Question to Finns

[Raven_2]

About CZ from Wikipedia:

During 1938, the Soviet Union (as well as France) offered to abide by their defensive military alliance with Czechoslovakia in the event of German invasion, but the Czechoslovakian Agrarian Party was so strongly opposed to Soviet troops entering the country that they threatened a civil war might result if they did. The 1935 agreement between the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and France stipulated that Soviet aid could only come to Czechoslovakia if France came to their aid as well.

The reticence of the western democracies to form an anti-fascist alliance with the USSR, and France and Britain's pact with Hitler signed at Munich, was indicative of a lack of interest from the side of the West to oppose the growing fascist movement, already exemplified by the events of the Spanish Civil War.

Ant toad, read this to the end, OK?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Boroda
This stuff you quote contradicts itself. Vilnus was not a part of Lithuania in 1939. Northern border of Lithuania - did you buy yourself a map as I advised you?...

This "secret protocols" stuff is funny. Noone ever saw originals.

This can be as well the web sites authors fault, since I quickly googled it.
I don't recall any advises for buying a map.

Secret protocols... I guess they just split Poland for the joy of it and there was never any intentions to liberate the baltic countries, which conveniently happened.

[Raven_2]

to Angus

>>Yes, the USSR was not at gunpoint to make a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany

8-( Why you think so? Europe was in danger and USSR wasn`t? It`s a bull****.

<...>it was necessary to enter into a non-aggression pact to buy time since the Soviet Union was not in a position to fight a war in 1939, and needed at least three years to prepare. <...>

Biographers of Stalin point out that he believed the British rejected his proposal of an anti-fascist alliance because they were plotting with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, and that the western democracies were expecting the Third Reich to attack "Communist Russia" and were hoping that the Nazi forces would wipe out the Soviet Union — or that both countries would fight each other to the point of exhaustion and then collapse. These suspicions were reinforced when Chamberlain and Hitler met for the Munich Agreement.

Still don`t see a point? German may release a rush atack on USSR and destroy it unprepared - and Europe won`t help USSR in thiat case. So these pact *was* forced. USSR needed more time to prepare to war.


>>But, for roughly a year and a half, the Nazi warmachine was nicely fed by USSR materials, that remains as a fact.

Any evidiences? Documents?

And your forgot the link on Putin saying about Katyn.

to Fishu

>>Secret protocols... I guess they just split Poland for the joy of it and there was never any intentions to liberate the baltic countries, which conveniently happened.

And for what reason CZ goes to German by Munchen agreement? Huh? Just for fun?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raven_2
And what about mexiacans and color-skinned people?

[/b]

What about them? They weren't ever killed wholesale on the orders of the US government. Unlike the... Ukrainians and Stalin.

That mean that USA has nothing to do with starved to death people in Iraq?

[/b]

When the UN levels sanctions and the US obeys the sanctions and IF Iraqis die...I'd put the blame on the Iraqi government for not complying with the UN resolutions. Any normal person can see where the fault lies there. Can you?

Yeah, and now Shock and Awe is "just just about the entire civilized WORLD"

[/b]

Nope. That's mostly the US, the Brits, the Aussies, the Poles and a few others. I'm on record here as saying the latest Iraq invasion has to be considered a major mistake and violation of just war theory. See if you can figure out what that means before you spew off again.

 

It`s your imagination, Savenkov didn`t say this. Again, you can tranlate article by yourself, there a lot of translators in internet.

[/b]

Put " russia poles savenkov" in Google and do some reading. Or check my next post; I'll give you the whole article that the rest of the world is reading.

Then Putin invition is illogical.

[/b]

The Russias still are not turning over all the files, in fact not even most of them.

And nazi burn ukrainian people (that wasn`t surrender) on wartime too. They did the right thing?

[/b]

And Soviets burned Germans that weren't surrendered, etc., etc. THAT'S war.

However, shooting unarmed POW's is not war, it's MURDER. Raping 90,000 German women in the two weeks after the fall of Berlin is not war, it's RAPE.. and it's really bad when the officers look the other way or encourage it. It's real bad when you and Bolshevik Bob defend it.

Again, there were only 20.1500 soldiers and 379.850 civilians in Hirosima and Nagasaki. Why then you didn`t drop nuclear bomb on Bahdad?

[/b]

Because our conventional forces whipped them in 100 hours the first time and 3 weeks the second time with minimal losses?

