Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "A Soviet-Nazi Alliance - The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1939 Part 2 of 3" video.

  1. > Five Year Plans Reducing industrial lag from the West. > Soviet version of Blitzkrieg This is part of military progress, not an aggressive plan. > Paratroopers, strategic bombers (offensive weapons, not defensive) There is no offensive or defensive weapon. It can be used in any situation. Paratroopers were used in defense during the battle for Moscow. > Purges Preparation for the aggression of the imperialists against the USSR.
    3
  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
  3. * in 1918.
    1
  4. > Russia had "a historical right" to lands that were for 500-800 years under Polish rule USSR is not Russia, but a union of several republics. The USSR returned the territory to ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians. Polish colonists were deported. > people are criticizing THE SECRET PROTOCOL of the treaty. You do not understand what the term crime means (from the point of view of Soviet interests). These are not new political spheres of influence, but inaction.
    1
  5. 1. Find the materials of the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. The national question is discussed there. When the Bolsheviks rely on their point of view, this is not revisionism. 2. If you know Russian, then find a book Александр Дюков - "пакт молотова-рибентропа в вопросах и ответах". It gives an analysis of Soviet policy on the conclusion of a pact with Germany. 3. The text of the secret protocols does not contain a military plan, but only the sphere of influence. 4. Joint arad in Brest is a myth. It was a German parade and Soviet guests on it. Soviet technology did not participate in the German parade and simply changed its location in the city. 5. You again do not understand. The deportation of the Poles is not a crime. Crime is inaction. It will mean that anti-Soviet Poles will create problems for the Red Army when Barbarossa operations begin.
    1
  6. Kev > Poland waged practically no offensive wars. Then what did the Polish army do in Minsk and Kiev in 1919-1920 ? These are not Polish national lands. > later they sold Poland to Stalin in Yalta It was not "sold to Stalin", but respected by Soviet state interests because the military efforts of the USSR in the victory over Germany was dominant. > but USSR under Stalin was no better than III Reich in many cases. This is a modern rewriting of history that attempts to equate communism and Nazism. During the war, most people did not think so. > Polish resistance that later created the largest underground state in Nazi occupied Europe I know that Polish nationalism has no boundaries. First you say that your pilots won the air battle for England. Then say that your partisans destroyed the German communications on the eastern front and thereby saved the USSR from defeat. Now you are claiming that the Polish partisans were the biggest resistance movement. But what data confirms this? For example, the Balkan partisans killed 104 thousand German soldiers over the entire period of the war. The Red Army and Soviet partisans killed 3.9 million Axis soldiers.
    1
  7. Kev 1. Poland wanted to annex the lands where ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians lived in 1919. This is imperialism, not democracy. Soviet Russia also tried, but it was an international union of different republics, and the Polish state was national (with an ethnic border on the Curzon line). Thus, these nations had a choice between equality in the USSR or Polish dominance in Poland. 2. Do you know that the number of Soviet partisans exceeded 1 million people? Do you know that Soviet partisans conducted coordinated military operations with the red army? Why is the number of Polish partisans (400 thousand) the largest resistance movement in Europe? Too much Polish nationalism. Why is the defeat of the uprising in Warsaw organized by the government in London and not coordinated with the red army is Soviet fault but not Polish? Why is an unsuccessful uprising in Warsaw the largest military effort in Europe, and a successful rail war on the eastern front is nothing?
    1
  8. 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
  9. 1. From the point of view of Soviet laws, the kukak was a criminal who used usury and economic speculation. These people created money from nothing and their activities were officially banned in the USSR. But Western Sovietology calls them an innocent victim of the Soviet regime. This is a modern rewriting of history that ignores internal rules in the Soviet state. 2. You need to study the materials of the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party. It says what rules the Russian Soviet Republic uses and what ethnographic concept it creates as an alternative to the colonial policy of the Russian Empire. 3. I have no problem accepting the fact of Polish resistance in this war. I have a problem with some Polish nationalists who say that "our pilots won the air battle for England" or "our partisans destroyed the German supply lines on the eastern front and saved the USSR from defeat." That is, a false choice is given between the denial of the Polish resistance and its decisive role in this war. My opinion is that partisans (any) without outside help cannot independently win the war - they do not have industry and their own organized army to fight the Wehrmacht on equal terms.
    1
  10. 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
  11. 1. USSR built a classless society according to the communist ideology. But the kulaks were representatives of the exploiting class who committed economic crimes according to Soviet laws. To give complete freedom to these people means to abandon the communist ideology. Thus, the exploiting classes must be suppressed (deprived of social privileges) in the interests of the majority of society (working class). 2. The Soviet historiography characterized by the condemnation of the Polish national policy which suppresses the rights of Ukrainians and Belarusians (1921-1939). If you could give me a quote from the Polish constitution which shows that Ukrainians and Belarusians had equal rights in comparison with the Poles, this would be a big argument against Soviet claims. 3. Even if the uprising in Warsaw is successful, the USSR will not allow the anti-Soviet Poles to dominate the post-war Polish political system. The USSR will not allow these people to kill Soviet soldiers — you must understand this. This rebellion is like an act of desperation for a government in London that knows that it will not be able to regain its power. And from the Soviet point of view, the Polish government in London is strongly influenced by England, therefore it is not considered independent of their influence. Just like modern Europe is not independent of US policy.
    1
  12. Germany does not need Soviet intervention in the war against Poland. Germany is between two fronts - Polish and French. The lack of military coordination between them made it possible that Germany fought on one front, first in the east and then in the west.
    1
  13. The military and economic cooperation of the USSR with Weimar Germany was beneficial for the Soviet side because it weakened the unity of Western countries with regard to anti-communism. When you say that the USSR helped Germany create an army, you do not see the fact that Germany also helped the USSR. And we already know the result of this war.
    1