4 ms·

>The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination

by vba616 5y ago

>The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?

aix1 5y ago
For those unfamiliar with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... (esp. the Secret Protocol and the subsequent invasion of Poland).
- vba616 5y ago
  Something I ran across while browsing related pages that I hadn't thought about, is the assertion that Germany got a huge amount of imported resources from the Soviets before they invaded that enabled them to engage in the devastating invasion, as well as carrying on the war with others.
  - the_af 5y ago
    The assertion is dubious. I mean, yes, Germany imported resources from the Soviet Union. No surprise there. Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".
    - vba616 5y ago
      Which is why the peaceful trading before the invasion miiiiiight have been a miscalculation by Stalin that led to millions of deaths. Germany invaded because they needed resources that they couldn't get elsewhere. Letting them bootstrap that into the invasion, among all of the mistakes that were made in WWII, seems like it might have been one of the top ones.
      - the_af 5y ago
        Everyone made mistakes immediately before WW2. Some in the West even liked Hitler. Stalin sought support from the West and was denied; partially the reason for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The British also made mistakes, and let's not forget the French. None of this detracts from the fact the Soviet Union was ome of the biggest victims in WW2 and that they were traumatized by this.
roenxi 5y ago
Eh, that isn't so extreme. The most unusual there is that this plan to partition a country didn't have a British or French representative at the negotiating table. The Soviet Union was a disaster, and certainly the they did a lot of things to other countries that they shouldn't have. But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
- vba616 5y ago
  Is it false to say that Germany only was able to invade because of their ability to import Soviet resources due to the pact?
  - the_af 5y ago
    Yes, I would say it's false. It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. Germany was gearing for war against the Soviet Union, it was the sine qua non of Hitler's plan, which he even detailed in writing years before.
    - vba616 5y ago
      >Yes, I would say it's false. Have you any comments to make about these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_A... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commerci... "there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies" >It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. How? As you say, Germany was gearing for war, how does that contradict the Soviet Union supplying them with the means?
      - the_af 5y ago
        Let's step back a bit. What are you trying to say? That because the Soviet Union traded raw materials in exchange for knowledge and tech, then they weren't victims even though 20 million of their people were killed in WW2 after the Nazis invaded? Because that's the subthread you're replying to. The USSR was traumatized by war with Nazi Germany and it definitely informed their following geopolitical decisions, so that their territory would never be invaded again. It seems you're trying to contest this with some weird tangent.
justsomehnguy 5y ago
> started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. If 'IIRC' then you should at least check Wikipedia on events what preceded Molotov-Ribbentrop. It surely wasn't a a great sunny day when Molotov called Ribbentrop and said "Hey, Josha! I have a great idea this morning! Let's split Poland!"
sozforex 5y ago
Well, if examined history starts in 1939, then agreement looks really bad. If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm. Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders). Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders). Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
- the_af 5y ago
  > Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland. Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland: From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War: > "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique" Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian. His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
  - sozforex 5y ago
    Oh, I've replied to a reply to your message. I think what you've wrote is closer to my own perception than the reply to your message that I have replied to. Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way. I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified. On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many. And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941). Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours). I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?). Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)
lr1970 5y ago
> World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. Why not start counting WWII from the Munich Agreement [0] of September 1938 when Britain and France gave Hitler a go ahead to occupy Czechoslovakia? This capitulation by Western powers greatly expanded hitler's appetite craving for more. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

by vba616 5y ago

aix1 5y ago

For those unfamiliar with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... (esp. the Secret Protocol and the subsequent invasion of Poland).

vba616 5y ago
Something I ran across while browsing related pages that I hadn't thought about, is the assertion that Germany got a huge amount of imported resources from the Soviets before they invaded that enabled them to engage in the devastating invasion, as well as carrying on the war with others.
- the_af 5y ago
  The assertion is dubious. I mean, yes, Germany imported resources from the Soviet Union. No surprise there. Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".
  - vba616 5y ago
    Which is why the peaceful trading before the invasion miiiiiight have been a miscalculation by Stalin that led to millions of deaths. Germany invaded because they needed resources that they couldn't get elsewhere. Letting them bootstrap that into the invasion, among all of the mistakes that were made in WWII, seems like it might have been one of the top ones.
    - the_af 5y ago
      Everyone made mistakes immediately before WW2. Some in the West even liked Hitler. Stalin sought support from the West and was denied; partially the reason for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The British also made mistakes, and let's not forget the French. None of this detracts from the fact the Soviet Union was ome of the biggest victims in WW2 and that they were traumatized by this.

roenxi 5y ago

Eh, that isn't so extreme. The most unusual there is that this plan to partition a country didn't have a British or French representative at the negotiating table. The Soviet Union was a disaster, and certainly the they did a lot of things to other countries that they shouldn't have. But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.

vba616 5y ago
Is it false to say that Germany only was able to invade because of their ability to import Soviet resources due to the pact?
- the_af 5y ago
  Yes, I would say it's false. It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. Germany was gearing for war against the Soviet Union, it was the sine qua non of Hitler's plan, which he even detailed in writing years before.
  - vba616 5y ago
    >Yes, I would say it's false. Have you any comments to make about these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_A... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commerci... "there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies" >It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. How? As you say, Germany was gearing for war, how does that contradict the Soviet Union supplying them with the means?
    - the_af 5y ago
      Let's step back a bit. What are you trying to say? That because the Soviet Union traded raw materials in exchange for knowledge and tech, then they weren't victims even though 20 million of their people were killed in WW2 after the Nazis invaded? Because that's the subthread you're replying to. The USSR was traumatized by war with Nazi Germany and it definitely informed their following geopolitical decisions, so that their territory would never be invaded again. It seems you're trying to contest this with some weird tangent.

justsomehnguy 5y ago

> started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. If 'IIRC' then you should at least check Wikipedia on events what preceded Molotov-Ribbentrop. It surely wasn't a a great sunny day when Molotov called Ribbentrop and said "Hey, Josha! I have a great idea this morning! Let's split Poland!"

sozforex 5y ago

Well, if examined history starts in 1939, then agreement looks really bad. If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm. Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders). Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders). Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.

the_af 5y ago
> Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland. Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland: From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War: > "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique" Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian. His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
- sozforex 5y ago
  Oh, I've replied to a reply to your message. I think what you've wrote is closer to my own perception than the reply to your message that I have replied to. Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way. I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified. On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many. And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941). Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours). I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?). Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)

lr1970 5y ago

> World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. Why not start counting WWII from the Munich Agreement [0] of September 1938 when Britain and France gave Hitler a go ahead to occupy Czechoslovakia? This capitulation by Western powers greatly expanded hitler's appetite craving for more. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement