- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidSee my previous reply. I wasn't talking about WWII.
You allowed that Germany invaded the USSR but claimed it invaded France "at the same time". Of course it did not, the invasion of France took place in May 1940; Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the USSR (aided by many of the Eastern European nations that are now part of NATO), didn't start until June 1941.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/world-war-ii-key-dates
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidYour misquoting me. I specifically said in my post that the punishment didn't fit the crime in the case of the damage and death suffered by the Soviet Union and that I wouldn't go so far as to say they got what they deserved. I take no pleasure in what the people of the Soviet Union suffered at the hands of the Nazis. My current hatred is toward Putin and his actions in the Ukraine not the Russian people. I actually admire the fight they put up against the Nazis in defense of their homelands. I stand by what I said about the Molotov Ribbentrop pact though and don't agree with you that it was wise or justified. It was a cynical land grab along with it's occupation of Bessarabia, The Baltic States, and the attack on Finland in the following winter. And how do you justify things such as the Katyn massacre?
As far as the start of WWII, let's set the record straight: the USSR tried to keep a united military front against German expansion up until the last minute but was rebuffed by Britain, France and Poland.
It was the USSR that sent troops to Spain to battle the Fascists who were aided by German and Italian military contingents; the Allies did nothing.
It was the USSR ...[text shortened]... nal hate directed at Russia and her People based on historical ignorance from swallowing propaganda.
Nothing I said in the above paragraph is in anyway a defense of the numerous missteps and failures by the UK and France appeasing Hitler leading up to WWII. I've got no argument with what you've said about that.
As far as NATO breaking it's promises. That discussion happened on another thread. It went nowhere. I disagree with you that it's not debatable and neither of us are going to change our position on that.
The only reason I jumped in on this thread is that it seems to me you greatly downplay the aggressive actions of the Soviet Union and then Russia post Soviet Union yet you are quick to criticize the actions of NATO. Your comments in your last post regarding the carving up of Poland with Germany as wise and justified is just one example. Yes the western allies F'ed up big time. No argument there. That doesn't make it okay to sign a pact with Hitler and grab a chunk of Poland, a chunk of Romania, the Baltic States, and why not attack Finland while were at it. Not to mention the repression of the Warsaw Pact states post WWII.
@ullr saidGee, it's certainly a remarkable thing that such a hyper aggressive empire was willing to withdraw back to borders smaller than its nation had controlled for a couple hundred years and with, according to you (ignoring all evidence to the contrary), no assurances that nation states which had recently attacked it wouldn't be part of a military alliance (one that has engaged in repeated adventures of regime change)!
Your misquoting me. I specifically said in my post that the punishment didn't fit the crime in the case of the damage and death suffered by the Soviet Union and that I wouldn't go so far as to say they got what they deserved. I take no pleasure in what the people of the Soviet Union suffered at the hands of the Nazis. My current hatred is toward Putin and his actions in the U ...[text shortened]... attack Finland while were at it. Not to mention the repression of the Warsaw Pact states post WWII.
The rest of your post is just an inability to see how Thing A can lead to Thing B. The USSR tried to form an anti-fascist mutual defense league in the 1930s which, you concede, the Western allies sabotaged. But then you cannot understand why it would take measures to shore up its strategic defenses in the face of what they surely knew would soon be a full Nazi onslaught. Nor can you grasp why after that onslaught was successfully repelled at almost unimaginable cost (in no small measure by the strategic depth the 1939 deal and later territorial changes afforded them), why they would chose to keep Eastern Europe under firm control (that area including several States which joined with the Nazis in their attack on the USSR).
The total inability for posters like yourself to see Russia's understandable concern with its own security given this not very ancient history is baffling to me.
2 edits
Above, there has been a lengthy discussion about the second World War. This discussion has been largely beside the point in the case of the punishment of Karjakin. This theme is motivated by the Western current propaganda that Russia is increasingly aggressive. To justify the reasoning that Russia has always been aggressive and is increasingly aggressive, the result of which is the current invasion of Ukraine, the old history is often invoked and the second World War and the times of the Cold War as well.
The real issue is what has happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia is not the Soviet Union, the territory is not the same, even the political regime is not the same.
In the early 1990s, Russia withdrew its military from Easter Europe. Germany was united. But the US did not withdraw its military bases from Germany.
During the Cold War, NATO was a defensive organization and it did not participate in the battles. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO started to expand to the East. NATO and its essential member states (usually several member states together) have initiated numerous wars:
- Bombing Serbia
- Iraq war (already 19 years now with millions of people killed)
- Afghanistan war (several decades with millions of people killed)
- Libya war
- intervention in Syria
- supporting and covertly participating in the Yemen war (with millions of people starving).
No need to say that Russia does not perceive NATO as an innocent and defensive organization.
NATO has expanded near Russian borders. From the viewpoint of Russia, it is irrelevant how did NATO expand, the only thing that matters is that the US missiles and weapons are coming closer to Russia.
Concerning the Ukraine current war and Karjakin's attitude, you should talk about the 2014 coup, supported by the Western countries, the war crimes and genocide the Ukrainians committed in Donbas since 2014, during 8 years.
