• Vladimir Putin: Nothing Wrong With Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Deng;46431060]You mean rebuilding the Russian Empire?[/QUOTE] Pretty much yeah [editline]7th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Uberpro;46431068]So you're saying that the soviets tried to invade Finland because the poor souls were just trying to defend themselves? Right.[/QUOTE] Lol no where did you get that from? What I mean is the nazis would have taken Finland so USSR figured they might as well take it for themselves instead. Not the right thing to do but from their point of view it would have ended up in the hands of their "friends" the nazis.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46430706]What's wrong with a non-aggression pact?[/QUOTE] It had little secret dealios behind the scenes which divided poland and the baltic states between the two countries.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431070]Pretty much yeah[/QUOTE] It's a pretty awful reason. It's a good thing that the USSR is no longer around. It deserved to die.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46430627]To critics of this - Go ahead and name me another country which didn't want to fight the nazis.[/QUOTE] italy and japan
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46431061]Hitler, on the other hand, drastically underestimated the Red Army, and made the same mistake as Napoleon -- don't try and capture Moscow in Winter. [/QUOTE] But that was exactly what the Nazis were trying to avoid. They expected to be at Moscow by summer.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46430627]To critics of this - Go ahead and name me another country which didn't want to fight the nazis.[/QUOTE] There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Soviets were gearing up to attack Germany while they were busy dealing with Britain. The initial confusion following the sudden attack by Germany was in part because they thought Hitler would wrap up the fight with Britain before daring to attack them.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431051]Nazis would have taken them anyway. The soviets would rather have it themselves than have Nazis on their doorstep. It was shitty for the people in those countries but the soviets did what they did for a reason.[/QUOTE]go die in a rotten hole soviet war crime and opression apologist
[QUOTE=Joazzz;46431234]go die in a rotten hole soviet war crime and opression apologist[/QUOTE] Do you honestly think if the soviets hadn't taken Finland the Nazis would just leave it be? No it would be taken by the nazis. I understand this might be touchy with you but at least try to apply reason. It was the soviets or the nazis and the pact meant it was the soviets.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431254]Do you honestly think if the soviets hadn't taken Finland the Nazis would just leave it be? No it would be taken by the nazis. I understand this might be touchy with you but at least try to apply reason. It was the soviets or the nazis and the pact meant it was the soviets.[/QUOTE] how does that justify the atrocities committed by the soviets upon the finns? in every thread where you defend the actions of the soviets or russians you do so by saying "b-but look at what [I]these[/I] guys did/could have done!" which is a fallacious argument
ok maybe i was just a bit harsh but that's still a wonderfully black and white view on the whole thing. are you absolutely sure those two were the only possible scenarios?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46431297]how does that justify the atrocities committed by the soviets upon the finns? in every thread where you defend the actions of the soviets or russians you do so by saying "b-but look at what [I]these[/I] guys did/could have done!" which is a fallacious argument[/QUOTE] No I don't try to justify what they did and no I don't try to defend their actions. In the post yesterday I said they were brutish, cruel and evil. What I think has happened here is you haven't read my posts and instead you have read someone elses post about me and adopted their point of view since that is easier than analysing my post and formulating your own view. And just for the record my grandma is polish, she spent time in a gulag and watched her family die. And also don't think that just because I say I'm a socialist I support the USSR. If anything I dislike them partly for what they did in principle but also partly because they gave socialism a bad name. Please stop being so damn emotive, read my posts, stop saying I'm saying things that I'm not and form your own opinions instead of copying other peoples incorrect opinions. [editline]7th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Joazzz;46431305]ok maybe i was just a bit harsh but that's still a wonderfully black and white view on the whole thing. are you absolutely sure those two were the only possible scenarios?[/QUOTE] Well the other one is the finns somehow remaining neutral between 2 warring states (empires). As soon as one thought the other planned to make a move they would annex finland or try to drag them into the war on their side. In either case finland would have the pick sides and would be subjected to the atrocities associated with the regime. Also considering their proximity with Russia they would likely end up being bullied anyway. The tragedy isn't the pact, the tragedy is the polarisation and rise of extremist ideology.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431254]Do you honestly think if the soviets hadn't taken Finland the Nazis would just leave it be? No it would be taken by the nazis. I understand this might be touchy with you but at least try to apply reason. It was the soviets or the nazis and the pact meant it was the soviets.[/QUOTE] You're out of touch with your history. Nazi Germany had no interest in Finland at the time the non-aggression pact was signed. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact contained a "secret article" (only published in the 1980s) that included the division of Europe into two major 'control zones', one Soviet, one Nazi. To put it simply: Everything west of the Baltic States and Finland fell into the Nazi control zone. The Baltic states and Finland fell into the Soviet 'sphere of influence.' This sphere of influence was then used as a secret justification for the militarization and occupation of the baltic states, and then the subsequent attempt at the invasion of Finland. Later on in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa was launched by Germany, Nazi Germany had interests in making Finland an ally because it meant that the Soviets would expend more resources on fighting on multiple fronts.
