The Military History Thread

[Licht]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

Absolute total and complete rubbish, Are you not aware of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact of 1939? In which both sides agreed to non aggression against each other, and this was replaced by the German Soviet Border Agreement which remained in place until the onset of Operation Barbarossa. Part of the original pact was the splitting up of Poland between Soviet and German occupational areas. Nobody ever suggested that Stalin ate Soviet prisoners of war, crazy. But to say Poland refused access to the Red Army in 1939, who were on their way to support Poland against Germany, is insane!Britain and France were not able to negotiate in 1939, because the pact was already in place, and until the invasion of Poland, Chamberlain believed he would have peace in our time. To blame Poland is like blaming a rape victim!

Even Putin has admitted the existence of the pact. As did the Former Soviet Union in 1987. Despite what you are taught in the East, people of the west will not be fooled for long, and all our documents are released to the public, even the most secret for that period, are now freely available. We also have access to information and believe what we see, not what we are told! It is called freedom of choice.

Oooouuukkkk

Oh my God. About eat - it was sarcasm. I certainly crappy English, but there I think everything is clearly written. Western countries did not want to sign an agreement (at least on equal terms) ... time mercilessly pulled. I understand that there are the most popular links on Wikipedia. Why would you, dear friend did not read, diplomatic documents, statements of policy, the memories that are called-historical sources? You can not find that the transcript of the so-called "negotiations" in 1939, in Moscow? All have long been published. You are casting a classic propaganda point of view (the times of the Cold War). This point of view at the time, historians have formulated such as Hannah Arendt and Ernst Nolte. It can be briefly formulated. Soviet Union negotiated with Hitler, and for this reason the West is unable to reach an agreement with the USSR. This it truly forgery. Read the transcripts of negotiations in Moscow. This statement confused cause and effect. The agreement with Hitler was a consequence of the failure of negotiations. Because they are at an impasse. Western representatives to the last playing for time ... and to present a claim impossible to the Soviet Union one after the other. That's it for this reason that Stalin was forced to find at least some guarantees for the eastern borders of their own state.