The Japanese were NOT going to surrender. If you'd read the history, you'd realize that.

Here it is again, the short version. Do some more research.

Just before midnight on 09 August, Japanese Emperor Hirohito convened the supreme war council. After a long, emotional debate, he backed a proposal by Prime Minister Suzuki in which Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration "with the understanding that said Declaration does not compromise any demand that prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as the sovereign ruler."

The council obeyed Hirohito's acceptance of peace, and on 10 August the message was relayed to the United States. Early on 12 August, the United States answered that "the authority of the emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." After two days of debate about what this statement implied, Emperor Hirohito brushed the nuances in the text aside and declared that peace was preferable to destruction. He ordered the Japanese government to prepare a text accepting surrender.
     
In the early hours of 15 August, a military coup was attempted by a faction led by Major Kenji Hatanaka. The rebels seized control of the imperial palace and burned Prime Minister Suzuki's residence, but shortly after dawn the coup was crushed.

The Japanese military wasn't ready to surrender AFTER the bombs were dropped, see? Do you understand yet?

>>Korea: You claim US "aggression". You again show your ignorance. What client state of the Soviet Union invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950 ?

USA forces was in Korea since 1945, if you don`t know.

[/b]

Yeah, I know. We had troops all over the world after the war ended. Some of them stayed to keep stuff from..oh, say a Soviet client state like North Korea from aggressively invading South Korea.

>>Which side did the Soviet Union fight on? Who invaded? Who were the aggressors?

USA, till 1945.

[/b]

LOL! What a pathetic dodge!

Whose side did the Soviet Union fight on when the North Koreans aggressively invaded South Korea in 1950?

Drop a link, please. If these documents exist not only in your mind.

[/b]

Put "1950 North Korea invades South Korea" into Google. You'll get more than you can read.

Results 1 - 10 of about 136,000 for 1950 North Korea invades South Korea

>>USA aggression? Did the USA invade North Vietnam

USA kill at least 65.000 civilians due to bombarding.?

[/b]

You BET we did. We bombed the Soviet client state North Vietnam after they aggressively invaded South Vietnam. Just like we bombed North Korea after that Soviet client state aggressively invaded South Korea.

>> Your good friends the VC and NVA killed more civilians in the South than the US by a good margin.

So, you don`t reject that USA actualy kill civilians in Vietnam, yes?

[/b]

No, I don't. Civilians get killed in war. Did the Soviets kill civilians in WW2? They sure did. So did every combatant country. Same thing in every war, Vietnam included.

>>See, after the Munich Pact the Allied countries of Europe DID NOT stab Poland in the back

Sure, they stab Czechoslovakia.

[/b]

Yes, the did stab the Czechs; it was disgusting and a big mistake.

However, they did NOT militarily invade them as well when the Nazis entered AND they did not MURDER Czech POW's. See the difference?

Sure, treaty about CZ and others were open, there were no secrecy, it`s a normal to give one country to faschist without even ask for czech opinion on that. It`s like the civilized world almost work.

[/b]

Ah, so a secret treaty to divide Poland with the Nazis is somehow more honorable?

You right. There were whole Erope treachery of CZ. There were conspiracy of dividing Poland. Moraly it`s the same things.

Again we come round full circle. You wonder why so many people see Russians as barbarians.

Morally it is NOT the same thing. That's why you folks have the reputation you do.

Again.. repeated denials of incidents like Katyn... when the evidence is not only irrefutable but ADMITTED to by your government.... only highlights the reasons people see Russians as barbarians.

Admit it, admit it was wrong and the reputation will change eventually.

[Toad]

Russia says WW2 executions of Poles not genocide

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia denied on Friday that the 1940 execution of 15,000 Polish prisoners of war by Soviet secret police was genocide, dismaying Poland's chief war crimes investigator and chilling already frosty bilateral relations.
Poland has long pushed for Moscow to bring to account the perpetrators of the Katyn massacre, with victims' families and prosecutors calling for the killings to be treated as genocide.

A conclusion of genocide could have been a first step towards prosecutions. Russian investigators closed their case last year without pressing any charges.

"The version of genocide was examined, and it is my firm conviction that there is absolutely no basis to talk about this in judicial terms," Chief Military Prosecutor Alexander Savenkov told a news conference.

"There is not, and was not, genocide committed against the Polish people ... in this case," Savenkov was quoted by the RIA Novosti news agency as telling reporters.