[QUOTE=Deadman;46431570]You're out of touch with your history. Nazi Germany had no interest in Finland at the time the non-aggression pact was signed. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact contained a "secret article" (only published in the 1980s) that included the division of Europe into two major 'control zones', one Soviet, one Nazi. To put it simply: Everything west of the Baltic States and Finland fell into the Nazi control zone. The Baltic states and Finland fell into the Soviet 'sphere of influence.' This sphere of influence was then used as a secret justification for the militarization and occupation of the baltic states, and then the subsequent attempt at the invasion of Finland. Later on in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa was launched by Germany, Nazi Germany had interests in making Finland an ally because it meant that the Soviets would expend more resources on fighting on multiple fronts.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Once war broke out finland would have to pick a side or have the choice made for them. To fight the soviets the nazis wanted it and to fight the nazis the soviets wanted it. It couldn't remain neutral. Lasting peace between the nazis and the soviets just wasn't feasible, so conflict was inevitable thus so was the annexing/taking over/occupation/invasion of finland. I'm not sure what makes you think finland could remain neutral but if you care to share the logic which helped you come to that conclusion we can discuss it further.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431602]I'm not sure what makes you think finland could remain neutral but if you care to share the logic which helped you come to that conclusion we can discuss it further.[/QUOTE]... This is Finland we're talking about. That's all one needs to come to the conclusion that they'd remain neutral. See, in the real world Finland never joined either the Axis or Allies up until the very end of the war, and that was only because they didn't want to completely ostracize themselves. Finland effectively held out against everybody except the Swedes, and I say that because Sweden never fucked with them during WWII.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46431674]... This is Finland we're talking about. That's all one needs to come to the conclusion that they'd remain neutral. See, in the real world Finland never joined either the Axis or Allies up until the very end of the war, and that was only because they didn't want to completely ostracize themselves. Finland effectively held out against everybody except the Swedes, and I say that because Sweden never fucked with them during WWII.[/QUOTE] Like they would have a choice? The nazis marched through neutral belgium they would have no qualms about going through neutral finland. Neither the soviets or the nazis would want to position troops on a neutral border which could easily be annexed by the opposition. It would end up in someones hands so the soviets just wanted to be sure that somebody was themselves.
You don't understand. The Nazis didn't want Finland before 1941, when they declared war on the Soviet Union. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact fell appart shortly before the beginning of Barbarossa. The reason the Nazis didn't want Finland before 1941 was because Finland didn't have the military forces or the correct political atmosphere to facilitate the installation of a pro-Nazi government. In fact, most of the Finnish government at the time was vehemently against anything to do with Germany, which is exactly why Germany tossed it over to the Soviet Union when the Ribbentrop pact came along because they perceived Finland to be of no use to them. It was only after 1939 and the Winter War, the direct result of this pact, that Finland militarized and was as such a significant interest to Nazi Germany because Finland's military, as poor as it was at the time, proved succesful in fighting the Soviets because of favorable terrain features, good use of available supply and resources. Finland lost a good chunk of territory in that war, and as such in 1941 Germany was interested in providing Finland with military resources on the basis that Finland should regain this lost territory. Finland pursued neutrality very heavily and made several plans for concessions for the Soviets. The Soviet initial demand was the installation of military bases inside Finland, which the Finnish government would not allow because memories of the 1918 civil war were still fresh and it would allow the deployment of foreign military forces inside the state's borders. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact wasn't created with the understanding that there would be a war between the Soviet Union and Germany. Both leaders understood the inevitability of armed conflict between their two states, but no one could have guessed that it was going to be so soon. The reason for this is that prior to the agreement, the British and French had not yet guaranteed Polish independence, the reason Britain and France declared war on Germany when Poland was invaded. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland, they effectively pushed this cycle into fast mode. You are correct in saying that when war broke out, Finland would have to pick a side. But by attacking Finland after the shelling of Mainila the Soviet Union effectively made that decision for Finland. If the Soviets were actually interested in peace with Finland, all they would have had to do is continued negotiations, not throw out Finland's diplomatic attaché and simply sat tight to work on an amicable solution, as the original issue was not about war when the Soviet government presented it to Finland, it was about an issue of 'protecting Leningrad from military aggression through Finland', something that I'm sure you understand Finland, with a standing military and a total population less than a fraction of Leningrad could not possibly have invaded the Soviet Union with in 1939. That's the SHORT version of that.