Ok - Step by step...ok. Its long post - sorry...
Western politics sabotaged the start of negotiations. March 18, 1939 W. Soviet Government give a proposal for the immediate convening of an international meeting with the participation of the Soviet Union, Britain, France, Poland, Romania and Turkey. The convening of such a meeting and the decisions made about collective action for the protection of peace and security could stop the fascist aggressors in Europe. Chamberlain and Halifax decided to reject the proposal as not conforming to the general course of their foreign policy without considering it necessary to put it even on the government. Soviet proposal was referred by French government, but in general no response has been received from France. The Soviet government could do this only one conclusion: England and France essentially continue the former policy.
March 19 Halifax told the Soviet Ambassador in London, that the convening of the proposed conference, the Soviet government would be "premature". March 21 the British government has proposed to England, France, the Soviet Union and Poland issued a declaration to the effect that in the event of any action constituting a threat to the political independence of any European state, they undertakes to immediately confer on the steps to be taken for a general resistance to such actions."Publication of such a declaration could not be any serious deterrent against aggression. But since such a declaration could have come at least some step forward in creating a front to protect the world, the Soviet Government on the next day gave their consent to its publication. However, after a few days, Deputy Foreign Minister of England A. Cadogan told the Soviet ambassador that "Poles are quite flatly, Rumanians in a less decisive form stated that they did not adjoin to any combination (whether in the form of a Declaration or any other), if it is a party as the USSR" I said just one think - fucking bastards...ok? Polish ruling circles because of their class hostility to the Soviet Union did not want to cooperate with it, even in an environment where over Poland was in mortal danger. Hoping yet somehow negotiate with the Nazis, they did not want to take part in the declaration and ripped its publication.
March 25 Beck gave J. Lipski, the Polish Ambassador in Berlin, Ribbentrop instructed to assure that Poland has always supported and opposed the Soviet Union's participation in European affairs. Thus the leaders of Poland became the path of direct betrayal of national interests of the country, treason to the Polish people. Since Poland refused to cooperate with the Soviet Union, before the British and French governments was a question of who should be considered more important to have an ally in Eastern Europe - Poland, or the Soviet Union. Chamberlain and Halifax believed that Poland and Romania, who hate the Soviet Union, have de England as allies more important than the USSR. British historian C. Ester wrote that, therefore, the Soviet Union after a brief appearance in the diplomatic arena was raised again to its former position of isolation. And who is left SU in this position? France and England, and their inconsistency. Plus - Anti-Soviet Poland. ( S. Aster. 1939. The Making of the Second World War, p. 89, 94). But how to defines goals "guarantees" that betrayed England in Public Record Office, Cab. 27/625, p. 138. Chamberlain said that the main aim of England was not to protect individual countries (such as Poland or Romania) and to avert the threat of war from the United Kingdom. In particular, it notes that such guarantees are not given, for example, Denmark. Britain will not fight for Denmark in the case of German aggression. This means that England took care of their own and only their own interests. Poland, Romania, Denmark and other countries interested in it solely depends on whether they can have some military, strategic and economic importance to British imperialism. Even British historians now can not help but admit that the British Cabinet was as little concerned about the fate of Poland, Czechoslovakia's fate as previously. Read at least it K. Middlemas. Diplomacy of Illusion, p. 457. The name of book - speaks for itself.
British diplomats continued to work to ensure that the Soviet Union, regardless of the consequences, took the unilateral commitments. April 15 the British Ambassador in Moscow William Seeds at the direction of Halifax officially delivered to the Soviet Government a question, whether it would agree to publish the declaration that any European neighbor of the Soviet Union can count on in the event of aggression on the Soviet assistance, if it is satisfied that assistance desired. This proposal called for the provision of assistance to the Soviet Union like Poland and Romania, which took the Anglo-French guarantees and other European neighbors of the USSR - Latvia, Estonia and Finland, which had no such guarantees. Therefore, the publication of such a declaration by the Soviet Government could lead to the fact that in the case of German aggression in the Baltic Soviet Union was forced to fight with Germany, while the British and French, would have remained on the sidelines. April 17, 1939 The Soviet Union turned to England and France in particular far-reaching proposals, which provided that: Finally, between Britain, France and the Soviet Union agreement on mutual assistance; the provision of assistance to the three Powers bordering on the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe in the event of aggression against them. This proposal was rejected by England. Discussion of the Soviet proposals at the meeting of the Foreign Policy Committee of the British government on April 19 came down to the fact that England is interested only in the supply the Soviet Union war materials Poland and Romania in the event of an attack on them in Germany. Chamberlain, stating in this regard its position, stressed that the provision of the Soviet Union assistance to these countries in military material is no need for the conclusion of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet military alliance. As stated at the end of the meeting the Minister of Defence, Lord Chetfild, the general opinion of the committee members was the fact that political considerations against the military alliance of England, France and the Soviet Union are so significant that they "outweigh" any military benefits. The minutes of the meeting stated that the members of the committee is not arranged to accept the Soviet proposals(Public Record Office, Cab. 27/624, p. 309, 312.) When considering a meeting of the Soviet proposals at the British government (26 April), Lord Halifax has spoken out against a "comprehensive" agreement with the USSR. The main argument of the British Foreign Minister, was the fact that the signing of England and France with the Soviet Union would have a negative impact on Anglo-German relations, that is, would make it impossible to achieve the new Anglo-German agreement, and the British government considers it as its main objective. The Soviet proposals were considered at this meeting unacceptable.(Public Record Office, Cab. 23/99, p. 58 — 61.) The New Anglo-German relations, eh? How about that... How about Eanglish diplomatic collaborators?
The Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations were conducted from June ... even in May (in fact), and by August it became clear that our "allies" wanted to spit on the signing of any agreements. The French leadership sought to impose the brunt of the war on its Eastern European allies. In France, the policy is strongly influenced by the United Kingdom. At the same time in Paris, did not rule out the possibility of reaching a new agreement with Germany for talks with Moscow on which the pressure used. From 13 to 17 August was held seven meetings at which the two sides exchanged messages of their armed forces and plans in the event of Hitler's aggression. On behalf of England played Admiral Drax, Bernett Marshal and General Haywood; on behalf of France - General Dumenko Valen captain Villaume. At Admiral Drax it was not even a mandate to enter into any agreements. In fact, the arrangement openly sabotaged. English historian M. Cowling pointed out that by this time Chamberlain began to show more and more interested in disrupting the Anglo-Russian negotiations. More June 8 Chamberlain admitted in an interview with the American Ambassador Kennedy, do not rule out the possibility that he had "put an end to" negotiate with the Soviet Union. Even in conversation with the Japanese Ambassador Shigemitsu in late June, Chamberlain did not conceal his "deep desire to break off negotiations with the USSR." Since the beginning of July issue of the failure of negotiations and repeatedly discussed at meetings of the Foreign Policy Committee of the British government. July 19, Lord Halifax cynically said that if the negotiations broke down, then "it is not really bothered at all. In a personal letter dated March 28, Chamberlain wrote: "I must admit that I do not trust Russia. I do not believe that it will be able to conduct effective offensive action, even if he wants to ... Moreover, her hate and treat it with suspicion, many small states, especially Poland, Romania and Finland. " Feiling K. The Life of Neville Chamberlain. L., 1963. P. 403. At the meetings of the Cabinet, Chamberlain declared that "everything concerning the alliance with Russia, he sees a great sense of foreboding," absolutely does not believe in "Russian strength and doubted its ability to provide assistance in case of war" . But with Hitler in 1938, this bastard is easily arranged. He trusted it. And on this, let me say "shit", to build a relationship with the Soviet Union.
