Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "Eastern Front animated: 1941" video.
-
242
-
Peter S
1). It's an old story: "It's not Stalin who won, but Hitler lost." This point of view denies any achievements of the socialist system, therefore it is biased.
2). The USSR was an alliance of different republics, and Romania was a national state. At least it was a disputed region (Bessarabia).
3). The Polish population in the east was colonists, so if you look at the map, you will see that they are mostly in large cities. So this is how colonization happens. The real masters of the land are the peasants.
4). The move of the Poles after 1939? Each state acted in its own interests - this is how politics works. There is no reason to leave millions of Poles on Soviet territory, because they need to be fed and they are hostile.
Western allies recognized the line of Curzon as the ethnic border of the Polish people, that's the USSR and returned the Poles to their homeland.
5). You know that this same Europe has become a puppet or ally of Hitler, is not it? For example, Finland, which spoke of its neutrality, established in April 1941 a SS structure on its territory and a legion that fought on the southern sector of the eastern front from January 1942. Therefore, the opinion of such people for Russia does not make sense.
49
-
Kathleen Shaw
1). I will not see from you any reference to the Soviet document, right? It will suffice to quote any Soviet order that has the goal of "killing Christians".
2). The famine of 1932-1933 had objective (drought, poor harvest, plant diseases) and subjective reasons -the mistakes of Soviet agricultural specialists, who used the American experience of processing the land.
This experience was unsuccessful in Soviet climatic conditions and a significant part of the crop was lost.
The Soviet government helped the affected regions by sending food aid and opening public canteens.
The documented deaths of 2.5 million people, of which about 77 thousand people died directly from hunger, the rest - from epidemics, weakening of immunity and food poisoning.
The plan of blanks was reduced by 40% relative to 1932 in decree of May 6, 1932 and by others.
Collected grain in Ukraine - 916 million poods of which 280 million (31%) - took the state in the form of a plan.
Soviet exports to other countries were reduced:
1931 (there is no famine) - 4.91 million tons of bread.
1932 - 1.32 million tons.
1933 - 1.53 million tons.
Aid to regions:
In general, from September 1932 to December 1934, Kazakhstan received 5 million centners of grain as food aid. This is 31.2 million poods.
In total, in 1932, Ukraine received 3.2 million centners in the order of food aid, and in 1933 - 5.3 million centners. This is 53.1 million poods in total.
And on the basis of this assistance a large-scale network of canteens was organized. According to data as of May 1933, 8.8 million people ate in rural canteens in the European part of the USSR. In Ukraine, at the same time, there were 20.7 thousand canteens, to which 3 million people were attached. In total, in 1933, catering, including food during field work, reached 39 million people.
3). In the first Soviet government there are 72 people. Of these: Slavs (Russian, Byelorussians, Ukrainians) - 48 (67%), Jews - 8 (11%), Poles - 5 (7%), plus 3 Latvians, 2 Germans, 2 Armenians, 2 Georgians, 1 Ossetian and 1 - not defined.
National composition of the Red Army (1920).
Russians - 79%, Ukrainians 5%, Tatars - 3.39%, Belarusians 2.19%.
National composition of the Cheka.
77.3% of Russians, 9.1% of Jews, 3.5% of Latvians, 3.1% of Ukrainians, 0.5% of Belarusians, 0.5% of Muslims, 0.2% of Armenians, 0.1% of Georgians. The Chekist International was supplemented by 315 Germans, 46 Finns, 25 Czechs, 13 Chinese, 3 Swedes, 2 Englishmen and a Frenchman.
4). Here is a brief list of the achievements of the two revolutions of 1917:
- The peasants were given more land.
- The working day is reduced from 10.5 hours to 8 hours.
- Improvement of the health care system.
- The policy of eliminating illiteracy of the population.
- Equality of men and women is presented.
- Elimination of class privileges.
- Freedom of religion is introduced.
- Cessation of economic exploitation of man by man.
46
-
38
-
30
-
28
-
Kuckoo
As for the Soviet repressions, you just have to understand what purpose they pursued (you should use the principle of historicism which says that events should be evaluated from the point of view of people who made decisions). These were repressions against military enemies, criminals, illegal armed groups, radical nationalists and their family members (social base). For the Soviet government, it was a justifiable policy to ensure their own security. But after the collapse of socialism in Europe, many countries rewrote their history and called such a policy a crime. Now you use their opinion, but such logic violates the principle of historicism.
Thus, in this situation, revisionism is the use of the opinion of the enemies of the Soviet system (rewriting history), and the opinion of the Soviet government is the foundation on which the Soviet state relied that is, it is a restoration of the principle of historicism.
24
-
1). "in secret protocol they share Europa lands" - to spheres of influence, not literally. This means the separation of political influence for other countries so that, because of contradictions, there is not a big conflict.
2). "pretty much alliance to me" - The alliance means having the same goals between its members. How did Germany and the USSR have the same goals? It seems each of them pursued a policy with their own interests.
3). "i dont care what Stalin and Hitler sayd" - you do not care, but you write a comment on the historical subject? Come on.
4). "they both where cold blooded dictators" - I do not know about Germany, but the Soviet system is a system of collegial governance of the state. The power of one person is impossible. People confuse the unregulated power and the cult of personality, which was real.
5). "One death is tragedy, a millions death is statistics" - These words are a slightly paraphrased quote from Remarque's novel "The Black Obelisk: "But, it seems, it always happens: the death of one person is just death, and the death of two million is only statistics" (lol).
6). "even Hitler didnt kill so many humans" - let's see (Lol # 2):
Stalin killed:
Repression - 680 thousand people.
Citizens of the USSR who died in labor camps - 1.6 million (for 23 years).
The war with Poland - 5 thousand soldiers.
The winter war - 120 thousand soldiers.
Total - 2.405.000 people.
Hitler killed:
Repression 1.2 mln people.
Germans killed in camps - 500 thousand (for 12 years).
Poland - 66 thousand soldiers and 5 million civilians.
Norway - 4 thousand soldiers.
France - 162 thousand soldiers and 125 thousand civilians.
The English corps - 3.5 thousand soldiers.
Holland - 3 thousand soldiers.
Belgium - 7.5 thousand soldiers.
The battle for Britain - 5 thousand pilots and 100 thousand civilians.
Balkan campaign - 33 thousand soldiers.
Terror in Yugoslavia - 350 thousand guerrillas and 1.5 million civilians.
The war with the USSR - 11 million soldiers and 14 million civilians.
The loss of the allies - 300,000 British and 400,000 Americans.
Germany's own losses - 5.3 million soldiers and 2 million civilians.
The losses of Germany's allies - 1 million soldiers.
Total - 43.000.000 people. This is without regard to the death by famine.
7). "Second point is that Winners write history" - yes, it's done by the winners of the Cold War as well.
8). "I prefer fact truth over social truth" - I do not know what social truth is, but your position is biased because it denies the existence of "its own truth" in the USSR and Germany. She opposes these two regimes as dictatorial while the Baltic states were authoritarian from 1934-1936 (Lol # 3).
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
Mikk Nigol
1). You confuse the trade agreement and the military alliance. Trade means that both sides benefit: Germany receives resources, the USSR receives technology. This process is benefit for both parties.
2). On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
14
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Emil
1). "Soviet generals got the green light from stalin to rape eastern europe" - what do you say about this?
Order №233 (January 19, 1945) "Officers and soldiers of the Red Army! We are on our way to the enemy’s country. Everyone must stay composed, everyone must be brave. The remaining population of the conquered territories, regardless of whether it’s a German, or a Czech, or a Pole must not fall victim to any violence. Those guilty of such conduct will be punished in accordance with the martial law. Any sexual relations with females in the conquered territories are forbidden. Those guilty of violence and rape will be executed".
2). "spurred on by the hateful propaganda from Ilya Ehrenberg" - The conclusion of the examination, carried out by the Munich Institute of Contemporary History in 1996, reads:
"Despite the tireless propaganda activities of Ehrenburg, it should be emphasized that no evidence has yet been found that Ehrenburg is indeed the author of a frequently cited leaflet calling for treating German women as a legitimate prey." We also do not know anything about the existence of a copy of this leaflet in Russian.
So, you must apologize for your lies.
"(a jew)" - So what? Nazi propaganda always dehumanised own opponent so that Wehrmacht soldiers do not feel remorse when they commit crimes. In reality, the nationality does not affect the professional qualities of the person, so the accusation of Jewry is meaningless.
3). "So how can one view the soviets as having a moral high ground when their actions were no better then their supposed evil enemies?" - find a similar order for the Wehrmacht from my first point. You can not? Because the war for Germany in the east is a colonial war. You equate the victim to aggressor. This is an act of information war.
4). "other massacres like Katyn" - here you ignore the Soviet version, do not you? But in any case, even if it was done by the NKVD, they had a reason, Poland destroyed 70 to 160 thousand soviet POWs during the period 1919-1921 (maltreatment, famine, executions). You should always look for a rational reason, not demonizing, as you do.
5). "you can't blame all individual german soldiers for the planned extermination for the entire soviet population" - The Nazi plan for genocide envisaged the seizure of a large quantity of food from Soviet citizens and its transportation to Germany. Thus, Soviet people were doomed to starvation. Plus, the Wehrmacht was supposed to block the flow of food to other regions in order to "liberate" the land from the excess population for the German colonist. In total it was planned to kill from 20 to 30 million people only in one winter 1941-1942. This is only an economic act of genocide, but there was still racial / ideological - excessive violence and mass executions of civilians. Find Keitel's order of May 13, 1941 and read it. In it, the German soldier was released from responsibility for violence against people in the east. And now find a similar order for the red army :)
6). "or completely made up by the soviets themselves - who were notorious for rewriting history" - oh, of course, the West has never done anything like that, has it? Thus, you again propagandize the superiority of one man (the Western one) over others. You deny the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War, which means "the inability to protect your information space." Thus, you fill the vaccum by your lies / Russophobia, and any attempt to refute this - you voprisnimaete as "these Russians are brainwashed." It seems that this is a biased position, since it denies the existence of "its own truth" on the part of Russia / USSR.
7). "soviets were the FIRST to invade finland & that was in 1939 - unprovoked & savage" - The war with Finland is a matter of Leningrad's security. This country could be used as a springboard for Germany to attack the USSR. This had to be prevented. We need to push the border. For this, the Soviet government offered Finland an exchange of territories, but they refused. So, the Finns refused, and security has not been achieved yet - war remains the only option. Thus, when you say that this was an unprovoked war - you deny the state interests of the USSR and cease to be objective.
8). "when the Finns pushed the Red army back into russia during the Continuation War - did you see any Finns raping russian civilians? Nope" - in the firstly they crossed the line of their old border and this was undoubted aggression. Secondly, they put the Soviet civilian population in the concentration camps (yes they had them!), where many died. Plus they committed the ethnic genocide of the Russian population in their country after winning the civil war. It seems this should seriously turned your picture of the world :)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1). The USSR had 8,600 serviceable tanks on its western borders. But the number of tanks still does not say anything (this was the consequence of the imbalance in the prewar doctrine), one must look at other material security: trucks, artillery, motorized infantry, fuel, portable radios, etc. The USSR had problem with this.
2). Yes, the Red Army had serious problems, but it was able to successfully complete its operations in 1938 and 1939 against Japan. Therefore, not everything is so unambiguous. I recommend that you watch the video: "Stalin’s Purge of the Red Army and Its Effects on the WW2 Eastern Front".
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Немного статистики по основным ресурсам (1939).
Сталь (млн. Тонн).
Германия - 22,3, СССР - 17,6;
Чугун (млн. Тонн).
Германия - 19,7, СССР - 14,5;
Уголь (млн. Тонн).
Германия - 233,7, СССР - 146,2;
Электричество (млрд кВт / ч).
Германия - 66,3, СССР - 43,3.
1
-
1
-
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Бтр-ы были нужны и они принимались нами в качестве помощи от союзников.
2. Флот был сокращен потому что ресурсы высвобождались для сухопутной армии. Германия не имела такой возможности и разрывалась между необходимостью снабжать/увеличивать армию, флот и авиацию.
3. Германия также не имела возможности не производить большое кол-во боеприпасов для зенитной артиллерии потому что восточный фронт нуждается плюс нужно защищать саму Германию от массивных налетов. Объективные потребности больше.
4. СССР превзошел Германию именно потому что мы имели возможность сократить флот и все остальное, а Германия - нет. То есть это объективный фактор. Также социалистическая система показала большую универсальность к адаптации, но это очень сложно "померять".
5. Собственно Германия производила столько оружия, сколько ей позволяла ситуация на тот момент. Там проблема была не в недостатке мощностей, а в рационализации, перестройке промышленности на режим тотальной войны т.п. Т.е. организационные проблемы.
6. Поэтому ваше утверждение о том, что наш промышленный потенциал превосходил Германский - преждевременно. Объем промышленной продукции по отдельным видам вооружения не равен объему промышленного потенциала в целом. Там должны учитываться многие факторы: глубина мобилизации (в Германии процент предельной мобилизации "на душу" был выше в силу более развитой промышленной базы) и распределение готовой продукции по разным видам вооружения.
