Originally posted by E25280
I could have said the same about your "Soviet sources", but chose not to. I also used it only as an easily found quote, and clearly stated it is consistent with everything else I have ever heard on the subject. I thought the point was to share how similar events are portrayed differently depending on the source. But if you will simply ridicule the source, I guess I missed the point.
Wikipedia is the most biased pro-Western mixture of propaganda lies, sorry. I lived in USSR and I can see it pretty well that "wikipederasts" cut-and-paste Western Cold-war comic-books.
Originally posted by E25280
I didn't. You choose to believe one state-controlled version of events rather than sources that are subject to independent verification and ridicule by the world if they get it wrong. OK. Not sure I understand that logic, but there it is.
State controlled logic?! I said - we had a huge variety of Western sources published in USSR since mid-50s. Like - can you find an English translation of "WeltKrieg 1939-1945" that is a WWII history written by German generals and published in West Germany in 1955? It was translated in 1957 here and widely availible.
Did you read Zhukov's memoirs? I have read Omar Bradley's "Soldier's Diary" in Russian. I have read Manstein and Guderian in Russian. Interesting, isn't it? Nice hints about "freedom of press" in USSR and the US?
Originally posted by E25280
To me, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact looks a lot more like an agreement between two dictators to carve up Eastern Europe between them. The material support sent by the Soviets to Nazi Germany also seem to indicate more of cooperative relationship rather than a confrontational one.
Material support from USA to nazis was 10 times bigger. Opel was bought by GM in mid-30s, it's just one example. US bombers had regions where they can't drop bombs marked on their maps just because there was "American capital invested". OTOH USSR shipped raw materials to Germany, materials that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry, getting stuff like heavy cruisers and hi-tech machinery in return.
We wanted to survive and our leaders were wise enough. We got a delay in 1939. Read something about Soviet-British-French negotiations in Moscow in August 1939. West just wanted us to do all the job without any support.
Originally posted by E25280
But I find it interesting that you will use an argument that you "had to" invade the Baltic States (and I suppose Finland, Poland and Rumania) to defend yourself, yet ridicule the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq where the "self-defense" reasoning is also used. Perhaps if you look at your skepticism of US intentions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can see why there is similar skepticism about Soviet actions in East Europe in 1939-1941.
Look at the map, where is Afghanistan, Iraq and US. I think it's enough. I don't "ridicule" your "efforts", I just want to say that in Iraq a "democratic" govt was installed after the occupation began, while in Baltic "states" democratically elected govts were elected before they joined the USSR.
Originally posted by E25280
I'm going to bow out of this one now. It looks like you (and others) are spoiling for a fight when I have neither the time nor energy to engage in one.
I am also bored of this crap. I probably need to make a website with answers to most common questions, like a blog with links to posts here, instead of typing it again
