"My God, there is so much text and practically no sound thoughts. Only
a dirty, stupid lie mixed up with absolutely brutish cynicism. "
Stop asserting it and start PROVING it so.
Go on. I'll wait.
"You are an unmatched pig and sh*t."
No, I'm not.
And the fact that you willfully ignore the likes of Neo-Nazis, the North Korean "press" (or alternatively try and claim that a single commenter on the internet is worse than the likes of Goebbels) , indicates what your real agenda. And it is to peddle lies.
"To explain this to you, I need several posts.:
This should be good...
"Before writing delusional kilometer monologues, you did not stop at least to
more or less study the material. "
I absolutely did.
Which is why I pointed out where the Red Army ACTUALLY was in June of 1944, and that was NOT on the road to Berlin.
In fact, I even pointed to an official website endorsed by the Russian government, featuring the testimony of Soviet WWII survivors, which graphed the course of the Eastern Front (or "Great Patriotic War") Day By Day.
That's what I used to bash Red Allover's head because he claimed that the Red Army was somehow already on the road to Berlin by the time the Western Allies crossed the Channel, when in fact Bagration would not open until more than two weeks after D-Day and it would not be the start of the final march.
"27 million Soviet citizens perished exclusively in the Great Patriotic War (the so-called Soviet-German war of 1941-45 in Russia):"
In practice, the numbers vary, though 27 million is a decent estimate between the brutality of the NSDAP and the Reich.
"9 million combat losses and 18 million civilians "
Actually that is more dubious. Since you're forgetting the fact that official Soviet doctrine after about 1941 (coupled with Axis barbarity against civilians) led to the rise of the Partisans, who suffered grievous losses in their rear area fighting and who are both Combat Losses and Civilians.
So already your accounting is questionable. Especially since the USSR didn't bother to make a comprehensive census for just shy of two decades.
27 Million is a decent enough figure as it is, though frankly it needs at least half a million chopped off to represent the losses in the completely avoidable Continuation War.
"In terms of the actual magnitude of the losses and their attribution, we're limited to
killed by German occupiers."
No, we're not.
I hate to tell you this, but there were a lot more occupiers than the Germans, chowderhead. Though the Germans were unsurprising both the most numerous BY far and the most inhumane to the civilian population and POWs. That still doesn't change the fact that we have to tally up hundreds of thousands of people put to death by groups like the Romanian Army as they marched East, and the atrocities of the Soviet government against its' own people, such as the execution of entire prison camps to avoid them falling into the hands of the Axis.
(Try reading Solzhenitsyn for a moment).
"This does not include losses from-"
I'm going to add in a brief note: And You Know This How?
Because the official Soviet sources are muddled at best, up to and including contradictory estimates of war dead (and sometimes featuring deaths for individual battles like the conquering of Metropolitan Berlin that almost entirely consume the official casualty figures given for the larger action, like the Berlin Strategic Offensive..
This is a bit akin to if USN records said that 30,000 people died in the conflicts for the Solomons but 28,000 were killed in and around Guadalcanal alone.)
Add that to the findings of pretty hefty accounting errors (such as that discovered by Beevor and Solonin that about 400 soldiers originally marked as war dead from the "Great Patriotic War" were actually killed in earlier skirmishes on the border between the USSR and Japan's puppet states).
Now moving on.
"This does not include losses from- Soviet-Japanese border conflicts on Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin Gol River, the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-40, the return of Western Belarus and
Western Ukraine captured by Poland, the return of Bessarabia and
Bukovina captured by Romania, the accession of the Baltic republics to
the USSR. "
Firstly, the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts were not limited to Lake Khasan and Nomohan. Those were just the single largest such clashes by far, but they still featured thousands of Soviet and Mongolian losses otherwise (and even more Japanese and puppet losses).
And for the rest, you mean:
* The ILLEGAL Soviet attack on Finland in 1939,.
* The ILLEGAL invasion and annexation of Eastern Poland (and no, Not Just Western Ukraine).
* The ILLEGAL invasion of Bessarabia and Bukovina.
* The ILLEGAL occupation and annexation of the Baltic Three.
All of the listed which were conducted as part of a criminal conspiracy between the Soviet government and Adolf Hitler's regime, as outlined by the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
All of the listed which were gratuitous violations of the Peace and the League of Nations Covenant that the Soviet Union swore to adhere, as well as basically every treaty it signed, such as the one that ended the Polish-Soviet War recognizing Poland's Eastern borders and forsaking all claims to them, those recognizing Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian independence, and so on.
