Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Yet another discussion on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2014, 15:17
Quote:
Cool story bro. You're insulting and demeaning somebody else's credentials because they don't line up with your view. You can say "I disagree" but "no, your info means NOTHING!" is silly. Dude I have no idea where your demands for "rational discussion" come from when you sling insults and belittle your opposition.

That's not an insult. When I say that it means nothing, how is that an insult? People with good academic credentials can be morons, such as Bernard Henri-lévy. So you can come there and say that you have a "bachelor of history", fine. But then what? Do you think your words will have a greater value? As a Communist I respect as much a worker than an intellectual with many diplomas. If that's so important to you, why don't you write it in your signature? "I have a bachelor in history!"

Quote:
Great, so if they followed their sealed envelope why is it that every history of this war states that for the first few weeks not only was the Red Army paralyzed, but it often simply didn't respond? And by "every history" I do mean anything written by any of the Western authors from pop historians like Beevor all the way to Norman Davies to more obscure ones. That's my evidence and it states the response was not just confused but often following dictates from Moscow- people paralyzed to act in fear of retribution. And a bunch wound up getting shot anyways.

Many maybe, but every certainly not. If you really have a bachelor in history, you should know that those who say "every" are most of the time charlatans, just because you can't read every historians. Moreover, everything isn't known about this war. Some historians believe that Stalin might have planned to attack Hitler and that he was attacked on the move, or that their answer was bad: they tried to implement a preemptive strike on Germany (a plan was prepared with zhukov at the beginning of 1941). So it's not only about confusion. But you can be sure that this "no response" theory is a lie. Everythin is explained fairly in Chris Bellamy's book Absolute War: Soviet Russia in The Second World War. Chris Bellamy is a very good military historian.

Quote:
If Stalin was the tactical genius you presume he would have done the smart move and taken Romania rather than just Bessarabia in 1940 but no, he decided Finland and Leningrad were more important.

Attacking Romania would have meant going at war with Nazi Germany. If that's just about oil you should know that the Soviets obtained most of the Polish oilfields.

Quote:
It's funny because you wouldn't be afraid of losing Leningrad unless you were confident the enemy could penetrate 800+ kilometres through 3 Baltic states

No, because he also feared attack from Finland (especially the French and English imperialists) on the Karelian Isthmus. The Karelian Isthmus is at the North!

Quote:
Which would mean a giant strategic failure. So the plan was for a strategic failure?

When the Tsar burned Moscow that wasn't a strategic failure, but a superb strategic maneuver.

Quote:
Oh, and as for "all the goods." I'm saying there's a failure in the treaty as negotiated as it provided X quantity of timber X of oil, etc to be delivered at certain times at the same time.

The basis of a negotiation is to negotiate, you have to be 2 or more to negotiate, so you had to make the nazis agree, first. Moreover, I still don't understand the problem with that. You think they should have given oil in 1940 and timber in 1941? And how would they have done that? Making deliveries isn't something easy, you can't just put everything in a granary and deliver it when you are sure that the nazis had no more oil to attack you. That doesn't make much sense.


Quote:
The accusations of lying and name-calling are childish in a way

Yes yes, because calling Voroshilov an idiot isn't name-calling and childish maybe?
Last edited by OP-Bagration on 11 Feb 2014, 22:04, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 11 Feb 2014, 19:08
This thread is theoretically about the M-R Pact, but I'm not seeing much content about it yet so far. I'm still waiting for the brilliant alternative to the Pact in the reality of post-Munich European diplomacy. Maybe this is privileged knowledge, only available to those of us with a BA in history (a BA in history! I think I just jizzed in my pants a little).

Full disclosure: I haven't read the Gellately book, but the WSJ review makes my mouth water. I must have this book, if only as an example of how, in the 21st century, there are still people who think it's 1951 and that there are Soviet nuclear spies everywhere. If the review is an accurate summary, then the book can basically be described along the lines of: "Cold War in the 21st century, or the complete vindication of Sen. McCarthy. Read the exciting story of how Stalin ate babies, communism is as bad as Nazism, how Conquest and all his friends were right about everything, how Roosevelt and Truman were commie traitors who gifted Europe to Stalin, oh and make sure to check out Applebaum as well."

