No, it isn't true. but exssesive amounts were sent to the gulags or to death. The amount of inprisonment was without question an injustice. But, the whole situation was very messy and at the time there was not enough infastructure to process everyone properly, and a bias leading towards viewing them as traitors and guilty, which was increased by threats of a new war from the west.
A Plea for Caution From Russia
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
Can you really ask that question when looking at history? Objectively, they made the choice that they thought was their best and only option, just like the USSR did. When Poland got backstabbed by Germany, the USSR reacted accordinglyStill waiting for some explanation of how Poland fucked themselves into being invaded by the Soviets and Germany.
Even bouregeois scholars admit that at least part of the officers purged were in cahoots with the nazis.If Josef V. Dugashvili was so farsighted, why were the Soviets so unprepared after 22 months, was it perhaps in part due to the Stalinist Purges of the Officer Corps.
Were more purged than necessary? Was it brutal and injust? Yes, probably. But we are talking about very harsh, very scary and brutal times. I'm not saying it makes it right, what I am saying is it may have been a nercessary choice made in haste. There is almost no doubt now that this purge delayed Barbarrossa.
Of course not all, but quiet a lot.Really communists were at the head of all anti-Nazi Resistance Movements?
Neither was it the sole cause nor did it lead to WW II.Saying that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact led to World War II not the same as saying that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the sole cause of the World War II as the article miscategorizes western historical opinion.
Some do.Western historians do not dispute that the Munich Pact lead to the War.
Agreed, though many want to paint the victory as belonging to the USA.Likewise there is no dispute that the majority of those killed were on the Eastern Front.
Yes, and... ?One would never know from the article that following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, both the Czech and Polish governments claimed that the whole of Cieszyn Silesia belonged to them.
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, in fact I lean towards it.And finally if it wasn't so nasty one would laugh, Lev Sotskov a retired SVR Major General has the nerve to say that Georgia rather than Russia was the aggressor in their last spat.
I would say it matters. When a source is as discredited as that, none of its claims can be presumed true. There is no honesty in the source.It doesn't matter who writes the book, it's the content. Can you deny anything in the article? If so I am willing to listen, without jumping to conclusions based on who you are quoting. The root source is the main thing to look at.
Most sources you read charitably. You assume that the author isn't lying about everything, maybe mistaken, maybe erroneous, but not blatantly trying to deceive the reader.
I would assume a source like yours is full of lies. So yes it matters. The fact that you copied the article without disclosing the source kind of confirms you know this.
Then what words would you use to describe a pact by two countries to invade and divide up a third country without valid justification.No, an alliance is when you agree on defending one another. There was no such agreement. How many countries did the US make pacts with only to attack later?
The USSR didn't react, they instigated by signing the pact with Germany to divide Poland, Lithuania, Romania, etc. (after the war the Soviets actually had the nerve to keep big parts of the formerly Polish territory the invaded).Can you really ask that question when looking at history? Objectively, they made the choice that they thought was their best and only option, just like the USSR did. When Poland got backstabbed by Germany, the USSR reacted accordingly
And the term 'backstabbed' means turning on a ally which doesn't apply in this case. It does apply to Germany's actions against Russia in 1941 since it violated the non-aggression pact.
And no, you still haven't explained what Poland did that justified a joint invasion by the Soviets and Nazis.
Ah, that explains it. You nursed on the same drivel as danmand with Uncle Joe being a good guy because he was (ostensibly) Communist (even though Stalinist Russia was a far cry from anything Marx ever dreamed up).Even bouregeois scholars ....
The USSR didn't react, they instigated by signing the pact with Germany to divide Poland, Lithuania, Romania, etc. (after the war the Soviets actually had the nerve to keep big parts of the formerly Polish territory the invaded).
And the term 'backstabbed' means turning on a ally which doesn't apply in this case. It does apply to Germany's actions against Russia in 1941 since it violated the non-aggression pact.
And no, you still haven't explained what Poland did that justified a joint invasion by the Soviets and Nazis.
Shhhhh, he's thinking.
First since Operation Barbarossa was the German code name for their invasion of the Soviet Union. Quite how Stalinist purges of the military delayed it is a damn good question.Even bouregeois scholars admit that at least part of the officers purged were in cahoots with the nazis.
Were more purged than necessary? Was it brutal and injust? Yes, probably. But we are talking about very harsh, very scary and brutal times. I'm not saying it makes it right, what I am saying is it may have been a nercessary choice made in haste. There is almost no doubt now that this purge delayed Barbarrossa.
The Purges removed 3 of 5 marshals, 13 of 15 army generals, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps generals, and 154 out of 186 division generals. Thus in June 1941 only 20% of corps commanders, and 5% or fewer army and military district commanders, had two years or more of command experience. Which explains Soviet problems in the Winter War and the first year+ after the German invasion.