And all of which were conducted under false pretenses, and in the case of the Winter War by a false flag attack.
Literally the only thing on that list that was justified was the conflicts with the Japanese, where the Soviets and their Mongolian puppet government were the aggrieved party. And not because they were good, but just because the Kwantung Army's officers were one of the few groups of people more war hungry and aggressive than the Soviet Politburo in this era.
(And as far as casualties go, it's not surprising that there were few or no casualties for the latter half of the list, since the Romanian army and the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian governments all folded without resistance.
The only combat that I have confirmed records of was a brief attempt by an Estonian unit to ward off Soviet occupation of their listening post before being told to surrender.)
" Only the dullard propagated by propaganda will call these wars
(in general, with the exception of Finland, there were no wars as such)
Sorry, doesn't work.
Apparently the entire League of Nations was composed of dullards indoctrinated by Propaganda.
Because that is precisely the official finding they had. Which was why THIS happened.
Turns out that acting like Hitler and being his co-conspirator has negative effects for your legal standing. Who would have thought?
""But, given the low intelligence of your recent posts, I will not even go into depth to explain all the stupidity of your words."
Translation: you lack the research chops, endurance, or honesty to do so.
Well, sad for you. Because I am not so handicapped. Your own post is quite low intelligence and the stupidity of your claims are obvious on their face, with even the most cursory look at the evidence.
But you don't see me gnashing my teeth and saying how I can't stand to look through them.
Your agenda is obvious. You're trying to whitewash the atrocities of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, even if it means shoddy assessment of both their wars and even how the deaths broke down.
Unfortunately for you, some of us still do research.
"My God, there is so much text and practically no sound thoughts. Only
"Absolute nonsense. Radical Islam is a child grown by liberal democrats ..."
Because Zia-ul-Haq, the Phalavi Shahs, Amin al-Husayni, the Ottoman Sultans, the Saudi Monarchs, and the freaking Muslim Brotherhood were all such liberal democrat.s
The truth is that USSR's actual ruler from 1930 to 1953, Joseph Vissarionovich "Stalin" Jughashvili, stopped confronting the Third Reich during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), in order to subdue the other liberal forces of the Second Spanish Republic (1931-39). This shift of policy culminated in [<a>the destructive for Spain, for the cause of Socialism, and for the revolutionary scope of Communism</a>] Days of May of '37. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
During 1937, Stalin & Hitler also began secret negotiations that will result into the Molotov–Ribbentrop Peace Pact in 1939, actually a no-attack aggreement, that probably also included the partition of Eastern Europe! static.pblogs.gr/f/5...
"... only after they treated the Russians (and the countless other nationalities of the Soviet Union whose lives get appropriated by Greater Russian ultra nationalists and Neo-Soviets) with utter barbarism. Initially the Soviet forces surrendered in droves to the invaders in part due to the nature of the surprise attack and their positions, but also due to how little love they had for the Soviets..."
Here are just some examples of the defensive battles of the Soviet Army in 1941:
- The small frontier garrison of the Brest Fortress was the first to meet the war and take a devastating blow to the enemy, but at the same time to keep the fortress fighting against the enemy at times exceeding even the enemy occupying deep behind the enemy occupation from June 22 to July 20, 1941 (28 days).
- Desperately defended Smolensk from July 10 to August 5, 1941 (26 days) forced the German army group "West" to suspend the offensive in the Moscow direction and even for a while to proceed to defensive operations.
- Odessa successfully defeated the storm of the city, despite the fact that the enemy's forces were almost 10 times higher than the defenders from August 5 to October 16, 1941 (72 days).
- Manstein, having twice the superiority of 272 days (from September 12, 1941 to July 10, 1942) could not take Sevastopol.
- From September 8, 1941 to January 27, 1944 (872 days), the siege of Leningrad continued. Being in blockade the city did not surrender and turned out to be too Here are just some examples of the defensive battles of the Soviet Army in 1941 .
Since the first days of the war, civilian population in the occupied territory has developed fierce resistance. With such a large-scale guerrilla war, the Germans did not encounter anywhere. There was a similar partisan resistance in Yugoslavia, Greece, France, later Poland ... But such a large-scale was not anywhere ...
Now for comparison: Denmark resisted Germany 1 day, Norway - 49 days, together Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France actively resisted 40 days. Entire European countries resisted less than individual Soviet cities and garrisons. At the same time, your heinous lie, which causes emetic spasms, claims that Soviet troops massively surrendered to the Wehrmacht. You are either ignorant or a vile liar.
