Do you think Communism is as bad as Nazism?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,961
Sydney
" definitely end with their Sovietization, followed by annexation to the USSR "

That's pure speculation , Finland wasn't sovietised , neither were Poland and other East Europe countries after the war

as for Poland it was an authoritarian anti-semite regime who had grabbed all the territory it could in the early 1920
the net result that one third of its population wasn't polish at all , they were the Eastern Europe champion of land grab
Lithuania was so angry at their seizure of vilnius that they had no diplomatic relations for nearly two decades
as for Galicia , the locals had fought tooth and nails against the Poles and did it again as soon as they had the chance
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,596
Athens, Greece
I welcome sources (hence why I was using them in this thread long before your previous few posts) but not copying and pasting whole tracks of text with little to none commentary alongside, as you have done. This used to be, if not still, against forum rules IIRC.
Really? This is something I've never heard before, will have to look into it.

I honestly have no idea how the close coordination between the Nazis and Soviets with the mutual goal of invading Poland has passed you by.
I hasn't in any way. My aim in this discussion is to stress that the invasion of Poland was not prompted by the Soviets, but was a predetermined Nazi plan (as the Nuremberg tribunal verdict states). And that WWII was the result of Nazi aggression. I oppose any notion that this responsibility should be shared with other parties, like for example the Soviets or the Allies, as this would lessen Nazi responsibility. And that is why I insist so much that your equation pact-invasion-WWII is so wrong.

Solidaire, as I’ve pointed out to you several times, I have never denied that Hitler/the Nazis wanted to move east – not once. We are not debating the desire for the Nazis to move east (or indeed for the Soviets to expand their Marxist revolution), the discussion is if, by signing the various treaties, most notably the M-R Pact, the Soviets enabled the Nazi invasion of Poland to take place, the trigger to WW2.
  • Hitler wants to invade east
  • 1st step east is Poland
  • Soviets agree that the Nazis can go east, as long as they can go west at the same time (Poland).
  • Both parties agree
  • Invasions begin.
  • WW2 declared by the western (capitalists) while the Soviet (communists) continue to prosper from their various economic, military and technological pacts.

What enabled, what facilitated, what guaranteed that Hitler would go east and the soviets west, what event allowed Hitler’s dreams to become realised – the M-R Pact. With this in place, he moved east. All his dreaming of Lebensuram meant nothing without him moving on the plans, the actual invasion took place in collaboration with the Soviets.

Simply reaffirming to me his long-held desire to spread east is not the same as Hitler actually moving east regardless, I hope you see the distinction and the decisive role played by the Soviets in starting WW2; as the Nazis moved in from the west, the Poles had the Communists moving in from the east as per the various deals struck between the Nazis and Soviets.
I cannot understand why you keep talking about "desire" etc. We are talking about decision to invade on specific dates, not vague desires or plans to "move East" some time in the uncertain future. In the spring of 1939, Hitler decided to invade Poland. Not in vague terms, but very specifically, to invade conquer, destroy that nation. And he made very adequate preparations to do so. The operation was ready, already set in motion. All that was left was the "go" order. The pact came after the decision and preparations, and before the "go" order. It is like a general waiting for the weather to clear to order the attack, or reinforcements to arrive, etc. A tactical consideration to be fulfilled, etc. In this case, the pact offered a diplomatic and tactical opportunity, a good instance to strike. And the order was given. The pact did not create the invasion or prompted it. It merely served as a tactical opportunity.

Read the Nuremberg verdict again. It is very clear that the invasion of Poland was due to happen. Before any agreement with the Soviets came to be. And of course it would have happened even without the pact. At the time that the invasion was decided, prepared, scheduled, the pact did not even exist.
 
Last edited:

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,596
Athens, Greece
- not at all. Suppose such a scenario:

- Poland gives permission to Russia to enter the Red Army into Polish territory "to prevent the invasion of Germany." Of course, the Sovietization of Poland would be inevitable after that. But I doubt very much that the Germans would hurry to join the battle with the Red Army and the Polish Army in 1939 in that case

- Russia joins the guarantees of Poland which were given by France and England before that. And Russia expresses readiness to provide direct military assistance to Poland in case of German invasion.