According to the Anglo-French draft agreement of 27 May (with Soviet amended on 2 June), which was taken as a basis for further negotiations, union entry into force provided for in the following cases:
-in the event of an attack of one of the European powers (ie Germany), one of the contracting parties;
-in the event of German aggression against Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Finland (it was assumed that the contracting parties will guarantee the protection of all of these states);
-if one of the parties will be involved in the war because of the provision of assistance at the request of a third European country.
Meanwhile Estonia and Latvia voted against guarantees from the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union and 7 June concluded with Germany nonaggression treaties. Finland and Lithuania have also refused to accept the Soviet guarantees (Lithuania signed a nonaggression pact with Germany back in March 1939). The Soviet Union, however, continued to insist on the inclusion in the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Treaty provisions on safeguards Baltic states or to enter into a simple tripartite agreement without guarantees to third countries. Note that if the West gave these assurances, the Baltic Republics would not be included in the Soviet Union. We would not have had to act in such methods. These republics, however, would fall either in the Third Reich, or became part of the Soviet Union.
June 29 in the newspaper "Pravda" published an article Politburo member Zhdanov, in which it was noted that the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations "at an impasse" because England and France "did not want an equal treaty with the USSR." Britain and France sought to limit its obligations, and to avoid the issuance of guarantees for the Baltic States. In parallel, contacts with the Soviet Union the United Kingdom continued to probe Germany for talks. Germany, being afraid of the British Air Force and the French army, which in the case of its intervention could significantly complicate her situation, trying to get a clear answer to the basic question: what will do the UK and France in the case of the German-Polish war. July 10 meeting of the Foreign Policy Committee of the British Parliament, in order to prevent the breakdown of the negotiations with the Soviet Union, in fact stalled, Halifax offered to consent to the simultaneous signing of the political and military agreements and to start negotiations on the content of the military agreement. Halifax said that "military talks drag a very long time" July UK Foreign Secretary E. Halifax at the meeting of the Foreign Policy Committee of the British Parliament introduced the two options: failure of negotiations or Finally, a limited pact. Justifying its position, he said: "Our main objective in the negotiations with the Soviet Union is to prevent the establishment of any Russian relations with Germany." Dot! So who prolonged the negotiations?
And another one/ You said Ural? Really? Dear friend. Let it be known that in the case of Moscow's fall, the Soviet Union will be attacked from the east (Japan factor). It was the heroic defense of Moscow in December 1941, made it possible to avert the threat of war on two fronts for us. What Ural? What Siberia. There was no infrastructure to conduct full-scale military action presents. Prior to the attack on the United States, there was a plan of attack on the Soviet Union in Japan. This so-called "concept of a ripe persimmon." According to this concept - Soviet Siberia and the Far East will be attacked in the event of the defeat of the Soviet army near Moscow. This is also news for you? And yes. It still does not justify the Polish leadership. They shamefully abandoned his people, fled to England. What does the size of the country? This is ridiculous and childish argument.
You know the meaning of the term "policy of appeasement of the aggressor. " This policy led by "Western friends." Do you recall how Chamberlain called by his political friens in Britain? Seller. Even Churchill blamed Chamberlain in mediocrity. You will recall how this clown called by Hitler? Insignificance. And he was right. Western democracies are sold with giblets Czechoslovakia in 1938, in order to save their skins. And this fact you deny. A sovereign state has been given for a reason. By passing all international norms. And in the end only increased Hitler. This was the result of "appeasement." Read the memories Jodl. He just says that if the West started the war, instead of the division of Czechoslovakia, then Germany could lose in a matter of months. Here instead of being angry. Take and read, which country was ready to provide the support for Czechoslovakia, at a time when Britain and France handed it to Hitler? Soviet Union! Stalin contacted Benes personally. Personally promised military support. Benes - refused. At this time, the whole border of the Soviet Union in full combat readiness were whazzup half dozen military districts. March 18, the Soviet government sent a note to the German government, which stated that Germany's action "can be considered arbitrary, violent and aggressive." The Soviet government declared that it can not accept the inclusion of Czechoslovakia into the German Reich.
Another facts about «western diplomacy» at that time: March 15, 1939, when Hitler's troops marched into Prague. Czechoslovakia was eliminated by German fascists as an independent state. Although Britain and France, Czechoslovakia imposing conditions Munich agreement (1938), promised her their guarantees, any aid to Czechoslovakia in these tragic days, they did not have. The British government received accurate information about the upcoming events for another four days. However, it did pretend not to see or hear anything personal. Only 14 of March in connection with arriving in London all the more alarming reports Halifax convened a meeting to consider the items of England. Decided wrote his assistant Oliver Harvey on the meeting that "We should not resort to empty threats, because we do not intend to fight for Czechoslovakia ... We should not assume that we somehow guaranteed Czechoslovakia" («The Diplomatic Diaries of Oliver Harvey 1937 — 1940», L., 1970, p. 261.) The same position was occupied by the United States. Assistant Secretary of State A. Berle wrote in his diary on March 17 that the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany "not very worried" Roosevelt: Like many Englishmen, he might have hoped that the German aggression eastward facilitate the position of Britain and France. (W. L. Langer and S. E. Gleasop. The Challenge to Isolation 1937 - 1940. N. Y., 1952, p. 67.) The principled position of the Soviet government only took in connection with the seizure of Czechoslovakia by the Nazis. Detailed description of Soviet foreign policy in the current situation at that time was given in the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) the XVIII Congress of the Party, which was delivered by March 10, 1939, Stalin. He criticized both the aggressor and the aggression policy of appeasement pursued by Western powers. The Report contained a serious warning that the big and dangerous political game started by the supporters of the policy of non-intervention may end in serious fiasco for them. And so it happened. Nobody listened.
About reality a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, cooperation with them in the struggle against aggression nor Chamberlain nor Daladier did not think. It was only their regular diplomatic maneuver by which they intended to avert the dangerous typhoon is born in the heart of Europe, and turn it to the east. In London and Paris, looking at its relationship with the countries of Eastern Europe, and contacts with the Soviet Union and as a means of reassurance in the event if the Western powers trying to come to terms with the Nazis still be fruitless and they will be in a state of war with Germany. In addition, the British and French governments feared that if the Soviet Union because of the position of Britain and France finally come to the conclusion that it is impossible to create a collective front to protect the world, it will be forced to look for other ways to ensure their security. In particular, they feared that the Soviet Union posed in the position of isolation, may agree to some form of normalization of relations with Germany, for example, the signing of the contract with it a nonaggression («News Chronicle», 28 Jan. 1939.). And Germany's desire to somehow ease the tension in relations with the Soviet Union is no longer a while for special secret diplomatic circles of the Western powers.
Chamberlain did not believe in the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Soviet Union, or in the military potential of the Red Army, hoping to use the talks only as a means of pressure on Hitler and because they fully tightened agreements with Soviets. Thus forcing the Soviet Union to the agreement with Germany (William L. Shirer, The rise and fall of the Third Reich:. A history of Nazi Germany Simon and Schuster, 1980. p 504).