Maybe an alternate title would be "The Protocols of the Elder of Gori" or something like that. It sounds like riveting stuff. Of course you should read outside of your own ideological conceptions at times, but if you're going to depend on this cartoon stuff, then of course people are going to call you on it. I think it's pretty clear in this thread who the people are who only want to read things that confirm their existing beliefs. I should also get his other book, where he apparently defends the good old Lenin-Hitler link, with the addition that Hitler was actually more democratic, because he mostly killed minorities.

I would like to know where I can learn somewhat's debating skillz, though. Maybe in the History department as well. Does it have to be at a good university, or will any one do? I really love this thing that he has where he goes into endless hysterical rants about your supposed opinions, especially when they are off-topic to the discussion at hand. There is really no better pre-emptive measure than to randomly add comments like, "Tukhachevsky, whom of course you Stalinists think is blahblahblah..." "But of course you think I'm an evil talentless bourgeois imperialist hack", etc.

From that latter self-assessment, I would probably remove "evil", "bourgeois", and "imperialist", in order to avoid making any assumptions about his class background and personal morality, and to judge only what we can see right in front of us, splendidly displayed in every single post he makes.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Feb 2014, 19:21
No 14 wrote:
This thread is theoretically about the M-R Pact, but I'm not seeing much content about it yet so far. I'm still waiting for the brilliant alternative to the Pact in the reality of post-Munich European diplomacy. Maybe this is privileged knowledge, only available to those of us with a BA in history (a BA in history! I think I just jizzed in my pants a little).

Full disclosure: I haven't read the Gellately book, but the WSJ review makes my mouth water. I must have this book, if only as an example of how, in the 21st century, there are still people who think it's 1951 and that there are Soviet nuclear spies everywhere. If the review is an accurate summary, then the book can basically be described along the lines of: "Cold War in the 21st century, or the complete vindication of Sen. McCarthy. Read the exciting story of how Stalin ate babies, communism is as bad as Nazism, how Conquest and all his friends were right about everything, how Roosevelt and Truman were commie traitors who gifted Europe to Stalin, oh and make sure to check out Applebaum as well."

Maybe an alternate title would be "The Protocols of the Elder of Gori" or something like that. It sounds like riveting stuff. Of course you should read outside of your own ideological conceptions at times, but if you're going to depend on this cartoon stuff, then of course people are going to call you on it. I think it's pretty clear in this thread who the people are who only want to read things that confirm their existing beliefs. I should also get his other book, where he apparently defends the good old Lenin-Hitler link, with the addition that Hitler was actually more democratic, because he mostly killed minorities.

I would like to know where I can learn somewhat's debating skillz, though. Maybe in the History department as well. Does it have to be at a good university, or will any one do? I really love this thing that he has where he goes into endless hysterical rants about your supposed opinions, especially when they are off-topic to the discussion at hand. There is really no better pre-emptive measure than to randomly add comments like, "Tukhachevsky, whom of course you Stalinists think is blahblahblah..." "But of course you think I'm an evil talentless bourgeois imperialist hack", etc.

From that latter self-assessment, I would probably remove "evil", "bourgeois", and "imperialist", in order to avoid making any assumptions about his class background and personal morality, and to judge only what we can see right in front of us, splendidly displayed in every single post he makes.



Man, applause dude.

You really showed me. I mean look at all these clever arguments! An sarcasm! Brilliant. I never needed to say anything until I was being branded some kind of renegade liar disseminating nothing but lies, but that never got in the way of the Stalinist before.

And you can be pissy I have a degree but actually having to study things does give one a more rounded view even when one doesn't agree or absorb. I don't see why you have to insult that but hey, the time for reason passed a long time ago.

Bye, claim your internet victory as well as you want.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 11 Feb 2014, 20:33
Well, you've already said "bye" to OP previously, so I'm sure you'll be back in time. I'm very happy for you that you've got your degree, but the way it was brought up was just too funny not to do something with. I think it's a bit rich to get upset about that sort of thing after the volumes of "but wait of course they were all talentless hacks who were plotting with Japan, no Nazi Germany, no Trotsky and Nazi Germany, no Trotsky and the Nazis and the West AT THE SAME TIME!" Why dish out the heavy sarcasm if you can't take it?

I guess I just don't understand why a trained historian should fail to add any depth to the discussion other than the whole "Of course you Stalinists are going to say this and that" shtick, discounting all possible other interpretations of the Pact. If you can't bring up anything to argue with about the Pact, other than walls of text of irrelevant asides, then of course in the end other people will just respond with personal attacks themselves.

For what it's worth, I would change the "every single post he makes" to "every single post in this thread". The others are OK, I guess.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron