Words fail.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/07/britain-and-france-to-blame-for-adolf-hitlers-march-into-europe-putin-tells-young-historians/
The Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact was okay . . . the UK and the US caused WWII. Nazi/Soviet carve-up of Poland? A base accusation!
Quote"people still argue about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and accuse the Soviet Union of dividing up Poland."
All the cool kids partition Poland.
So he's perambulating backwards from his (and the Kremlin's) previous position on the Pact.
While he's not wrong in saying that Munich wrecked any chance of a common front against Hitler (slim as it was) I can't help but think his changing view of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact might just have something to do with the Ukraine.
Why did Munich ruin any chance to not ally with Hitler? Lots of countries did not sign pacts with Hitler after Munich so I don't get the compulsion
Besides last I checked there was a front against Hitler. The Soviets decided to join with Hitler instead.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2014, 06:01:30 PM
Why did Munich ruin any chance to not ally with Hitler? Lots of countries did not sign pacts with Hitler after Munich so I don't get the compulsion
Besides last I checked there was a front against Hitler. The Soviets decided to join with Hitler instead.
I'm fairly certain there was a front against Hitler. It was called the United Nations and it worked.
Hey, who knew that Jim Carrey was at the negotiations?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FD4EdnKu.jpg&hash=02cbcb912a90faaa1bfda16f60d234b4bfa9ee0f)
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2014, 06:01:30 PM
Why did Munich ruin any chance to not ally with Hitler? Lots of countries did not sign pacts with Hitler after Munich so I don't get the compulsion
Besides last I checked there was a front against Hitler. The Soviets decided to join with Hitler instead.
I didn't say anything about the choice of the Soviet Union to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany (one that contained secret codicils that rendered it more of an Alliance than anything else.) After all, they could have excercised (or attempted to exercise) neutrality. I said Munich wrecked any chance of a Common Front - ie. one between the Western Allies and the Soviets. Or, perhaps, it would be better to phrase it in a slightly revisionist way, a Common Front between Western and Eastern Europe.
After Munich the Soviet Union didn't (and realistically speaking couldn't) trust a word Britain or France said about being willing to stand up to/fight Hitler. Ergo she had to base her policy towards Hitler on the basis of a one front war with no Allies (note that at the time of Munich Poland had a non-aggression pact with Hitler and seemed more likely to be a German ally than enemy from an external point of view - Poland even snatched a small bit of Czechoslovakia for herself in 1938.)
A genuine non-aggression pact isn't actually all that unreasonable a position for the Soviet Union to take post-Munich vis-a-vis Germany. Of course, the codicils turn it into something rather more serious than a simple non-aggression pact, something much more like an Alliance. Putin's really, really stretching it with his backpedalling here. But then it's a reasonable conclusion to say that this speech was more for domestic than international consumption. So of course his relationship with the facts is becoming somewhat unconvincing.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2014, 06:12:42 PM
I'm fairly certain there was a front against Hitler. It was called the United Nations and it worked.
:frusty:
Raz, you know better than that. We're talking about Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact era, not the post-Barbarossa world. How about you make a pertinent point instead of trying (and in this case failing) to make the usual cheap shot.
I'd agree that the Munich Pact confirmed Stalin in his decision to allow the West and Germany fight to mutual exhaustion, but I don't think that there was any practical alternative. Russia couldn't fight Germany (no common border, and no neighbors willing to risk allowing its troops through-access) in 1938 anyway. The timing of the Munich Pact v. the Non-Aggression Treaty and the outbreak of the war makes it clear which agreement made it possible for Hitler to move. That is simply undeniable, no matter how much revisionist spin is placed on things.
The interesting question is whether the Allies (including the USSR) would have been better-off or not had the outbreak of war been delayed by a failure of the Soviets and Germans to come to terms in 1939. AIR, Hitler was planning on the war starting in 1944 or so.
Hitler couldn't wait. He was losing an arms race.
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2014, 07:06:34 PM
AIR, Hitler was planning on the war starting in 1944 or so.