And what about some sort of economical collaborations?
Who supported Franco? Who supported Finland? President Svinhufvud and Mannerheim actively focused on Hitler. Western countries did not know about that? And what at that time did American corporations? Do not interrupted by the war, "Standard Oil" through British intermediaries to conclude a contract with the German chemical concern "I.G.Farbenidustri" on the production of aviation gasoline in Germany. During World War II, no one tanker "Standard Oil" was not sunk by German submarines. Almost until the end of the war, having special permission to trade with Germany, Italy, led a US telecommunications business by ITT. Not stopped production in France after the occupation of its German auto giant "Ford", with special protection "Ford" activity in Europe helped by Hermann Goering personally. During the Nuremberg Trials, former president of the Imperial Bank Hjalmar Schacht in an interview with an American lawyer, he said: "If you want to submit indict industrialists who helped to rearm Germany, you must indict themselves. You will be required to indict the Americans. Schacht was acquitted, even though thousands of slaves (POWs) worked on his plants. Why did it happen? I speculated. In May 1933, the President of the Reichsbank Hjalmar Schacht visited America once again, where is his meeting with President Roosevelt and the largest American financiers. Soon Berlin receives investment in German industry and loans from the United States totaling more than a billion dollars. A month later, in June, at the international conference in London Hjalmar Schacht also holds a series of meetings and talks with British bank N. Montague. How then, during the Nuremberg Trials, he stated J. Schacht, Germany, the United Kingdom has provided loans in excess of a billion pounds, which in dollar terms amounted to two billion dollarov.You said that it was before the war. His Hitler's ideology wrote before the war. Even then it was clear what kind of regime. And you have financed it. In 1940, the US Marine Minister Frank Knox admitted that "in 1934 and 1935. Hitler delivered hundreds of first-class aircraft engines, manufactured in the United States, "and the Senate Commission in the same in 1940 concluded that" American industrialists with the consent of the US government freely sold to the German government and the patent rights to the design of engines ....
The scope of financing may be judged from the statement of the American commercial attache in Berlin, in 1935 in an official interview said that "after two years, Germany will produce oil and gas from coal in an amount sufficient for a long war. "Standard Oil" gave her for that millions of dollars ».IBM created a machine that would keep statistics on oil supply, manage bank accounts and follow the schedule of trains to the death camps. In September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, "New York Times" reported that three million Jews should be "immediately removed" from Poland and, most likely, will be "destroyed." What was the reaction of IBM? An internal document says that, due to this situation, they have increased the production of equipment for processing in alphabetical order. (Source: CNet) Nothing personal. Just business. The company Random House, as part of Bertelsmann AG, engaged in the publication of Nazi propaganda, including the book was released entitled "Sterilization and euthanasia: Contribution to Christian ethics." Bertelsmann AG is still owned and operated by several companies. Random House in 1997, decided to expand the concept of "Nazi, Nazi" in Webster's dictionary. Colloquially, they softened the definition. (Source: New York Observer, ADL). On the eve of World War II, US corporations and banks have invested $ 800 mln. In the industry and the country's financial system. The amount at the time awesome. Of these four leading from America invested in the militarized German economy about 200 million USD .: "Standard Oil" - 120 million, "General Motors" - 35 million investment "ITT" amounted to 30 million, and "Ford" of $ 17.5 million . it can not shock the fact that even after the US entry into world war II December 11, 1941 US corporations continued to actively carry out orders of the enemy countries who support the activities of its subsidiaries in Germany and Italy. To do this, just needed to apply for a special permit to carry out business activities with companies that are under the control of the Nazis and their allies. US President's Decree of 13 December 1941 allowed such transactions, conducting business with enemy companies, for that there was no special prohibition of the Ministry of Finance of America. Very often American corporations easily obtained permission to work with the enemy firms and supplying them with the necessary steel, engines, jet fuel, rubber components radio ... So the power of the military industry of Germany and its allies support the US economic activity, whose companies receive excess profits for their transactions with the enemy. Verily, for someone the war, and someone's own mother. The first GE (General Electric) year after the war appeared in court on charges of collusion with the main German company for the production of arms "Krupp". Their partnership is artificially raised the cost of US defense preparations. At the same time it helped to subsidize the re-Hitler Germany. Cooperation between them continued even after the Nazi invasion of tanks in Poland. When in 1939 the war broke out, GMotors and "Ford" with the help of subsidiaries controlled 70% of the German car market. Those companies "quickly retool production in order to become suppliers of military equipment to the German army - M. Dobbs writes thatin" The Washington Post ". Artifice? When American soldiers in June 1944, invaded Europe in jeeps, trucks and tanks, made a "big automotive Three" as a result of one of the largest ever realized military programs - Dobbs notes - they were unpleasantly surprised by the fact that Opponents also moves by truck "Ford" and "Opel" made on 100-percent subsidiary owned GM's, and flying on planes, built by the company "Opel".
Enough, I think. These facts indicate that the US has contributed to the acceleration of Germany's gain. You may say that it was a "business" that it was before the war? Do not consider than others idiots. Nazism ideology was outlined in detail in the mid 20s. Ford openly admired Hitler. For which he received the Order. Order of the German Eagle. Everyone knew who is Hitler. Everyone knew what is he wanted. And actively helped him. To collaborate with Franco. Equips Finland, focused on Hitler (long before the Soviet-Finnish War). And you continue to expose the perpetrators of the Soviet Union in equal Hitler. Beautifully ... nothing to say.

