Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

feel you're simply jerking us around without engaging on the specifics of what happened back then. Your use of ad hominem and non-sequitur remarks demonstrates that.

You know, using latin or greek ain't gonna make an argument sound smarter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I finally read the piece Apollo11 posted. I have to say there is a lot of reasonable argument in terms of the actions the USSR took, what they thought was happening in the west, and so why they took the decisions they did. As ever, there is the over-arching reluctance to admit that the USSR did anything wrong which pervades the whole article and weakens the Soviet case.

As I said earlier (and we need to forget for the moment the hideous, brutal, inhumane Stalinist regime - that is a given) the fact is that the Soviet leadership were acting in what they thought was the best way possible.

Post Munich it was every man for himself. Both Stalin and Hitler needed the pact. They both got what they could from it. Nothing further need be said about German motivation, but Soviet action (creating buffer zones) was understandable as they knew there would be a day of reckoning with Hitler. The pact was one of convenience by two leaders doing what they believed was necessary for their countries at the time. As said, in order to properly understand their actions and dissect them, we need to put aside the hideous nature of these Totalitarian regimes because that can cloud the judgement.

Of course we do know what happened and what turns the stomach is the way in which the Soviets treated the populace - particularly of Poland, but that should be no surprise given the way Stalin treated Ukrainians pre-war and returning Soviet POW's and minority groups after the war. But for the purposes of what or who started the war that is a secondary issue.

Was this a friendly pact that saw these two regimes acting as Allies? I don't think so. I think there was pragmatism from both sides. The hatred was deep set and mutual - if the West did not finish off Hitler then there would only ever be one outcome - a clash between these two repulsive regimes at some point in the future. Both knew it. Both wanted to avoid it for only as long as they needed to avoid it. In order to avoid that day as long as possible they agreed to exchange raw materials, foodstuffs and technology. Compliance with the agreement ebbed and flowed along with the fortunes of each party.

Was it the actions of the Soviet Union (agreeing to the pact) that led to WWII? One could say yes as, without it, its not certain what Hitler would have done next. But at the same time one could say it was no more the cause than a host of other points in history: The German leadership making Hitler Chancellor so they could control him, the Rhineland, Munich, the failure of the German General Staff to grow a set and take unilateral action, Prague....

No one - Stalin, Chamberlain or Daladier - had the benefit of hindsight, the situation was evolving during the thirties and so many facets - the wish to right the wrongs of Versailles; the wish to avoid another 1914-18 hell; the fact that the first war, and then the Great Depression, left France and Britain in no state - financially or militarily - to fight a war; public opinion; fear and distrust of the Soviets by the West; fear and distrust of the West by the Soviets; a German leader that was mis-judged by EVERYONE - Germans, British, French, Americans alike; the rise of fascism elsewhere (Spain and Italy); the fear of Communism; American isolationism; a militaristic Japan - all in all what a devils brew.

I've always maintained that the French and British need to be cut some slack re their actions in the lead up to war - and in regard to the signing of the pact, so (as much as I hate to have to say it) does Stalin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I finally read the piece Apollo11 posted. I have to say there is a lot of reasonable argument in terms of the actions the USSR took, what they thought was happening in the west, and so why they took the decisions they did. As ever, there is the over-arching reluctance to admit that the USSR did anything wrong which pervades the whole article and weakens the Soviet case.

As I said earlier (and we need to forget for the moment the hideous, brutal, inhumane Stalinist regime - that is a given) the fact is that the Soviet leadership were acting in what they thought was the best way possible.

Post Munich it was every man for himself. Both Stalin and Hitler needed the pact. They both got what they could from it. Nothing further need be said about German motivation, but Soviet action (creating buffer zones) was understandable as they knew there would be a day of reckoning with Hitler. The pact was one of convenience by two leaders doing what they believed was necessary for their countries at the time. As said, in order to properly understand their actions and dissect them, we need to put aside the hideous nature of these Totalitarian regimes because that can cloud the judgement.

Of course we do know what happened and what turns the stomach is the way in which the Soviets treated the populace - particularly of Poland, but that should be no surprise given the way Stalin treated Ukrainians pre-war and returning Soviet POW's and minority groups after the war. But for the purposes of what or who started the war that is a secondary issue.

Was this a friendly pact that saw these two regimes acting as Allies? I don't think so. I think there was pragmatism from both sides. The hatred was deep set and mutual - if the West did not finish off Hitler then there would only ever be one outcome - a clash between these two repulsive regimes at some point in the future. Both knew it. Both wanted to avoid it for only as long as they needed to avoid it. In order to avoid that day as long as possible they agreed to exchange raw materials, foodstuffs and technology. Compliance with the agreement ebbed and flowed along with the fortunes of each party.