Is there a source of this whole shit? Where did telegraph take Putin's quotes from?
[QUOTE=Deadman;46431754]You don't understand. The Nazis didn't want Finland before 1941, when they declared war on the Soviet Union. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact fell appart shortly before the beginning of Barbarossa. [/QUOTE] I've snipped most of your posted since you seem to have mis understood. The war was inevitable. You said the nazis didn't want finland until the fighting started. The fighting was going to start regardless of the pact, both sides knew it well therefore both sides knew it well that at some point one or both sides was going to want finland. The pact just sped up the inevitable. War was inevitable and it is very difficult for a neutral nation to survive or maintain its independence between 2 powers like that. PS just incase people don't understand - I'm not saying it is ok what the soviets did, I'm not condoning them cutting up land and allocating it to themselves; only that the pact made no difference, those territory changes and invasions would have been made anyway.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;46430977]Pretty sure the Poles weren't keen on getting into a war with a country they knew very well would obliterate them off the face of the Earth.[/QUOTE] Not when Poland still was a country. During the occupation however things were different.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46431758]Is there a source of this whole shit? Where did telegraph take Putin's quotes from?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;o9GxOwUqA_M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9GxOwUqA_M&feature=youtu.be[/video] Starts at 0:53 for the main quote
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431696]Like they would have a choice? The nazis marched through neutral belgium they would have no qualms about going through neutral finland. Neither the soviets or the nazis would want to position troops on a neutral border which could easily be annexed by the opposition. It would end up in someones hands so the soviets just wanted to be sure that somebody was themselves.[/QUOTE]... Yeah, the entire German military would just march across the Baltic Sea for whatever silly fucking reason you have in your head so they could get to Russia. No, what would happen is Germany would say to Finland, "hey, you join us?" and Finland would say "well, we won't fight you if that's what you mean." Then Germany would stop giving a fuck about Finland and maybe trade some stuff, probably sell them fun equipment to piss off the Soviets and make them pay attention to the Finnish border. Finland would have never entered the war, exactly like Sweden and other neutral countries. Haha, Finland being "easily annexed" what the fuck are you even talking about.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46431928]... Yeah, the entire German military would just march across the Baltic Sea for whatever silly fucking reason you have in your head so they could get to Russia. No, what would happen is Germany would say to Finland, "hey, you join us?" and Finland would say "well, we won't fight you if that's what you mean." Then Germany would stop giving a fuck about Finland and maybe trade some stuff, probably sell them fun equipment to piss off the Soviets and make them pay attention to the Finnish border. Finland would have never entered the war, exactly like Sweden and other neutral countries. Haha, Finland being "easily annexed" what the fuck are you even talking about.[/QUOTE] Yeah true easily annexed was definately the wrong choice of words. My point is finland looked easy to conquer, that is the mistake the soviets made when they tried and failed to take it. As for the nazis avoiding it? They could use it to bypass Russia's defences, like they did with belgium, therefore USSR would have felt it necessary to secure finland for itself.