Poland's top war crimes investigator reacted with dismay, saying Russia had put politics before justice.

"The Russians have decided a priori that Katyn wasn't genocide," said Leon Kieres, head of the Institute of National Remembrance. "The problem is that politics are getting into legal and historical issues.

The Katyn row further strains relations between Poland, a newly-assertive member of the European Union, and Russia, which in its former guise as the Soviet Union dominated Poland for five decades.

President Vladimir Putin chided Poland for backing Ukraine's "Orange Revolution", and this week Poland's Foreign Ministry called the killing of Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov by Russian security forces a "crime".

DOCUMENTS KEPT SECRET

The mass shootings of interned Polish officers followed the 1939 partition of Poland by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin at the start of World War Two.

Nazi Germany later reneged on the pact, invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Advancing forces found thousands of bodies in mass graves in the Katyn forest, near Smolensk, western Russia.

Soviet propagandists blamed the killings on the Germans, however, and only in 1990 did President Mikhail Gorbachev admit that the Soviet NKVD secret police had been responsible.
Russian investigations into the case dragged on for over a decade, ending inconclusively last year. Savenkov put the final Katyn death toll at 14,540.

Poland has decided to open its own probe, but says it has been hampered by delays in handing over case documents, two-thirds of which Russia has refused to declassify.

"The Russians are still causing a lot of problems in handing over the documents. We still haven't received them," said Kieres.

"We know that there were at least 2,000 people who commited this crime," he added, appealing to Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski to intervene. "Now it is up to the politicians to take a step. To be tough on this issue."

(With reporting by Natalia Reiter in Warsaw.)

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Toad

Not EXACTLY what history records, is it?

Why?

Originally posted by Toad

Now Poland, unlike the SU, did not invade Czechoslovakia, attack her troops and murder the POW's. Poland did indeed grab a piece of the pie when Czechoslovakia was divided up amongst the wolves. Certainly not an admirable thing, but also certainly not open warfare and murder either.

I don't see any difference. I also want you to enlighten me about "open warfare and murder" between Poland and USSR in 1939. I need to read some stories about great battles between brave Polish warriors and evil Soviets, with blood and gutters all over the border.

Sorry, but by Sept, 16th, Poland was only a "geographical concept". Sad but true.

Originally posted by Toad
Let's examine this historically as well. The talks, USSR-UK-France , began in Moscow on 12 August. Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, told the delegates that unless Soviet troops were permitted to enter Polish territory it was physically impossible for the Soviet Union to assist Poland and it would be useless to continue discussions.

It is pretty idiotic. How did they expect USSR to help Poland against Germany without entering Polish territory? Are you crazy?! Go buy a map, I hope in the airforce they taught you to read it.
 

Originally posted by Toad
This point was never resolved before the Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations were negotiations were adjourned indefinitely on 21 August -- after the Soviet government had decided to sign the non-aggression pact with Germany. So the talks broke down over pre-deploying Soviet troops in Poland.

The main reason for failure of negotiations was that "allies" didn't bring any plans against Germany. Only bla-bla about "several divisions" deployed in "several months". OTOH Soviet side gave exact numbers and plans.

"Allies" didn't plan an agreement with USSR, nor they planned any real assistance to Poland.

Negotiations are covered very good in Mosley's "On Borrowed Time". Voroshilov showed incredible tolerance and literally squeezed on allied to get something reasonable... They didn't have anything with them, and were not authorised to sign any treaty. This fact alone shows their intentions.

Originally posted by Toad
Now, the SU and Nazi Germany were talking in August as well.

Ribbentrop was really surprised that Stalin agreed to sign a pact. It was obvious on the second day that allies simply can't sign a treaty and simply want USSR to fight for their interests, as it happened many times before, but in this case they were mistaken.

Originally posted by Toad

Looks to me like the SU was playing both sides and took the best deal. The Allies wouldn't let them put Soviet troops in Poland... the Germans INVITED them to do so.

Allies didn't mind that, they simply said that Poles "probably will not allow them"...

Yes, at that situation Stalin took the best deal. There were three ways out of problem:

1) Join "allies" on unknown terms (the delegation didn't have rights to sign anything), and get into a war for allied interests. Also please note that Soviet involvement was possible only after German troops come to Soviet border (if Poles don't want our troops on their land - how do they think we'll help them?)