Если память не изменят, то мы произвели около 50 подводных лодок за всю войну, Германия - 1300. Короче говоря правильнее будет сравнивать не готовое оружие (это организационный вопрос), а объем доступного/потраченного сырья на производство всех типов вооружения. Германия имела больше стали, угля, алюминия и электричества. А мы имели больше нефти, продовольствия, хрома и других ресурсов.
А по объему ВВП Германия превосходила нас более чем на 30%, причем в границах 1939, без контроля над Европой. Вот и думайте как это считать.
1
-
1. В котором месте военное превосходство в производстве у СССР над Германией - подавляющее?
2. У Германии экономика была переведена в крайнюю степень милитаризации на рубеже 1934-1935 и стала экономикой военного времени в сентябре 1939. Логично? Да. Просто в июле 1941 немцы подумали, что с нами покончено и стали переводить экономику в приоритет на авиацию и флот (у них был запас чтобы совершать такие маневры), потом они снова ориентировали экономику на сухопутную армию и авиацию, урезав нужды флота в январе 1942.
3. Вы лучше задайте себе вопрос: если у Германии не было экономики военного времени, то как они смогли восстановить армию в период 1933-1939 ? Как они смогли создать материальное превосходство над врагом и реализовать его?
4. Как вы получили "безграничный военно-промышленный потенциал для СССР" ? Поделитесь формулой. Например у нас было 810 тысяч промышленных станков в 1941, а у Германии - 1.7 млн. Германия была первой в Европе по промышленному потенциалу и второй в мире (после США), мы занимали третье место, Британия - четвертое, Франция - пятое, Япония - шестое, Италия - седьмое.
5. У нас был дисбаланс между количеством танков и другим обеспечением: грузовики, артиллерия, мотопехота, топливо, боезапас, рации и т.д. Голое число танков еще ни о чем не говорит. Плюс у нас было принято сохранять старые модели техники, а не списывать их. Это было следствием отсталости страны. Вспомните слова Сталина в 1931: "Мы отстали от передовых стран на 50-100 лет...."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1). Не всегда. Блок Оси превосходил нас по численности личного состава как минимум до середины осени 1942 года. Поэтому он мог наступать, сначала на широком фронте, затем на одном из участков (падение). Логично? Да. Потом численность пехоты начала проседать и достигла величины 1.5:1 в пользу красной армии только к весне 1944. Два к одному - к началу 1945.
2). Ну выпускал СССР легкие танки в большом количестве и чего? Германия выпускала бронетранспортеры, самоходные орудия и другую технику. Сравнение в лоб считаю некорректным.
3). Падение численности самолетов - война на два фронта (даже три, если считать Африку и Италию).
4). Артиллерии и боеприпасов к ней было больше у врага, но у нас больше минометов, которые дешевые в производстве. Поскольку большинство историков считает так: арт+минометы, то получается, что на бумаге превосходство за нами. Хота на практике, например, вермахт имел в 2-3 раза больше арт боеприпасов в битве за Ржев, что позволило им удержаться.
5). Грузовиков Германия тоже произвела больше, плюс захватила много трофеев на западе. А нам помогали с грузовиками хорошо, но только с 1943 пошел нормальный рост иностранной техники.
6). Да, немцы любят жаловаться на судьбу (ведь они проиграли войну и им нужно оправдание), но они никогда не говорят о проблемах своего противника, странно да? Возможно эти проблемы были существеннее чем их собственные, хотя бы в период 1939-1942.
7). Так у Германии были сопоставимые с нами ресурсы (даже больше), просто они воевали на несколько фронтов и распыляли их, хотя главный приоритет сохраняли на нашем. Наличие оптимального варианта уничтожения противников по одиночке - блицкриг - не отменяет физической возможности вести затяжную войну.
Для чего нужен блицкриг? Чтобы в короткий срок выбивать противников и не позволять им создать против вас военное и экономическое превосходство (в этом заключается стратегия Германии). Но наличие этого превосходства не означает автоматическое поражения вашей страны. Противник должен быть готов заплатить большую цену за уничтожение вашей коалиции. Грубо говоря - невозможность достичь победы военным путем не означает автоматического поражения.
Германия, захватив Европу и европейскую часть СССР, получила экономическое пространство с населением более 300 млн человек. Это целый континент. Поэтому в сентябре 1941 Гитлер мог сказать, что "невозможность вести длительную войну" - не более чем миф. Единственное в чем были проблемы у Германии - это топливо, но они приспосабливалась к этому.
1
-
1. Пленные - это в основном результат больших и малых окружений. Этих люди выбывают из действующей армии и их заменяют новыми, но одномоментно мы не имеем превосходства над блоком Оси до осени 1942. Могу предоставить статистику, но это долго будет. То есть это говорит о большем людском потенциале с нашей стороны, а не о численном превосходстве на фронте.
2. На начало войны блок Оси имел 32.5 тысячи арт орудий, у нас - 24.5 тыс. Но у нас больше минометов - 24 тыс против 15 тыс у врага. Со временем ситуация выправлялась, но если даже к середине войны у Оси стало меньше арт орудий, то расход боеприпасов был все равно выше до конца 1944. Наши проблемы с боеприпасами означают невозможность использовать полный боекомплект, но у немцев тоже была своя "норма" и она была выше.
3. Вы что-то путаете. На начало войны Ось имеет 600 тыс автомобилей, из них 400 тысяч на фронте. У нас всего 270 тысяч, из них на фронте - 150 тысяч. Мы произвели 265 тысяч за всю войну, Германия - 345 тысяч. Процент Ленд-лизовских автомобилей у нас:
1943 - 5.4%
1944 - 19%
1945 - 30.8%
Буржуазные историки любят говорить о низкой моторизации вермахта, но они какого-то хрена сравнивают его с американской армией образца 1944-1945, а не с нашей и делают свой нехороший вывод. Это одна из форм ревизионизма.
4. Германия имела больше угля, стали, алюминия и электричества. Но было мало продовольствия и нефти. Первая группа ресурсов является основной, а остальные можно заменять с помощью создания эрзаца. После захвата советской территории - нужда в продовольствии отпала, но в нефти осталась.
5. Информация о запоздалом переводе немецкой экономики на нужды тотальной войны - миф. Их производство выросло в период с 1933 по 1939 в 12 раз! После этого был достигнут потолок и встал вопрос о реорганизации и рационализации производства, но это произошло не сразу а где-то с конца 1941, до этого - не было необходимости. Там нужно было очень много менять, этот процесс занимает месяцы. Он начался в январе 1942 и дал результаты к началу 1943. Там много нюансов, не нужно упрощать.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1). What concrete facts do you have that the USSR was preparing aggression against Germany? Or are you just a Russophobe who needs additional facts to demonize the USSR? What do you say about this document?
February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment.
The sole aim of general policy: the regaining of political power. The whole State administration must be geared to this end (all departments!).
1. Domestic policy: Complete reversal of the present domestic political situation in Germany. Refusal to tolerate any attitude contrary to this aim (pacifism!). Those who will not be converted must be broken. Extermination of Marxism root and branch. Adjustment of youth and of the whole people to the idea that only a struggle can save us and that everything else must be subordinated to this idea. (Realized in the millions of the Nazi movement. It will grow.) Training of youth and strengthening of the will to fight with all means. Death penalty for high treason. Tightest authoritarian State leadership. Removal of the cancer of Democracy!
2. Foreign policy: Battle against Versailles. Equality of rights in Geneva; but useless if people do not have the will to fight. Concern for allies.
3. Economics: The farmer must be saved! Settlement policy! Further increase of exports useless. The capacity of the world is limited and production is forced up everywhere. The only possibility of re-employing part of the army of unemployed lies in settlement. But time is needed and radical improvement not to be expected since living space too small for German people.
4. Building up of the armed forces: Most important prerequisite for achieving the goal of regaining political power. National Service must be reintroduced. But beforehand the State leadership must ensure that the men subject to military service are not, even before their entry, poisoned by pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or do not fall victim to this poison after their service.
How should political power be used when it has been gained? That is impossible to say yet. Perhaps fighting for new export possibilities, perhaps—and probably better—the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization. Certain that only through political power and struggle can the present economic circumstances be changed. The only things that can happen now—settlement—stopgap measures.
Armed forces most important and most Socialist institution of the State. They must stay unpolitical and impartial. The internal struggle not their affair but that of the Nazi organizations. As opposed to Italy no fusion of Army and SA intended—most dangerous time is during the reconstruction of the Army. It will show whether or not France has statesmen: if so, she will not leave us time but will attack us (presumably with eastern satellites).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of English translation: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919-1945, Vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2001, pp. 20-21.
Source of original German text: Handwritten notes by General Lieutenant Liebmann. Munich, Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History, No. 167/51, fol. 39; reprinted in Thilo Vogelsang, Dokumentation: „Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Reichswehr 1930-1933“, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954), Heft 4, pp. 434-35.
2). Active protection is needed so that your enemy can not completely seize the strategic initiative.
3). The pre-war plan for the defense of the USSR was developed taking into account the three defensive lines: frontline, strategic and state. The front line was determined along the western border of the USSR. Strategic - along the Western Dvina and the Dnieper The last, state line of defense was located at distant approaches to Moscow.
4). The first Soviet echelon did not have the physical ability to stop the German invasion due to a lack of its own forces. His task was to prevent the expansion of the German breakthrough. Tanks from the second echelon were to inflict a series of counterstrikes and stop the German tank groups, after which they had to go over to the counteroffensive on the territory of the enemy (so that the economy of the enemy would receive all the costs of the war). But this did not happen because the German blow was much stronger than the anticipation, the enemy was able to break Soviet communications and seize supremacy in the air.
5). The Brest Fortress is simply an example of the heroic defense of a separate position, which did not affect the situation at the front. Why? Because if the German offensive meets a serious obstacle - it simply bypasses this position from the flanks and continues its offensive in order not to lose onw tempo. Thus, the Brest fortress remains isolated and its defense does not have a serious impact on the situation at the front. The same thing was done by the Red Army in the period 1944-1945, when German fortress cities existed.
6). You once again show your own incompetence in the matter under discussion. A large number of Soviet tanks were the result of an imbalance in the old Soviet doctrine, which provided for the construction of a large number of taks, but paid little attention to other supply staff - trucks, artillery, motorized infantry, radio stations. Plus in the USSR, old technology was preserved, while in other armies it was written off. This was a consequence of the technical delays of the USSR.
7). Not all forces are in the composition of divisions and brigades. The some is beyond its limits in other structures (railway, construction, hospital, engineering, transport, security, etc.). Of the 5.5 million people in the Axis block, the number of people in divisions and brigades was 2.993.000. The USSR in the composition of two echelons had 1.566.000 people. So I do not understand what you wanted to say here.
8). At the beginning of the war, Soviet divisions did not have a full composition. This was due to the fact that the Red Army was not fully mobilized before the war. On the contrary, the German army had completely mobilized divisions.
9). The USSR did not threaten Romanian oil because the German side expressed its disinterest (in the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) in the Bessarabia region, which became part of the USSR in 1940. This region did not have serious oil reserves, so it could not become the reason for the war. Hitler used ignorance of these details from most ordinary citizens to justify their aggression in the east. And you just believed in his words. You must apologize for this.
1
-
1). The version of the preventive war on the part of Germany means that Hitler at the last moment decided to start a war against the USSR when he realized that this country is going to attack Europe. Therefore, I showed you Hitler's first speech to the German generals so that you would see that this is an incorrect theory and that Hitler had plans to conquer the living space in the east as far back as 1933.
2). The USSR could not attack Europe for the following reasons:
- The Red Army was in a state of reorganization.
- The political position of the USSR in this case would seriously worsen. Germany had the opportunity to negotiate with Western governments because they were all united by class hatred for the USSR. The Soviet Union in such a war could remain without allies.
- Soviet policy is the policy of socialism. This means that the USSR can not colonize someone as the capitalist countries do it. The USSR can not have plans for genocide against Europe, because this contradicts the idea of liberating the proletarians in other countries.
3). If you do not have specific offensive Soviet plans, then it's unclear why we even discuss it. The thesis of a preventive war was put forward by Hitler himself to justify his aggression (otherwise he had no other arguments for starting the war). After him, a Russian publicist Suvorov supported the idea of a preventive war, but this person is not a professional historian. He ignores many documents, such as Hitler's speech in February 1933.
- The thesis about "illogical places for defense" is false. This is again part of Suvorov's theory. There is no specific evidence to support this thesis.
- What's wrong with the Soviet army staff?
- The fortifications were demonized on the old Soviet border (the Stalin line) and were transferred to a new Molotov line. The USSR did not have the time and resources to complete the construction of fortifications on the new border in a short time. Suvorov again manipulates the facts here.
- The static defense in the new war of motors has proved to be obsolete (it can only temporarily suspend the enemy's advance). Therefore, the stake was made for active defense and interception of the initiative. The USSR did not have the physical ability to turn its entire western border into one big Brest fortress. From the point of view of military science, this is also absurd.
4). If I see that you seriously believe in the theory of a simple publicist, and you simply ignore other Wehrmacht campaigns - Polish, French and their result ... If you see that in all these cases Germany was the aggressor, and even the complete mobilization of the army did not save her opponents (France) ... At the same time, you do not say that their armies "had an offensive character" or something like that ... You talk so only about the USSR. Why?
