Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "TimeGhost History"
channel.
-
19
-
"The Curzon line was created after the Polish-Soviet war had started" - formally - yes, in fact - it was already created thanks to the action of objective factors. Poland violated this border, ignored the wishes of the West and committed aggression.
"Another thing is that there was no such things as "the ethnic border" in eastern europe seeing how Poles made up a large group in urban areas in Lithuania, Ukraine" - The process of colonization occurs mainly through the population of cities. Thus, the inhabitants of the city - mostly colonists, rural residents - form the core of the ethnic border of the nation.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Nationalities_in_Second_Polish_Republic_ca._1931.png?uselang=ru
"A worldwide revolution was the ultimate goal of Lenin/Trotsky goverment" - after the seizure of power in October 1917, Lenin said in his article that "now we are defensists" ie, defenders of the socialist revolution. The support of revolutionary movements in other countries does not mean "the conquest of Europe for Russia" because it contradicts the socialist principles of politics.
"they used it as a casus belli to subjugate former imperial provinces in the Caucasus, Central Asia" - restoration of the territorial integrity of your state. The creation of national republics and the conclusion of an equal treaty with them. Why do you think that all these people were against cooperation?
"and Poland alongside the Baltic states and Finland were amongst Soviet goals of conquest" - can you confirm this by documentary? I mean, why does the creation of Soviet socialist respubles mean to you - conquest? Conquest is imperialist policy within the framework of the capitalist model. Poland conquered part of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and restricted these people in rights - this is a policy of conquest and colonization. The USSR pursued a policy of creating equal treaties and did not restrict any nationality in its rights - it is a policy of cooperation.
"but it is certain that the Soviets attacked first" - 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 February 3, the republic joined the federation with the RSFSR.
On the other hand, Polish troops were came, with the aim of restoring Polish borders within the Rzecz Pospolita (imperialist policy). 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 attacked Soviet troops on the Shchara River and on March 1 they occupied Slonim.
16
-
12
-
11
-
5
-
4
-
Here are some data on military production for 1942.
Germany produced 1.37 million rifles, 232.000 submachine guns, 117.000 machine guns, 40.500 artillery pieces, 9800 mortars, 6200 tanks, 11.600 aircraft, 241 ships.
USSR produced 4 million rifles, 1.5 million submachine guns, 356.000 machine guns, 127.000 artillery pieces, 230.000 mortars, 24,400 tanks, 21,700 aircraft, 15 ships.
So the USSR created more weapons in 1942 than Germany (excluding ships) despite the loss of territory after the occupation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
> First of all you provide no references for your data.
Official data from any source. I can give a screenshot, but the data is in Russian.
> In fact they always lied about almost everything.
Demonization is a form of propaganda.
> If you did not tell Stalin good news (lied) then you were likely to be shot or sent to the gulag.
No proof from you. Again demonisation.
> Second based on the GDP numbers
GDP is not a reliable criterion for the economy because it contains things that have nothing to do with the strength of the economy, such as the volume of securities. Secondly, GDP is not valid for socialism because it creates fewer papers and has a different structure.
> Although for the year 1942 it shows the USSR GDP much lower than Germany’s that year, which makes your numbers highly suspicious.
Because GDP is a bad criterion.
> By definition this means that more of the USSR’s GDP had to go to basic survival stuff, leaving much less for building armaments.
USSR used about 55% of its budget for war (like England). Data from official sources.
> Hitler inherited a market economy with world leading industries and more importantly the talent to build these industries. Stalin inherited an agrarian economy without any of the talent to build war industries.
By 1937, the USSR surpassed Germany in terms of gross industrial production. Official data.
> It takes talent, including management talent to run these industries something the USSR had none
The fact remains - Germany is destroyed. The effectiveness of the Soviet system at any level (military, economic, ideological) is confirmed.
> high level generals in the USSR admitted how important lend lease was to their survival after the fall of the USSR.
They recognized this during the de-Stalinization campaign. But it is important for us that union aid does not give the USSR economic advantage over Germany. The USSR had to do dirty work relying on its own forces.
