70th Anniversary of German Terrorism: The Beginning of WWII

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
But, the more general point remains: If the peaceful countries of the world (whoever they may be) want to prevent war, then they must have the military strength and the will to use that military strength to stop a country from starting a war.

Glad to see you make that argument. So when Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq join together to defeat Israeli aggression and terrorism, we can count on you to lead the cheering.

Your position uses the same failed logic as those open-carry gun nuts. If everybody has a gun, the thinking goes, then there won't be any crime! The problem is, if everyone has a gun, the likelihood of its use goes up. We hear this every time some kid shoots up a school or employess shoots up his workpalce. But there is not a single example of a mass shooting in which the guy doing the killing is stopped by an armed citizen, even in the most heavily armed nation on earth. The shooter keeps going until he runs out of bullets, kills himself, or is killed by police.

 

the reason u fail is because u only rely on the Mainstream news for ur information. Somebody stopping a shooting doesnt make for as good a stroy as an actual shooting so what gets reported more often? Look up the stats on even the conservative estimates of how much an armed citizen stopss shit.

remind remind's picture

Really, upon thinking about the thread title and the conceptual framework being built by, I must say it is ugly.

Terrorism, as a word today, is used almost exclusively for those who are Muslim.

Therefore, using it in a contextual value with Germany, it breeds the notion that Muslims are committing, or will commit, genocide against millions, just as Germany did.

Jingles

Quote:
Look up the stats on even the conservative estimates of how much an armed citizen stopss shit.

No, you look up the stats. It's your contention, you prove it. 

As for no media coverage, grow up. Media loves the story of the citizen/hero. They eat that shit up. Remember what a hero they made of that subway guy, until it turned out that he was actually hunting for someone to shoot.

Sven Sven's picture

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
Look up the stats on even the conservative estimates of how much an armed citizen stopss shit.

No, you look up the stats. It's your contention, you prove it. 

As for no media coverage, grow up. Media loves the story of the citizen/hero. They eat that shit up. Remember what a hero they made of that subway guy, until it turned out that he was actually hunting for someone to shoot.

 

[THREAD DRIFT]

I think that hero stories are certainly going to be splashed across MSM - when they occur.  But, those events are not the principal reason for the conceal-carry laws.

Instead, a prospective criminal looking at a person walking down the street will make a different mental risk calculation if they know that the person is almost certainly unarmed (in a jurisdiction which prohibits private citizens from carrying a concealed firearm) than if they are uncertain that the person walking down the street may be armed (in a jurisdiction which permits the concealed carrying of firearms).

That potential deterrent effect is what is so difficult to measure.  I think that common sense dictates that there is some positive deterrent effect.

But, what is much more measurable are the crime statistics regarding those individuals who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm (I think that every state here in the U.S. which allows private citizens to carry concealed firearms - which is the vast majority of states - also requires the tracking of individual crime statistics related to each permit holder).  And, the statistics show no greater crime rate among permit holders than non-permit holders.  In fact, if you look at the permit holder crime rates, they are astonishingly low (look at the Texas statistics, for example).  And, that makes sense because felons cannot get a permit, nor can people with domestic abuse records or people with certain mental illnesses.

I remember when the proposed law to allow the private carrying of concealed weapons was debated here in Minnesota several years ago, the Star Tribune (the principal newspaper of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area) screeched that it would lead to widespread bloodshed in the streets - and shootings by drunken fans at Minnesota Vikings football games, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, those horror stories never materialized.

[/THREAD DRIFT]

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!! 

Papal Bull

Not necessarily connected to the thread topic, not necessarily thread drift. Just an interesting guardian link

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/01/russia-poland-nazis-secret-d...

Fidel

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15027]"Drang Nach Osten": What Triggered World War II?[/url] Fraction of British Elites Supported Third Reich's Eastern Expansionism

Quote:
World War II Was Unleashed by Adepts of Drang nach Osten

The information war over the history of World War II is at full swing, hence it makes sense to re-examine the covert schemes which the West and the shadowy organizations promoting the interests of its capital used to unleash it.

Quite obviously, expansion to the east and to the south has always been the key theme of Western geopolitics. The notorious Drang nach Osten was by no means Hitler's invention - it came into being much earlier, no later than in the epoch of Charles the Great (VIII century).

Searches for treasures in miraculous India and its colonization, the economically motivated conquest and extermination of oriental tribes and peoples were manifestations of the same eternal Drang nach Osten which used to be the legitimizing concept of the West's existence. Even America was discovered in the process of going east.