My answer is because there is no information war against these countries. It does not occur to anyone to blame these countries for their defeats because of the "offensive plan". Only the USSR. Only the spiteful Stalin. What is the reason here? I think Russophobia. The western person has never perceived the Russian as an equal to himself, so he will try to demonize us at any convenient opportunity (Germany is considered part of the Western world).
For me there is no problem in ignoring all the unimportant facts in this topic and immediately call the main reason for such an "agenda" - is Russophobia. I know that some people just study history and many may not know, but then the persistence with which you defend the theory of Suvorov (when you do this, you insult our people) speaks about the presence of some selfish interest in this.
If this is not about you - just ignore it, if is the truth - admit it. Smart people always find a common language.
1
-
1). Germany's strategy in the Second World War: the restoration of the armed forces >>> the liquidation of the buffer states (Austria and Czechoslovakia) to improve own strategic position >>> the liquidation of Poland >>> the liquidation of France and the freedom of the rear for a war against the USSR. The position of England was not so important because this country was weak on the continent and Germany had time to destroy the USSR.
What arguments do you have to think that the USSR was preparing an offensive against Germany in 1941?
2).
a). The war with Finland is a question of the security of Leningrad. The Soviet government proposed that Finland settle this issue through the exchange of territories, but the Finnish government refused. As the security issue is not resolved, the only option is the war. The big reorganization of the Red Army began after this war.
b). The USSR wanted to create a system of collective security in Europe in the period 1934-1938. In May 1935 the USSR concluded an agreement on mutual assistance between him and France and Czechoslovakia. But because of disagreements with the countries of the west, this remained only plans. After this policy failed - the USSR concluded a pact with Germany and received guarantees from her.
c). You confuse the policy of colonization (imperialist policy) and the policy of friendship of peoples that was in the USSR. In the Soviet Union there was no division into the metropolis and the colony that exists in empires. In the USSR there was no discrimination on the basis of nationality. The only ones affected were representatives of the exploiting classes - kulaks, landlords, bourgeois, etc.
d). Repression against the Poles is the result of the struggle with an unfriendly state. The Baltic States became part of the USSR through a referendum. The USSR returned the region of Bessarabia, which Romania pointed out from the former Russian Empire in 1918.
3).
a) What facts speak of the "attacking position" of the Red Army? How is this possible if it is not mobilized? How is this possible, if you yourself say that you do not know the exact offensive plans in the USSR?
b). I'm not a military specialist. I think that you are also not. Then why these demagogic questions about the location of divisions? What do you trying to say?
c). You wrote about the unusual composition of the Red Army. What's wrong with him?
d). Any defense can be hacked by the combined actions of tank groups and aviation. The Soviet border is very long, and the Red Army is not mobilized to create an insurmountable barrier across the border. Thus, the requirement to create more static defense lines is initially absurd.
4). I'm not trying to change the topic of discussion. I'm trying to find out the real reason that makes you believe in Suvorov's theory. If this is not Russophobia, then what? (If your position were neutral, then you would be satisfied with any of my answers, but it seems that you are trying to defend this theory to the very end. The question is why).
5).
- If you write about the liberation of Germany using sarcasm, then you are negative about Soviet policy. You are positioning yourself as an opponent of the Soviet regime. This is a problem for the impossibility of understanding Soviet policy.
- Your grandfather was in a soviet camp for some reason, not just. What is the reason for this?
- Each event must have a rational explanation. When you tell me that the Soviet repressions were "just so" (you hint at this), then you refuse to analyze the real reasons.
1
-
1. Germany's strategy was originally planned as a series of wars to achieve dominance on the European continent. After France was destroyed - it was the inevitable turn against the USSR. This is not an accidental war, but a continuation of the strategy of Germany. Britain is not dangerous for Germany, so there is no full second front in Europe, and Germany has time to destroy the USSR.
2. You must prove that the disposition and composition of the forces of the Red Army had an offensive character or apologize for slandering to history of my country. The argument "it seems to me" will not be accepted. This requires good reasons.
3.
a). Finland is dangerous as a springboard for Germany or Britain to strike the USSR. The Soviet proposal for an exchange of territories was equal: yes, Finland lost its defensive fortifications, but received twice as much territory in the north.
b). What's wrong here? You accuse the USSR of concluding a treaty with Germany, and at the same time you say that the conclusion of a treaty with the USSR on collective security is unacceptable. You have to choose one thing here.
c). The Caucasus region has always been a problem for Russia. But neither the Caucasus nor the Baltic were restricted in their rights by nationality. Only representatives of the exploiting classes. Therefore, your objection to the lack of friendship of peoples in the USSR - is not accepted.
d). After the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, a capitalist / nationalistic counterrevolution took place in Eastern Europe, which seriously changed people's minds. They began to negatively perceive Soviet policy. Now you refer to the opinion of these people, but ignore the fact that it was different in an earlier period: the anti-Soviet lobby was marginalized.
4.
a). It's interesting that many divisions of other countries got into a german encirclement, but you do not say that it was because of their wrong location. Only Soviet. Why? Also, you say that you are not a military specialist, but you are saying that the Soviet tank movements were surrounded because of their wrong location. What is it?
b). I already told you that the Soviet tank divisions were located in the second echelon and had to start a series of counter-attacks (which happened), this is an active defense strategy (you call it lack of logic). Why do you ignore this?
c). In the first days after the outbreak of the war, the situation at the front was not yet clear, so the Soviet divisions of the first echelon (infantry divisions) got the task of preventing the expansion of the enemy breakthrough, and the divisions from the second echelon got the task of launching counterattacks. In the face of a lack of reliable information - all this is logical.
5. For the USSR, it is advantageous if Germany and the Western countries strongly weaken each other, and the USSR will join the war at a late stage (like the USA in the first world war). Therefore, for the USSR there is no reason to start a war as an aggressor in 1941.
6.
- The Soviet Union destroyed fascism in Eastern Europe, so it was really liberation. No sarcasm. You look at Soviet politics through the eyes of opponents of the Soviet regime, but must look by eyes of Stalin.
- The Soviet Union left its army in eastern Europe because if it had gone -this region would be busy by west. This is also logical.
- So, you do not know why your grandfather was in the Soviet camp. But you still accuse the USSR. Are there many logic here?
- What is your number based on - 80% of the innocent in the Soviet camps? Every decision / event must have its rational reason, but you refuse to look for it and simply demonize Soviet politics.
- From which source you learned information that in 1941 the majority of prisoners were part of the Red Army? It's like the old myth about the army-rapist. And in this case you are playing the role of enemy for my country (because you believe in these myths without using critical thinking).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1). "I am trying to show you that those liberators were 10 times worse than the Germans" - you must prove it.
2). "it's not propaganda, it's a fact" - this is the most primitive propaganda: 10 times worse, 100 times worse... No conctete facts.
3). "Ruskies seemed to not give a shit about that anti violence order" - Do you have concrete facts? Do you realize that the Nazis used a whole information campaign to demonize the Red Army?
4). "Remember the annexation of Bassarabia?" - yes I remember. In 1918, you stole the region from the former Russian empire, then we returned it in 1940. What is the problem here: you can only steal from us, so we just to agree with this?
5). "what the fuck did you guys seriously expect, that you can take land from other countries" - The USSR needed to ensure the security of Leningrad. Our government offered Finns an exchange of territories, they refused. The war was the only way to solve our problem. Who is to blame for the fact that they refused - are we or they? They had the opportunity to avoid this war and they did not use it.
6). "we Romanians have the decency to not deny them, unlike your government" - in one of the previous messages, I said that I do not deny individual facts of violence against civilians. But this is not a systemic practice. If 2% of the soldiers committed violence, then 98% do not do it (just as an example). You try to scream about 2%, but ignore the 98%. In other words, you have to prove that the violence was systematic, and the Red Army command ignored it.
1
-
1
-
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
1
-
1). В Бессарабии и Прибалтике войны не было. Польская армия получила приказ не оказывать сопротивления и отступать на границу с Румынией. Таким образом реальная война для РККА была только с Японцами и Финнами. К началу войны только 25% советских дивизий обладали опытом современной войны. В вермахте - 82%.
2). Каким образом РККА была полностью мобилизована к началу войны, если ее численность на всей территории страны составляла 5.4 млн человек? После начала войны призвали еще 5.3 млн. За базар отвечать не нужно?
3). Каким образом РККА была полностью сконцентрирована на границе с Германией, если непосредственно вблизи границы (расстояние равное одному дню военного марша) находилась всего 41 дивизия? У вермахта было 126 дивизий в первом эшелоне. Ты не путай численность дивизий вблизи границы и численность в приграничных округах (значительная территория).
4). Собственно самые большие потери понес западный фронт поскольку именно там были две немецких танковых группы. Они наступали по сходящимся направлениям. Северный и южный фронты были оттеснены. Что тут "небывалого" - или снова нужны были аргументы для клеветы?
5). ~85% советских танков были легкими и устаревшими. Пробивать их колотушками (основной враг танков - пехота) не составляло труда. Для борьбы с т-34 использовались подкалиберные и кумулятивные снаряды у немецких танков Т 3/4, а также 50 мм противотанковое орудие пак - 38 (которое ты в упор не замечаешь).
6). Немецкие танки новых типов (1400 единиц) превосходили аналогичные советские (1396 единиц) по следующим параметрам: качество оптики, качество связи, качество снарядов и точность орудий, качество подвески, наличие командирских башен и удобство работы экипажа.
7). Ты не в курсе, что даже ревизионист Мельтюхов дает численность немецкой армии на востоке:
Сухопутная армия и СС - 3.3 млн.
Люфтваффе - 650 тысяч.
Кригсмарине - 100 тысяч.
Всего - 4.050.000 человек. Плюс союзники 750-800 тысяч.
У Германии в первом эшелоне было 3.5 млн плюс 760 тысяч союзники. Всего 4.3 млн.
У нас было от 2.9 до 3 млн, но это на территории приграничных округов, то есть не сосредоточенные силы.
Во втором эшелоне у нас было 200 тысяч, у блока Оси - 590 тысяч.
Внимание вопрос: каким образом Ось получила численное преимуществе, если по твоим словами РККА уже была полностью мобилизована?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gileq GIlkowski
1). The famine of 1932-1933 had objective (drought and poor harvest) and subjective reasons - the mistakes of Soviet agricultural specialists, who used the American experience of processing the land. This experience was unsuccessful in the climatic conditions of Russia and a significant part of the crop was lost. No one wanted to kill people. The Soviet government helped the affected regions by sending food aid and opening public canteens. The documented deaths of 2.4 million people (1.5 mln - Ukraine region), of which about 100 thousand people died directly from hunger, the rest - from epidemics, weakening of immunity and food poisoning.
2). The plan of blanks was reduced by 40% relative to 1932.
Collected grain in Ukraine - 916 million poods of which 280 million (31%) - took the state in the form of a plan.
Soviet exports to other countries were reduced:
1931 (there is no famine) - 4.91 million tons of bread.
1932 - 1.32 million tons.
1933 - 1.53 million tons.
In general, from September 1932 to December 1934, Kazakhstan received 5 million centners of grain as food aid. This is 31.2 million poods.
In total, in 1932, Ukraine received 3.2 million centners in the order of food aid, and in 1933 - 5.3 million centners. This is 53.1 million poods in total.
And on the basis of this assistance a large-scale network of canteens was organized. According to data as of May 1933, 8.8 million people ate in rural canteens in the European part of the USSR. In Ukraine, at the same time, there were 20.7 thousand canteens, to which 3 million people were attached. In total, in 1933, catering, including food during field work, reached 39 million people.
3). You must apologize for your misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is the complete story :)
April 1941 - the beginning of a set of Finnish volunteers in the Waffen SS. (ups!)
May 1941 - an exchange of military delegations between Germany and Finland was held. The Finnish military and political leadership was dedicated to the "Barbarossa" plan, and Suomi had a role in the German invasion.
On June 7, 1941, German troops arrived in Finland, intended to attack Murmansk from Finnish Lapland.
June 10, 1941, the Finnish troops begin to advance to the border from the places of permanent deployment.
June 15, 1941 in the north of Finland, the commander-in-chief Mannerheim subordinates the corps of General Sialasvuo to the German command.
June 17, 1941 in Finland declared a general mobilization.
On June 18, 1941, Finnish aircraft are marked with the Luftwaffe identification signs on the Eastern Front.
June 21, 1941 begins the evacuation of the Finnish population from the border areas.
On June 21, 1941, before the invasion began, a group of Finnish special forces flew to German planes to the Belomorkanal to blow up its locks.
June 21, 1941 Finnish submarines receive an order to set up minefields in the territorial waters of the USSR.
June 21, 1941 in Lahti, Turku and Oulu begin to operate radio beacons to guide the German bombers.
1
-
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment.
The sole aim of general policy: the regaining of political power. The whole State administration must be geared to this end (all departments!).