> Bottom line you are pushing communist propaganda hopefully unwittingly.
The task of the investigation is the restoration of historical events at the time of their life. Your message hints that the Soviet system has no advantages and wins the war randomly. This is primitive propaganda.
> The KGB had a name for people in the West that pushed their propaganda, they called them “useful idiots”.
Only if you trust the words of some dissidents.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
> And this bullshit explaination is why no fucking human being should ever judge actions on their final consequences, but also on the fucking trail of death that they leave on their wake.
Two world wars occurred due to the crisis of the capitalist system (the struggle for economic markets). Do I have to say that "capitalism is evil, period?". This is how propaganda works.
> if you think that you can JUSTIFY the death of 4 millions people in ANY way. Socialism is EVIL, and governemental intervention in the economy led to these deaths. Period.
Helping the affected regions is also government intervention.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. You evaluate the Polish population in eastern Poland from the point of view of Polish historiography, but the USSR does not rely on this point of view - it relies on its own. For the Soviet point of view, it is characteristic that the land belongs to peasants, most of whom are Ukrainians and Belarusians, and the Polish majority in some cities such as Lviv was considered colonial influence. This is true not only for Poles, but also for Russians in eastern Ukraine. Thus, the Polish colonists were deported after annexation, which is logical. This is not revisionism because the USSR is based on its opinion, and not on the opinion of Polish historiography.
2. All I want to tell you is that you evaluate Soviet policy from the point of view of Soviet interests, and not from the point of view of the interests of other countries (this gives you false conclusions).
3. There is a documentary speech by Hitler in May 1939, when he said that war with Poland is inevitable. Germany does not need Soviet consent to invade Poland. Germany is between two fronts - Polish and French. The lack of military coordination between the two countries made the Polish defeat inevitable. Soviet intervention was not predetermined, and in the event of a large French offensive in the west of the USSR, may remain aloof.
Soviet-Finnish negotiations on changing the border began in the spring of 1938 and were not related to the pact with Germany.
The USSR annexed the Baltic states after Germany destroyed France. This was done to ensure their own security because military bases did not give good protection. The USSR did not want to make the mistake France made when it refused to invade the Benelux countries and this had negative consequences for it.
Romania annexed Bessarabia in 1918. The USSR did not recognize this and returned it to the region in 1940. Plus Bukovina is where the Ukrainians lived. This is not a crime. Crime is inaction. Do you understand the difference?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulrebel2531 If you are talking about Russia, then maybe you should know the opinion of the citizens of this country first of all? Most people associate the Soviet government with the achievements of industry, the victory in WW2, the elimination of illiteracy of the population, and achievements in the space sector. Only a minority associate this government with repressions. And this is not surprising because, according to statistics, only about 2% of Soviet citizens were affected by the policy of terror.
In any case, in a decent society, it is customary to first check information for reliability and only then use it as an argument. You took your number "50 million killed Russians" from a source unknown to me. But judging by the fact that this number is rounded and does not correspond to Soviet statistics, it is most likely a product of propaganda. Why don't you want to check this information for accuracy? Is it that difficult for you? Why can't you find information about the fact that the Bolsheviks were never liberals and therefore does not make any sense to evaluate their policies from a point of view that condemns terror? On the contrary, the Bolsheviks used terror as a way to defend their version of democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are a opinion about red army from the German generals and politicians:
- "The peculiarity of the country and the uniqueness of the character of the Russians make the campaign very specific. The first serious enemy". (Diary of Halder, July 25, 1941).
- "The Fuhrer again sharply criticizes the General Staff ... The Fuhrer is right in saying ... that Stalin timely carried out this reform [purge of the Red Army Command] and therefore now enjoys its benefits. If such a reform is imposed on us today by our defeats, but then for ultimate success it is too late". (Diary of Goebbels, March 5, 1945).
- "On the Eastern Front: the fighting continues. Strong and desperate resistance of the enemy ... The enemy has many dead, few wounded and captured ... In general, very heavy fights are taking place. On the "walk" is out of the question. The Red Regime mobilized the people. To this is added the fabulous stubbornness of the Russians. Our soldiers are barely able to cope. But until now everything is going according to plan. The situation is not critical, but serious and requires all effort". (Diary of Goebbels).