Quite logically, late XIX-early XX century geopolitical concepts and theories were also centered on the conquest of the territories stretching to the east.

Halford Mackinder, an Englishman, formulated the theory of global dominance as the theoretical foundation of Great Britain's colonial politics when he wrote: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland (Russia - L. Ivashov); Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island (Eurasia - L. Ivashov); Who rules the World Island commands the World."

The intention to dominate Russia is an obvious element of the vision. US theorist A. Mahan, in his turn, developed the strategy of strangling the continuous continental mass of the Russian Empire.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

[Thread drift] " ......some positive deterrent.... "  Perhaps but there is also negative deterrents such as from the perspective of a woman who is being harassed by strange drunk guys. That mental calculation works in a negative, 'Fuck that guy might have a gun or the blokes he's with may have guns." (Personal experience from a holiday in the US) So you mentally calculate. Then you notice that hey it sure looks like one of the guys is actually friggin packing.   Suddenly a situation where one or ones friends is trying to protect themselves  gets a whole lot more scary and intimidating. So what happens? You end up slinking away and the assholes get away with horrible behavior and it becomes their 'space'.  Me? I go home or in this case back to the hotel.      Now some might say well that's why you should have a gun to deter them in their own mental calculations. (Do those still happen rationally while shitfaced anyways?)  

Sorry but screw that as a female I have to deal with all sorts of crap and the last thing I want to add to already threatening situations is the prospects of guns and macho gun waving BS becoming part of it.   It sucks enough as it is.   For me and others that were there including some males (big guys too) that was a stark example of the difference between how the culture of 'guns' effect thinking and dealing with situations like that.  It totally stunk and it made me glad to live where I do.

edited to add:  I know that in Canada people carry concealed guns both legally and illegally. My point is though that on average it's less common. Not sure if I explained it that well but for me at least I feel a whole lot safer living with the assumption 'that most people don't' rather then 'likely a lot of people do.'

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sven wrote:
So, I guess my point would be that you could eliminate war if you would eliminate those human emotions which underlie war (and that's not likely -- or, to put it another way, it's about as likely as preventing humans from engaging in crimes). So, I think the only practical means of preventing war is for those who want to prevent war to be sufficiently armed -- and willing to use those arms -- to crush any country who wishes to engage in war.

The causes of WW2 cannot be reduced to basic human emotions. This is just a primitive, ideological argument. It fails to address the issue of those who benefitted from the war, and their role in that war, and so on. You're mixing up the issues of establishing instruments for global security with the causes of predatory wars.

And the world has changed, irrevocably, since Hitler unleashed the war. You're not taking that into account either.

William Shirer wrote:
Adolf Hitler is probably the last of the great adventurer-conquerers in the tradition of Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, and the Third Reich the last of the empires which set out on the path taken earlier by France, Rome and Macedonia. The curtain was rung down on that phase of history, at least, by the sudden invention of the hydrogen bomb, of the balistic missile and of rockets that can be aimed to hit the moon.

In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerers and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.

 

p. xii, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer, etc.

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

The causes of WW2 cannot be reduced to basic human emotions. This is just a primitive, ideological argument. It fails to address the issue of those who benefitted from the war, and their role in that war, and so on. You're mixing up the issues of establishing instruments for global security with the causes of predatory wars.

Well, one of those emotions that I cited (greed) certainly plays into the thinking of "those who benefitted from war" financially (or otherwise).

Question: What "instruments of global security" -- other than countervailing military power -- could be constructed to prevent war?

N.Beltov wrote:

And the world has changed, irrevocably, since Hitler unleashed the war. You're not taking that into account either.

I'm not limiting my definition of "war" to Napoleanic or Hitlerian types of war (massive global or continental wars that are fought over a period of years).  I'm talking about war generally (large and small).

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Question: What "instruments of global security" -- other than countervailing military power -- could be constructed to prevent war?

Universal disarmament, for starters. Certain kinds of weapons, like chemical, bacteriological and, of course, nuclear weapons have been controlled and should be controlled more. The means of resolving disputes doesn't change that there are disputes and conflicts. But our weapons of this new age of terrifying lethal gadgets, to use Shirer's phrase, require a new way of thinking. Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell outlined that, in broad strokes, in 1948.