2) Leave Poland alone, let nazis seize it all and have nazi army at the gates. Also that meant leaving Baltic states to nazis and having them 100km from Leningrad in case of war. Definetly not the best decision.

3) Make an agreement with nazis, move the border to the West and get some space before future war.

Originally posted by Toad
Who refused? The deal was done except Stalin wanted his armies in Poland. There was no problem with an alliance except this one. What would the SU have said if France and Britain wanted to put 250,000 men in the USSR?

Hmm. France didn't mind Russian troops on Western front in WWI and was quite happy having them in command. Stalin wanted not "armies in Poland", he was just curious how Red Army is supposed to help if it can't get in contact with German troops. IMHO it's obvious.

Originally posted by Toad
What you could have done is NOT make an agreement to divide Poland with the Nazis. You could still have a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. You did not have to add the secret protocol:

So - we had to give up land that was so vital in 1941 only to let nazis kill Jews in Lvov and other Western Ukrainian and Belorussian places? You expect too much. If an aggressor offers you a possible instrument that can be used in a future war, and a chance to save thousands of people from death camps - you'll refuse? Strange Western mind

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Fishu
This can be as well the web sites authors fault, since I quickly googled it.
I don't recall any advises for buying a map.

Unfortunately it's the exact quote.

Sorry, I advised you to buy a map and look where is Finland and where is Petrozavodsk... Now there's another reason, to look for Northern border of Lithuania, and then maybe for border of USSR in 1941, to understand the true value of this "secret evil protocols".

Originally posted by Fishu
Secret protocols... I guess they just split Poland for the joy of it and there was never any intentions to liberate the baltic countries, which conveniently happened.

Baltic republics were admitted to join USSR after a legitimate democratic procedure. Sorry, but it is a fact. Another example of Great Democratic Values that many Western people religiously worship. Please think about it.

About Poland - I explained it in a post above. Vae victis. Maybe Poland could find better allies before WWII instead of taking part in raping Czechoslovakia?...

[Siaf__csf]

Baltic republics were admitted to join USSR after a legitimate democratic procedure.

[Siaf__csf]

This is the level of press Boroda reads daily:

http://www.toni-schonfelder.com/eng.asp?id=202

Reliable news:

http://www.toni-schonfelder.com/eng.asp?id=490

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf

I agree completely, it is funny. But it's true.

Did you think that Red Army invaded and conquered poor sprat-catchers?...

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Boroda
Baltic republics were admitted to join USSR after a legitimate democratic procedure. Sorry, but it is a fact. Another example of Great Democratic Values that many Western people religiously worship. Please think about it.

Of course it didn't have anything to do with the gun pointed at them.
You know, like in the case of Finland, which suddenly became a threat and all of the sudden decided to start a war against the soviet union, while having no allies.


Edit:  this sounds very democratic indeed: "The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (Estonian S.S.R.) was the name for Estonia when it was part of the USSR, occupied by the USSR on 17 June 1940. It was subsequently conquered by the Germans before being re-annexed by the Soviets in 1944"

Their democratics have been rather busy during the world war 2, considering they first decided to join in the USSR and then the nazi-Germany and yet again back into the USSR. Of course the guns didn't have anything to do with it.
I'm getting the iraqi information minister flashbacks...


Edit2:
The Lithuanian SSR ceased to exist. Vytautas Landsbergis became the head of the state and Kazimiera Prunskienė led the Cabinet of Ministers. On March 15 the U.S.S.R. demanded revocation of the act and began employing political and economic sanctions against Lithuania as well as demonstrating military force. Lithuanians, inspired by their government, protested against Soviet actions by using peaceful means and not trying to use some extreme or gun shifts. On January 10, 1991, U.S.S.R. authorities seized the main publishing house and other premises in Vilnius and attempted to suppress the elected government by sponsoring a so called National Salvation Committee.

They've been rather democratic too.. apparently they weren't satisfied with the democratic results *cough*at a gun point*cough* couple of decades earlier.

[Siaf__csf]

On August 1, 1944, with the Russian forces on the right bank of the Vistula, the Home Army rose in Warsaw; the Warsaw Rising. Heroic street-fighting involving the whole population, using the sewers as lines of communication and escape, under heavy bombardment, lasted for 63 days. The city was completely destroyed. Not only did the Russians cease to advance but they also refused to allow Allied planes to land on Russian airfields after dropping supplies. After surrendering many civilians and soldiers were executed or sent to concentration camps to be exterminated and Warsaw was razed to the ground.