- "The Russians have proven themselves to be skillful, hardy and fearless soldiers, crushing our old prejudices about racial superiority". (Metelman G. Through Hell ... P.288, 294).
- "The new generation in Russia possessed strength and courage ... They often acted mechanically, like robots ... These people believed their power and submitted to it." (Wolfsinger V., "The Merciless Massacre ..." p 99, 100).
- Colonel-General von Kleist: "From the very beginning the Russians showed themselves as first-class warriors, and our successes in the first months of the war were explained simply by the best preparation. Having gained combat experience, they became first-class soldiers. They fought with exceptional perseverance, had astounding endurance and could withstand the most intense battles" - (Liddell-Garth B. "Battle of the Third Reich" ... p. 265).
- General Blumenthrit: "We were confronted by an army that by its fighting qualities was far superior to all other armies we had ever met on the battlefield ... The Red Army of 1941-1945. was a much stronger opponent than the tsarist army, for she selflessly fought for the idea. This strengthened the resilience of Soviet soldiers. Discipline in the Red Army was also observed more clearly than in the tsarist army. They know how to defend themselves and stand to death. Attempts to overcome them cost a lot of our blood". (Liddell-Garth B. "They know how to defend themselves ...", p. 382; "The Battle of the Third Reich ..." P. 271-272).
- "The information from the front confirms that the Russians are everywhere fighting to the last man ... It is striking that few people are surrendering to captivity when capturing artillery batteries, etc." - (Diary of Frans Halder, June 29 +July 4, 1941).
- "Russian soldiers and junior commanders are very brave in battle, even a single small unit always accepts an attack. In this regard, one should not allow human treatment of prisoners. Destruction of the enemy by fire or cold steel must continue until the enemy becomes safe ... Fanaticism and contempt for death make the Russians as adversaries, the destruction of which is compulsory ... ". From the command of the 60th Motorized Infantry Division.
- "The Soviet government in the rear of the enemy organized the struggle of 6,200 partisan detachments with a membership of up to 1 million. The fight against partisan detachments was a monstrous reality ... in July 1943, 1560 railways were blown up in Russia, in September - 2600. That is, 90 per day". (Justus G. "Alfred Jodl is a soldier without fear and reproach. chief of the OKW of Germany ", p.97).
- "The Party and its organs have tremendous influence in the Red Army. Almost all commissars are residents of cities and people from the working class. Their courage borders on recklessness; these people are very smart and determined. They managed to create in the Russian army what it lacked in the First World War - iron discipline. A similar military discipline, which I do not know for pity - which, I am sure, could not be sustained by any other army - turned the unorganized crowd into an unusually powerful weapon of war. Discipline is the main trump card of communism, the driving force of the army. It was also a decisive factor in achieving the enormous political and military successes of Stalin ... Russian remains a good soldier everywhere and under any conditions". (From the book of General Friedrich von Mellenthin "Tank Battle: 1939-1945").
- "The Party's political work sharply strengthened the fighting efficiency of the Red Army. Meetings of the members of the CPSU (b) were held regularly. It is pointless to ignore Stalin's role in the war. Russians for a good thousand years lagged behind in general historical development from other European nations. Stalin set the task to overcome the thousand-year-old abyss in 20 years and in many respects achieved its fulfillment. He became a kind of God". (Haape G.," Grin of Death ... " p. 177).
- "Western concepts of the impassability of the terrain for the Russians are of very limited importance. Here the spirit of the German soldier, his courage, initiative, selflessness fought against the desperate resistance of the enemy, whose strength lay in the favorable terrain, in the endurance and incredible firmness of the Russian soldier, reinforced by the iron system of coercion of the Soviet regime. In addition, the Russians were masters of quickly rebuilding roads. The Russian troops have always fought bravely and sometimes brought incredible sacrifices". (Field Marshal Erich von Manstein).