Collective security. Very soon, no state, not even the United States which is in decline, will be able to dictate its will to the world. The bully lashes out, horrifically, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and so on, but it is like a cornered beast. I have no doubt of this whatsoever.

and so on. It's worth a study, for anyone.

Cueball Cueball's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Yes, mostly agree, with some caveats.

Cueball wrote:
So, in fact, I would say that having the "Allies" who were not actually allies in 1938 gang up on Germany in 1938, would be a historical possibility at the extreme extent of the counter-factual, since no one seemed to be quite sure who would land where in the geo-political power game. In hindsight it seems different, but at the time things were a lot less clear.

Indeed the Soviet and German deal on Poland really shows us how muddy these waters really were. In the light of the Molotov/Ribbentrop deal it is really hard to make a strong case that Stalin was going to step up to the plate on the Munich deal in accord with England.., to protect Czechoslovakia? In fact, I read somewhere that the Soviets were quite miffed at being left out of the diplomatic picture on Munich when Mussolini set up the meeting. Russia had indeed guaranteed the independence of Czechoslovakia, just as England had, but did not act on that treaty when the cards were down, either, and instead signed up for half of Poland.

In 1938 the Soviets were signed up to defend CzechSlovakia ... provided the French did. That's very important because, as it turned out, the French, along with the British, betrayed the Czechs in Munich and, as you've noted, left the Soviets out altogether.

Later, in August 1939, when the Soviets and Nazis formed the in/famous Molotoff-Von Ribbentrop Pact,  just befire the Nazi invasion of Poland, the Soviet-British/French negotiations had bogged down over the unwillingness of the Brits to discuss practical military details. The Brits were pissing around and wasting time, still looking to make the Nazis go east. The issue of Soviet troops using the territory of Poland and Romania to fight the Nazis could not be resolved; the Polish and Romanian regimes had made it clear that they would rather be overrun by the Nazis than use the Soviets in this way. Millions of Polish Jews and Poles in general suffered the consequences of that decision. Anyway, the Brits refused to intervene and tell either the Poles or the Romanians to go along.

There are all kinds of problems with the M-VR Pact, some exaggerated, but one of the great pluses for the Soviets was that they were not sucked into fighting a war on two fronts as the Nazis were to later on. Heaven and earth were moved to get the Nazis to go east - appeasement, the phony war, etc. - and these efforts were eventually successful.

Anyway, with all this I merely wished to underline that the sequence of events in 1938-1939, on the eve of the War, were not cast in stone and the world might well have been saved many, many lives if the alliance of the Allies had formed sooner rather than later as it did. It is a lesson the world has apparently not learned - especially with the very bellicose USA, which continues to participate in invasions and occupations on the basis of the most spurious, and criminal, reasoning. Millions of Iraqis and Afghan dead could attest to that were they still alive.

No doubt Sven would object to such conclusions but I really don't see where the flaw in the reasoning would be.

 

I would call that a generous estimation of Stalin's motives in this situation. Actually many of these details are new to me, so some kind of source would be nice, even Krushcheov makes no mention of them. That said, if true, I can see why it is that substantive independent Soviet troop movements in Poland would be a non-starter, since the Soviet Polish war was fresh in everyones minds. If it is actually true that Stalin's intentions regarding Poland were as benign as you say they are, I would be hard pressed to defend that notion since the Soviets had many years to hand back the territory they negotiated with Ribbentrop in 1939, and they never returned it.

In fact those borders stand today between Ukraine and Belloryussia, and modern day Poland.

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Question: What "instruments of global security" -- other than countervailing military power -- could be constructed to prevent war?

Universal disarmament, for starters. Certain kinds of weapons, like chemical, bacteriological and, of course, nuclear weapons have been controlled and should be controlled more. The means of resolving disputes doesn't change that there are disputes and conflicts. But our weapons of this new age of terrifying lethal gadgets, to use Shirer's phrase, require a new way of thinking. Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell outlined that, in broad strokes, in 1948.

Collective security. Very soon, no state, not even the United States which is in decline, will be able to dictate its will to the world. The bully lashes out, horrifically, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and so on, but it is like a cornered beast. I have no doubt of this whatsoever.

and so on. It's worth a study, for anyone.

Your answer really didn't answer my question, unless you believe that universal disarmament will somehow also prevent a rogue country from subsequently rearming.