The defeat in Warsaw destroyed the political and military institutions of the Polish underground and left the way open for a Soviet take-over.

With the liberation of Lublin in July 1944 a Russian-sponsored Polish Committee for National Liberation (a Communist Government in all but name) had been set up and the British had put great pressure, mostly unsuccessful, on the Government-in-exile to accept this status quo. At Yalta, in February 1945, the Allies put Poland within the Russian zone of influence in a post-war Europe. To most Poles the meaning of these two events was perfectly clear; Poland had been betrayed. At one stage the Polish Army, still fighting in Italy and Germany, was prepared to withdraw from the front lines in protest; after all, they were supposed to be fighting for Polish liberation. It is a reflection on Polish honour that no such withdrawal took place since it could leave large gaps in the front lines and so was considered too dangerous for their Allied comrades-in-arms.

The war ended on May 8th, 1945.

The Cost:
The Poles are the people who really lost the war.

Over half a million fighting men and women, and 6 million civilians (or 22% of the total population) died. About 50% of these were Polish Christians and 50% were Polish Jews. Approximately 5,384,000, or 89.9% of Polish war losses (Jews and Gentiles) were the victims of prisons, death camps, raids, executions, annihilation of ghettos, epidemics, starvation, excessive work and ill treatment. So many Poles were sent to concentration camps that virtually every family had someone close to them who had been tortured or murdered there.

There were one million war orphans and over half a million invalids.

The country lost 38% of its national assets (Britain lost 0.8%, France lost 1.5%). Half the country was swallowed up by the Soviet Union including the two great cultural centres of Lwow and Wilno.

Many Poles could not return to the country for which they has fought because they belonged to the "wrong" political group or came from eastern Poland and had thus become Soviet citizens. Others were arrested, tortured and imprisoned by the Soviet authorities for belonging to the Home Army.

Although "victors" they were not allowed to partake in victory celebrations.

Through fighting "For Our Freedom and Yours" they had exchanged one master for another and were, for many years to come, treated as "the enemy" by the very Allies who had betrayed them at Teheran and Yalta.

http://www.travelpoland.com/index.php?pid=29

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Fishu
Of course it didn't have anything to do with the gun pointed at them.

It's not our problem. They were our allies, hosted Soviet bases, and their democratically elected governments decided to ask to be allowed to join USSR.

What went wrong? Maybe they "democratically elected" wrong governments? If it is so - it's not our problem. Anyway - it was their decision. They were not invaded like Finland and didn't fight Red Army.

Originally posted by Fishu
You know, like in the case of Finland, which suddenly became a threat and all of the sudden decided to start a war against the soviet union, while having no allies.

Suddenly?! Soviet offers on trading Karelian Isthmus for money and several times more land in Russian Karelia came long time before the White-Finnish war began. No allies?! UK and France = no allies? Oh, sorry, Polish experience proves it. OTOH - why didn't "allies" plan bombing Baku oil fields for Soviet "invasion" in Poland? They planned such bombings in Spring 1940 to help Finns. BTW, they had that plans until 1943 - to prevent Hitler from capturing them...

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Boroda
Suddenly?! Soviet offers on trading Karelian Isthmus for money and several times more land in Russian Karelia came long time before the White-Finnish war began. No allies?! UK and France = no allies?

Yeah well, it was a democratic decision to turn down the offer. Whats the problem with that? It was our democratic fault not to get the benefit of offered money and several times more land.
It still doesn't give a reason to attack, it was a democratic decision after all, like you like to say in the case of the baltic republics.

I don't recall any pacts with UK and France, other than buying off outdated equiptment and getting some antique for free. Like french machineguns which were so unfit for battle that even in the lack finns didn't use those in the frontline duty.
and of course some talks about sending UK reinforcements to Finland, which is debated to be just an excuse to secure *cough*occupy*cough* swedish ore mines and deny it from the nazi-Germany.

[Boroda]

Siaf, Warsaw uprising this time? I guess Berlin Airlift is on the way?



Yess!!! Russians were sooo eeevil that they didn't want to kill another million soldiers to help a hostile emigrant government!

When Poland got attacked by nazis - "allies" that guaranteed it's security didn't do a thing. It's OK. OTOH - Russians have to send millions to die instead of performing planned operations on more important parts of front just to please some runaway irresponsible bastards sitting in London, who started the uprising without consulting with Soviet command!

Next please.