- "The Russians held with unexpected firmness and perseverance, even when they were circumvented and surrounded. This they won time and used for counterstrikes from the depths of the country more and more reserves, which were also stronger than it was supposed ... the enemy showed an absolutely incredible ability to resist ". (General Kurt Tippelskirch).
- "The wide and cleverly planned operations of the Red Army led to numerous encirclements of German units and the destruction of those that resisted ... The Russian command developed and perfectly carried out this operation. We lost the 100,000-strong army at Koenigsberg". (General O. Fun Lash - commandant of the fortress Koenigsberg).
- "In the Second World War it became evident that the Soviet supreme command also possesses high capabilities in the field of strategy ... Russian generals and soldiers tend to obedience. They did not lose their presence of spirit even in the most difficult situation of 1941 ... ". (from Heinz Guderian's book "Results of the Second World War").
- "During the war, I watched the Soviet command becoming more and more experienced ... It is quite true that the highest Soviet command, beginning with Stalingrad, often exceeded all our expectations. He masterfully carried out a rapid maneuver and transfer of troops, changing the direction of the main strike, showed the ability to create bridgehead and equip them with starting positions for the subsequent transition to the offensive... ". (General Oberst G. Frisner, commander of Army Group "South Ukraine").
- "The fact that the Red Army soldiers continued to fight in the most hopeless situations, completely not caring about their own lives, can be attributed to a large extent to the brave behavior of the commissars. The difference between the Russian Imperial Army in the years of the WW1 and the Red Army, even in the very first days of the German invasion, was simply colossal. If in the last war the Russian army fought as a more or less amorphous mass, a sedentary, devoid of individuality, a spiritual upsurge, caused by the ideas of communism, began to affect already in the summer of 1941". (General Erich Raus).
- "Many of our leaders have grossly underestimated the new enemy. This happened partly because they did not know the Russian people, not even the Russian soldier. Some of our military leaders throughout the First World War were on the Western Front and never fought in the East, so they had no idea about the geographical conditions of Russia and the steadfastness of the Russian soldier, but at the same time ignored the repeated warnings of prominent military specialists in Russia. .. The behavior of the Russian troops, even in this first battle (for Minsk) was strikingly different from the behavior of the Poles and the troops of the Western Allies in the conditions of defeat. Even being surrounded, the Russians did not retreat from their borders. " (General Blumentrite).
- "The General Staff gives me a book with biographical data and portraits of Soviet generals and marshals. From this book, it is not difficult to get various information about what mistakes we made in the past years. These marshals and generals are on average exceptionally young, almost none of them older than 50 years. They are ... extremely energetic people, and on their faces you can read that they have a good people's features... I have to make an unpleasant conclusion that the leaders of the Soviet Union come from better people's layers than our own. I inform the Fuhrer about the General Staff's book on Soviet marshals and generals that was provided to me for review, adding that I had the impression that we are not at all able to compete with such leaders. The Fuhrer fully shares my opinion. Our generals are too old, outlived themselves... which speaks of the colossal superiority of Soviet generalship" - (Diary of Goebbels, March 16, 1945).
- "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).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> what counterarguments one can present to your denying that Stalin murdered millions of its own citizens
You inattentively read what I write to you. For all the time in the USSR, about 800 thousand people were sentenced to death. Source - Viktor Zemskov.
> What can I say to your flatly denying the great famine in Ukraine intentionally arranged by Stalin
There is no point in organizing hunger. You use the interpretation of some Western historians who cannot document this point of view. Here are data on assistance to the regions.
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.
It makes no sense to deliberately create hunger and then fight it.
> The Baltic states were forced to join the SU against their own will
USSR did not have large-scale guerrilla resistance here. Forest brothers were marginalized.
> Finland was invaded but the soviets didn't manage to deprive them of their independence.
They refused the Soviet territorial exchange.
> Was Besarabia part of Russia before 1918?
Yes, she was part of the Russian Empire.
> so was large part of Poland that Russia forcefully annexed in 1772.
USSR did not lay claim to the ethnic territories of Poland. They remained in the zone of German influence (west of the Curzon line).