And what does "collective security" mean if not an effective multi-national military force (i.e., not the U.N.) that is of a sufficient size to crush a rogue country's aggressive aims?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

A rogue and uncivilized country that is hardly "a fit, worthy and equal member of a league of civilized nations" that Winnie was talking about when talking up the advantages of the imposition of the fascist boot in Ethiopia: mustard gas the whole bit. Yes, very much like that. Well of course Winnie was a fan of Mr. Mussolini, saying a year later that:

Quote:
"It would be a dangerous folly for the British people to underrate the enduring position in world history which Mussolini will hold; or the amazing qualities of courage, comprehension, self-control and perseverance which he exemplifies."

If the truth be told, you Sven are the one who is appeasing the forces of outright agression and tyrrany, just like Churchill did of Mussolini when sanctioning Italian agression against the heathen rogue state of Abyssinia, in the name of the self-same higher order of "civilization" to which you like to believe you belong. Well, I hate to break it to you but you don't.

 

Frmrsldr

Sven wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Greed, lust, envy, etc., are emotions that are part of the human psychology.

"War" is not. War, unlike the above emotions, is an activity. A bad habit, if you will - polluting in the present or the "institution" or "culture" of slavery in the past.

We've (nearly) eradicated the historical slavery (the not Marxist "wage" slave variety, I mean). Don't you agree with me that war can eventually be eliminated just like, eventually, pollution and human caused global environmental degredation?

These are hopes that motivate my actions.

That's a good distinction.  Although, greed, lust, fear, egomania, xenophobia, etc. are all root causes of war.

So, I guess my point would be that you could eliminate war if you would eliminate those human emotions which underlie war (and that's not likely -- or, to put it another way, it's about as likely as preventing humans from engaging in crimes).  So, I think the only practical means of preventing war is for those who want to prevent war to be sufficiently armed -- and willing to use those arms -- to crush any country who wishes to engage in war.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

People have free will. We can decide how we will react to our anger, greed, envy, jelousy, etc. Racism is not an emotion, it is a learned set of beliefs that can be unlearned (through information and education).

Your argument is the same one that is used to explain the Afghan war.

Has anyone read this lately?

                                                           CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

- to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

- to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

- to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

- to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations...

Frmrsldr

remind wrote:

Really, upon thinking about the thread title and the conceptual framework being built by, I must say it is ugly.

Terrorism, as a word today, is used almost exclusively for those who are Muslim.

Therefore, using it in a contextual value with Germany, it breeds the notion that Muslims are committing, or will commit, genocide against millions, just as Germany did.

To talk about German terrorism or Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism is racist. When I first saw this thread title, I flagged it as offensive and stated that the sarcasm falls flat and that a better title would be "70th Anniversary of Nazi Terrorism..." Or better still "70th Anniversary of the Global Terrorism commonly referred to as the Second World War."

remind remind's picture

I heartily concur.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

 

 

Cueball wrote:
I would call that a generous estimation of Stalin's motives in this situation. Actually many of these details are new to me, so some kind of source would be nice, even Krushcheov makes no mention of them. That said, if true, I can see why it is that substantive independent Soviet troop movements in Poland would be a non-starter, since the Soviet Polish war was fresh in everyones minds. If it is actually true that Stalin's intentions regarding Poland were as benign as you say they are, I would be hard pressed to defend that notion since the Soviets had many years to hand back the territory they negotiated with Ribbentrop in 1939, and they never returned it.

In fact those borders stand today between Ukraine and Belloryussia, and modern day Poland.

This issue of being able to freely travel across Poland in order to fight the Nazis also came up in the failed negotiations between the Finns and the Soviets prior to the "Winter War" ... in regard to being able to defend Leningrad. To make a long story short, the Finns would have nothing to do with the Soviet offer of temporarily trading territory and the war took place shortly thereafter. AFAIK, the Finns got their territory back after WW2.