1. Domestic policy: Complete reversal of the present domestic political situation in Germany. Refusal to tolerate any attitude contrary to this aim (pacifism!). Those who will not be converted must be broken. Extermination of Marxism root and branch. Adjustment of youth and of the whole people to the idea that only a struggle can save us and that everything else must be subordinated to this idea. (Realized in the millions of the Nazi movement. It will grow.) Training of youth and strengthening of the will to fight with all means. Death penalty for high treason. Tightest authoritarian State leadership. Removal of the cancer of Democracy!
2. Foreign policy: Battle against Versailles. Equality of rights in Geneva; but useless if people do not have the will to fight. Concern for allies.
3. Economics: The farmer must be saved! Settlement policy! Further increase of exports useless. The capacity of the world is limited and production is forced up everywhere. The only possibility of re-employing part of the army of unemployed lies in settlement. But time is needed and radical improvement not to be expected since living space too small for German people.
4. Building up of the armed forces: Most important prerequisite for achieving the goal of regaining political power. National Service must be reintroduced. But beforehand the State leadership must ensure that the men subject to military service are not, even before their entry, poisoned by pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or do not fall victim to this poison after their service.
How should political power be used when it has been gained? That is impossible to say yet. Perhaps fighting for new export possibilities, perhaps—and probably better—the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization. Certain that only through political power and struggle can the present economic circumstances be changed. The only things that can happen now—settlement—stopgap measures.
Armed forces most important and most Socialist institution of the State. They must stay unpolitical and impartial. The internal struggle not their affair but that of the Nazi organizations. As opposed to Italy no fusion of Army and SA intended—most dangerous time is during the reconstruction of the Army. It will show whether or not France has statesmen: if so, she will not leave us time but will attack us (presumably with eastern satellites).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of English translation: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919-1945, Vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2001, pp. 20-21.
Source of original German text: Handwritten notes by General Lieutenant Liebmann. Munich, Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History, No. 167/51, fol. 39; reprinted in Thilo Vogelsang, Dokumentation: „Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Reichswehr 1930-1933“, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954), Heft 4, pp. 434-35.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Soviet diplomacy tried to create a system of collective security in Europe in the period 1934-1938. In May 1935 a military agreement was concluded between the USSR on the one hand, and Czechoslovakia and France on the other. However, France refused to help Czechoslovakia in 1938, but the USSR was ready. The problem was that the Red Army had to go through Poland, but it refused to give access.
After the Munich Agreement, relations between the USSR and the West deteriorated greatly. The USSR condemned the Anschluss of Austria and the annexation of the Sudetenland, and for Western diplomacy it was an attempt to avoid a new world war by satisfying German territorial claims. They believed that the threat of a new big war would stop Hitler, but he only see their weakness.
Negotiations of the USSR with the West continued the first half of 1939, but were failed. (Soviet historiography says that Western diplomats did not have the authority to conclude a full-fledged military treaty and did not have specific plans for a war against Germany). At the same time, negotiations were conducted between the USSR and Germany on the one hand, and the West and Germany on the other. The formation of coalitions for a new war began.
Germany was able to offer specific security guarantees for the USSR (non-aggression pact) and an agreement on economic cooperation. USSR agreed (In the event of a long wait for the USSR, there was a danger of rapprochement between Western countries and Germany, and the conclusion of a neutrality pact meant an automatic conflict between Germany and Poland and West).
The war between Germany and the West was beneficial for USSR (increasing the popularity of socialist ideas), while he himself received the time and neutrality of Germany and was able to eliminate buffer states that were created after 1917 (restoration of the territory of the former Russian Empire). This is the answer to your question about Finland - the USSR needed the security of Leningrad and control of the Baltic Sea as a great power.
Thus Germany was able to take advantage of the contradictions between its potential adversaries and destroy them one by one. It was a success for German diplomacy, but the USSR was in a dangerous situation after the destruction of France. On the other hand, it was the USSR that could have stopped the destruction of Britain (US also needs a bridgehead for landing in Europe, which is impossible if the Wehrmacht is not in the east).
Thus, the story is much more interesting than it seems at first view, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1). What is the date of this document? How can I read it?
2). What do you say about this (first) speech of Hitler to the German generals?
February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment. The goal of all politics is the same: to regain political power once again. This should be aimed at all state leadership (all structures!)
1. Inside the country. Complete transformation of the current domestic political conditions in Germany. Do not tolerate any activity of the bearers of thoughts that contradict this goal (pacifism!) Whoever does not change his views, he must be crushed. Destroy Marxism with the root. The education of youth and the whole people in the sense that only struggle can save us. And before this idea, everything else should recede (it is embodied in millions of adherents of the National Socialist movement, which will grow). By all means, make the youth strong and temper her will to fight. Death sentences for betrayal of the state and people. Severe authoritarian state leadership. Elimination of a cancerous tumor - democracy.
2. In foreign policy terms. The struggle against Versailles. Equality in Geneva; but it is meaningless if the people are not determined to fight. Acquisition of allies.
3. The economy! The peasant must be saved! Colonization policy! The increase in exports in the future will not do anything. The capacity of the world's markets is limited, and production everywhere is redundant. In the development of new lands - the only opportunity again to partially reduce the army of the unemployed. But it takes time, and radical changes can not be expected, since the living space for the German people is too small.
4. The construction of the Wehrmacht - the most important prerequisite for achieving the goal - the conquest of political power. The duty is to reintroduce universal military service. But preliminary state leadership should take care that the people liable for military service before the call are not already infected with pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or after the service was not poisoned by this poison.
How should political power be used when we acquire it? While we can not say. Perhaps the conquest of new markets, perhaps - and perhaps better - the seizure of a new living space in the East and its ruthless Germanization. It is obvious that the current economic situation can be changed only through political power and struggle.
All that can now be done (the organization of settlements) is a palliative. The armed forces are the most important and most socialist organization of the state. They should be out of politics and the party. The struggle within the country is not their business, but national-socialist organizations. Unlike Italy, there is no intention of uniting the army and the SA. The most dangerous time is during the construction of the armed forces. Here we will know whether France has statesmen. If so, her will not give us time, but will attack us (probably with eastern satellites).
3). How you comment of Hitler's earlier statements (1925) in his book "Mein Kampf" about the fact that Germany needs a vital space in the east?
1
-
1
-
February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment.
The sole aim of general policy: the regaining of political power. The whole State administration must be geared to this end (all departments!).
1. Domestic policy: Complete reversal of the present domestic political situation in Germany. Refusal to tolerate any attitude contrary to this aim (pacifism!). Those who will not be converted must be broken. Extermination of Marxism root and branch. Adjustment of youth and of the whole people to the idea that only a struggle can save us and that everything else must be subordinated to this idea. (Realized in the millions of the Nazi movement. It will grow.) Training of youth and strengthening of the will to fight with all means. Death penalty for high treason. Tightest authoritarian State leadership. Removal of the cancer of Democracy!
2. Foreign policy: Battle against Versailles. Equality of rights in Geneva; but useless if people do not have the will to fight. Concern for allies.
3. Economics: The farmer must be saved! Settlement policy! Further increase of exports useless. The capacity of the world is limited and production is forced up everywhere. The only possibility of re-employing part of the army of unemployed lies in settlement. But time is needed and radical improvement not to be expected since living space too small for German people.
4. Building up of the armed forces: Most important prerequisite for achieving the goal of regaining political power. National Service must be reintroduced. But beforehand the State leadership must ensure that the men subject to military service are not, even before their entry, poisoned by pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or do not fall victim to this poison after their service.
How should political power be used when it has been gained? That is impossible to say yet. Perhaps fighting for new export possibilities, perhaps—and probably better—the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization. Certain that only through political power and struggle can the present economic circumstances be changed. The only things that can happen now—settlement—stopgap measures.
Armed forces most important and most Socialist institution of the State. They must stay unpolitical and impartial. The internal struggle not their affair but that of the Nazi organizations. As opposed to Italy no fusion of Army and SA intended—most dangerous time is during the reconstruction of the Army. It will show whether or not France has statesmen: if so, she will not leave us time but will attack us (presumably with eastern satellites).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of English translation: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919-1945, Vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2001, pp. 20-21.
Source of original German text: Handwritten notes by General Lieutenant Liebmann. Munich, Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History, No. 167/51, fol. 39; reprinted in Thilo Vogelsang, Dokumentation: „Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Reichswehr 1930-1933“, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954), Heft 4, pp. 434-35.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1). "and another 3 million further back in the lands" - The Red Army had 5.4 million people in the middle of 1941. Of these, three echelons are against Germany: the first - 1.6 million, the second - 1.3 million, the third - 550 thousand. Total - 3.45 million Strategic reserve - 600 thousand. Plus: against Turkey and Iran - 350 thousand. Against Japan - 720 thousand. The rest are inside the country. Germany had in the first echelon 3.5 million people ie. more than the USSR in three echelons and this is not surprising, because she committed aggression, is not it? In the second echelon there were 1.1 million people, of which 400 thousand are a strategic reserve. The total number of Wehrmacht was 7.2 million people, of which 1.2 million is the reserve army.
2). "so according to your logic, it was justified to invade poland" - By 17 September 1939 the Polish military and political elite had left their country. Their army was defeated on the battlefield by the Wehrmacht. After that, the USSR had a choice: not to do anything and allow Germany to occupy the whole territory of Poland (where ethnic Ukrainians and Byelorussians lived) or to start their operation in order not to allow the Wehrmacht to enter this land and take protection of these people. The choice of the USSR is logical? Yes. These were the national territories of Poland? No, she occupied and colonized them between 1919 and 1921. Therefore, please be stop to repeat the propaganda from the mainstream in this issue.
3). "and therefore world war 2 is justified" - Germany could not help but start a war against Poland because its financial and food situation was critical. The way out of the situation is war. Hitler made the final decision to destroy Poland in April 1939, ie. before the conclusion of a pact with the USSR. You can find his speech on May 23, 1939, where he says that Danzig is not the cause of the war and the main goal is to expand the living space for Germany.
4). "i said stalin himself didn't participate in those celebrations" - you mean that he was not present at the victory parade in 1945? But this is not true.
"because his dream for a communistic world state ended on 22nd of june, 1941" - you are confusing something. (Suvorov is your fan?). The USSR renounced the idea of a world revolution as far back as 1925 and began the construction of socialism in one country. The war of Germany against the USSR is a colonial war to expand the life space in the east for the German nation. I have documents if you are interested.
5). "i really have no idea why russians still celebrate him until today when he killed at least 20 million of his own people" - killed by war? Most people are civilians, who died of German terror and famine, which they organized. Russian celebrate day of victory because the most dangerous enemy for Russia and other republics for all their history was destroyed. The system that propagated the superiority of one race over another (Nazism) was defeated and the system won which advocated the equality of all people (communism).
1
-
1). "soviet army consisted of 230 divisions with 9 million soldiers" - more than 9 million - only after mobilization, before the start of the war - 5.4 million.
"of which 170 divisions and 4.5-4.6 million soldiers were stationed in the european zone of russia" - Only 3.45 million 600 thousand (reserve) were potentially against Germany, but these people were not placed on the battlefield.
"also the red army had 14 million reservists" - of them - 6 million people were sent to the military industry.
Soviet reservists did not have much experience in modern warfare because universal military service was adopted in the USSR only in September 1939 (before that, there was a system of regional formation and limited training that did not correspond to the level of modern warfare). That is why the USSR could not speak aggression against Germany, which used universal conscription in the spring of 1935.
2). " so don't tell me it were 7 million" - oh bro...
The number of Wehrmacht in the middle of 1941:
The land army - 3.8 million.
The reserve army - 1.2 million.
The Luftwaffe - 1.68 million
Kriegsmarine - 404 thousand.
SS - 150 thousand.
Total - 7.234.000 people. The source is Muller-Hillebrandt.
Of them - 4.6 million against the USSR:
The land army and the SS - 3.3 million
The Luftwaffe -1.2 million.
Kriegsmarine - 100 thousand.
Wehrmacht also had more than 1.2 million people of civilian personnel (which do not indicate Western sources), with them - Wehrmacht had 8.5 million in mid-1941. With allies the Axis bloc had more than 10 million people in Europe.
3). "also stalin killed 20 million soviet civilians" - you have to prove it, but I mean it's false.
"of which 12 million were starved ukrainians" - the number 12 million is not supported by documents and statistics. There is other information:
The famine of 1932-1933 had objective (drought and poor harvest) and subjective reasons - the mistakes of Soviet agricultural specialists, who used the American experience of processing the land. This experience was unsuccessful in the climatic conditions of Russia and a significant part of the crop was lost. No one wanted to kill people. The Soviet government helped the affected regions by sending food aid and opening public canteens. The documented deaths of 2.4 million people (1.5 mln - Ukraine region), of which about 100 thousand people died directly from hunger, the rest - from epidemics, weakening of immunity and food poisoning.
"because stalin left them to starve" - oh bro...
The plan of blanks was reduced by 40% relative to 1932.
Collected grain in Ukraine - 916 million poods of which 280 million (31%) - took the state in the form of a plan.
Soviet exports to other countries were reduced:
1931 (there is no famine) - 4.91 million tons of bread.
1932 - 1.32 million tons.
1933 - 1.53 million tons.
In general, from September 1932 to December 1934, Kazakhstan received 5 million centners of grain as food aid. This is 31.2 million poods.