Summary
1) The Soviet Union was forced to make an agreement with Germany. He realized that the war is not inevitably. Stalin understood this very well. In addition, the west and in no hurry to negotiate on equal terms. Chamberlain and Daladier collaborated with Hitler. They closed their eyes to anschluss. To legitimize his seizure of Czechoslovakia. And then we waited to see what the Soviet Union did not take the response? They continued to do business with him, even after the release of Germany from the League of Nations.
2) The Second World War was made possible in the complex investigation of errors committed by all states (not only by the Soviet Union). This failure of Western policy aimed at appeasing the aggressor. It and its inconsistency. Hitler's appetite kindled inaction or outright assistance of Britain and France (in the case of Czechoslovakia). As Churchill said. You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war. What else do you need to explain?
3) Each party to the conflict trying to get their benefits. The Soviet Union - to defer the start date of the war. Americans - make money on the military industry in Germany. The British and French - have tried to redirect the brunt of Hitler to the East, while not tying itself in direct obligations. Unilateral accusations of the Soviet Union - it is stupid ... even by the standards of Western historiography. Any professional is clear - that the cause of war can only be a system of circumstances. History is not a detective story in which there are good and bad guys. History - is an epic in which there is only the bad guys. And every bad own way.
You correctly wrote that the documents are published. Only in this way, you do not ponder over the course of the political process. Trite condemning the Soviet Union you refuse to acknowledge their own mistakes. What does not? My dear friend(s). The history is not about good and evil, but about pragmatism and cynicism. Cynicism missing on all sides. The secret agreement existed and exist forever. Sometimes on paper, sometimes, because of "undercover" political agreements. I really appreciate your rousing speech on free access to information. Just any information can be submitted under a different ideological reasons. Okay. Each remained unconvinced. Documents need to be able to read and analyze. And not just a shake of your opponent's nose. However, you do superficial conclusions. Without an analysis of cause-effect relationships.
Sorry for the long post.