I can't address the postwar establishment of borders around Poland, since I know bugger all about that,  but the sources for information on Soviet-British negotiations include Shirer's book and some Soviet sources as follows:

1. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer

2. Social Sciences, No 1, 1985, USSR Academy of Sciences Quarterly (40th Anniversary Edition)

3. Recalling the Past for the Sake of the Future: the Causes, Results and Lessons of WW 2, Novosti Press Agency

4. The Winter War, Mikhail Semiryaga

5. Lessons of the Second Front, Alexander Borisov

6. Our Way to Victory, Novosti, (this was my source for the table I reproduced in this thread on the prisoners and victims of the Nazi concentration camps)

7. Defeat of Militarist Japan, Institute of the Far East, USSR Academy of Science, etc.

8. USSR-USA: Allies in World War II, Alex Orlov et al

Incidently, the Soviet sources are fairly well footnoted and they tended to make a habit of quoting Western sources for some of their key claims. This was, and is, more convincing to an audience reading English.

al-Qa'bong

Frmrsldr wrote:

 

To talk about German terrorism or Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism is racist. When I first saw this thread title, I flagged it as offensive and stated that the sarcasm falls flat and that a better title would be "70th Anniversary of Nazi Terrorism..." Or better still "70th Anniversary of the Global Terrorism commonly referred to as the Second World War."

It seems that Sven isn't alone here in helping to make "terrorism" a useless word.

 

Quote:
I agree with you (see my most recent post above) that in order to prevent a war a collective of peaceful nations must have the military strength -- and the will to use it -- to stop a country (any country) from engaging in war.

 

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the last time a raving warmonger sent his hordes into an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, instead of a collective of peaceful nations rising to confront the invader, we saw the abject spectacle of a "coalition of the willing" eager to abet the war criminal.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:
 If it is actually true that Stalin's intentions regarding Poland were as benign as you say they are, I would be hard pressed to defend that notion since the Soviets had many years to hand back the territory they negotiated with Ribbentrop in 1939, and they never returned it

Molotov-Ribbentrop II was violated by both sides within several weeks of its signing. And Stalin's intentions were to move the line of defence west by the same layer of countries liberated from the Nazis. The Soviets used all those millions of dead Soviet soldiers and citizens and massive destruction of public property as justification. In Russia, they are still weary of fascism and "never again" is taken to heart by millions still. Neither Churchill nor FDR argued very hard against Soviet expansion at Potsdam. US Republicans were plenty ticked off about it, but they were still sitting on the sidelines at that point since the big crash.

Cueball Cueball's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

I can't address the postwar establishment of borders around Poland, since I know bugger all about that,  but the sources for information on Soviet-British negotiations include Shirer's book and some Soviet sources as follows:

One merely has to look at the map of the Soviet Union after WWII and the map drawn up during the Molotov Ribbentrop pact to see that the Soviet Union kept all of the Polish territories awarded to them by their deal with Hitler, and added these to their Beloryussian and Ukrainian repiblics. The Soviet Union kept those territories until it was disbanded and they indeed form the present day border between the former Soviet Republics and Poland.

They had plenty of time to hand it back. They did not.

I don't put a lot of faith in Shirer, I have read it, and agree with most historians that it is more journalistic than historical. There are a lot more recent books that are less influenced by the politics of the era.

Fidel

Those shifty, ssssneaky Russians.

Sven Sven's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

To talk about German terrorism or Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism is racist. When I first saw this thread title, I flagged it as offensive and stated that the sarcasm falls flat and that a better title would be "70th Anniversary of Nazi Terrorism..." Or better still "70th Anniversary of the Global Terrorism commonly referred to as the Second World War."

Of course, you raised no similar objection to American terrorism in [url=this">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/64th-anniversary... thread[/url].

A curious omission for someone who appears so passionate about the issue.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:

Those shifty, ssssneaky Russians.

 

Hardly. They invaded the territory in 21 explicitly to win those territories. Their ambitions were out in the open, very clearly right from the foundation of the state. These were the territories lost to the Germans when they signed their peace deal in 1917. Territories indeed awarded to the Czar when Germany and Russia first decided that Poland was an unecessary feature in European cartography in the 18th century.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the last time a raving warmonger sent his hordes into an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, instead of a collective of peaceful nations rising to confront the invader, we saw the abject spectacle of a "coalition of the willing" eager to abet the war criminal.

It's a nice example to work with.  Let's assume that the U.S. agreed to disarm, and in fact did so, along with the rest of the world, but then, ten years later, rearmed (what could stop them or any other country from doing so?).

It's just incredibly naive (kumbayaish, really) to think that an agreement to disarm would, in fact, end war for all time.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Fidel

Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Those shifty, ssssneaky Russians.

 

Hardly. They invaded the territory in 21 explicitly to win those territories. Their ambitions were out in the open, very clearly right from the foundation of the state. These were the territories lost to the Germans when they signed their peace deal in 1917.