In total, in 1932, Ukraine received 3.2 million centners in the order of food aid, and in 1933 - 5.3 million centners. This is 53.1 million poods in total.
And on the basis of this assistance a large-scale network of canteens was organized. According to data as of May 1933, 8.8 million people ate in rural canteens in the European part of the USSR. In Ukraine, at the same time, there were 20.7 thousand canteens, to which 3 million people were attached. In total, in 1933, catering, including food during field work, reached 39 million people.
(So, you must apologize for misinformation and the act of information warfare against my country).
"because he had an aggreement with hitler, providing nazi germany with food supplies" - you are confusing something here. The USSR cooperated with the Weimar Republic and after the arrival of Hitler to power, co-operation ceased. It resumed only in August 1939, and the famine in the USSR was in 1933.
1
-
1). "also stalin never celebrated the 9th of may as a victory day" - you must apologize for this misinformation.
2). "because his plans of a communistic world revolution" - you must prove this by concrete facts / documents.
3). "i can only say that your numbers are utterly wrong" - you must show me alternative information that will show the exact figures for the German and Soviet army: the total number of personnel + reserve. For the Wehrmacht must be indicated: land army + SS + Luftwaffe + krigsmarine.
4). "also accusing me of spreading misinformation is completely disrespectful" - nobody forces you to do this (lie / be wrong). When I point to this, it's just a statement of fact, not an insult. Moreover, I believe that you are insulting Russia when you come up with various myths about its history. We'll talk about this below.
5). "you even drifted away from one topic to something completely else" - I comment on everything related to the history of my country in the 20th century - for me there is no difference.
"for example about finnland. but that's how people do it when it gets uncomfortable, right?" - what are you interested in? I have, for example, information that the Soviet air strike on 25 June 1941 in Finland was a response to the Finno-German aggression:
Autumn 1940 - the beginning of the arrival of the German army in Finland.
April 1941 - the beginning of a set of Finnish volunteers in the Waffen SS.
May 1941 - an exchange of military delegations between Germany and Finland was held. The Finnish military and political leadership was dedicated to the "Barbarossa" plan, and Suomi had a role in the German invasion.
On June 7, 1941, German troops arrived in Finland, intended to attack Murmansk from Finnish Lapland.
June 10, 1941, the Finnish troops begin to advance to the border from the places of permanent deployment.
June 15, 1941 in the north of Finland, the commander-in-chief Mannerheim subordinates the corps of General Sialasvuo to the German command.
June 17, 1941 in Finland declared a general mobilization.
On June 18, 1941, Finnish aircraft are marked with the Luftwaffe identification signs on the Eastern Front.
June 21, 1941 begins the evacuation of the Finnish population from the border areas.
On June 21, 1941, before the invasion began, a group of Finnish special forces flew to German planes to the Belomorkanal to blow up its locks.
June 21, 1941 Finnish submarines receive an order to set up minefields in the territorial waters of the USSR.
June 21, 1941 in Lahti, Turku and Oulu begin to operate radio beacons to guide the German bombers.
6). "soviet russia plans for a military offensive towards the west" - you must prove it or apologize. The theory of Victor Suvorov is not scientific and is not seriously considered by academic history. This person ignores the documents. I have Hitler plans documents, so if you want to see them, tell me.
7). "its sheer size of her army" - 5.4 million people, including: Land forces - 4.6 million; Air Force - 475k; Navy - 354k.
"and tens of thousands of vehicles at the front" - 8600 serviceable tanks and 150,000 trucks throughout the European part of the USSR. Germany has 4,300 tanks and more than 400,000 trucks. The imbalance between the large number of tanks in the Red Army is due to two factors:
a). Soviet old doctrine provided for the construction of a large number of tanks and paid little attention to other supplies - trucks, motorized infantry, artillery, walkie-talkies, etc.
b). The Soviet concept also envisaged the preservation of old types of equipment, instead of its utilization. This was a consequence of the country's backwardness.
"made for an invasion" - you must prove it or apologize.
"no defensive lines in the western part" - The pre-war plan for the defense of the USSR was developed taking into account the three defensive lines: frontline, strategic and state. The front line was determined along the western border of the USSR. Strategic - along the Western Dvina and the Dnieper The last, state line of defense was located at distant approaches to Moscow.
8). "that stalin is responsible for millions of deaths of his own people" - repression (a relapse of the civil war, not "Stalin's desire") - about 640 thousand.
Plus 1.6 million people died in Soviet camps in 23 years (1930-1953). The average mortality rate was 6-9%, which was not higher than the natural background of deaths of civilians (3-4%), but they intensified during the famine (1933) and the Great War (41-45).
Plus, about 600 thousand kulaks perished all the time (they were illegal in the USSR because of their usury policy). So, as you can see, each statistic has its own rational reason. But you must show me 20 million people personally killed by Stalin.
9). "methods of the red army were barbaric" - what kind? As these?
Order №233 (January 19, 1945) "Officers and soldiers of the Red Army! We are on our way to the enemy’s country. Everyone must stay composed, everyone must be brave. The remaining population of the conquered territories, regardless of whether it’s a German, or a Czech, or a Pole must not fall victim to any violence. Those guilty of such conduct will be punished in accordance with the martial law. Any sexual relations with females in the conquered territories are forbidden. Those guilty of violence and rape will be executed".
"but mostly against their own people - who retreated got shot by their own men" - Such orders are the result of a difficult situation at the front. Germany had a similar order in the winter of 1941-1942, when their army found itself in a difficult situation. But you do not write anything about this, why? Because you need an argument for the demonization of the USSR (the goal?), And you seem to think Germany a civilized country, although it planned a great genocide at that time (20 to 30 million people only during one winter 41-42). The war in the East for Germany is a colonial war, where the life of potential aboriginals means nothing.
10). Communist collectivism does not deny the individual qualities of an individual. Simply put different accents - you have to think also about the fate of the whole family / nation, and not just about yourself as a person. Balance between selfishness and partnership.
11). So, I expect concrete facts from you, not common words.
1
-
1). So you do not want to apologize for: the myth of May 9, the world revolution, the preventive war and the 20 million people killed by Stalin and a deliberate famine in 1933? Ok.
2). According to Russian sources, the Red Army had 10,639 tanks in the European part of the USSR, of which 2,323 were faulty. Thus, we get 8407 serviceable tanks.
3). I will show you the balance of forces on the eastern front (documented) in a separate message.
4). I think you will also be interested in the opinion of Hitler himself:
"If you remember that Frederick the Great confronted the enemy, who had a twelvefold superiority in forces, you seem to yourself just an nonentity... This time we have the superiority in the forces! Is not this a disgrace? ". (Hitler's Table Talk, 28. 01.1942).
5). You do not believe that the war in the east was colonial? I can give you facts.
6). Yes, the winners write a story. The winners of the Cold War, are not they?
7). The Soviet command officially prohibited any violence against civilians. There were separate intents as in any great war, but you want to show them as a mass practice, which is propaganda. Why do you want to show that the war in the east began in 1944, and not in 1941? Try to change the aggressor and his victim (why?).
8). Do you see the Mongols here? Me not. This is again propaganda.
National composition of the Red Army (1943):
Russians - 58.4%
Ukrainians - 16.5%
Belarusians - 3.1%
Armenians - 1.2%
Georgians - 1.3%
Azerbaijanians -1.3%
Uzbeks - 2.8%
Kazakhs - 1.8%
Jews - 1.7%
Tatars - 2.5%
The rest - less than 1%.
9). What kind of anti-German propaganda commissioners? I need concrete facts. It seems you consider the Soviet people to be idiots who do not see Nazi crimes and they need "additional motivation" from the commissars.
10). The USSR did not start this war. We have never committed a mass genocide, only isolated cases. There is no point in apologizing for the mistakes of some people.
11). Germany was "forced" to apologize, she was not herself. The allies pursued a policy of denazification after the war. If you ask me, do I feel sorry for the Germans as people? I will answer that yes. But in the context of war of destrucrion - no. Nazism is an absolute evil for Russia.
12). If you are trying to equalize the aggressor and the victim of aggression, it can not be called "Germany paid enough." We did not conquer the land in the west, it was done by Germany in the east.
13). The modern problems of Germany are not directly related to the Second World War. You are trying to say here that our victory means a decline for modern Germany, but it's just a manipulation.
14). When someone wants friendship, he shows signs of sympathy. What do you do with regard to Soviet politics is an act of information warfare. Is completely opposite actions.
15). To understand Soviet policy - you must look at the world through the eyes of Lenin and Stalin, and not with the eyes of a kulak. You have to look for rational causes of events, not demonize people.
16). When you accuse us that we celebrate May 9 - you simply do not understand what evil we destroyed (the policy of denazification gives results). For Germany, it was a colonial war, for us - the war for its own existence. Russia has never had such a serious enemy in its history. The roots of your misunderstanding lie in the fact that the Cold War ended not in favor of the USSR and its version of events was forgotten. But ordinary people remember everything and my task is to explain this to you.
Nazism means the domination of some people over others - from the point of view of the Russian people - this is a great lack of justice. Communism means the equality of people and the construction of a classless society where human exploitation by man will be impossible. When we defeated Nazism, we defeated not only the Wehrmacht, but also the inhuman concept of Nazism. That's why the victory is so important to us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Victor Suvorov is not a professional historian, he is an engaged publicist. His theories are not scientific. It is enough only one document to destroy his whole theory:
February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment. The goal of all politics is the same: to regain political power once again. This should be aimed at all state leadership (all structures!)
1. Inside the country. Complete transformation of the current domestic political conditions in Germany. Do not tolerate any activity of the bearers of thoughts that contradict this goal (pacifism!) Whoever does not change his views, he must be crushed. Destroy Marxism with the root. The education of youth and the whole people in the sense that only struggle can save us. And before this idea, everything else should recede (it is embodied in millions of adherents of the National Socialist movement, which will grow). By all means, make the youth strong and temper her will to fight. Death sentences for betrayal of the state and people. Severe authoritarian state leadership. Elimination of a cancerous tumor - democracy.
2. In foreign policy terms. The struggle against Versailles. Equality in Geneva; but it is meaningless if the people are not determined to fight. Acquisition of allies.
3. The economy! The peasant must be saved! Colonization policy! The increase in exports in the future will not do anything. The capacity of the world's markets is limited, and production everywhere is redundant. In the development of new lands - the only opportunity again to partially reduce the army of the unemployed. But it takes time, and radical changes can not be expected, since the living space for the German people is too small.
4. The construction of the Wehrmacht - the most important prerequisite for achieving the goal - the conquest of political power. The duty is to reintroduce universal military service. But preliminary state leadership should take care that the people liable for military service before the call are not already infected with pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or after the service was not poisoned by this poison.
How should political power be used when we acquire it? While we can not say. Perhaps the conquest of new markets, perhaps - and perhaps better - the seizure of a new living space in the East and its ruthless Germanization. It is obvious that the current economic situation can be changed only through political power and struggle.
All that can now be done (the organization of settlements) is a palliative. The armed forces are the most important and most socialist organization of the state. They should be out of politics and the party. The struggle within the country is not their business, but national-socialist organizations. Unlike Italy, there is no intention of uniting the army and the SA. The most dangerous time is during the construction of the armed forces. Here we will know whether France has statesmen. If so, her will not give us time, but will attack us (probably with eastern satellites).
p.s. You must apologize for participating in the information war (act of aggression) against my country.
1
-
"Professional, You mean - government sponsored?" - A professional historian should not ignore documents that contradict his theory. I showed you a document that Suvorov ignores. There are many others.
"And Putin also advocates occupation of Baltic states and Finland as a countermeasure" - what?
"deological strategy and global revolution" - The USSR is pursuing a policy of building socialism in one country since 1925. By the way, world revolution means that the working class comes to power in many countries, and not "Soviet expansion into these countries."
"All that was copied, Germans had training camps in USSR territory" - the equating of communism to fascism is an act of information war.
"Germans had official journeys to Gulags" - after 1933? Can you show these facts?
"That was before 1933" - Nobody denies cooperation with the Weimar Republic.
"Maybe You forgot Jezjovshina, which led to the execution of millions of people" - from 620 to 640 thousand. This is a whole social conflict in Soviet society (the relapse of the civil war), and not just "Stalin's desire," etc.
"USSR does not exist" - there is Russia, and the USSR is part of its history. You demonize Soviet history and act as the enemy of Russia. It's simple. But I do not understand your goal ... are you Russophobe? Or just an anti-Stalinist? Your bias lies in the fact that you can not look at the world / history by Stalin's eyes, you deny the existence of "your own truth" in the USSR.
"And Your Putin's empire will collapse essentially - less then 5years left" - so you just russophobe? Well, just do not say that this is the position of a neutral person - this is the position of the enemy of Russia.
"Your inner propaganda and passivity against fascistic actions of Your government" - can you name a few fascist laws in modern Russia?
"In that film statements of Stuvorov are commented by real historians, did You listen?" - I'll watch it later when I have time. But I do not have much desire to do this, because Suvorov is Russia's enemy (as well as Solzhenitsyn, etc.), who creates a demonized agenda in the west. All his theses have long been denied by independent and professional historians. Academic science does not take his theory seriously.