- Russia threatens Germany with the invasion of the Red Army into Romania and the seizure of the Romanian oil fields, etc. etc.

Let me remind you that in the plans for the invasion of Poland the leadership of the Reich did not at all provide for Russian intervention in a military conflict on the side of the opponents of Germany. And such an option could force the Germans to abandon this invasion.
From what I've seen, in some of your sources as well, the Germans were not concerned with the Soviet stance, even before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Their concern regarding the invasion of Poland was about the Allied reaction to it. Either the Germans didn't think much of the Soviet army to consider it a menace, or they thought the Soviets would not care to be entangled in the Polish matter and would look the other way. Or both. In any case, that the decision and planning of the invasion before the pact was not concerned with the Soviets, further attests to the fact that the Nazi-Soviet pact served as nothing else than a gift to the Nazis, almost unexpected, a tactical and diplomatic boon in an otherwise predecided invasion that was scheduled to happen regardless.

In regards to the scenario you propose, if the Soviets were actively involved in guaranteeing Poland alongside the Allies, then yes, I would agree that the invasion might have stalled for some time, until the Germans felt more prepared to fight the Soviets as well (as it happened two years later). Perhaps Fall Weiss and Operation Barbarossa would have been merged in one campaign. I remain convinced that Hitler would go to war sooner or later. Aggression and expansion at the expense of other nations was a core theme of Nazi ideology and would materialise in war sooner or later.

Germans could cancel decisions already taken.
They could, but to do so something unexpectedly and severely hampering their plans should occur, a very negative new factor. For example, something like a tripartite alliance between the British, French and Soviets, as I argued above.

It is illogical to claim that a desicion would be cancelled because of the absense of a positive factor (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), that was not even present when the desicion for the invasion of Poland was finalised.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,476
Londinium
I hasn't in any way. My aim in this discussion is to stress that the invasion of Poland was not prompted by the Soviets, but was a predetermined Nazi plan (as the Nuremberg tribunal verdict states). And that WWII was the result of Nazi aggression. I oppose any notion that this responsibility should be shared with other parties, like for example the Soviets or the Allies, as this would lessen Nazi responsibility. And that is why I insist so much that your equation pact-invasion-WWII is so wrong.
By demonstrating that the Soviets aided and profited from the invasion of Poland, as is clear from all diplomatic agreements pre and post invasion as well as the national borders themselves, I am not mitigating the numerous crimes of the Nazis. We went over this during our intial discussion and now you've brought it back.

Again, at no point - absolutely no point at all - have I made the argument that the Nazi war crimes and the society they tried to build should be diminished in light of those committed by the Soviets

I cannot understand why you keep talking about "desire" etc. We are talking about decision to invade on specific dates, not vague desires or plans to "move East" some time in the uncertain future. In the spring of 1939, Hitler decided to invade Poland. Not in vague terms, but very specifically, to invade conquer, destroy that nation. And he made very adequate preparations to do so. The operation was ready, already set in motion. All that was left was the "go" order. The pact came after the decision and preparations, and before the "go" order. It is like a general waiting for the weather to clear to order the attack, or reinforcements to arrive, etc. A tactical consideration to be fulfilled, etc. In this case, the pact offered a diplomatic and tactical opportunity, a good instance to strike. And the order was given. The pact did not create the invasion or prompted it. It merely served as a tactical opportunity.

Read the Nuremberg verdict again. It is very clear that the invasion of Poland was due to happen. Before any agreement with the Soviets came to be. And of course it would have happened even without the pact. At the time that the invasion was decided, prepared, scheduled, the pact did not even exist.
Emphasis is mine to show how once again you've contradicted yourself.

Again, again and again - I am not saying that the Nazis didn't want to move east - how many times must I repeat this before you actually ready and take it in?

The desire to invade is something we agree on - Hitler had a desire to move east. This is why i keep talking about it, how has that passed you by for all this time?

The pact came before the invasion began. The desire to invade came before the pact. The pact was a means for the invasion to begin.

Whats more, you agree with it's just you've continually chosen to hide behind vague language. This time, what you call the "tactical opportunity" is actually a strategic opportunity to gain more Lebensraum - the invasion of Poland

If nothing else, know that the "tactical opportunity" was sought by the Nazis and that the Soviets gave it the green light with the signing of the M-R Pact and the numerous treaties before and after their joint occupation of Poland.

I've repeated myself so much in this thread- I'm not saying anything new at all. It's boring to debate with someone who clearly has their own bias of the Soviets always opposing fascism (when both had far more in common than with the democratic capitalists, by their own admission) , who brings up things we already discussed again and again, who hides behind vague language and who contradicts themselves all the time.

If you really don't think that the M-R Pact gave the Nazis the green light to invade Poland, merely, it was a "tactical opportunity" for the Nazis - provided by the Soviets no less; I really have nothing else to say to you.

I stand by everything I posted here. If nothing else, there are others in thread (Dir et al) have provided me with more information on the build up to WW2 and the role played by the Soviets, so taking part in this thread it hasn't been a complete waste of my time.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,596
Athens, Greece
By demonstrating that the Soviets aided and profited from the invasion of Poland, as is clear from all diplomatic agreements pre and post invasion as well as the national borders themselves, I am not mitigating the numerous crimes of the Nazis. We went over this during our intial discussion and now you've brought it back.

Again, at no point - absolutely no point at all - have I made the argument that the Nazi war crimes and the society they tried to build should be diminished in light of those committed by the Soviets



Emphasis is mine to show how once again you've contradicted yourself.

Again, again and again - I am not saying that the Nazis didn't want to move east - how many times must I repeat this before you actually ready and take it in?

The desire to invade is something we agree on - Hitler had a desire to move east. This is why i keep talking about it, how has that passed you by for all this time?

The pact came before the invasion began. The desire to invade came before the pact. The pact was a means for the invasion to begin.

Whats more, you agree with it's just you've continually chosen to hide behind vague language. This time, what you call the "tactical opportunity" is actually a strategic opportunity to gain more Lebensraum - the invasion of Poland

If nothing else, know that the "tactical opportunity" was sought by the Nazis and that the Soviets gave it the green light with the signing of the M-R Pact and the numerous treaties before and after their joint occupation of Poland.

I've repeated myself so much in this thread- I'm not saying anything new at all. It's boring to debate with someone who clearly has their own bias of the Soviets always opposing fascism (when both had far more in common than with the democratic capitalists, by their own admission) , who brings up things we already discussed again and again, who hides behind vague language and who contradicts themselves all the time.

If you really don't think that the M-R Pact gave the Nazis the green light to invade Poland, merely, it was a "tactical opportunity" for the Nazis - provided by the Soviets no less; I really have nothing else to say to you.

I stand by everything I posted here. If nothing else, there are others in thread (Dir et al) have provided me with more information on the build up to WW2 and the role played by the Soviets, so taking part in this thread it hasn't been a complete waste of my time.
*Sigh* Do you understand the difference between "desire" and "decision"? Of course you do. Then why do you keep denying the obvious conclusion and the verdict of the Nuremberg tribunal? Again and again, we are not discussing the Nazi *desire* to move East. We are discussing the Nazi *decision* and preparation to invade Poland. Fall Weiss. Months before the pact with the Soviets. Please, do not test my patience anymore and deny the historical sources as well as reason.

Hitler *desired* to move East from early on. In the spring of 1939, he *decided* to invade Poland. See the Nuremberg files, it's just a few posts back. Decided, scheduled, prepared. The invasion was there, ready to begin. The pact came afterwards. It did, but it might not have. The invasion was on the way, either way. It would happen still. Since the pact came, all the better for the Nazis. The premeditated invasion of Poland would happen regardless. See the Nuremberg files. Again. If you deny the verdict, say it openly. Else, take heed of it.