Was it the actions of the Soviet Union (agreeing to the pact) that led to WWII? One could say yes as, without it, its not certain what Hitler would have done next. But at the same time one could say it was no more the cause than a host of other points in history: The German leadership making Hitler Chancellor so they could control him, the Rhineland, Munich, the failure of the German General Staff to grow a set and take unilateral action, Prague....

No one - Stalin, Chamberlain or Daladier - had the benefit of hindsight, the situation was evolving during the thirties and so many facets - the wish to right the wrongs of Versailles; the wish to avoid another 1914-18 hell; the fact that the first war, and then the Great Depression, left France and Britain in no state - financially or militarily - to fight a war; public opinion; fear and distrust of the Soviets by the West; fear and distrust of the West by the Soviets; a German leader that was mis-judged by EVERYONE - Germans, British, French, Americans alike; the rise of fascism elsewhere (Spain and Italy); the fear of Communism; American isolationism; a militaristic Japan - all in all what a devils brew.

I've always maintained that the French and British need to be cut some slack re their actions in the lead up to war - and in regard to the signing of the pact, so (as much as I hate to have to say it) does Stalin.

Incidentally if France would not have been defeated so fast in Summer of 1940 there were already in initial preparations of a French-British air attack against Soviet refineries in Baku.
This would have been done from Syria(French Levant)

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I finally read the piece Apollo11 posted. I have to say there is a lot of reasonable argument in terms of the actions the USSR took, what they thought was happening in the west, and so why they took the decisions they did. As ever, there is the over-arching reluctance to admit that the USSR did anything wrong which pervades the whole article and weakens the Soviet case.

As I said earlier (and we need to forget for the moment the hideous, brutal, inhumane Stalinist regime - that is a given) the fact is that the Soviet leadership were acting in what they thought was the best way possible.

Post Munich it was every man for himself. Both Stalin and Hitler needed the pact. They both got what they could from it. Nothing further need be said about German motivation, but Soviet action (creating buffer zones) was understandable as they knew there would be a day of reckoning with Hitler. The pact was one of convenience by two leaders doing what they believed was necessary for their countries at the time. As said, in order to properly understand their actions and dissect them, we need to put aside the hideous nature of these Totalitarian regimes because that can cloud the judgement.

Of course we do know what happened and what turns the stomach is the way in which the Soviets treated the populace - particularly of Poland, but that should be no surprise given the way Stalin treated Ukrainians pre-war and returning Soviet POW's and minority groups after the war. But for the purposes of what or who started the war that is a secondary issue.

Was this a friendly pact that saw these two regimes acting as Allies? I don't think so. I think there was pragmatism from both sides. The hatred was deep set and mutual - if the West did not finish off Hitler then there would only ever be one outcome - a clash between these two repulsive regimes at some point in the future. Both knew it. Both wanted to avoid it for only as long as they needed to avoid it. In order to avoid that day as long as possible they agreed to exchange raw materials, foodstuffs and technology. Compliance with the agreement ebbed and flowed along with the fortunes of each party.

Was it the actions of the Soviet Union (agreeing to the pact) that led to WWII? One could say yes as, without it, its not certain what Hitler would have done next. But at the same time one could say it was no more the cause than a host of other points in history: The German leadership making Hitler Chancellor so they could control him, the Rhineland, Munich, the failure of the German General Staff to grow a set and take unilateral action, Prague....

No one - Stalin, Chamberlain or Daladier - had the benefit of hindsight, the situation was evolving during the thirties and so many facets - the wish to right the wrongs of Versailles; the wish to avoid another 1914-18 hell; the fact that the first war, and then the Great Depression, left France and Britain in no state - financially or militarily - to fight a war; public opinion; fear and distrust of the Soviets by the West; fear and distrust of the West by the Soviets; a German leader that was mis-judged by EVERYONE - Germans, British, French, Americans alike; the rise of fascism elsewhere (Spain and Italy); the fear of Communism; American isolationism; a militaristic Japan - all in all what a devils brew.

I've always maintained that the French and British need to be cut some slack re their actions in the lead up to war - and in regard to the signing of the pact, so (as much as I hate to have to say it) does Stalin.