[Licht]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

Absolute total and complete rubbish, Are you not aware of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact of 1939? In which both sides agreed to non aggression against each other, and this was replaced by the German Soviet Border Agreement which remained in place until the onset of Operation Barbarossa. Part of the original pact was the splitting up of Poland between Soviet and German occupational areas. Nobody ever suggested that Stalin ate Soviet prisoners of war, crazy. But to say Poland refused access to the Red Army in 1939, who were on their way to support Poland against Germany, is insane!Britain and France were not able to negotiate in 1939, because the pact was already in place, and until the invasion of Poland, Chamberlain believed he would have peace in our time. To blame Poland is like blaming a rape victim!

Even Putin has admitted the existence of the pact. As did the Former Soviet Union in 1987. Despite what you are taught in the East, people of the west will not be fooled for long, and all our documents are released to the public, even the most secret for that period, are now freely available. We also have access to information and believe what we see, not what we are told! It is called freedom of choice.

In fact - all this does no matter. We still remain - each with their own opinion. But you know what the most amuse me? This is your: "Even Putin said..blah". Puuuutin. Oh, this Putin. Putin said a lot of things. Putin never shuts up. Something like Trump. Do you want to imagine this same idiot at the helm? Then Vote for Trump. It will be fun. Both for you and us. Two morons comes from Stupididiotville. Sometimes i think that - maybe they brothers?

Putin - the politician. Talk - his work. He makes statements, guided by political conjuncture. He was not a historian and approval have serious academic weight (as measured in terms of historical science). He learned the name of the document. But he not studied the historical circumstances and nuances, which led to his signing. He is not a professional in these matters. He was not familiar with all the circumstances of the negotiations, did not read the transcripts. His judgment may have weight, only for its stupid supporters. I do not watch TV at all. I prefer to read analytical articles.

One more thing. You are there to really think Putin's strong politician, right? xD I can say that I am not his supporter. You might think that his name would have some kind of magical effect on me. And to be honest - I do not care what he says, and the biodegradable waste, which supports Putin in Russia.

[haroldeye]

I wouldn't advise making those comments too loudly my friend, at least not in Russia.

[VintageWomble]

Originally Posted by Licht

You are there to really think Putin's strong politician, right? xD I can say that I am not his supporter. You might think that his name would have some kind of magical effect on me.