Please do not hide behind silly accusations and personal comments directed at me. Instead, face the sources and try to refute them - if you can. If not, simply accept your mistake. It's only human, no harm done.
 

Dir

Nov 2015
1,956
Kyiv
... Again and again, we are not discussing the Nazi *desire* to move East. We are discussing the Nazi *decision* and preparation to invade Poland. Fall Weiss. Months before the pact with the Soviets. Please, do not test my patience anymore and deny the historical sources as well as reason.
- we can start with the fact that the German Drang nach Osten began many centuries before the birth of Hitler. And the Drang was quite successful long before the advent of the Third Reich.

I will add that the Russians changed the vector of Drang to the opposite after 1917. The Germans held many important posts in the Russian Empire and played a large role in its administration, science, and culture. In Ukraine, lived more than half a million of Germans before 1917.

And the Russians deprived the Germans of this important role and their possessions in the area. And many "Russian" Germans were repressed.

And I already said that the idea of a new Drang voiced by Hitler in the 1920s (Mein Kampf) does not seem to acquire key importance in Germany when he became the Fuhrer of Germany.

- Why?

One simple example. If the Germans needed the lands of the Soviet Union to resettle their colonists - why then:

- The Reich calmly gave half of Poland to the Russians
- The leadership of the Third Reich was ready to discuss the creation of a small Ukrainian state in eastern Poland - in Galicia and in Volyn. But Moscow opposed this idea

Of course, Germany pursued a policy of expansion. But this policy had an obvious limit. Why did the Germans give the Russians half of Poland? And why did they calmly leave half of France to the French - although they could easily capture her in 1940? Why did the Germans leave Slovakia to the Slovaks?

It seems to me that a number of theses on the Third Reich and Hitler need to be revised. This is not about trying to whitewash Nazism. It should be about the thought that the the WWII wartime propaganda (I mean Allies propaganda) should finally cease to be exported to the description of the history of the 20th century today. Or rather, to separate history facts from speculation and propaganda.

Unfortunately, I see that the above process is still going on.

It remains to add that the Third Reich launched a whole string of different plans. And the Plan Weiss (Fall Weiß ) was one of them. Most of the plans remained just plans. Hitler was an adventurer, but he often corrected or canceled plans in accordance with changing situations. And if Russia had firmly stated in the summer of 1939 that she would be opposed to Germany’s eastward expansion, this could have caused the Plan Weiss to be canceled.

Let's not forget that Hitler did not consider Drang nach Osten to be the key task of the Reich. He considered the defeat of France to be the most important goal.

Alas, in Moscow they hoped to rake the heat in Europe with the hands of the Reich. They expected that a big war would begin in Europe, some capitalists would kill others, and the Russians would remove foams

And the whole history of 1939 directly follows from one simple fact. The country that first started a frantic arms race long before the WWII was not Germany at all. It was Russia, and it was not 1933 - it was 1930. And she strenuously rocked the topic of a new big war.

Soviet Russia was a 100% military country. She was fully optimized for a long protracted war. And peacetime created too many problems for her and her authorities

When the two largest military powers concluded the Secret Protocol on the division of foreign countries in the east of Europe, only a week passed and the WWII began. Who was Reich's only ally in the Polish campaign? Russia. Who became Reich's official friend when the last battles were not over yet? Russia. See threaty of September 28, 1939.
And the second Secret Protocol was signed there, too.


Who continued the fighting in Europe after the end of the Polish campaign? Russia in Finland. Who ensured the powerful political and ideological support of the Reich during the new Wehrmacht offensive in 1940? Russia

And you want to say that Russia with her Secret Protocol and all didn’t influence Hitler’s final decision to start a big war?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baldtastic

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,476
Londinium
*Sigh* Do you understand the difference between "desire" and "decision"? Of course you do. Then why do you keep denying the obvious conclusion and the verdict of the Nuremberg tribunal? Again and again, we are not discussing the Nazi *desire* to move East. We are discussing the Nazi *decision* and preparation to invade Poland. Fall Weiss. Months before the pact with the Soviets. Please, do not test my patience anymore and deny the historical sources as well as reason.