All that don't explain the sabotage made by Communists of Western industries and their propaganda supporting the Nazis. If they were so afraid why the prepped them up even after the fall of France.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5
However the original post:

Russian (so called) democracy continues to obscure the critical review of 'historical truths' to gain new insights, accuracy and honesty.
Dissenting opinion is largely suppressed, ignored, or both.
There is more "critical thinking evident" in the views and opinions of this thread than from the official archivist of Russian governmental or public representation.
Truths are seemingly self evident and only portray Russia - the USSR as faultless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I mean, if Soviets were so afraid of Germans that made them do the Communist-Nazi Pact why they helped defeat Western Allies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

How can that explain the policy of employing unions in France, England to sabotage war effort?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Supposedly they would want that Nazis would be tangled in a long conflict in West not they would defeat them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

What if the Pact for Soviets was not that they were afraid, but they wanted the German technology - Bf 109, Bf 110, etc- and a piece of Eastern Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

For me the Nazis at time of the Pact seem the side that was afraid.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Around where I live, communism was popular and some people of Finnish extraction went back to the USSR. All of the adult men disappeared into the gulags. I remember one older man who said that his mother was on the ship and looked at the land and realized what a mistake she made. But she did not want to go back to where they came from and admit that it was a mistake leaving, instead she made the mistake worse by going ashore.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why would the Soviet Union seek to help Germany defeat the Western Allies? Well I don’t think Stalin wanted the Western Allies beaten necessarily – rather I think Stalin’s goal was for the two blocs to fight each other into exhaustion – leaving the Soviets as the victors. By victors I don’t mean necessarily in a fighting war (although one mustn’t preclude that possibility) but more likely through the workers of a war ravaged Germany, France and Britain rising up in Revolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

When I was younger I went to see the second Hungarian Grand Prix (at that time the Hungarians were still behind the Iron Curtain) and Austrian Grand Prix.

We passed a city (Sopron) on the border that had a vote at the end of WWI as to whether they wanted to be part of Austria (who were initially awarded the city) or Hungary. They voted for Hungary and little did they know what they had voted for......

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I mean, if Soviets were so afraid of Germans that made them do the Communist-Nazi Pact why they helped defeat Western Allies?

warspite1

I don’t think the signing of the pact for Stalin just comes down to fear of the Germans – although that is a factor, and there was a deep-seated mistrust of the French and British who Stalin felt were trying to foment trouble between Germany and the USSR.

Why would the Soviet Union seek to help Germany defeat the Western Allies? Well I don’t think Stalin wanted the Western Allies beaten necessarily – rather I think Stalin’s goal was for the two blocs to fight each other into exhaustion – leaving the Soviets as the victors. By victors I don’t mean necessarily in a fighting war (although one mustn’t preclude that possibility) but more likely through the workers of a war ravaged Germany, France and Britain rising up in Revolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

How can that explain the policy of employing unions in France, England to sabotage war effort?

warspite1

The Soviets realised that the export of Communism to other countries of Europe was only likely to be achieved in the same way that Communism came to Russia – through bloody conflict. Regardless of the time – pre-NS Pact, post NS-Pact or during the early years of the war, the Communist parties in other countries were hardly likely to gain power through the parliamentary process. But they could agitate, make themselves a nuisance and generally prove useful fools that would do the USSR’s bidding but that is about it.

When I say useful fools I don’t wish to denigrate all western Communists. They were probably in the dark about life in the USSR and no doubt amongst their ranks were the very poor who thought Communism would provide a better life than the grinding poverty they were brought up in. There may also have been many idealists too who genuinely thought Communism was what the world needed.

But I do say useful fools in the sense that they were just Moscow’s puppets. This experience of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) shows that:

- First week of September 1939 Pollitt (General Secretary of the CPGB) wrote ‘How to Win the War’ to keep the party faithful abreast of the situation. He was comfortable with the Nazi-Soviet pact “a victory for peace and socialists” – and felt that this was in response to Britain’s failure to deal fairly with the Soviet Union. In his leaflet he called for a two-front war – externally against Hitler and internally against the fascist Chamberlain government, pronouncing “the Polish people are right to fight against the Nazi invasion” and “the Communist Party supports the war”.

- 50,000 copies of this 32-page, and no doubt riveting read, were printed and published on the 14th September. The publication met with mixed reaction as can be imagined.

- However, the response from the party faithful aside, there was only one slight problem with all that…..

- That same day a telegram arrived from Moscow…. The party line had changed of course. [AWKWARD] Apparently the current war was an “imperialist and unjust war”….. [Whoops!] “Under no conditions can the international working class defend fascist Poland”….