> the land that once belonged to Russia should belong to Russia
USSR is a union of different republics, and not a national Russian state.
> but the spacious territories that belonged to Poland but were stolen by Russia should not belong to Poland?
Ethnic Poles had a minority east of the Curzon line.
> Stalin didn't agree to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact dividing their neighbors between themselves?
There was a zone of political influence which did not mean aggression against other states. Read the original text.
> The soviets also didn't massacre over 40 thousand Polish officers in Katyn?
Fight against war and class enemies.
> because it's unbearble to realize the soviets were just as bad as the nazis.
The equality of the Nazis and the Communists was created in European propaganda after the collapse of the USSR. But this has nothing to do with the historical reconstruction. The element of information war.
> Ukraine and Belarus never said they wanted to be part of the soviet paradise either.
During the war against Nazism, they showed their high loyalty.
> After 1945 Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and east Germany didn't ask to be soviet satelite states either.
When the USSR left there, they became American vassals. This is not a soviet guilt, it is a matter of their limited sovereignty and double standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fragment from the speech of Stalin on April 17, 1940.
Mortars - the fourth, there is no modern war without mortars. All corps, all companies, battalions, regiments must have six-inch mortars necessarily, 8-inch ones. This is a terrible need for modern warfare. These are very effective mortars and very cheap artillery. Wonderful thing mortar. Do not spare the mines, here is the slogan, pity your people. If you spare the bombs and shells - do not spare the people, fewer people will be. If you want our war to be with little blood, do not spare the mines.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kev
1. I already told you earlier that the Soviet national concept said that the urban population (for example, Lviv) is a consequence of colonial influence. Thus, if the Poles have a majority there, then for the Soviet concept this is not a Polish city, but colonial influence. The same thing happened with Russian cities in eastern Ukraine.
2. This forum will not allow in detail to discuss the issue of hunger in the USSR. I will only say that the famine was not only in the USSR, but also in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Soviet famine did not affect the patriotism of Soviet Ukrainians. 250 thousand Ukrainians fought on the side of Germany against 6 million on the side of the USSR. There is also no correlation between social equality and the fact of hunger.
3. Collectivization allowed the USSR to have enough food during the war and successfully complete it. The percentage of foreign aid was 6%. Only at the very beginning did collectivization fail, but later on it was successful.
4. Soviet partisans were also part of the resistance movement in Europe. For example, Belarusian partisans seized and controlled several regions in their republic that the Germans could not control. But you say that the uprising in Warsaw is the largest military action in Europe. What is more - one city or several regions in the USSR? In the Balkans, partisans also controlled several regions.
1
-
1
-
Kev
1. Each system has its own moral. The Nazis have one moral. The Communists have a different one. The capitalists have a third. The Nazis lost the second world war and their point of view was forgotten. The Communists lost the Cold War and their point of view was also forgotten. Thus, we have gained the dominance in the modern world of the point of view of liberal capitalism which imposes its morality on the history of other systems. But such logic does not work. We must return during the Second World War and look at the world through the eyes of each system individually.
2. Russia is a federation where each nationality has its own rights. This is not a Russian empire where only Russians had privileges in comparison with other nations. The USSR was also a union of different republics, and not a national Russian state. You think that Stalin is an analogue of the Russian Tsar, but this is a mistake of Western historiography. In reality, Russian nationalists accuse the Bolsheviks of using anti-Russian policies and giving too many rights to other nationalities.
3. Even if the Polish pilots had a big score, then they used English planes and English equipment. Thus, their entire result was summed up to the efforts of the English army, and not the Polish one. Thus, Polish pilots cannot play a major role because they have no aircraft of their own and equipment. This does not mean that I deny Polish resistance. I want you to be more objective.
4. The Polish government in London did not want the Red Army to gain control of Warsaw, so they did not coordinate their rebellion with the Soviet command. When the uprising was crushed, they blamed Stalin for this. But this is a rewriting of history. Soviet interests consisted in the fact that the Red Army received a pause after a large offensive in Belarus. Stalin takes into account Soviet interests in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1