Hitler *desired* to move East from early on. In the spring of 1939, he *decided* to invade Poland. See the Nuremberg files, it's just a few posts back. Decided, scheduled, prepared. The invasion was there, ready to begin. The pact came afterwards. It did, but it might not have. The invasion was on the way, either way. It would happen still. Since the pact came, all the better for the Nazis. The premeditated invasion of Poland would happen regardless. See the Nuremberg files. Again. If you deny the verdict, say it openly. Else, take heed of it.

Please do not hide behind silly accusations and personal comments directed at me. Instead, face the sources and try to refute them - if you can. If not, simply accept your mistake. It's only human, no harm done.
You will provide the exact lines where "keep denying the obvious conclusion and the verdict of the Nuremberg tribunal? ". In using the word "keep" there must be numerous instances of this, as keep in this context means to repeat. By denying the Nuremberg trials you're back handily saying I'm deny the outcome of the those trials i.e. I am a Nazi supporter.

Serious accusations so show me all this evidence.


Now comes the basic definitions..as you have tried to paint me as not understanding my own arguments, let me explain this clearly for you...

Do you understand the difference between desire, decision and action? The action in this case was only permitted by the Soviets enabling the invasion to occur via the M-R Pact. The desire came long before Hitler held power and the decision to invade preceded the invasion taking place with a short period of time.

The invasion desire was there, he even started carrying out preparations for this - but once again you are left with the fact that the invasion occurred after the decision, after the desire and after the Pact with the communist - basic chronology is your friend, you should talk more often.

Since the pact came, all the better for the Nazis. The premeditated invasion of Poland would happen regardless.
Where is your source that this would happen with or without the pact - it must be explicit rather than just telling me he wanted to move east. I've asked for this before....

Hitler wanted to invade the UK - that was his desire and his decision to prepare for it - but the Nazis didn't actually invade...

Perhaps the Operation Sea lion example will bring some clarity to your next post alongside the explicit source that Hitler would have invaded Poland on that date even without the Soviet Pact. Looking forward to you providing all the supporting information to back-up your accusations and proposals above....
 

Dir

Nov 2015
1,956
Kyiv
" definitely end with their Sovietization, followed by annexation to the USSR "

That's pure speculation , Finland wasn't sovietised , neither were Poland and other East Europe countries after the wa
- The part of Finland that the Russians captured in 1940 (the Karelian Isthmus), became part of the Soviet Union and completely Sovietized. If the Russians were able to implement the initial plan of the Finnish campaign and seize the whole country - the whole of Finland would become part of the USSR and would be completely sovietized. Don't even doubt it

- Half of Poland which the Germans gave to the Russians in 1939 was immediately annexed by Russia and completely Sovietized. Moreover, mass repressions against the local population began there. And their direct consequence was the protracted UPA guerrilla war in western Ukraine in 1944-1950 +, as well as the actions of anti-Soviet partisans in western Belarus and Lithuania from 1944 on

- at the end of the WWII the Russians significantly changed their policy towards those countries that have got under their control. Europe in the person of Germany and her allies dealt Russia a severe blow which she withstood with great difficulty. In a large part of the territory captured by the Russians at the beginning of the WWII a mass uprising against Moscow authorities began in 1944

The Americans had an atomic bomb then which the Russians could not oppose at that time. That are the reasons for Moscow decision not to annex those countries where the Red Army entered in 1944-1945, but to plant pro-Moscow puppet governments in them. And make that countries Moscow satellites

It is also possible that Stalin took into account Hitler's experience in a similar situation.

I think that after the WWII Stalin weighed his strength and decided not to risk it. As a result of the war, Russia already gained gigantic new territories under her control. Plus communist China soon came on her side. The chance that the annexation and forced sovietization of the countries of Eastern Europe could cause a great uprising in them, and the West would support it was too great. Therefore, the Russians reduced their appetites after the war.