1
-
Oh, so much aggression in your words ... What did Russia do bad to you personally? The languages and national culture of the Baltic republics were protected by the USSR Constitution.
1. "Conquest" is contrary to the principles of Soviet politics. This is the principle of imperialism. The term "world revolution" means the coming to power of the working class in many countries, and not "seizing" them by USSR. What kind of agressive poltics was held by Soviet Russia since 1920?
2. Will you show me a treaty of friendship between the USSR and Germany? It does not exist. Since August 1939 there has been economic cooperation, but this does not mean having a friendship. Many countries trade with Germany and this does not make them allies. Trade is a mutually beneficial process. If you mean the separation of spheres of influence in Europe, this is also not a sign of friendship, because it means defining the boundaries of spheres of influence in other countries and preventing a big conflict because of contradictions.
3. Cooperation between the nkvd and the Gestapo is a fake. It was made in the 1990s, the authors are not known for certain. According to the most common version, the author is a certain Herman Nazarov, whose book "Myths of the Soviet era" is filled with such forgery. For the first time it was published in the anti-Semitic newspaper "Memory" published in Moscow in 1999.
4. Equation of communism to fascism is an act of information war. This means that there are two inhuman regimes - Hitler and Stalin. However, if we look at what is communism (the building of a classless society) and Nazism (the domination of some peoples over others), then we will not see any similarity, except the strength of these states. The concept of "two totalitarian regimes" also means that all the other countries are democratic and love their freedom ... But let's see if this is really so?
France is pursuing a colonial policy in Africa. Britain is exploiting half of the world. The United States pursues a policy of economic colonization of other countries. Poland uses colonization in the east. Finland carried out the ethnic genocide of the Russian population after its civil war. And finally the Baltic States .... became authoritarian starting from 1934-1936. So, are all these people fighting against the inhuman regimes of Hitler and Stalin? Come on.
5. Can you confirm by document your words about "Soviet people were less important than pigs"? It seems that you are conducting an active information war against my country, and this is not a neutral position, since it denies the existence of its own truth in the USSR.
6. Yes, in 1953 the revisionists came to power in the USSR and demonized period of Stalin. Then they began the restoration of capitalism in the mid-1960s. So my question for you is: why should we rely on the words of these people if they are ideological opponents of Stalin?
7. Most of your words are just propaganda of the times of the Cold War. You must seek rational reasons for historical events, and not use demonization as a "country built on blood".
8. It's funny, you do not call upon Western countries also abandon their colonial past ... because it means giving up today's economic privilege. That is, your war is against Russia alone. Let's remember this.
9. A simple example: a man was an economic speculator - a kulak that was officially banned in the USSR. When it became illegal, he organized his armed gang and began to resist official authority. But he was killed in the process of this struggle. The question for you is: was he killed because he is a thug or because he was ethnic Russian? It seems you choose the second option. And this is what I call propaganda.
10. Only a stupid person will really think that Putin is a reincarnation of Hitler. There are no reasons for this. Just another act of war against Russia.
11. You read too much the liberal press about the situation in Russia - they greatly distort it to demonize their opponents. You do not even try to think rationally, just tell me that everything is bad in Russia ...
12. People support Putin because they want to see a stable and independent Russia, and not because this person is authoritarian. Show me the fascist laws in Russia.
13. You also use the Russophobic theory of a Polish historian who says that "Russia has stolen a history from them," etc. You do it yourself (an act of aggression) - no one forces you.
14. The desire to "make Russia democratic" is an act of aggression.
15. I know that for russophobes strong Russia is a problem, so they say that any strong power is your thieves and murderers. It also explains why you are so fond of reading Suvorov and Solzhenitsyn - they give you arguments (false ones) for the continuation of your war, is not it?
1
-
1
-
1). The Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1921, not 1939.
In 1919, after the departure of the German army, the Red Army came to the territory of Belarus and Lithuania. On January 10, 1919 Minsk was take and the Byelorussian SSR was proclaimed. On January 27, Lithuania was included, and the republic became the Lithuanian-Belarusian SSR.
On the other hand, Polish troops came to restore the borders within the Rzeczpospolita. On February 9-14, 1919, the Polish units occupied the Kobrin-Pruzhany line. The Polish-Soviet front was formed. On February 28, the units of General Ivashkevich were attack Soviet troops on the Shchara River and on March 1 they occupied Slonim.
2). Do you understand Russian language? If so, this article is for you:
https://harmfulgrumpy.livejournal.com/944553.html
3). "The USSR is not your country" - and whose?
"Russia does not exist on the free will of free nations" - why do you think that you have the moral right to say so? Who gave you this right? For example, I did not say anything bad about your government, although the Russian population in the Baltic States is now limited in rights.
4). Against what should people protest in Russia and why do you think you know the situation better than they do? In Russia, there are often small protests for various reasons.
5).
a). After the Polish army was destroyed and the Polish political elite left its country - Poland ceased to exist as a state and the USSR took under the protection of Ukrainians and Byelorussians. If he had not done this - Germany would have seized the entire territory and these people would have been under occupation - this could not be tolerated. All that to the east of the Curzon line is not the national territory of Poland, but the land colonized by them.
b). There are two versions of the Katyn, Soviet and German. If we accept German as a truth, then we killed about 20 thousand people. But what does this mean compared to 70,000 (at least) Soviet prisoners of war who were killed by Poland in the period 1919-1921 (bad attitude, hunger, executes). Why do you ignore this and show Poland as an innocent victim, forgetting the historical context?
c). The war with Finland is a matter of security for Leningrad. The USSR offered them an exchange of territories, but they refused. The security of the city is not ensured, so the only option is war.
d). The Baltics entered our zone of influence and your people voted for joining the USSR. Our country needed access to the Baltic Sea, so do not ignore our national interests here. You were not colonized, but made a equitable citizens. Your people got the right to hold demonstrations that were banned by your authoritarian government at that time.
1
-
Culture works in two directions - English is not native to me, so it's easier for me to write in Russian. You wrote that you track our news sources, but they are also in Russian. It means that you know the Russian language, and if so, then for you there should be no problems with this, especially since this is a time saving for me.
1. Yes, the USSR was destroyed from the center (by revisionists), but this does not mean that it is necessary to continue the information warfare against your fatherland (you can not wish evil to yourself). I'm only 26 years old (I was born in 1991), so I could not take part in these events.
2. It is not clear why you think that people in Russia do not understand domestic politics (and their history) better than you. They live here. It is also not clear why you think these people are not free in their choice is an open act of information war against Russia. It is also the division of nations into the highest class - civilized countries (which must determine how to live other people) and all the others, which in itself is barbaric.
3. Germany waged a colonial war against the USSR and did not plan to create independent governments on Soviet territory. Only puppet ones. From the point of view of racial theory, aborigines should not have equal rights. You can read about this in Yegor Yakovlev's book The War of Destruction.
4. Yes, Putin approved Katyn, but it only means that our government is as anti-Soviet as Polish. The Soviet Union lost the information war and Putin's decision is a logical consequence of this loss. I heard that the European Commission refused to recognize the fault of the USSR in this. There are also some documents that prove our guilt. If so, what about the fate of Soviet soldiers in Poland (1919-1921). Also it is not clear why you first accuse Putin of authoritarianism, and then give him as an example for Katyn :)
5. Before the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 - there was a Polish invasion of Ukraine and Belarus in 1919. She captured these lands and colonized them with her sieges/osadniks. Why do you consider this territory Polish? It should be at least controversial. The USSR liberated these people from the Polish occupation, and the Poles were in the minority here. Therefore, there can be no talk of aggression in this case.
Parallels with Germany are incorrect - it seized Czechs, who were not Germans and reduced them in rights, and the USSR did not lower the rights of its people, except for the representatives of the exploiting classes, who were always in the minority. Inaction for the USSR means giving up its national interests, which is unacceptable for any sovereign country.
6. Your people voluntarily voted to join the USSR. If you deny it, then you insult your own people. There is even a film of Latvian communists about this:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1034727.html
7. Yes, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations, as well as Finland in 1941. It's funny that the decisive three votes were from the countries of South America, which were pressured by Western countries.
8. In the Crimea, two-thirds of the population is ethnic Russians, who do not make sense to "force" to take the side of Russia. When you deny their enthusiasm - you insult these people. You forbid them to reunite with their homeland and the right to have such a point of view.
9. Can you give examples from the Soviet Constitution, where it would be said that Latvians should be restricted in their rights?
1
-
I've written hundreds of posts in English, although this language is not native to me. I constantly translate other messages into my language and you are not worried about it, but why can not you allow other people to translate my words? Just a few messages against hundreds and thousands in English? It's a one-way game. You support here the one-sided concept of Anglo-Saxon globalization.
1. I show the events from the point of view of Lenin and Stalin. Why? Because these people made decisions. We must look at the world by their eyes to understand their policies. If we use the point of view of their opponents, this will lead to false conclusions.
2. I am not a Putin supporter (I voted for him in 2012, but then I became disillusioned with him). In any country there is propaganda and it differs only because of the internal conditions of the state. You tell me that Russia is full of propaganda, but it means that you deny similar propaganda in your state. This is true? If so, then these are double standards.
2.1 If a person supports reunification with the Crimea, this does not mean that he is "pro-Putin" (because reunification is a decision for a whole generation, and Putin is only a political figure).
3. Putin said in an interview in 2014 that he is more of a liberal by convictions. Therefore, I do not understand why you consider it "pro-Soviet." By the way, it's funny that Putin's closest assistant - Dmitry Peskov said that "For us, the ideal is Russia of the times of Nicholas 2". Perhaps it seems to you from the outside that any strong Russia is a new USSR.
3.1 Vlasov does not have a monopoly on his flag. It existed long before the Second World War. Yes, the situation in Russia and the truth is quite contradictory: after 1991, the government received anti-Soviet, so it's no surprise that they pursue such a policy. But the nuance is that they have no historical support, because if they ignore the achievements of the USSR, then the people will not support them. Therefore, they flirt with him, supporting the holiday on May 9, although they themselves try to remove Soviet symbols. I think it will not end well ...
4. Equalization of communism and Nazism is an act of information aggression against Russia and other republics. This is the same propaganda, the existence of which you deny. You are trying to say that our people were criminals, but they were not. We fought for our freedom and freedom of other people. This is a genetic code that can not be changed. When you deny it - you become a Russophobe. But no one forces you to be it. If you want to be objective - your position should be neutral (even if you do not like Bolsheviks you must recognize their ideals and achievements).
5. It's funny that you accuse Putin of fascism (?) And at the same time you have parades of SS veterans allowed. Is there any contradiction here?
6. How will you react if I say that the struggle of the "forest brothers" against the USSR was illegal? Will you accept this argument? Will you accept my argument that their murders were crimes for which it is worth apologizing?
7. The USSR terminated the treaty with Poland before the commencement of its operation in 1939. No, this is not a crime. Criminals would be inaction, since Ukrainians and Belarusians needed protection from Germany. All that is to the east of the Curzon line is not the national territory of Poland. She received it as a result of aggression. Why do not you call on Poland to apologize for the aggression (1919-1921)?
8. Why do you call Ulmanis's authoritarian regime a legitimate government? This man abolished the elections, the operation of the constitution, repressed the opposition and censored the press. Should I call this a crime?
8.1 Soviet sources say that your "reactionary forces" were preparing provocations at Soviet military bases to disrupt the operation of early agreements. And against them, force can be used against necessity.
8.2 In my sources it is said that the Communist Party of Latvia was established in 1919. I'm not familiar with the history of this party, but can not its emergence in Moscow (I did not find such information) is connected with the inability to return to Latvia? Is there any analogy here with Polish government in London?
9. Historian Igor Pykhalov claims that Finland left the League of Nations by own in 1941. Finland also violated its old border after the outbreak of the war in 1941.
10. Russia is a multinational civilization that unites the Russian language and the ideals of justice. This is not just a national country.
11. The military operation in the Crimea was organized to prevent the provocation or attempts to disrupt the referendum. These people did not force the inhabitants of Crimea to vote for Russia. This was patriotism. In this case, the truth on the side of the one who is the majority (65%) is ethnic Russians. You will not force these people to return to Ukraine.
As for international norms ... This is a big hypocrisy: Yugoslavia 1999, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-2018 ... The West has not apologized for violating international norms, but it requires it from Russia ...
12. You say that ethnic Latvians were restricted in the rights in the USSR, but now you are limiting the rights of Russians. Is there any contradiction here? You demand equality, but you do not keep it. Is this a crime?
1
-
1. To understand Soviet politics, one must look at the world through the eyes of Soviet leaders. What is illegal? This is the official position of the state.
2. Ukraine is not a fully independent country (only on paper). Western leaders use it as a bargaining chip in their game against Russia. If Russia allowed itself to interfere in the affairs of other countries, as the West does (Viktoria Nuland's campaigning in Kiev), the whole world would be in a state of hysteria.