In the West, this information has been intentionally suppressed. Karjakin, however, lived in Ukraine before 2014. And he knows and he is talking about it. Look at his Twitter account.
The point is that Karjakin thinks that there are neo-Nazis in Kyiv, that they have committed war crimes and genocide, that to stop this neo-Nazism to spread all over Europe, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified.
My personal view is that Karjakin's argumentation is dubious. During 8 years, in Donbas, 15 000 people were killed. Does it justify the current war, if during the first two weeks of Russian invasion of Ukraine more than 15 000 people were killed?
@ullr saidUS, UK, France promised USSR not to expand NATO east of Germany, newly discovered document proves
Your misquoting me. I specifically said in my post that the punishment didn't fit the crime in the case of the damage and death suffered by the Soviet Union and that I wouldn't go so far as to say they got what they deserved. I take no pleasure in what the people of the Soviet Union suffered at the hands of the Nazis. My current hatred is toward Putin and his actions in the U ...[text shortened]... attack Finland while were at it. Not to mention the repression of the Warsaw Pact states post WWII.
https://multipolarista.com/2022/02/20/us-uk-france-russia-expand-nato-east-germany/
I guess technically it was not NATO, but a few NATO members.
@no1marauder said“ The total inability for posters like yourself to see Russia's understandable concern with its own security given this not very ancient history is baffling to me.”
Gee, it's certainly a remarkable thing that such a hyper aggressive empire was willing to withdraw back to borders smaller than its nation had controlled for a couple hundred years and with, according to you (ignoring all evidence to the contrary), no assurances that nation states which had recently attacked it wouldn't be part of a military alliance (one that has engaged ...[text shortened]... understandable concern with its own security given this not very ancient history is baffling to me.
And your inability to see Russia’s neighbours understandable concern with their own security given their much more recent history is baffling to me.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
2 edits
@eintaluj saidI'll make a couple of clarifications.
Above, there has been a lengthy discussion about the second World War. This discussion has been largely beside the point in the case of the punishment of Karjakin. This theme is motivated by the Western current propaganda that Russia is increasingly aggressive. To justify the reasoning that Russia has always been aggressive and is increasingly aggressive, the result of which ...[text shortened]... r, if during the first two weeks of Russian invasion of Ukraine more than 15 000 people were killed?
1. I never denied that there were misleading statements made by western leaders and officials after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have stated in a previous discussion about it that I felt that the subject of NATO expansion is too important an issue to have not have a written agreement signed by both sides for various reasons not the least of which is administration changes every few years in western nations. A written agreement signed by both NATO and Russia would have cleared the issue up once and for all and would have been binding for future western administrations that belong to NATO.
2. I never said NATO expansion was not a factor in Russia's behavior. I've said more than once that I'm not certain expanding to the East was a good idea. Although now that it's been done I don't believe that withdrawing is a viable option especially under the circumstances. I do not believe that NATO troops in large quantities should be placed right up to the Russian border. That is a very dangerous game being played. The force should be available if needed but not put forward in an aggressive posture towards Russia. Where we disagree mostly regarding NATO is about whether or not it should have been disbanded by now. I haven't nor am I about to argue with you regarding your accusations regarding NATO being aggressive. I just think you overstate it just as much as you understate Russian aggression. Personally I think your at least as biased in the other direction as everyone you're debating with on this topic. But in summary, I'm not conceding your point regarding the cause and effect of NATO's expansion because I never argued against it in the first place. Of course NATO's expansion to the east is a factor.
3. You have stated that you don't think the actions of the Soviet Union are what is important (and I realize that Russia today is not the same as the Soviet Union - just putting in this disclaimer so we don't have to get another lecture from you on this point). But since you want to talk about cause and effect ..... regardless of whether or not you think their actions were justified, the repression and aggression foisted upon Eastern European nations and the Baltic States and Finland caused them (except Finland of course! - lots of disclaimers like this needed unfortunately when conversing with you) to seek protection under the NATO umbrella. And yes some of the Eastern European states joined the Nazi's in attacking in 1941. But not all of the states that suffered under Soviet repression did (Czechoslovakia for instance). So was that repression justified? Do you fault these states for seeking NATO protection? I don't.
4. BTW what is your source for number of deaths in the Afghanistan War? You claimed it was in the millions. What is your source for that? Iraq war as well. I'm not justifying these wars but I think maybe your exaggerating for effect. Again overstate NATO's aggression and downplay the other side seems to be your modus operandi.
@ullr saidActually, Czechoslovakia, at least the Slovakia part did:
I'll make a couple of clarifications.
1. I never denied that there were misleading statements made by western leaders and officials after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have stated in a previous discussion about it that I felt that the subject of NATO expansion is too important an issue to have not have a written agreement signed by both sides for various reasons not t ...[text shortened]... ect. Again overstate NATO's aggression and downplay the other side seems to be your modus operandi.
"The Slovak Expeditionary Army Group of about 45,000 men entered the Soviet Union shortly after the German attack."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_Expeditionary_Army_Group
Hard to say if people in Czechoslovakia were repressed any worse after WWII than people in the USSR.