"In fact, the world from fascism and Nazism was saved by the communist
No, it wasn't.
It was saved by the stubborn resistance and collective efforts of a bunch of Liberal Democracies that opposed Fascism fro mthe start even when the Politburo was nursing the war machine that Hitler would use, and the common sacrifice of dozens of millions of people- including the long suffering citizens of said communist state (Oh and by the way, it should be Communist COUNTRIES. It was the Soviet Union, which stated that it was a Union of Soviet nationalities. Not one. Learn to research.)
"that you would not talk about the ideology of communism, and
communism and socialism did not presuppose the "liberated territories"
and the complete destruction of any nations and races. "
The East Prussian Germans would beg to differ. Ditto the Manchurian Koreans- a population that had existed for close to a thousand years- all deported to Central Asia.
Oh, and also the Volga Germans and the Jews of the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast."
"In fact, quite democratic countries allowed Hitler to gain muscle mass-"
"and made possible the outbreak of World War II."
Um sorry, but no.
If you're talking about Hitler gaining muscle mass, let's talk about who his main foreign financiers and sugar daddies were.
This is a picture of the conference that led to the Treaty of Rapallo signed between the newly established Bolshevik regime and the German government. In it both sides committed each other to revoking all outstanding claims against each other and to mutual support in all aspects. Including technical, research, training, rearmament, smuggling of controlled goods, and yes diplomatic.
This was why Hans von Seeckt- the godfather of the Heer that Hitler would ultimately use- counted on Soviet support to engage in war if the Allies tried to impose the terms of Versailles.
This is a picture of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Ostentiably an innocent nonaggression pact, in reality it was a criminal conspiracy to destroy the independence of the nations lying between the two and partition them out into spheres of influence. It was under the aegis of this that the Soviet Union attacked Poland and Finland, and annexed the other Baltic Republics and what is now Moldavia.
You don't get to blame other people for Hitler being strong after you've spent nearly TWENTY YEARS directly feeding the German military and its' militarists a diet to gain muscle mass in a way that NONE of the democracies did.
"In fact, a country that considers itself to be the model of democracy was-"
Firstly, the US is not a democracy. It is a Federal Republic. Get the Difference Straight.
"the only one to use nuclear weapons (although this was not an absolute necessity) and it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, not military ones."
Firstly, let's talk a bit about State Shinto, and particularly the imperial ideology at this point in the war. The Japanese government believed that all Japanese subjects had the sacred obligation to defend the Land of the Gods and the divinity of the Imperial House to the death, which was why they spent the last year press ganging millions of civilians into impromptu militias.
If you've studied the Soviet-Japanese war in 1945, you might have recognized that the Red Army ran into a few of them, both those on prewar Japanese soil in Southern Sakhalin (what the Japanese called "Karafuto") and from Japanese settlers in Manchuria and Korea. Their goal was to give their lives in suicidal attacks on invading troops much like what was demonstrated on Okinawa. How they would have behaved in practice to a military invasion is anyone's guess, but the fact remains that the difference between "Civilian" and "Military" was not one Tokyo's warlords respected.
And secondly: yes, the atomic bombings were not strictly necessarily.
But the alternatives were either a closed blockade of the home islands punctuated by occasional bombing which would have led to mass starvation beyond what had already happened and probably would have taken years, OR a conventional invasion of the Home Islands that would have killed Millions.
So it's easy to see why the A Bombs were ultimately tried.
"In fact, again, in the "most democratic country of the world" the number of
prisoners is 698 per 100,000 citizens (the 2nd place in the world
according to this indicator after the Seychelles.)"
Assuming you ignore the massive skewing of those figures by totalitarian dictatorships like the PRC, DPRK, and Syria who do not count things like the millions of organ harvesting victims the CCP relies on.
"Under the dictator Stalin in the USSR in the worst years this figure was 580 people per 100
thousand people. "
Sorry, but Alexander Solzhenitsyn called.
He says you Suck.
Read the Gulag Archipelago, because your figures are off by about half.
"Therefore, democracy can be presented as the worst of the regimes. "
Of course it can be presented. People have been doing so since Ancient Greece.
Just like the Jews can be presented as responsible for economic and humanitarian catastrophies.
But Pace Joe Goebbels, presentation is not REALITY. Just because something can be presented as being so does not make it actually so.
And the numbers of that are quite grim and utterly remorseless.
"The whole point is how you are presented with the information, "
No, it's not.