2.1 Crimea was a problem for Ukraine after the destruction of the USSR. He did not become a problem in one day. People wanted to return to Russia at that time, but Yeltsin was against it and Russia was very weak. Plus, the Ukrainian government was not as Russophobic as it is now. From the point of view of the population of the Crimea - it is their opinion that is decisive in the matter of their status. It is these people who decide what is legal and what is not. Not Kiev, not the West, but these people.
3. Strong = independent. This does not contradict the peaceful development of the state. People in Western countries do not think about what their economic well-being is based on (the policy of colonialism). They are used to thinking only about themselves and their welfare. But Russian people see this injustice and are fighting against it. This differentiates us from you.
3.1 When you try to "make us civilized / democratic" - this is perceived as an act of aggression. Do not be aggressive, leave your hopes to make us part of the Western world. I think that your words about the necessity for the functioning of the nato is a manipulation. Why? Because the economic and military power of Europe is superior to that of Russia. The strong can not protect himself from the weak. You can say that Russia is threatening you. Okay, but what about the other countries: does Russia threaten Germany or France?
3.2 Achievements of two revolutions 1917:
- The peasants were given more land.
- The working day is reduced from 10.5 hours to 8 hours.
- Improvement of the health care system.
- The policy of eliminating illiteracy of the population.
- Equality of men and women is presented.
- Elimination of class privileges.
- Freedom of religion is introduced.
- Cessation of economic exploitation of man by man.
4. We did not kill millions of our people (you have to prove it). Using prisoners' labor means that the country does not have more resources, while Western countries can use the resources of the colonies (you do not ask them to apologize for this). Always look for a rational reason.
5. When Germany began Operation Barbarossa, some of your citizens began to welcome the German army and cooperate with it. Now you tell me that these people had a neutral position. I can not agree with this.
5.1 Separation of the SS and the Wehrmacht is an act of information war. These people had different status, but fought for the same purpose.
5.2 Why is the mobilization of Latvians into the Red Army a crime? Do you think that all Latvians were against the USSR? You are wrong. You project here the opinion of your citizens after gaining independence for events of a very long time ago. This is a methodological error. You should look at the world by eyes of a Latvian citizen who was in 1940, not 1991.
6. From the point of view of the USSR, the forest brothers were engaged in illegal activities and acts of terror. Nationalists always think that they have the monopoly right to speak on behalf of their nation.
7. Poland was a hostile state for the USSR. She pursued repression and a policy of restriction of rights for Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Lithuanians - their national schools were closed, they were forced to pay more taxes in Poland, they had fewer rights and could not challenge decisions from their colonists.
By the time of the start of the Soviet operation - on September 17 - Poland the state as a single mechanism ceased to exist and all agreements with it were terminated. The Red Army liberated the brothers of the Slavs and Lithuanians from the Polish regime. The Slavs received equality. Lithuanians received formality independence, plus the USSR returned them Vilna. For the Slavs there was no alternative - or you are equal citizens in the USSR or Polish slaves. Therefore, they voted for the logical option.
The USSR did not violate the ethnic Polish border - the line of Curzon, therefore, did not bear direct responsibility for the future fate of Poland. This was done by Germany. Soviet repressions must be assessed in the context of the hostile state for the USSR.
8. Ulmanis said that the red army entered the territory of your country legally. You must support it if you consider it a legitimate government :)
9. About Finland was said here. You will have to watch the whole video because I do not remember the exact timecode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEJZO8jBChA&t
10. The empire has metropolitan areas and colonies, which are limited in rights. In Russia all people are equal. Your problem is that you always look at Russia from the point of view of the separatist and never from the point of view of a person loyal to her. That is, you initially deny the very possibility of sincerely supporting Russian politics. What is it, if not Russophobia? :)
11. Military intervention is necessary to prevent provocations and attempts to disrupt the referendum. What is legal, and what is not, is determined by the people themselves, not by Kiev.
When you say that "the United States does not owe you anything," then you deny any interference of this country in the politics of the whole world. You deny the violation of international norms (the US did not receive an international mandate for the outbreak of the war in Iraq). You deny the policy of one-sided globalization (Westernization) and any attempts to resist it. That's why American tanks are located in your country - you do not have sovereignty in full. I would not have a problem with this, if you did not try to show it as a neutral point of view.
12. Your laws limited the use of the Russian language in Latvia. Also, when you receive official documents, you must give your consent to the "Russophobic version" of history. If you do not do this - you are not an equal citizen.
1
-
1. The analogy with the dog has nothing to do with official Soviet politics. My thesis remains the same - for a proper understanding of this policy it is necessary to look at the world through the eyes of the Bolsheviks, not their opponents.
2. Two-thirds of the citizens of the Crimea are ethnic Russians. These people do not associate themselves with Ukraine. The more the new government of Ukraine became Russophobic - the more these people wanted to return to Russia. After the euro-Maidan this desire became prevailing. Thus, Ukraine lost its right to consider these people as its citizens.
3. The share of resource sales in the Russian economy was 37.4% in 2016.
3.1 Each national (not Russian) republic has the right to use its language on the territory of its republic.
3.2.
- In the USSR, the land of the landlords was liquidated and divided among the peasants. In other countries, rich people retained their power and privileges.
- In the USSR for the first time in the world at the state level, the working day was 8 hours. Other countries hastened to borrow this experience, but always in different ways.
- The tsarist government did not sufficiently combat the illiteracy of the population, because the more accessible the education becomes, the greater the chance that the revolution will become a reality and the monarchy will lose its power.
- In the USSR for the first time in the world, women received equal rights with men. The Soviet government fully equalized the woman with the man in labor law, civil, family and marriage rights, in the field of education, took measures to protect women's labor, motherhood and infancy, enshrined the principle of equal pay for equal work.
- In the capitalist states there always remained privileged classes. He who has more money - he has more power. A simple worker and a bourgeois do not have the same rights.
- in the USSR, a struggle began with the exploiter classes-landowners, kulaks, bourgeois, noblemen, and so on.
- The prisoners in Soviet camps were not slaves, they have: access to the library, to his own theater, cafe, they were paid for their work. This work was low-skilled, therefore its share was insignificant in the Soviet economy. If you disagree with this, provide documentary evidence (not Solzhenitsyn's words).
4. I am not a demographer, so I can not accurately comment on the "death" of 31 million people. This is similar to manipulation: the pre-revolutionary population growth is taken and projected for many years for no reason. Although it is known that the more developed society becomes, the fewer children give birth to women. This applies to all countries. You use your Russophobia here to show me "terrible numbers", but do not use critical thinking in a way.
4.1 The number of 42 million victims for the Second World War is a fake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRutkZa4P-k
5. The USSR had good relations with the Weimar Republic and after Hitler came to power - any cooperation was terminated. It resumed only in August 1939, when the political situation has seriously changed.
5.1 Ukrainians burned people in Odessa, and thus showed the face of fascism. For propaganda, you do not need anything else. Actions speak for themselves.
6. For a Russian person, "de jure" does not mean anything. This is an element of Western culture, not ours. A Russian person looks at events / people and draws conclusions. If the majority of the Baltic population is loyal to the USSR, then the Russian person will think that he is not an occupier. If the resistance is provided by a statistical minority, then this only indicates the presence in your society of people with radical ideas, no more.
7. Ukrainians and Poles are not indigenous peoples for Russia - they have their own states. Indigenous peoples (Chechens, Udmurts, etc.) - have their rights.
8. Small states should always consider the interests of big ones. What does it mean? Germany can break the neutrality of the Pribalki and this will create problems for the USSR. To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to increase Soviet influence in your countries. We put pressure on your regimes, and most people just look after events. Some are genuinely happy to become part of the USSR. The last fact you try to deny and I fully understand, but you should not project your modern consciousness at that time (1940), you should look at the world through the eyes of those people.
9. You think like a Western person, not like a Russian. This is your problem. You should look at the world through the eyes of a resident of Russian civilization to understand his actions.
9.1 You again use Russophobia in the quality of the argument: you think that the small nations in Russia live like in prison. This is a big mistake. Chechnya held its referendum after one of the wars. Russian civilization allows all nations to live in peace within the framework of one big family. Nationalities for Russia - this is not an alien element, but a variety of forms. When you deny it all, you become a Russophobe (this term is conditional). Those. here you deny the very possibility for Russia to remain original. You are trying to Westernize us.
9.2 Your words "Kremlin rats" and "Russians without a personality" are a direct Russophobia. A direct act of aggression. For me, there would not be a problem here if you did not try to show it as a neutral position.
10. In Chechnya there was a slave trade and multiple bandit formations. This led to the outbreak of war. Georgia attacked South Ossetia - this is an act of aggression. Ukraine attacked the Donbass, which refused to accept the results of the coup.
10.1 Your attempt to compile a "rogue list" is also an act of aggression. This is also an act of chauvinism. These people have not accepted your westernization and this is their full right.
11. Russia's peasants and workers supported the revolution and its results (majority). Therefore, when you criticize the Bolsheviks - you also criticize the choice of these people. Your categorical reluctance to consider Russia's liders as normal people only speaks of your Russophobia.
For me, it is not a problem to speak neutrally about other countries and peoples, but not for you:
- The state is on blood.
- People without a personality.
- The criminal regime.
- Prison for small nations.
Etc. Not a single good or even neutral word about Russia. This is direct Russophobia.
1
-
1. If you simply repeat your mantras - this does not make them true. Just put your negative words in the head of any Bolshevik and compare: is he really guided by these thoughts or has a different picture of the world. Which one? If you were objective, you would start thinking about it.
2. Tatars make up only 10% of the population of Crimea, so they can not decide anything. By the way in the Crimea are allowed three languages - Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar. Unlike Ukraine.
3. The entire economy of the Western world is built on the robbery of weak nations (imperialism). You make the mistake of projecting the wishes of Europe to have a lot of money to a Russian person. This is your problem, not ours.
4. Representatives of the exploiting classes bring more harm to the state than good. They work for themselves and have many resources that have been taken from other people. If someone is very rich, then somewhere people do not have enough money. Elimination of these barriers to development is fair. A person can have talents, but he does not need to have more power over others. It is immoral.
5. "The death of one person's tragedy, the death of millions of statistics" - this is not the words of Stalin, and a slightly modified quote from the novel Remarque "Black Obelisk." You must apologize for your lies.
6. If the start of the event is still possible to argue in Odessa, then sincere joy of some Ukrainians about the death of these people can not be hidden. They are fascists. They rejoiced when people died.
7. If for you de-jure it is a synonym of your rights, then this does not mean that for other people there should be also. If you project your ideals on us - these are your problems, not ours.
In occasion of "the stolen history" look this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjQyHZowA18
8. In the USSR there was no division into the elite and the Aborigines. This contradicts the socialist principles of politics. Nomenclature received privileges only in the 1960s, when the restoration of capitalism began.
9. Your categorical unwillingness to see power in Russia for normal people only speaks of your Russophobia. If you repeat your mantras about thieves and murderers several times, this will not be true.
10. The explosion of apartment buildings is a myth (responsibility of the authorities). And reparations for Chechnya too. It's amazing, but you believe in any anti-Russian lie. It seems it gives you pleasure.
11. "The source of Russophobia is all this shit" - your expectation and projection is not our problem, it's yours. We do not have to have the mentality of a Western man. It is not right to evaluate us from the point of view of the western paradigm.
12. The decisions of the Bolsheviks were legitimized by the actions of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Deputies. Simple people supported the Bolsheviks because they gave them land and peace. Loyalty of the main part of the people is a criterion for determining people's power. If the Bolsheviks were against Russia, they would not be able to win. Simple logic.
13. Here you can find out about the myths about Lenin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5FBwZQFUOo
You also have to apologize for your slander against this person. If you really had a goal to study history, then you would not write such nonsense as now.
14. Russia is a different civilization, not part of the West (other ideals, another worldview). Therefore, your expectations from it ("civilized goals") are based on a lack of understanding of our mentality. If you were really interested in our history, and not just repeated Russophobic propaganda, then I would not need to tell you this.
1
-
1
-
1. In the sources to which I gave you the reference it is said that the USSR did not pursue a policy of assimilation of the people and the Latvian language was protected.
2. It must be remembered that the repressions of 1937-1938 must be perceived as a great social conflict in Soviet society (the return of the civil war), and not simply "Stalin's desire." Several parties / groups took part in this process.
3. The famine of 1932-1933 had objective (drought and poor harvest) and subjective reasons - the mistakes of Soviet agricultural specialists, who used the American experience of processing the land. This experience was unsuccessful in the climatic conditions of Russia and a significant part of the crop was lost. No one wanted to kill people. The Soviet government helped the affected regions by sending food aid and opening public canteens. The documented deaths of 2.4 million people (1.5 mln - Ukraine region), of which about 100 thousand people died directly from hunger, the rest - from epidemics, weakening of immunity and food poisoning.
The plan of blanks was reduced by 40% relative to 1932.
Collected grain in Ukraine - 916 million poods of which 280 million (31%) - took the state in the form of a plan.
Soviet exports to other countries were reduced:
1931 (there is no famine) - 4.91 million tons of bread.
1932 - 1.32 million tons.
1933 - 1.53 million tons.
In general, from September 1932 to December 1934, Kazakhstan received 5 million centners of grain as food aid. This is 31.2 million poods.
