to disagree with Putin in his defense of Stalin, who was an asshole whose only real competence seems to have been killing off anybody who he felt threatened by. However Putin has a point in that both Britain and Russia appeased Germany because they were not prepared for war. You can argue that Stalin hoped Hitler would exhaust himself on Britain first, before turning East, but I suppose Britain would have felt much the same about it in the reversed position. As it was, Hitler was too stupid to wait. They always overreach, the crazy ones. They want it all, and they want it now.

[Hoppy]

48. Nothing wrong with the pact except it bit them in the ass.

[gordianot]

76. Oh it is so easy to forget the lessons of history.

I have to wonder if he learned them in the Soviet Union who made the Patrotic War a quasi religion. So Hitler was right when he said genocide is soon forgotten. It seems to me Putin is not alone this disease is spreading across the globe which is warming up in more ways than just weather. I dread to see what will happen to my Grandaughters generation but I will be lucky to have a couple decades and am sure I will witness more of the disgusting trends.

[pampango]

91. If you think a government has the right/duty to pursue its national interest to the exclusion

of anything else, then you can make a case for that Nazi-Soviet agreement. Although it led to the German/Soviet destruction of Poland, the Soviet takeover of the Baltic countries and encouraged/enabled Hitler to continue with the invasion of France the next year, you could argue that it expanded the borders of the USSR and gave it a couple of extra years to prepare for a seemingly inevitable German invasion. Thus it served the 'national interest' of the USSR if not of the world as a whole.

However, I would argue that it is not liberal to condone the selfish pursuit on national interest (anymore than it is to pursue selfish corporate interest). Perhaps the selfishness of the focus on national interest is why the far right is such a huge supporter of the concept of nationalism rather than international agreement and cooperation.

[malthaussen]

92. Sure. It bought time (which was misspent), and...

... gave the USSR a buffer zone that was quite important when Germany did invade.

-- Mal

[happyslug]

95. That space should have been decisive, but was not....

As I explained above the Soviet Army was geared to ATTACK not DEFEND. The Soviets had even taken troops and supplies from their previous defensive positions (The Stalin Line) to provide more supplies and weapons for the troops in the attack formation (thus the Stalin Line, when reached by German Forces, had no troops or supplies to defend the Stalin line with, thus fell quickly).

Stalin took three days to recover from the shock of the attack. Stalin had NOT been expecting it and we hear nothing from him for three days after the attack. Stalin had dismissed the talk of an attack as stupid, for it was almost July, and winter comes early in Russia and thus if you attack Russia in the Summer you try for May, maybe early June but NOT late June or July. That six weeks can be crucial in any attack.

As I said above Stalin was an numbers made and understood reality when it came to grand strategy. Thus Stalin would never have attack Russia at the end of June if he was in Control of Germany and like most people Stalin had a hard time thinking like someone who does NOT think like himself.

Hitler was a Demigod, he had a poor grasp on "facts on the ground'. On the other hand he could get people to do what he wanted, even when they knew better. Hitler had managed to avoid debacles in Poland and France do to the skills of his Generals and his Troops (and weaknesses of his enemies), but sooner or later numbers do catch up with people and in Russia the number caught up with Hitler.

As to the War in Russia, Stalin had the wrong type of army on his front line. As I wrote above, it was an army geared to attack not defend. Such an army is easy to destroy if the other side attacks first (which is what Hitler did). This gave the Germans the advantage in Russia for the next six months. The problem was Stalin had access to troops to replace the one's destroyed in June and July 1941. On the other hand, the German Generals had decided they needed to take Moscow before winter, but to do so they had to leave all of their winter equipment behind. The Germans did not have the transport to haul that winter clothing and the fuel, ammo and food the army needed to take Moscow by Winter. Thus when the German Army failed to take Moscow in December, the German Army froze up. No winter clothing, no winter boots (which was the biggest mistake lead to massive frostbite injuries) no winter oils for lubrication etc.

When the Russian Counter Offensive pushed the Germans away from Moscow in December 1941 and January 1942, it was a shortage of supplies to the Russians that stopped the Russians not the German Army. When Spring 1942 came around it was clear that Germany could NOT attack Moscow, to many dug in Russian Soldiers (In classic defensive positions) were in the way. Thus Hitler's plan to attack on the weaker southern Russian Front that ended in Stalingrad and that debacke.

My point was had the Soviet Army been in a defensive position with the Stalin line as its fall back position the whole German attack would have failed on the Frontier. The Red Army could not attack in 1941, once the German Army attacked, but the massive lost of land to the German Army would have been avoided. Some how Stalin had set his army to attack, the real question is why? As I discussed above I think he had a deal with Churchill and maybe even FDR but was holding out for either something in writing or something else, I do not know.

[malthaussen]

96. Depends on whom you believe.

It's been about 30 years since I geeked-out on the Great Patriotic War's history, but IIRC, there is an argument that there was a "master plan" involving trading time for space until the Germans reached Smolensk, and then counter-attacking. Which I've always thought was special pleading via hindsight.

I think Uncle Joe miscalculated, and did not expect the Germans to be quite as effective as they were. But diplomatically, the Pact was sensible from his end, and it gave him time to deal with Finland. Whom he also misjudged.

-- Mal

[bobthedrummer]

97. That's why we gave so many Nazis jobs and citizenship, and the fascism is present in US.

Nazis were given "Safe Haven" in U.S., Report Says (Eric Lichtblau 11-13-10 NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14nazis.html?_r=0

There is certainly nothing wrong with Nazis or their ideas-only a "terrorist" would speak against that, right?

[bobthedrummer]

98. I hope the simple truth isn't a threadkiller...

[Nye Bevan]

107. If Western historians have really been trying to "hush up" the Munich Agreement,

it's been about the least successful attempt ever to keep something quiet. This shameful act of appeasement has had a prominent place in pretty much every book I have ever read about the Second World War. And these days I cannot think of the Sudetenland without also thinking of Eastern Ukraine, for some reason.

[arely staircase]

109. not often you get to hear the Molotov Ribbentop pact spoken of so glowingly. nt

[roamer65]

111. The big mistake on Hitler was made in 1936.

We should have smacked him and really hard when he re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936. I remember reading a quote from him where he said this was one of his biggest gambles. Germany was not yet ready for war and would have had a real fight if the British and French stood up to it.