As it turned out, Stalin well foresaw the further situation. Russia in 1991 was unable to maintain full control of Eastern Europe and lost out of control vast territories both there, in Transcaucasia, and in Central Asia.

as for Poland it was an authoritarian anti-semite regime who had grabbed all the territory it could in the early 1920
the net result that one third of its population wasn't polish at all , they were the Eastern Europe champion of land grab
Lithuania was so angry at their seizure of vilnius that they had no diplomatic relations for nearly two decades
as for Galicia , the locals had fought tooth and nails against the Poles and did it again as soon as they had the chance
- Your idea that Poland was bad in 1918-1939 does not justify Russia's aggression in 1939. For Ukrainians, Poland in 1919-1939 was not much better than Russia. In fact, these were two "colonial" predators in Eastern Europe. At the same time, Russia was much more cruel and inhumanto her citizens than the Poland to non-Polish ones.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,596
Athens, Greece
And you want to say that Russia with her Secret Protocol and all didn’t influence Hitler’s final decision to start a big war?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the invasion of other countries, and WWII, would have happened regardless of the pact with the Soviets. The pact was a favourable variable in the Nazi scheming. It made it easier for them, but did not create the decision to invade.

And if it wasn't signed, the invasion would still come. I wrote to you before that "It is illogical to claim that a desicion would be cancelled because of the absense of a positive factor (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), that was not even present when the desicion for the invasion of Poland was finalised". Don't you agree with that?
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,596
Athens, Greece
You will provide the exact lines where "keep denying the obvious conclusion and the verdict of the Nuremberg tribunal? ". In using the word "keep" there must be numerous instances of this, as keep in this context means to repeat. By denying the Nuremberg trials you're back handily saying I'm deny the outcome of the those trials i.e. I am a Nazi supporter.

Serious accusations so show me all this evidence.


Now comes the basic definitions..as you have tried to paint me as not understanding my own arguments, let me explain this clearly for you...

Do you understand the difference between desire, decision and action? The action in this case was only permitted by the Soviets enabling the invasion to occur via the M-R Pact. The desire came long before Hitler held power and the decision to invade preceded the invasion taking place with a short period of time.

The invasion desire was there, he even started carrying out preparations for this - but once again you are left with the fact that the invasion occurred after the decision, after the desire and after the Pact with the communist - basic chronology is your friend, you should talk more often.

Where is your source that this would happen with or without the pact - it must be explicit rather than just telling me he wanted to move east. I've asked for this before....

Hitler wanted to invade the UK - that was his desire and his decision to prepare for it - but the Nazis didn't actually invade...

Perhaps the Operation Sea lion example will bring some clarity to your next post alongside the explicit source that Hitler would have invaded Poland on that date even without the Soviet Pact. Looking forward to you providing all the supporting information to back-up your accusations and proposals above....
I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi supporter, for heaven's sake. Calm down.

No, "the action" was not "permitted only" by the Soviet pact. If the absence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop was a forbidding factor for the invasion of Poland, there would have been no decision, preparation, readiness to invade, months before the existence of the pact. All these would have to wait for the pact first (if it was the deciding factor allowing the invasion), and then decide to go on, prepare, and invade. What the pact did was to facilitate a course of action (the invasion) already decided and scheduled. In other words, the invasion would happen one way or another.

The sources that you're asking I have mentioned numerous times before, the latest is the verdict of the Nuremberg tribunal, posts 952, 953. http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/IMTJudgment.pdf
It clearly states that Hitler decided to invade Poland in the spring of 1939, three months before the August pact with the Soviets. If you're looking for a phrasing along the lines of "I have decided to invade Poland, even without a pact with the Soviets", it is kind of absurd to expect a reference to an unknown future event (at the time) in the decision and preparation of an action (the invasion of Poland) that was scheduled and due to happen irrespective (of course) of that future event.