The people who chest thump about how it is a matter of perspective don't respect either perspective or what is seen there. The fact is that the Soviet Union openly espoused the perspective that their takeover of Estonia was a move of popular will by the Estonian people. Just like it claimed the invasion of Eastern Poland was because Poland somehow had legally ceased to exist because of the German army's initial victories.
That was the perspective and how they presented the world and their own people that information.
But it was a lie, and provably false. Especially now that the secret protocols of Molotov-Ribbentrop are known.
"All in all, the Soviet Union contributed nothing to humanity or human history that comes even close to offsetting the massive, bloody gashes it cut in them, and frankly I imagine the average Soviet veteran knows that better than I do."
Honestly, I think you have exceeded all limits of moral ugliness. Millions of people gave their lives for you to tap on the keyboard vile vulgarity about them ...
"...Secondly: Stalin WAS NEVER the leader of the forces that defeated Hitler. That man had a name. His name was Winston Churchill, the man who came into office after Hitler overran much of Western Europe and while his war machine was being fed by Soviet grain and oil given at discount prices by his most strategically important ally at the time..."
Simply obvious nonsense, easily refuted by numbers ...
"Honestly, I think you have exceeded all limits of moral ugliness. "
Of course you would.
But considering you've peddled Stalinist propaganda and tried to justify collaboration with Hitler and open aggression against the neutrals indicates how much I should take that seriously.
"Millions of people gave their lives for you to tap on the keyboard vile
vulgarity about them ..."
Firstly tard: The Red Army didn't fight for my right to tap on the keyboard so I don't owe that to them.
I do owe them gratitude for being allies in a monumental struggle.
But I do not owe such recognition to Stalin, who was Hitler's partner in Crime until he was betrayed.
And secondly: I'm the one who actually recognizes the scope of their sacrifices, right on down to the fact that Millions of them were taken captive within the first year of Barbarossa. You've merely frothed at the mouth and cherrypicked.
"Simply obvious nonsense, easily refuted by numbers ..."
A: Then you should provide them.
B: Numbers are only PART of the story. The fact is that Churchill is the man who prevented Hitler from dominating Eurasia by keeping Britain in the fight at a time when the Gestapo and the NKVD were holding freaking GET TOGETHERS over how to kill their mutual allies and Stalin was considering joining the Axis.
This is a picture of the regimes that started the Second World War.
The idea that Stalin should somehow receive full credit for being bitten by the rabid beast he helped strengthen is nonsense. He shouldn't have helped the NSDAP in the first place.
Skipping past all the selective (and unsourced, and in many cases from a rudimentary effort by moi untraceable) quotes...
"I do not see hospitality in these letters and I suspect that their words
on the topic under discussion cause more confidence than the author's
Of course you don't. But then you selected them, and you certainly did not factor in all of them.
"And what about the author of the article? Another person
subjected to a simplified Western exposition of the history of World War
Ah yes, the evil West.
This is especially ironic, considering how up to a decade ago the fact that Stalin and the Soviet Union spent between half and a third of the war being Hitler's single largest supplier and diplomatic ally is pretty ironic.
"a man who probably heard about Vlasov, but not knowing nothing
about Karbyshev; Something that had heard about Bandera and the
Ukrainian insurgent army, but knew nothing about Kovpak and the partisan
movement that unfolded in the occupied Soviet territories in the first
days of the war. "
I cannot speak for the author, but I can say I heard about all of them. In fact I laid wreaths at the point where Karbyshev was left to die by his captors.
"If this person sincerely believes that "the Great
Patriotic War began with the battle for Moscow," he did not hear
anything about such places as Brest, Smolensk, the same Minsk, or Rostov
on the Don ...."
And I agree, he is wrong to that.
"Possessing such "knowledge", the author imagines
himself a brilliant connoisseur of the history "
Pot kettle black.
Considering you openly parroted Stalinist propaganda, lied and claimed that the Soviet invasion of places like Eastern Poland was merely "reclamation", and stated that only a dullard would find these unjustified (apparently, the entire League of Nations counts), you're not in a position to complain.
"of the Second World War
and even allows himself to expose articles about the war for discussion
with his "expert" statements.
"More than a dozen of my ancestors from
the first days of the war honestly did everything they could to win this
That I highly doubt.
Because WWII started on September 1st, 1939, at a time when Hitler was allied with Stalin as per the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Unless your descendants were fighting in the Polish, French, or British armies they wouldn't get involved until midway through, when Hitler backstabbed Stalin.