[QUOTE=Medevila;46431984]why don't you take the twenty seconds to look into their sources yourself rather than jumping at the chance to criticize a respected news publication[/QUOTE] Eeeeeh I looked throught the article and didn't find any links to any sources. I didn't criticize anyone, I honestly wanted to know where the quotes came from.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46432008]He has a point you know. Just because he is Putin and this is ironical and strange coming from him doesn't mean he is wrong. [B]EDIT:[/B]I mean not the pact was completely peaceful and justified, does he even say that? I mean that Western Allies and their incompetency lead the Nazis rise.[/QUOTE] You could also argue it was the treaty of Versailles or that they let the germans retreat under a ceasefire than defeating them, lots of the soldiers were easy prey for extremists since they felt the people at home/politicians had betrayed them.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;46430796]Putin sees nothing wrong with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but still wants to give Western Ukraine to Poland. I find that amazing[/QUOTE] If your referring to Sikorski's little story, I should remind you that he's already admitted that his "memory failed him". IE: he was making shit up. It caused such damage to his career that some lawmakers recently attempted to oust him from his position as Parliament Speaker. Western media has uncritically swallowed so much bullshit about Russia and Putin that the guy obviously figured he could get away with telling tall-tales.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46431674]Finland never joined either the Axis or Allies up until the very end of the war.[/QUOTE] Finland was never a part of the Allies or the Axis. Finland was first thrown to the Soviets by the Pact. The Winter War ensued, and thanks in part to Stalin and his purges, as well as the use of Infantry from the southern regions who were not at all prepared for arctic conditions, the Red Army failed spectacularly. After this came the Continuation War, it was called as such because Finland never considered the previous war over, only a continuation of their struggle with an expansionist Soviet Russia. Finland wasn't fond of Germany or Naziism, but they knew that close cooperation with Germany would help them reach their own goals, independence and safety from Russia. They worked with Germany throughout World War II until 1944 when the USSR finally agreed to Finland's independence. Among other concessions and conditions, one was that Finland expel Nazi Germany from their territory and ban Fascism (while legalizing Communism), which was the cause for the Lapland War (Finland vs Nazi Germany) in late 1944. At no point in the war did Finland join the Axis or the Allies, and they retained ties with both the West and the Soviet Union all throughout the Cold War. It's also worth noting that Finland was fully democratic during the entire length of WW2, and the only democracy to fight for the Axis.
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;46430995] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1984-1206-523%2C_Berlin%2C_Verabschiedung_Molotows.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] offtopic but whos the 3rd guy from the left with the round glasses?
I was taught in history class mostly France were indirectly responsible for Hitler's march in Europe. If France wasn't so cynical towards Germany at the end of World War One and wasn't so harsh in the treaty of Versailles, Hitler never would have got the support he needed to come into power. I don't see anything wrong with what Vladimir Putin saying that Britain and France were to blame and it's fair enough if the USSR wanted to avoid another major conflict
[QUOTE=shadowraptor;46435305]I was taught in history class mostly France were indirectly responsible for Hitler's march in Europe. If France wasn't so cynical towards Germany at the end of World War One and wasn't so harsh in the treaty of Versailles, Hitler never would have got the support he needed to come into power. I don't see anything wrong with what Vladimir Putin saying that Britain and France were to blame and it's fair enough if the USSR wanted to avoid another major conflict[/QUOTE] except that doesn't absolve Stalin of the brutalities committed in eastern Europe like Putin is implying
From what I understand neither Sweden nor Finland were desired by Germany, neither was Switzerland even though it was home to a large number of German speakers. The Finns aren't Germanic, their land was useless and undesirable for lebensraum, they held no political threat. It doesn't make sense for Hitler to be interested in Finland. Hell, Hitler didn't even care for France either, or the UK, and his war with them was purely political. Molotov-Ribbentrop allowed for the USSR to diplomatically reclaim sovereign nations that it had lost as Russia during the civil war and not have to worry. This was clearly a case of the USSR having its cake and eating it to- not only could they prep for Hitler's invasion, they could grab hold of a shitload of land, reclaim former colonies, and get loads of non-Russian laborers and cannon fodder. M-R has no defense. We don't get to say that the wholesale slaughter, occupation, and suppression of entire peoples and nations is a-ok because it also came with stopping Hitler from having them. Well, Hitler had them anyhow, so that's that ain't it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.