The Poles claimed victory in defending from Russian expansion. The Russians claimed victory for repelling Polish expansion into Ukraine and Belarus. But I hardly think the Russians were attempting to expand a Tsarist empire at a time when they were being surrounded by somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 international armies and mercenaries, including Poles and Germans, Americans, a few Canadians, Brits, Japan, Italy, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, etc There were Polish and Ukrainian mercenaries who even attempted to lay siege to Moscva and were turned back.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Lening and Stalin after him explicitly followed a policy of incorporating ALL of the territories that comprised the Czarist Russian empire into the Soviet Union, wether or not the people there objected. Eastern Poland is just one more example.

Fidel

What did they expect, ticker tape parades and sweeping social programs? They should have fought harder against the Nazis.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Well, I suppose it ought to be mentioned that around 660,000 Soviet Servicemen died for the liberation of Poland from the Nazis. I don't know how anyone can call that anything but a vast improvement over Nazi rule.

Just look at the figures up this thread: Stutthof, Gross-Rosen, Majdanek, Plaszow, and Auschwitz-Brzezinka.

Source: Our Way to Victory, "Liberation" by Edvin Polyanovsky, p. 77.

Fidel

Yanks became a national security state in 1947, and no blitz of mainland USA ever occurred. The Soviets moved the military line of defence westward and pointed to all those zeros in their WW II body count. They werent fucking around anymore, and old Churchy and FDR didnt say too much about it either.

Frmrsldr

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
I agree with you (see my most recent post above) that in order to prevent a war a collective of peaceful nations must have the military strength -- and the will to use it -- to stop a country (any country) from engaging in war.

 

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the last time a raving warmonger sent his hordes into an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, instead of a collective of peaceful nations rising to confront the invader, we saw the abject spectacle of a "coalition of the willing" eager to abet the war criminal.

This happened because the U.S.A. decided to do this on its own outside of the U.N.

Fidel

The Sovs should have thrown up a lacey curtain, and rolled out the willkommen mat for NATO fascists planning to nuzzle up to the borders, kinda like theyre doing today. There were only what, 30 or 40 million dead Sovietskys by 1945? Talk about paranoid delusionals and overkill wit da tanks and stuff.

Cueball Cueball's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Well, I suppose it ought to be mentioned that around 660,000 Soviet Servicemen died for the liberation of Poland from the Nazis. I don't know how anyone can call that anything but a vast improvement over Nazi rule.

Now you are justifying occupation by a foreign power on the basis that it was superior to what came before. Not to far back up this thread you were saying that the Soviet Union could have decisely weighed in against Hitler and stopped Nazi rule over Czechoslovakia if France and Britain had complied. I submit that Stalin had that chance in 1939 in Poland to do the same when he could have said no to Ribbentrop's proposal. He could have said, for instance, "the territorial integrity of Poland is inviolable, and if you invade, not only will you be at war with Poland, France and England, but us as well.... so piss off."

They could have done their bit to prevent the Nazi rule in Poland before it ever happened. The post war "liberation" is cold comfort under those circumstances.

Instead they said: "Poland? Who needs Poland? We will take our slice. Thanks! Now what about your friends the Finns... Estonia, Lativia, Lithuania and this little bit on the Black sea the Romanians call Bessarabia?"

It pretty hard to read into this story some particularly pristine moral motive about saving the people of Poland from Fascism, on principle.

Frmrsldr

Sven wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

To talk about German terrorism or Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism is racist. When I first saw this thread title, I flagged it as offensive and stated that the sarcasm falls flat and that a better title would be "70th Anniversary of Nazi Terrorism..." Or better still "70th Anniversary of the Global Terrorism commonly referred to as the Second World War."

Of course, you raised no similar objection to American terrorism in [url=this">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/64th-anniversary... thread[/url].

A curious omission for someone who appears so passionate about the issue.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

You're right. Mine was a failure of omission. I should have posted a thread there saying that the title was racist and should have been changed to "64th Anniversary of Nuclear Terrorism: Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Sometimes I get a little too exasperated over our (collective) lack of progress when it comes to ridding the world of war and the instruments of war - in this case, nuclear weapons.

al-Qa'bong

Sven wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the last time a raving warmonger sent his hordes into an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, instead of a collective of peaceful nations rising to confront the invader, we saw the abject spectacle of a "coalition of the willing" eager to abet the war criminal.

It's a nice example to work with.  Let's assume that the U.S. agreed to disarm, and in fact did so, along with the rest of the world, but then, ten years later, rearmed (what could stop them or any other country from doing so?).