*Ghostly wail*Wooooouuuuuh~ Puuuuutin~ ooooooh.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Licht]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

I wouldn't advise making those comments too loudly my friend, at least not in Russia.

Thank you. I am not afraid of anything. "Dementia and courage," my friend. In fact - the threat posed by the Russian secret services has been greatly exaggerated . These clowns are mostly engaged in looting, they are more concerned about their accounts in foreign banks. Actually, I can even write on the Red Square, that Putin is an asshole . And the most that I get for this - 15 days of arrest (for violation of public order). If caught. Understand one simple thing. Our policy is very primitive people. In all senses. Putin without his speechwriters and without his papers - a blank space. He did not say two words. In this, he does not participate in the debate. Even I would have killed him in a verbally duel. It surprises me that in the West there are people who sympathize him. The only one plus. You can always turn on the news - and have a good laugh. Hell, I personally know a couple of FSB agents. You should have heard what they say about Putin In Russia, easy to die on the road (because of the abundance of idiots-drivers), rather than go to prison for political reasons..

[rupertramjet]

I find it fascinating that Licht, accepts that we in the west are brainwashed into believing our propaganda from the cold war. He sadly fails to read the facts of history, folk in the west do not swallow the words of our politicians, accept what they say and follow the route.

We challenge, we question and we tell them that we do not either agree, or accept what they say, and often what they do.

Public opinion and action forced the US to get out of Vietnam, accepting a bloody nose and an inglorious defeat, public opinion and action bought an end to the segregation of black and white in America. One million people protested against the Iraq and Afghan wars in London. Blair was openly accused of lying in the British Press, and Bush in the US, we as people make up our own minds.

The evidence against Stalin, and for him too, is what we use to validate our opinions, not propaganda, as for me. My views are usually a result of experience, study and discussion, although a simple soldier, I have had the fortune to study at top universities, to discuss History with top intellectuals and masters in their field, and these have not always been western, so my arguments are not naive and the evidence does tend to back up what I say.

[VintageWomble]

Originally Posted by Licht

The Soviet Union was forced to make an agreement with Germany. He realized that the war is not inevitably. Stalin understood this very well.

Wait, forced?!, I doubt that. And we all know that Stalin understood it so well that the Red Army was woefully unprepared, whole divisions surrendered without a fight due to certain officers sticking to their orders of :" Don't fight the Germans unless you hear from Moscow". Moscow being completely catatonic...
And also we must remember that reports from Czechoslovakian agents warning the Soviets that Hitler was about to attack the USSR were dismissed as "preposterous" by Stalin himself.

[Licht]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

I find it fascinating that Licht, accepts that we in the west are brainwashed into believing our propaganda from the cold war. He sadly fails to read the facts of history, folk in the west do not swallow the words of our politicians, accept what they say and follow the route.

We challenge, we question and we tell them that we do not either agree, or accept what they say, and often what they do.

Public opinion and action forced the US to get out of Vietnam, accepting a bloody nose and an inglorious defeat, public opinion and action bought an end to the segregation of black and white in America. One million people protested against the Iraq and Afghan wars in London. Blair was openly accused of lying in the British Press, and Bush in the US, we as people make up our own minds.

The evidence against Stalin, and for him too, is what we use to validate our opinions, not propaganda, as for me. My views are usually a result of experience, study and discussion, although a simple soldier, I have had the fortune to study at top universities, to discuss History with top intellectuals and masters in their field, and these have not always been western, so my arguments are not naive and the evidence does tend to back up what I say.

An interesting twist. In fact, I appreciate any opinion. But where I wrote that "in America brainwashed"? I just pointed out that the pre-war diplomacy was not as simple as it seems (some western historians and Russian, too). All countries have their own interests. And not always, these interests had anything to do with morality. This essence of the policy. I do not even blame someone. I'm just stating. And from the point of view of history, it is necessary to carry out analysis of all the data. You said that the Soviet Union signed a pact with Germany. OK. I brought the facts to say that the Western countries had contacts that helped to increase Germany. Munich Agreement, dirty political games on two fronts (with Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time), not wanting to be bound by specific obligations. This is all nonsense do you think? Why, then, these "inventions" they write including the Western historians. In some cases, they were frankly criminal contacts (breaks all the rules of international law), such as in the case of Czechoslovakia. Do you think this is not equivalent to the Soviet-German pact? By forcing the Soviet Union began their "undercover game." Do not you think? For this reason, in his post, I give some links works, in which you can view different vision of this problem. Deeper, from my point of view. All these works are of scientific nature, were published in English. Some of them - have become classics. I do not know any more about the historical facts you say? If you are not satisfied with the well-known classics like William L. Shirer, The rise and fall of the Third Reich ... A statement of British politicians (I told) it is easy to check on the links, which I gave. You talked about the documents. Here are the documents. Transcripts of meetings to discuss cooperation with the Soviet Union.