You're good with the sources of obscure quotes; I can't remember which one it was, but which German general was it that said, at the time of Barbarossa, that "this is the war we were promised we weren't supposed to have until 1944"?
Saw this article today, and thought it'd be a fun practice project. I got the full transcript and will see if they got anything too far out of context. :P
Hey Tonto, does your reenlistment bonus go up each time Poutine causes more shit?
And down each time we press reset?
From the article, the quotes are correct. They leave out a second point he makes immediately after, that the USSR knew war was inevitable and needed all the time they could possibly get to modernize and deploy their new weapon systems (T-34, Katyusha rockets). Implying that justified the M-R Pact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 08:54:32 PM
Hey Tonto, does your reenlistment bonus go up each time Poutine causes more shit?
And down each time we press reset?
It's been gone for about a year now. Most everyone's are with the overall projected military cuts.
And there's a fair chance I could be out involuntarily next year (for the same reason, nothing bad I did. :goodboy: ) :taxpayer value:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2014, 08:55:04 PM
From the article, the quotes are correct. They leave out a second point he makes immediately after, that the USSR knew war was inevitable and needed all the time they could possibly get to modernize and deploy their new weapon systems (T-34, Katyusha rockets). Implying that justified the M-R Pact.
That's a bunch of crap.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2014, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2014, 08:55:04 PM
From the article, the quotes are correct. They leave out a second point he makes immediately after, that the USSR knew war was inevitable and needed all the time they could possibly get to modernize and deploy their new weapon systems (T-34, Katyusha rockets). Implying that justified the M-R Pact.
That's a bunch of crap.
I'm not making any judgements, just translating. :P
Gouge out the dragoman's eyes and cast him in the dungeon!
He goes on to talk about WWI and how the Russian offensive in the East(even though a defeat) saved Paris.
Some kid keeps blabbering on about 14-15th century mongol weaponry and the effect of firearms on middle age armor, with Putin trying to politely shut him up and move to another topic and failing. :D
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2014, 09:12:08 PM
Some kid keeps blabbering on about 14-15th century mongol weaponry and the effect of firearms on middle age armor, with Putin trying to politely shut him up and move to another topic and failing. :D
A slavotard from Paradox!
Squeelus?
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2014, 09:02:46 PM
He goes on to talk about WWI and how the Russian offensive in the East(even though a defeat) saved Paris.
Well, there is a decent argument there. The Russian invasion of Prussia scared the hell out of Germany, and caused them to shift two corps to the East at a critical time.
In a weird way, is he suggesting that the west should stand up for Ukraine and not sell them out to an aggressor? The way he describes it, he's basically putting Russia in the place of Germany and Ukraine in the place of Czechoslovakia. At least that's how I read it on a tired brain. :Embarrass:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2014, 07:29:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2014, 07:06:34 PM
AIR, Hitler was planning on the war starting in 1944 or so.
You're good with the sources of obscure quotes; I can't remember which one it was, but which German general was it that said, at the time of Barbarossa, that "this is the war we were promised we weren't supposed to have until 1944"?
That sounds like Raeder in 1939, actually.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2014, 06:12:42 PM
I'm fairly certain there was a front against Hitler. It was called the United Nations and it worked.
So effective it went back in time and stopped Hitler 7 months before it was even formed! :o
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 08, 2014, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2014, 06:12:42 PM
I'm fairly certain there was a front against Hitler. It was called the United Nations and it worked.
So effective it went back in time and stopped Hitler 7 months before it was even formed! :o
The term goes back to the Arcadia conference of 1941-2. It predates the formal organisation in existence today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2014, 06:03:40 AM
That sounds like Raeder in 1939, actually.
So typical of Google, it's like Timmay is running it:
QuoteSearch: General Raeder Quotes 1939
QuoteDid you mean:
General Dreedle quotes
General Ripper quotes
Admiral Raeder might work a wee bit better.
SON OF A
Whoosh