It's just incredibly naive (kumbayaish, really) to think that an agreement to disarm would, in fact, end war for all time.

 

I can understand why you'd want to keep evading the implications of what I'm saying, but when did I ever mention disarming? 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Hell! He is even evading the implications of what he is saying in his opening post. The whole thing is evasion. This thread should more rightly be called "bomb Iran for the sake of the Poles!"

Fidel

And even, what's to stop the USA from arming another leader of an oil-rich desert nation,  and then making with the shocking and awing on live TV after the former CIA pointman has a tiff with crazy Maggie and George senior, junior, or whichever crazy theyve shoved into power at some future date? Tragedy the first time and farce the next.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I can understand why you'd want to keep evading the implications of what I'm saying, but when did I ever mention disarming? 

You didn't and my comments should have been clearer.  Others here have argued that disarmament is the solution to preventing future wars.  I thought your example was worth discussing...but the rest of my comments were really directed at those who seem to think that disarmament is a magical solution to prevent war.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Take if from the experts, people like Boris Shaposhnikov, father of the Soviet STAVKA. He said: "Mobilization is war." Obviously, the opposite, demobilization or what we would call "disarmament" today is the opposite.

Fidel

Sven wrote:

You didn't and my comments should have been clearer.  Others here have argued that disarmament is the solution to preventing future wars.  I thought your example was worth discussing...but the rest of my comments were really directed at those who seem to think that disarmament is a magical solution to prevent war

What about strengthening, and democratizing the UN? I think Keynes' financial disarmament will have to occur before or around the same time the world's major weapons exporters and dealers are put out of business. Socialists in post world war one Europe called for heavy taxation of those who profited by the war. I think when you have countries where their economies are largely based on weapons manufacturing and export, and with the obscene profit margins theyve made all along, we will see more war. That was a near quote from a documentary on the military-industrial complex. In his memoirs, Nixon appaarently said warfiteering is the scourge of humanity, and something has to be done about it. 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Quote:
I submit that Stalin had that chance in 1939 in Poland to do the same when he could have said no to Ribbentrop's proposal. He could have said, for instance, "the territorial integrity of Poland is inviolable, and if you invade, not only will you be at war with Poland, France and England, but us as well.... so piss off."

The British knew very well that the Soviets and the Nazis were negotiating. It was announced, beforehand, both in Berlin and in Moscow. The result, therefore, was no surprise.

But the Brits dragged their ass anyway, and refused, as I have mentioned, putting any pressure on the Poles to allow the Soviets to fight the Nazis on Polish territory. The British refused to discuss practical military matters in general in their talks, also with the Soviets at the same time as the Molotoff-Von Ribbentrop talks, and thereby take some of the blame for not having the Allies together as they were later in the war.

What role, in amy case, did the Brits play in the Nazi attack on Poland? Squat, that's what. Cheap talk. It was the Soviets who were , practically speaking, going to have to do the fighting. The Soviets, or should I say Stalin, was highly suspicious of the Brits and the French who had, ALREADY, sold out the Czechs in 1938 and left the Soviets out of the Munich negotiations altogether. Stalin was a paranoid leader to begin with, as I think we all know, and got his own deal with the Nazis.

Churchill, the British PM later in the war, actually made public statements to the effect that the Non-Aggression Treaty was a clever move by the Stalin regime.

The Soviets also were negotiating with Japan, or did so shortly thereafter, and got an agreement with the Japanese militarist regime not unlike the one with the Nazis. They were keenly aware that the western countries longed to see the Soviets put in the position  of having to fight a two-front war.

Anyway, it's not my wish to try to completely justify that pact. That' s impossible. Rather, simply, that from a military point of view, in which one capitalist state was seen as sinister as another, a treaty that directed the Nazis towards fighting other capitalist countries was a smart move by Stalin's regime. It goes without saying that Hitler's intentions to get lebensraum in the east - which he had made clear to the world in Mein Kampf back in the 1920's - was inevitably forthcoming and Stalin's ostrich-like response to this cost many lives and made the Soviets less prepared for the attack of Operation Barbarossa when it finally did come in June of 1941.

al-Qa'bong

Sven wrote:

 

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I can understand why you'd want to keep evading the implications of what I'm saying, but when did I ever mention disarming? 

 You didn't and my comments should have been clearer.  Others here have argued that disarmament is the solution to preventing future wars.

