3 ms·

('gdy' is a karma 38 account, posting most of a day later.) The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact has been officially acknowledged by Russia since 1989. It is hardly hon

by berntb 13y ago

('gdy' is a karma 38 account, posting most of a day later.) The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact has been officially acknowledged by Russia since 1989. It is hardly honest to argue the innocence of USSR by blaming the victims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact "the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region."

gdy 13y ago
Somehow you've managed to completely ignore my point. Maybe this will help: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/24/russia.politics http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/24/russia.politics
- berntb 13y ago
  Uh, no. That was about tactical considerations inside Downing Street at a specific point in time for a subset of the invaded countries!? (The access to this was from spying, not from signed documents with Soviet.) And if the breaking of the pact was so expected, why was Soviet so utterly unprepared with so much of the air force etc standing inside bombing range? And so on. As for your claim of irrelevance: I argued against your excuses for invading and occupying countries. As a Western European, it makes me nervous to see these criminal attitudes in modern day Russia. If you want to make all countries within 1000 km of Russia to join NATO, you do a good job. (Except China, which really ought to occupy your interest more...)
  - gdy 13y ago
    Nope. This Downing Street's assesment of occupying Baltic countries validates my argument that it made sense from the strategic point of view. The same logic is perfectly applicable to the Poland occupation. Criminal or not, you do what you've got to do to survive. As a Western European you are probably okey with the idea of 10 or 20 more million of barbaric Russians dying as the result of not extending our borders to the West, but somehow I can't sympathize with that ;) Moreover, neither should you, for the war could've been lost completely. Unless your grandparents fought on the Nazi's side, that is.
    - berntb 13y ago
      You didn't touch the other expansions -- Finland etc. So you seriously argue that it is a moral defense to invade countries and do anything, if it makes strategic sense. And you yourself decide how threatened you are... with a review generations later. Shudder. You're really making a very, very good argument for joining NATO before we find out how non-democratic Russia will end up being. :-( Considering art/math/etc, I would never call Russians of today "barbaric" so no straw man attacks please. (I implied that you spread typical propaganda to create external enemies for a thieving junta. That is scary from a big neighbor.) And lots of people were murdered, raped, tortured and in general got their lives destroyed/enslaved by Soviet outside Soviet far after the WW, so don't play the loss card from 70+ years ago after one dictator turned on another. Especially when the Soviet dictator got more citizens killed than the war (hunger, shootings, etc). I really hope the poor Russian population don't get another 1984. :-(
      - gdy 13y ago
        Sure, Finland too) Do you shudder when you think about democratic USA invading Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from passing WMD to terrorists sometime in the future? I'm afraid right now it is you who is creating an external enemy (out of modern Russia). Can't argue about 'thieving' part, though ;) How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? Anyway, giving up the buffer countries on the western border after a devasting war had just ended would've been stupid from the strategic point of view.

by berntb 13y ago

gdy 13y ago

Somehow you've managed to completely ignore my point. Maybe this will help: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/24/russia.politics http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/24/russia.politics

berntb 13y ago
Uh, no. That was about tactical considerations inside Downing Street at a specific point in time for a subset of the invaded countries!? (The access to this was from spying, not from signed documents with Soviet.) And if the breaking of the pact was so expected, why was Soviet so utterly unprepared with so much of the air force etc standing inside bombing range? And so on. As for your claim of irrelevance: I argued against your excuses for invading and occupying countries. As a Western European, it makes me nervous to see these criminal attitudes in modern day Russia. If you want to make all countries within 1000 km of Russia to join NATO, you do a good job. (Except China, which really ought to occupy your interest more...)
- gdy 13y ago
  Nope. This Downing Street's assesment of occupying Baltic countries validates my argument that it made sense from the strategic point of view. The same logic is perfectly applicable to the Poland occupation. Criminal or not, you do what you've got to do to survive. As a Western European you are probably okey with the idea of 10 or 20 more million of barbaric Russians dying as the result of not extending our borders to the West, but somehow I can't sympathize with that ;) Moreover, neither should you, for the war could've been lost completely. Unless your grandparents fought on the Nazi's side, that is.
  - berntb 13y ago
    You didn't touch the other expansions -- Finland etc. So you seriously argue that it is a moral defense to invade countries and do anything, if it makes strategic sense. And you yourself decide how threatened you are... with a review generations later. Shudder. You're really making a very, very good argument for joining NATO before we find out how non-democratic Russia will end up being. :-( Considering art/math/etc, I would never call Russians of today "barbaric" so no straw man attacks please. (I implied that you spread typical propaganda to create external enemies for a thieving junta. That is scary from a big neighbor.) And lots of people were murdered, raped, tortured and in general got their lives destroyed/enslaved by Soviet outside Soviet far after the WW, so don't play the loss card from 70+ years ago after one dictator turned on another. Especially when the Soviet dictator got more citizens killed than the war (hunger, shootings, etc). I really hope the poor Russian population don't get another 1984. :-(
    - gdy 13y ago
      Sure, Finland too) Do you shudder when you think about democratic USA invading Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from passing WMD to terrorists sometime in the future? I'm afraid right now it is you who is creating an external enemy (out of modern Russia). Can't argue about 'thieving' part, though ;) How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? Anyway, giving up the buffer countries on the western border after a devasting war had just ended would've been stupid from the strategic point of view.