What percentage of those purged were actually collaborating with the Germans? Did it even amount to one percent? This is like saying the the U.S. Navy was riddled with Soviet agents based on the Walker Spy Ring.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact most assuredly did pave the path to war.
Must say it's been long time since I've encountered a full blooded Stalinist apologist.
Maybe the Nazis delayed the invasion waiting for Stalin to kill all his officers and foot soldiers. (Just kidding, I think.)First since Operation Barbarossa was the German code name for their invasion of the Soviet Union. Quite how Stalinist purges of the military delayed it is a damn good question.
When I read something on wikipedia, and I really want to confirm something, I check the source in the footnotes. If something is not sourced I will edit the article with a tag that one should be provided.I would say it matters. When a source is as discredited as that, none of its claims can be presumed true. There is no honesty in the source.
Most sources you read charitably. You assume that the author isn't lying about everything, maybe mistaken, maybe erroneous, but not blatantly trying to deceive the reader.
I would assume a source like yours is full of lies. So yes it matters. The fact that you copied the article without disclosing the source kind of confirms you know this.
I don't check the edit history of the page to see if anyone I disgree with contributed to the article.
I disagree that there was "no valid justification" on the Soviet part, and I call it simply a pact.Then what words would you use to describe a pact by two countries to invade and divide up a third country without valid justification.
I'll post an article on that when I can find them/it.First since Operation Barbarossa was the German code name for their invasion of the Soviet Union. Quite how Stalinist purges of the military delayed it is a damn good question.
I think that how anyone could determine this is the first question to ask.What percentage of those purged were actually collaborating with the Germans? Did it even amount to one percent?
Interesting, I thought war had been waged already since 1939.The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact most assuredly did pave the path to war.
Does that make you a Hitler appologist?Must say it's been long time since I've encountered a full blooded Stalinist apologist.
So what was the justification for Poland to be invaded?I disagree that there was "no valid justification" on the Soviet part, and I call it simply a pact.
Murdering millions of people was a small price to pay to bring about a worker's paradise?So what was the justification for Poland to be invaded?
Just predicting Stali^h^h^h^h mtm's reply.
So that the nazis didn't take all of Poland and march into the Ukraine in short order; so that there was a buffer between the USSR and the nazis, among other reasons. Barbarossa killed some 20 million Soviet people, imagine how much more if there was not buffer zones in Poland and Finland. This was war we are talking about, war with a fascist force that wanted to exterminate most of the world and enslave the rest. There was no cupcake solutions.So what was the justification for Poland to be invaded?
Which (so that there was a buffer) is both morally bankrupt and also merely "might makes right" under a obfuscatory title.Barbarossa killed some 20 million Soviet people, imagine how much more if there was not buffer zones in Poland and Finland.
Further, your "buffer zone" was overrun in less than two weeks, and in fact by virtue of being in Polish territory the Soviet Third, Fourth and Tenth Armies were encircled and destroyed.
Last edited:
You do realize that the Soviets and Germans signed a non-aggression pact that included dividing up Poland well before the event occurred don't you? At the time, Stalin believed that he was on good terms with Hitler so they were not planning for a possible Nazi invasion (Barbarossa) so that argument is moot.So that the nazis didn't take all of Poland and march into the Ukraine in short order; so that there was a buffer between the USSR and the nazis, among other reasons. Barbarossa killed some 20 million Soviet people, imagine how much more if there was not buffer zones in Poland and Finland. This was war we are talking about, war with a fascist force that wanted to exterminate most of the world and enslave the rest. There was no cupcake solutions.
What is most sad is that you believe it was okay for the Soviets to invade Poland and kill off prominent poles just to make a buffer zone against an attack they weren't even expecting.
Bourgeois "morals" don't interest me, material conditions do. The Soviets won the war.Which (so that there was a buffer) is both morally bankrupt and also merely "might makes right" under a obfuscatory title.
Every foot of soil counted, any delay was better than no delay. The Nazis got France in 6 weeks. Consider that.Further, your "buffer zone" was overrun in less than two weeks, and in fact by virtue of being in Polish territory the Soviet Third, Fourth and Tenth Armies were encircled and destroyed.
Stalin knew that an attack was coming eventually. Why do you think he offered to attack in 1938?At the time, Stalin believed that he was on good terms with Hitler so they were not planning for a possible Nazi invasion (Barbarossa) so that argument is moot.
Sure, we are not talking about colonialism hear, after all.What is most sad is that you believe it was okay for the Soviets to invade Poland and kill off prominent poles just to make a buffer zone against an attack they weren't even expecting.