 OK, so why not quote them instead of me?

 

Quote:
I thought your example was worth discussing...

 

 Great,; I'm looking forward to your response.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
first. We need to change our thought and behavior patterns

 

...and the nature of our species...

Frmrsldr

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
first. We need to change our thought and behavior patterns

 

...and the nature of our species...

Smoking is a behavior pattern (some) people are able to change. Our ability to change our bad habits is the philosophy behind behavioral psychology and (for example) anger management. Buddhism believes that we can improve ourselves through good thoughts, good words and good actions.

It all boils down to how one views human nature and where one stands on the free will versus determinism debate.

Cueball Cueball's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Anyway, it's not my wish to try to completely justify that pact. That' s impossible. Rather, simply, that from a military point of view, in which one capitalist state was seen as sinister as another, a treaty that directed the Nazis towards fighting other capitalist countries was a smart move by Stalin's regime. It goes without saying that Hitler's intentions to get lebensraum in the east - which he had made clear to the world in Mein Kampf back in the 1920's - was inevitably forthcoming and Stalin's ostrich-like response to this cost many lives and made the Soviets less prepared for the attack of Operation Barbarossa when it finally did come in June of 1941.

Right. So, it is quite clear that all of the major contestants on the "Allied" side made decisions on the basis of overarching "real-politick", not moral considerations as to what was best for Czechs and Poles.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
first. We need to change our thought and behavior patterns

 

...and the nature of our species...

Precisely.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Appeals to the inexonerable force of "nature" are a denial of intelligence, and a cop out most often used as a justification for paranoia. xenophobia and greed. The roots of the Second World War in a nutshell, as anyone who has read Hitlers tawdry pesudoscientific diatribes can see.

Webgear

Canada enters the war on 10 Sept 1939.

Fidel

Leonid Ivashov wrote:

Quote:
Upon returning to London from Munich Nenille Chamberlain told his countrymen that he brought peace from his trip. The loud statement actually disguised the following two facts which were of great importance to London

1. Hitler's military might was now turned to the east, towards the USSR.

2. A declaration was signed with Hitler expressing the wish of the British and German nations to never again fight each other.

On December 6, 1938 French foreign minister G. Bonnet and German foreign minister J. Ribbentrop signed a similar French-German declaration.

The Soviet leadership could not but be concerned over the developments which appeared to be a collusion victimizing not only Czechoslovakia but potentially the USSR as well. Moreover, Chamberlain said that Germany and Great Britain were the two pillars of European peace and anti-communism and thus had to peacefully overcome their disagreements. He said explicitly that it would be possible to find a solution in European politics acceptable for all parties except for Russia. Was it not an instigation of Hitler's aggression east at the expense of the security of the USSR?

The question arising naturally is: was it possible to prevent World War II? I am sure that the possibility existed and resurfaced a number of times. The first chance was blown at the time of Hitler's Anschluss of Austria. Even Mussolini objected to the audacious move, but Great Britain and France somehow remained unperturbed. Not surprisingly, Hitler saw the absence of reaction from their side as a sign of weakness and a green light to his politics.

Stalin believed it would be a war among fascist nations after observing how the democratic west allowed Franco, with the aid of Hitler and Mussolini, GM, Ford, Studebaker etc, to overthrow Spanish democracy. Meanwhile the west knew full well Hitler was violating Versaille Treaty by re-arming Germany for war. The Brits knew. They had spies all over Europe telling them what was happening. 

Sven Sven's picture

Fidel wrote:

Meanwhile the west knew full well Hitler was violating Versaille Treaty by re-arming Germany for war. 

Both the French and the Brits had their heads in the sand starting in the mid-1930s.  If they would have acted then, they could have crushed Hitler's regime and avoided WWII.  Instead, they chose to appeasement -- wishfully thinking that Hitler would stop after snapping up "just one more piece" of Europe.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Fidel

I think the Brits under Chamberlain blew it big time with the first chance: the Oster conspirators who tried earnestly to warn London that Hitler was a madman bent on starting war in Europe. They pleaded with Chamberlain and described how there were people in place in Berlin waiting for a signal from the Brits to assassinate Hitler and his closest allies while the German army was still in re-armament mode. The green light from London never came, and the conspirators were rounded up and beheaded after the Nazis' kangaroo trial. They were identified and rounded up, it's said, not long after Churchill wrote a letter to Berlin the contents of which have never been revealed.

Pages