- And we know what happened on the 17th September.

- A revised leaflet was issued in line with Moscow’s official line.....

I’d love to bring some of those Communists who harmed the UK war effort back to life to show them what life under Stalin was like, or the standard of living of the average person behind the Iron Curtain until the fall of the USSR. Wonder what the reaction would be……

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Supposedly they would want that Nazis would be tangled in a long conflict in West not they would defeat them.

warspite1

I don’t think it would matter. So long as the war was not over quickly and there was a heavy price paid on both sides then all well and good for the USSR. And for the avoidance of doubt I don't think anyone on this thread so far has remotely suggested the Soviets signed the pact because they were looking out for anyone but No.1 and in the long term that meant survival of the Soviet Union by the export of Communism to Germany, France et al.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

What if the Pact for Soviets was not that they were afraid, but they wanted the German technology - Bf 109, Bf 110, etc- and a piece of Eastern Europe.

warspite1

But the guy in the article alluded to this. The Soviets were benefiting from the German technology. Why is that an issue from the Soviet perspective and why would we be surprised by such behaviour in the name of national self-interest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

For me the Nazis at time of the Pact seem the side that was afraid.

warspite1

Certainly Hitler was probably more desperate because he wanted his war against Poland. But as said, both sides needed and wanted this pact. It suited both very well and would continue to do so – right up to the point at which it didn’t. Was either side afraid? Yes I think there would be a general fear of the unknown. After his purges Stalin probably feared he'd weakened his own defence too much and Hitler feared he wasn't going to get his war on his terms.

quote:

The Soviet Army was several times the German Army by the time of the Pact, unless the Soviets had a very low opinion of themselves there is not way to think that they'll risk loosing a war, or should be afraid by any reason. They even had just came from a victory against Japanese forces in East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Nazis army had not yet demonstrated any military superior capacity by the time of the Pact was signed.
At the time, Soviet divisions were of a different size. They were smaller than other countries divisions. They also had to keep units facing the Japanese. Also, the had more independent tank brigades and not armoured divisions.
Nazi Germany helped the Nationalists in Spain with equipment and "volunteers" so there was experience there. The communists lost even though they had communist support, including a brigade of Americans.

The issue here is that the West is judged morally and ethically but for Soviets is instead perfectly moral ethical they be pragmatic and self interested. That is worse than Double standards, it is inverting them.
Of course that is the case. The people judging this was are usually leftists and/or expect better of Western governments but ignore the Soviet and other communist failings.

I have a different opinion about Communists(and other totalitarians) than you, a person that is willing to give such power to an institution - in this case we might call it the unitary state without separation of power- is someone that will not be and should not be surprised by anything that comes from it. After all it has all power.
Not everyone has given that power to the state. Some people took from others who could not escape it. Some people were born into the system and could not escape it. look at these:
https://history.army.mil/documents/BorderOps/content.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_Post_Alpha
You will see that voting with your feet is not always possible nor are people always welcoming people who do escape. East Germany was an exception since the East Germans who managed to make it to West Germany were all or almost always considered West German citizens.

There are millions of Communists today and they can know all history.
I knew someone who had a lot of ideals of the communists who did not like history. If you brought up anything historical, he would walk away. He had an attitude that "People running those big companies did not need that much money to live on." and "People don't need that big or fancy of a house to live in."
---
Thanks for the info on British Communists. Here in Portugal, the "historical" leader of Communist Party put a oped in 1940 condemning the resistance against Nazis as an Imperialist War. Portuguese Communist Party has around 10% of vote today...
Part of the reason for that may be the idea that Socialism is a step before communism. They will become communists eventually. Since the Nazis are/were socialists, they were just on their way to communism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

The Soviet Army was several times the German Army by the time of the Pact, unless the Soviets had a very low opinion of themselves there is not way to think that they'll risk loosing a war, or should be afraid by any reason.

Nazis army had not yet demonstrated any military superior capacity by the time of the Pact was signed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

They even had just came from a victory against Japanese forces in East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

The issue here is that the West is judged morally and ethically but for Soviets is instead perfectly moral ethical they be pragmatic and self interested. That is worse than Double standards, it is inverting them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have a different opinion about Communists(and other totalitarians) than you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

.....a person that is willing to give such power to an institution - in this case we might call it the unitary state without separation of power- is someone that will not be and should not be surprised by anything that comes from it. After all it has all power.
There are millions of Communists today and they can know all history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

"historical" is the name journalists give always to people that perpetuate in power that they like, also they call them "leaders".