I, of course, heartened by your speech. I especially liked that part of it, where you're talking about "public opinion". The truth is that the notorious public opinion can shape policy, but at the same time policy can shape public opinion. I can give you a simple example. 86 percent of Russians support Putin. Those. it can be called a democratic election of the president. Yes, it is supported by the majority. I see it every day. So what? It is public opinion? Yes! But these people have no idea that Putin's policy, just looks "useful" for the state. In fact, it creates a lot of problems. But people with education see them. And they do not shape public opinion. In 1933, Hitler came to power, by the way, the legal way. This, too, was "public opinion". Public opinion - a double-edged sword. You know, it's funny, but I very much doubt that a person with a diploma manager or designer has at least some the slightest idea of ​​the historical process, real politics. What does he know about the talks Obama and Putin or Putin and Kissinger (if they occurred behind closed doors). What does he know about the nuances of the various interests of the power groups or intelligence services? Nothing. At best, the rumors. And the "public opinion", which forms a simple manager or designer, it is usually a set of political show installations, films, popular culture. He can distinguish good from evil. But he can not see the "halftone" subtleties and nuances. And it works equally everywhere.V including historical research. Such "semitones" I'm telling you. You're casting a position categorically. You know I have the impression that we are talking about different levels of understanding of history. You talk about the school's history. I'm talking about the academic discussion. Even the work that I have mentioned on different assessments of the starting positions of the participating countries. According to different assessments of the blame for the war. And they are all based on the same facts. But many issues are controversial in nature. Is not it?

[Licht]

Originally Posted by VintageWomble

Wait, forced?!, I doubt that. And we all know that Stalin understood it so well that the Red Army was woefully unprepared, whole divisions surrendered without a fight due to certain officers sticking to their orders of :" Don't fight the Germans unless you hear from Moscow". Moscow being completely catatonic...
And also we must remember that reports from Czechoslovakian agents warning the Soviets that Hitler was about to attack the USSR were dismissed as "preposterous" by Stalin himself.

Yes. This situation was forced. You have to remember that the Germans provoked the Polish army before the attack. They Use some fake incedents as a pretext. It was impossible to give in to provocations. Any provocation could be used as a pretext for launching a full-scale war. And we wanted to in every way to delay the war at home. The main objective of the pact was to delay the war. Pragmatism. In addition, given the West's interest in redirecting the aggression to the east (against the Soviet Union). We could get in a sticky situation. We realized that we need to conclude the alliance agreement. What if the Western powers have used the pretext that it was the Soviet Union was the initiator of the start of its own war with Germany. Yes, you say that Britain has fought. France was defeated. But we did not know how to behave like the United States.Who could guarantee that the US will do to any contacts with the Soviet Union. What for? All are fighting with everyone. US guided non-interference policy, could a long time to build up strength. A tempting idea - leave the two dictators to fight with each other. And again ... is not bound by any obligations. Do not you think? And Stalin reasoned that way. This is easily seen - after reading some of the memories of the approximate entities. Zhukov, for example. Yes, the Soviet Union was not ready for war. So what? And who was ready? USA? Nonsense. At the initial stage of the war was dominated by Japan. For how many days the defeat of France? But there was no repression. So that. There was no need to strengthen Hitler, feed him (giving one country after another), pretending that nothing is happening so you do not have to fight this demon a lot of blood.

Repression is a separate conversation. I did not deny them.

[rupertramjet]

Licht I truly am not talking about the school level of education or even understanding of the scholastic or intellectual argument. I am considered in my own Country to be a bit of a specialist in the factions of the middle east. To achieve credibility with the many people I deal with, I have to have the ability to listen, and to hear view points from many nations. Which because of the current situation includes those from your own country. This is not the place to name them.

On a slightly different and more relevant track I have had lengthy and, always enjoyable, discussions with this chap, who by the way does not always agree with the standard texts of the sixties and seventies on the Soviet Union.

http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/faculty/...lications.html