In total, in 1932, Ukraine received 3.2 million centners in the order of food aid, and in 1933 - 5.3 million centners. This is 53.1 million poods in total.
And on the basis of this assistance a large-scale network of canteens was organized. According to data as of May 1933, 8.8 million people ate in rural canteens in the European part of the USSR. In Ukraine, at the same time, there were 20.7 thousand canteens, to which 3 million people were attached. In total, in 1933, catering, including food during field work, reached 39 million people.
4. Each civilization has its own "rules". But since our world is developing according to the Western model of globalization, people in the West began to think that their rules should become the norm for other peoples. But this is a mistake.
5. The liberal attitude towards gays is not characteristic of Russian culture because it contradicts our ideals. When you impose your version of tolerance to us, this is perceived as a form of aggression. From the point of view of Russian culture a man becomes a man only in the process of his development. Thus, a person must first educate a person in itself and then only claim own rights. Otherwise, it may turn out that this is not a human opinion, but a pervert / sick person. There is no clear criterion.
5.1 The availability of information is good, but what information? For example, your information is used in the war against us. That's why you are looking for any negative about Russia. I never do this for Latvia. My position is neutral, your position is not.
6. Some politicians associate themselves not with the people, but with a class of influential people. They think in terms of obtaining the maximum benefit for their class. I do not support these people, but I understand them. I think some of them are Russophobes, but you are even more aggressive. They are simply rich and try to protect their interests.
With them in Russia there will be no social justice, but Russia itself will be an independent state. If you put yourself as the leader of Russia - you destroy it with your hatred. Therefore, you are more dangerous. Therefore, your calls to "become civilized" remain unanswered. You must understand our mentality if you want a dialogue.
7. Just a Russian person does not see much enthusiasm in the "life for money" - he needs a fair goal. Your constant desire to raise the standard of living is perceived as a selfish goal and not very fair.
This does not mean that the level of life does not need to be increased, but it is necessary to understand due to what it became possible: by weakening other countries. Capitalism can not be equally useful for all countries in the world - strong countries will always develop more intensively and take their percentage of resources from other countries, depriving them of a part of their sovereignty. The EU is an imperialist structure. Do you agree with this? If you tell me about the dignity of the European payment, but do not tell at the expense of what it arose - this is hypocrisy.
8. Where did you get the number 3% for Lenin? In any case, this man was not a Russophobe and developed the culture of Russia and other republics. He popularized the classical Russian literature. Plus, he began a large-scale program of electrification of the country. The criterion of his popularity is people's loyalty to his policies. If people were against it - it would lose its power as well as the temporary government.
In Russia there were two alternative concepts: the model of parliamentary democracy and the model of people's (Soviet) democracy. In the first case, power was received by rich and influential people (as now), which were divorced from the aspirations of the people. In the second case, the power was with the working class, which any deputy could recall if his policy ceased to suit people. The first model was not perceived as folk because it was the result of Western influence on us, and the second model meant collegial participation in the administration of the state, which found its origin in the peasant community.
Therefore, when you say something bad about Lenin, you insult our people and our country. But I'm beginning to doubt that my arguments will be useful to you. You reject any arguments that contradict your concept of a "country on the blood". Look at the video about Lenin, the link to which I gave in the previous message.
1
-
1
-
1). "kremlin myths about Latvia" - the development of industry in Latvia and the preservation of her culture/language (which you are currently using) - is this a sign of occupation? Yes / no. Can a person have an opinion different from yours, but not be a puppet of the Kremlin? If not, why (this is an important question).
2). "and Baltics in general" - were there people in these countries who wanted to voluntarily join the USSR? Yes / no. Did they have this right? Yes / no. Is it correct to project the mentality of these people in 1940 on the mentality of the Baltic region after the counterrevolution (1991)? Yes / no.
3). "when You will revive all those people suffered from bolsheviks" - please specify who should be resurrected:
- Economic speculators (kulaks).
- Participants in anti-Soviet armed movements.
- Polish Russophobic Intelligence.
- Left Soviet opposition (you also have to hate them).
- Traitors, saboteurs, enemies of Soviet power.
- Prostitutes and other antisocial elements.
- Former privileged classes in tsarist Russia.
Which of these people should be resurrected and why?
4). "revive Nemtzov" - I have two questions here:
- Have you already conducted an independent investigation?
- What good did this man do for Russia?
5). "MH17" - have you already conducted an investigation? Could it be that it's not Russia that is to blame here - and do you accept this answer? If not, why.
6). "12 000 men of Ukrainian army" - when the region of Donbass refused to accept the results of the coup d'état in Ukraine, and Kiev decided to suppress any opposition - is it whose fault - Kiev or Russia? Can these people have an opinion that is different from the opinion of Kiev? If not, why.
7). "Restore borders of Ukraine" - the borders of states are determined by the people themselves. If these people believe that they no longer want to be in Ukraine (Crimea, Donbass) - do they have the right on this or not? When you wanted your independence, did someone disturb you? Then why do not you allow these people to exercise their self-determination? Should these people be forcibly returned to Ukraine because some piece of paper says otherwise? Can Western observers choose to go there and confirm the legitimacy of their choice? If not, why. If so, why does not this happen.
8). "86% of people who are just stepping on the same rake" - here you say that the problem for you is the choice / mentality of people in Russia. That is, you want them to change their mentality. That is, you want to violate the sovereignty of Russia. This is an act of aggression. If your position were neutral - you would accept any choice of people in Russia, but you do not do it. The situation in Crimea and the Donbass should not affect your countries, so your opinion is unfounded.
9). "making harm to themselves, to those, who try to tell what is wrong" - this is the protection of Russia's sovereignty. You are trying to replace it with the opinion of Russian liberals, for whom the west remains a desirable place. But the West does not want good for Russia, and the liberals do not want to defend their country, so their opinion does not weigh. So, you want to correct our mentality, but with this you consider yourself to be free people ...to the words of which we must listen. Are you serious about this?
10). "I have nothing to apologise for" - then what you have listed are modern problems (except for the Soviet period). What kind of relationship does this have to Suvorov's theory? Why do you continue to believe in it, although even Western historians have repeatedly refuted it? Because it gives you additional facts to demonize Russia? And why do you need demonization? What is the ultimate goal of this?
1
-
"I am getting tired to speak with vatnik" - yes, and according to liberal values, you must respect the whole spectrum of opinions, do not you? :)
"we don't need Your 700 000 migrants" - What by guided are the USSR here - its economic reasons or the opinion of Latvians, formed after the counter-revolution?
"we had our normal, gradual development" - British development (colonial policy) - is it ideal for you or not? Your small country can not afford this, but continues to call the British empire a democratic country?
"will not remove occupation fact" - you project your consciousness of a person after the accomplishment of the counter-revolution, which is a methodological mistake. Also, you deny any loyal attitude of the Latvians to the Soviet power, hence you deny these people out of your history.
"USSR still owe us 300bil.$" - as you counted? Soviet policy is not a policy of seizing colonies, but the development of republics.
"Can You point some signs of undevelopment compared to rest of USSR before 1940?" - I did not understand your question. Before your country became part of the USSR - you were an agrarian country. The USSR made your republic industrial. Is this a sign of development or not?
"Kulaks are also farmers, production owners" - The kulaks are engaged in usury, which was legally banned in the USSR after the end of the NEP policy. It seems you have to respect any laws :)
"Pure speculation is simple buying and trading" - from the point of view of Soviet policy, these people received more profit than they brought to the state. They are representatives of the exploiting classes. Should we evaluate Soviet policy from the standpoint of capitalist counter-revolution? :)
"You communistic aproach is utopic" - does this mean that Nazi Germany lost the war to the utopian USSR? :)
"No one is motivated without possibility to earn" - lack of motivation within the capitalist system? :) Does this mean that only capitalism reflects the interests of society? Monopoly for the future?
"As bolshevik movement is criminal, fighting against is not a crime" - lol. Who recognized him as a criminal? His opponents? Should we rely on the opinions of his opponents to understand Soviet policy? Or did the Soviet government and society have any goals of their own?
"I can be russophobic and not punished without charges, court and advocate" - here we are not talking about a legal issue, but a serious distortion of the objective perception of history. You suggest to me to believe that your Russophobic point of view is neutral (!) and objective (!), but it is not. This is the point of view of Russia's consistent opponent. She denies the possibility of the existence of good goals for the Soviet and Russian governments. She denies the possibility for Russia to have "her own truth". That's why it can not be objective.
"Your opposition politicians" - one person was killed by someone unknown, and you are making global conclusions. By the way, opposition leaders often die in Ukraine, but you ignore it :)
"investigating journalists cannot normally survive" - we do not know all the facts, it could be just a criminal reason, not a political one. By the way here you ignore the official version of the Russian government, which means that you again deny the possibility of your own truth in Russia.
"But fact that You are asking about benefits from Nemtzov for Russempire" - Russia is not an empire (you need to prove it). I asked why you are defending this person, probably he did something good for Russia ... No. In reality, it was one of the leaders of the policy of privatization. This man led an immoral lifestyle and did nothing good for his country.
"I know modern history of Your country better" - you violate the objective laws here, so your point of view can not be true. You propose to believe me that my country is criminal, but no patriot from any country will accept such an argument. You do not respect Russians.
"If Your serviceman organised all the transportation and shooting down the plane" - why should Russia create image problems for itself?
"Then I see no other country to blame here. Strange?" - of course strange. For example, for events in Odessa, you say - this is a provocation, and for airplane you say it is Russia's unconditional fault :) So you demonize Russia and try to defend the Ukrainian regime, which violated many laws at the moment and after the coup d'etat (you ignore these violations, plus you ignore the intervention of Western countries in these events. You do not consider them criminals). So it's a game of one gate: the West is always right, Russia is always wrong.
"Ukraine existance is and was continuous" - here you ignore the opinion of people in the Crimea and the Donbass, who refused to accept a coup d'état. These people just do not exist for you.
"borders are agreed in interstate agreements" - these agreements were concluded by Russia after the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War: a weak Russia = you can dictate any conditions to her. So, you want that Russia always remained weak ...
"about not recognising thread in state propoganda" - this is Russia's internal affairs, is not it?
"and not making personal fact-checking" - did you check the facts when you wrote about the cooperation between the NKVD and the Gestapo, and also about the words of Stalin? :)
"That's why countries have changeability of rulers and government" - two words: Angela Merkel.
"so that loby group does not start to take over the control over country" - nfluential groups of people in the shadows (which no one chooses) - always have the ability to control politics. Elections affect only the tip of the iceberg.
"If You start to like president too long" - Russian citizens want a stable policy. No conspiracy theory here. This should not be a problem for you.
"Can You remind me a single debate of Putin or Medvedev?" - I do not understand your question. Putin has always conducted a direct tele-line with Russian citizens.
"I believe in Suvorov, because he has a backup in documents" - how do you feel about the fact that he simply ignores many documents that contradict his theory (I show you one of them)? Why does your "verification of facts" not concern this person in such detail? :)
"He just might tell more than state-sponsored miserables" - here you deny the possibility of sincere enthusiasm among Russian historians. That is, either independent and anti-Russian, or dependent and pro-Kremlin. There is no independent and pro-Russian :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Balnazzardi
Here are some additional facts.
1). Mannerheim wanted to create a great Finland on the territory of Karelia and the Kola Peninsula (in the latter case they did not succeed). According to this policy, people were divided into two classes: the highest - Finno-Ugric peoples and the lowest - Russians, Jews and others. People of the first grade were part of the new state and had to study in Finnish, and the lower classes were placed in concentration camps (50,000 people, of which 7-8 thousand died).
Here is a picture of the Finnish school in the captured Karelia, where children were to be teach in Finnish.
https://ibb.co/doogOK
Here is a propaganda leaflet of the times of the winter war, where it is said that commander of the 8th Army, Gregory Stern, is a terrible Jew.
https://ibb.co/kqESxe
You can also remember the Finnish SS legion, which was created in the spring of 1941 and from January 1942 fought in the southern sector of the eastern front (this was an element of the fraternity between Germany and Finland).
Plus here is a fragment of the speech of the finnish prime minister Johan Rangell in the parliament, November 29, 1941:
"The relations between Finland and Germany are clear and smooth. They are based on common military benefits and brotherhood in arms. They are also based on sincere friendship and mutual respect. Finland is grateful that this time she is fighting not alone against the enemy. The great forces of Germany who are fighting on the gigantic Russian front for the sake of annihilating Bolshevism, which threatens the security of all countries of the world, have so tied the forces of the Red Army that Finland is fighting on more favorable conditions in own front than two years ago".
2). Yes, indeed your army refused to storm Leningrad in 1941 (nevertheless you took part in a passive blockade), but your high command was ready to do it in 1942 ... Only this time Germany was unprepared: its artillery did not have time to redeploy from the Crimea, and reinforcements went to other sectors of the front - Rzhev, Stalingrad, Caucasus.
3). Your army crossed the old border in Karelia for many kilometers (this is more than restoring your 1939 frontier).
Map:
http://wiki.istmat.info/_media/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84:finmap.jpg?cache=
Plus here is a document where your aviation should strike blows on communications of Leningrad.
http://bair-books.com/uploads/fcke/nikitin_2.jpg
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1