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

The Soviet Army was several times the German Army by the time of the Pact, unless the Soviets had a very low opinion of themselves there is not way to think that they'll risk loosing a war, or should be afraid by any reason. They even had just came from a victory against Japanese forces in East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Nazis army had not yet demonstrated any military superior capacity by the time of the Pact was signed.
At the time, Soviet divisions were of a different size. They were smaller than other countries divisions. They also had to keep units facing the Japanese. Also, the had more independent tank brigades and not armoured divisions.
Nazi Germany helped the Nationalists in Spain with equipment and "volunteers" so there was experience there. The communists lost even though they had communist support, including a brigade of Americans.

The issue here is that the West is judged morally and ethically but for Soviets is instead perfectly moral ethical they be pragmatic and self interested. That is worse than Double standards, it is inverting them.
Of course that is the case. The people judging this was are usually leftists and/or expect better of Western governments but ignore the Soviet and other communist failings.

I have a different opinion about Communists(and other totalitarians) than you, a person that is willing to give such power to an institution - in this case we might call it the unitary state without separation of power- is someone that will not be and should not be surprised by anything that comes from it. After all it has all power.
Not everyone has given that power to the state. Some people took from others who could not escape it. Some people were born into the system and could not escape it. look at these:
https://history.army.mil/documents/BorderOps/content.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_Post_Alpha
You will see that voting with your feet is not always possible nor are people always welcoming people who do escape. East Germany was an exception since the East Germans who managed to make it to West Germany were all or almost always considered West German citizens.

There are millions of Communists today and they can know all history.
I knew someone who had a lot of ideals of the communists who did not like history. If you brought up anything historical, he would walk away. He had an attitude that "People running those big companies did not need that much money to live on." and "People don't need that big or fancy of a house to live in."
---
Thanks for the info on British Communists. Here in Portugal, the "historical" leader of Communist Party put a oped in 1940 condemning the resistance against Nazis as an Imperialist War. Portuguese Communist Party has around 10% of vote today...
Part of the reason for that may be the idea that Socialism is a step before communism. They will become communists eventually. Since the Nazis are/were socialists, they were just on their way to communism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

The Soviet Army was several times the German Army by the time of the Pact, unless the Soviets had a very low opinion of themselves there is not way to think that they'll risk loosing a war, or should be afraid by any reason.

Nazis army had not yet demonstrated any military superior capacity by the time of the Pact was signed.

warspite1

Well to say they should not be afraid for any reason seems a little too much. War is unpredictable at the best of times. German performance in World War I would have shown the Soviets that there was potentially every reason to fear a re-armed German Army.

But more pertinently, the Soviets knew of Japanese attempts to get the Germans to focus on the USSR rather than Britain and France. So fearing a two-front war yes, Stalin had reason to be cautious – particularly after his butchering of his own officer corps.

Finally this comment dismisses the possibility that the Soviets - like the French - were taken in by the German inflation of its armed forces size and capability. We know the truth, those at the time less so.

The French uneasiness regarding Germans was directly related to the difference in population between countries 45Millions vs 70Millions which matters with full mobilization something that did not existed for Soviets 150Millons vis Germans 70Millions

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

They even had just came from a victory against Japanese forces in East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

warspite1

I think you are incorrect here in terms of chronology. Have you ever wondered why the Soviets waited until the 17th to move into Eastern Poland?

By the time of the NS pact the war in the East was NOT over. The Germans expected, and urged, the Soviets to march into Eastern Poland by the 3rd September. Remember the Germans did not know the French weren't going to strike in the west and needed the Polish Campaign finished asap. But the Soviets did not do so until the 17th. Why?

The Kwantung Army’s 2nd Division was still conducting offensive operations on September 8th/9th. Large scale aerial combat was being fought in the East in the first week of September and as late as the 14th/15th September. It was only on the 15th that the Molotov-Togo Agreement was signed that brought a ceasefire into effect on the 16th. Essentially Stalin was not keen to advance – and risk a two front war – until the war in the East was decided. It is no coincidence the march into Eastern Poland happened the very next day.

It appears to be a good point, still the Soviet Army at time was much bigger than what was employed in East.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

The issue here is that the West is judged morally and ethically but for Soviets is instead perfectly moral ethical they be pragmatic and self interested. That is worse than Double standards, it is inverting them.

warspite1

I’ve no idea if that comment is aimed at my comments specifically or your general impression of how the Soviet position is looked at. All I can say is I hope it’s not the former because it goes against everything I’ve said on the subject – and I reject the notion that I am exhibiting double standards if that is what you meant. In fact quite the opposite because I am not tarring Stalin just because he took action that was not in the West’s interest, just as the West sometimes took action without thought for others – including the Soviets.