What efforts they DID make are to be commended, and we are in their debt. But the idea that this gives you the right to wash away a conspiracy that led to WWII and the deaths of tens of millions is Nonsense.
" Most of them did not live to see this victory."
To those I give my condolences and respect. As someone whose Grandfather- a Ranger veteran of the Pacific- was lucky enough to come home but died very recently, I know just a *tad* bit about how it feels to know someone who gave so much for us.
You however? You do not deserve such respect.
" The author
of the article, brought up in the spirit of the psychology of
Ok, I'll bite.
What is the author consuming?
Do you even know?
Or did you throw together "psychology of consumption" because it sounds cool?
" is difficult to explain their motives. "Probably, it is
difficult for the author to understand that such concepts as honor and
defense of the Motherland (not Stalin, not communism) do not have their
price, they are not bought and exist under any regime. "
Well for what it is worth I can understand. They had their backs to the wall and were fighting against an evil enemy that sought to completely enslave and exterminate them, their extended families, and their entire ethnic group. That is the reality of the Third Reich, Herr Guderian, and the like. So between the flames of an invading, genocidal enemy and a tyrannical monster at the top of their chain of command, the Soviet soldier and partisan did the only thing they could. Fight for their very survival.
So they did. And they won. And for that we all owe them a debt.
But the Soviet leadership and Communist ideology deserves none of that credit. Because Stalin's motives differed from them.
Stalin sought to spread the flames of world revolution like Lenin before him, and to upturn the Versailles peace. To do so he continued Lenin's policy of feeding the beast. Giving technical, diplomatic, and economic support to the miliarists lurking in the Weimar Republic's treasonous Reichswehr, and ultimately to Hitler when he took the reigns.
He conspired with Hitler carve up Central and Eastern Europe between them in the hopes that a war between Hitler and the West would exhaust both and leave him in a position to backstab both of them and bring the center of the world into the Communist embrace.
There can be no moral or ethical justification for those actions. They firmly paint him as one of the great villains of history by themselves, and the cruelty he treated both the vanquished and especially his own people (like those very soldiers that your family members were part of, just ask Solzhenitsyn) underlines it.
"It turns out that
the author just poured mud on them, like millions of other Soviet
people with similar fates. I just hope that this was due to ignorance
and subsequently massive propaganda."
Again, compared to what?
" But the unpleasant feeling of a
collision with something that is absolutely vile remains."
This is incredibly ironic coming from someone who has apparently made it their life's work to wash away Molotov-Ribbentrop. Which was collusion so something unfathomably vile happened.
want to give one more advice to the author. Why the beginning of the
Second World War is not considered September 1939, and the signing of
the Munich agreement on September 30, 1938, when the West gave the whole
Czechoslovakia to be swallowed up by Hitler,"
Ah. I remember you. You're the Pole hating Soviet apologist and liar.
So here we go again.
Firstly douchebag: The Munich agreement ABSOLUTELY DID NOT give "the whole Czechoslovakia" to Hitler.
It gave the Sudetenland and the Sudetenland ALONE. See the text here.
In exchange, Hitler explicitly promised not to seek any more territorial "readjustments", including going after the rest of Czechoslovakia. He just betrayed that agreement.
Yes, that was a terrible decision and a case of moral cowardice. But it was not what you try and claim it was.
LEARN. TO. READ.
Secondly: as terrible as the Munich Pact Was ,no war broke out the day after it was signed. Just the opposite. In the end it helped paved the road to an even more destructive war as Churchill foresaw, but you can't have a war start without well.. a war.
" and Poland acted as
Hitler's ally and received for it the Teshinskaya region award?"
Poland had lost that area in skirmishes with Czech troops before and acted like a thug to get it back. In the end the Czechoslovak government felt there was no choice and so surrendered to an ultimatum in the hopes of trying to get Poland on its' side.
This was a case of utter thuggery, but again. Nobody died because of it.
Again, the Munich Pact- for as toxic, corrupt, morally bankrupt, and utterly unjustifiable as it was- was not a plan for war. Just the opposite, it was a desperate attempt to STOP it.
Compare that to Molotov-Ribbentrop and the result is obvious.
Don't be so modest, the part about oil being important was great, like maybe the Russians and Germans were using atomic powered tanks. I don't quite see the humor in a gas attack but that was probably great also, maybe a Borat impression or something.
"The same difference as the difference between round and black ..."
Not really, no.
"Do you want to say that a federal state can not be based on democratic
Which is a fair point, and it certainly is the case here. But the distinction still stands. The US is Republic first, democracy second.