History is much easier with the benefit of hindsight – but the leaders in the 1930’s didn’t have it, and they had a hugely complex, ever changing set of challenges to deal with. I don’t think the leaders of the Western powers or the Soviets acted especially morally or ethically – they acted in the interests of their country’s – as they were tasked with doing. That involves – certainly for the Western Democracies – trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, but not by any means always succeeding. Sometimes a more practical, pragmatic approach was required – and that could mean others being trampled over. All those features were in evidence for both the West and for the Soviet Union.

Sorry was not pointed at you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have a different opinion about Communists(and other totalitarians) than you

warspite1

I am not at all sure in what way you mean this and so until I get clarity I won’t say too much. Suffice to say, I have nothing but disgust for totalitarian regimes, what they stand for and the pain and misery they caused – particularly during WWII. To suggest anything else is quite shocking and hopefully just a breakdown in communication and not what you meant to imply.

But i am not talking about workers, but instructed people, opinion makers, journalists, artists, nothing of that was unknown to them. But the "greater good" always could offset hideous crimes.
We should not forget also that most Communists murdered were probably murdered by other Communists.
this is know by themselves but many still accept it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

.....a person that is willing to give such power to an institution - in this case we might call it the unitary state without separation of power- is someone that will not be and should not be surprised by anything that comes from it. After all it has all power.
There are millions of Communists today and they can know all history.

warspite1

Sadly I think you’ve misunderstood my point. Anyone that supports Communism today has the benefit of hindsight – not just the hideous Stalinist regime, but of what life was like under more ‘enlightened’ Communist leaders. I’ve been to the DDR museum in Berlin – it is heart-breakingly sad.

But what I was referring to were people – typically the working class – back in the 1920’s and 1930’s who grew up in poverty that our generation can only read about and imagine. They had been through WWI, they’d been through the Great Depression, there were people starving. These are the sort of people that in most cases wouldn’t have even comprehended the sentence ‘unitary state without separation of power’… they just wanted a better life and Communism (where in theory everyone is equal) was a chance at that.

I am not talking about workers. see above

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

"historical" is the name journalists give always to people that perpetuate in power that they like, also they call them "leaders".

warspite1

Sorry but I am not sure what this means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

The French uneasiness regarding Germans was directly related to the difference in population between countries 45Millions vs 70Millions which matters with full mobilization something that did not existed for Soviets 150Millons vis Germans 70Millions

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

It appears to be a good point, still the Soviet Army at time was much bigger than what was employed in East.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Sorry was not pointed at you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

But i am not talking about workers, but instructed people, opinion makers, journalists, artists, nothing of that was unknown to them. But the "greater good" always could offset hideous crimes.
We should not forget also that most Communists murdered were probably murdered by other Communists. this is know by themselves but many still accept it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Just show how even today journalist language tries manipulate opinions. Franco is entitled as the "Spanish dictator" which he certainly was, but Fidel Castro for example instead is entitled the "historical Cuban leader" or just "Cuban leader". Once again different standards. One is "leader" which put that person outside any discussion and contest, the other is dictator which gives illegitimacy. Does not even have right to the "historical" tag

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

This is really bending the OT line but I do think it is relevant to this thread......

The world today IMO has many similarities to what happened in the late 30s.

NK
Russia
Phillipines
Iran
Syria
Brexit

Sadly the list goes on.

Too many politicians and too few leaders. I tend to get my 'news' from BBC and Reuters. If there are any other good sources, please let me know.

Apolgies to any good politicians on the forum.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

This is really bending the OT line but I do think it is relevant to this thread......

The world today IMO has many similarities to what happened in the late 30s.

NK
Russia
Phillipines
Iran
Syria
Brexit

Sadly the list goes on.

Too many politicians and too few leaders. I tend to get my 'news' from BBC and Reuters. If there are any other good sources, please let me know.

Apolgies to any good politicians on the forum.

warspite1

But what is going on today is modern politics and so verboten on this forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Miracles do happen, just look at the 1980 Winter Olympic hockey games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Miracles do happen, just look at the 1980 Winter Olympic hockey games.

I know of that one - pretty rare event, though!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Miracles do happen, just look at the 1980 Winter Olympic hockey games.

I know of that one - pretty rare event, though!

It happened in 1960 as well.