Putin Needs to Bury This Relic of Stalin

Moscow Times ^ | Aug 2019 | L. Bershidsky

[CondoleezzaProtege]

As Europe marks 80 years of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which carved up eastern Europe between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, Russia is trying to defend the agreement again. There is no political benefit to doing this. President Vladimir Putin needs to abandon his Stalinist inheritance of a foreign policy based solely on national interest.

If Moscow needed any reminder that many in eastern Europe still hold the treaty against it and still consider it a threat, plenty came on the anniversary. The governments of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania – the countries directly affected by the pact’s secret protocol – issued a joint statement saying the document “sparked World War II and doomed half of Europe to decades of misery.”

Russia is fighting back. In Moscow, the original of the treaty is now exhibited alongside documents relating to both the 1938 Munich Agreement, where British and French leaders sanctioned the Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland, and Poland’s subsequent invasion of part of Czechoslovakia.

At the opening of the exhibition earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke of Britain and France’s treachery: By cozying up to Hitler, they forced the Soviet Union to sign a deal with the Nazis to ensure its own security, he said.

In 1989, the Soviet Union, too, officially condemned the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact — but subsequent Russian communications about it, including an entire article signed by Putin himself in the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, have come with the caveat that lots of others were at it, too.

These excuses are a major reason other European countries don’t trust Russia: To them, Putin and his subordinates are saying that Moscow would do something like this all over again if its interests dictated it, small countries be damned.

[Cronos]

poland wasntat any point a nazi ally.

It shouldn't have RE-taken CIeszyn from Czechia when Czechia was dismembered but it didn't take it as a German ally nor did it take more than what the Czechs took from it 20 years earlier.

In 1919, the area around Cieszyn was mixed Polish and Czech -- now both peoples are very, very close culturally and the languages are somewhat mutually intelligible -- and in Cieszyn the languages were not standard Czech or Polish but closer to each other.

About half of the people "felt" Polish and the other half "felt" Czech but nearly all of them felt "Cieszyn" :)

After WWI the two communities got together and decided on a kind of shared governance and both languages respected and THE LOCALS were happy. The Polish government reluctantly agreed, but the Czech didn't. When Poland was occupied with the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 (when Poland held back the communist hordes), Czechia took all of Cieszyn.

NOTE:This isn't to portray Czechia as some kind of monster and Polska as an angel - rather, in the post WWI world, everyone was arguing over what land was "theirs" when truly speaking a lot of people had EQUAL rights to the lands - especially for two fraternal people like poles and czechs

so Poland "took back" Cieszyn in 1938. This was WRONG - Poland looked like an accomplice, and lost PR and it was like kicking a brother when he is attacked by the enemy (arguably one could say the same was done by Czechia in 1920)

Since 1945 the area is jointly held by both countries and since joining the EU, there is free movement of people across the theoretical border. If this has been let to happen in 1920 a lot of problems wouldn't have hapened

[Cronos]

And Poland wasn't the fluffy kitten -- I find it necessary as an outsider to also point out to Poles with a victim complex (mostly nationalist Poles) that Poland before 1700 was a dominant power, it actually conquered Moscow and burned it and Russians actually have a national holiday for "when we kicked out the Poles in 1611" :) -- it definitely wasn't a saint, but it wasn't a Nazi or Soviet ally and it wasn't complicit in their crimes. It had and has other shortcomings

[Cronos]

The Poles refused the Soviets transit rights because they KNEW the Soviet armies would never leave

[NorseViking]

You are factually right on all points but any facts are base for opinions and speculations.

If one says Molotov-Ribbentrop was an alliance against Poland, the very same argument applies to that Beck did in Germany in winter 1938. More so actually. Cieszyn was a plain land grab by Poland even if justified and it was synchronized and agreed with Germany.

The Soviets didn’t go to Poland for land grab although they might have had some perceived right to Polish territory. They went there for buffer zone against Germany.

An idea that there was a sort of alliance between Germany and Russia and based of some ‘mutual sympathy’ is just plain stupid.

Stalin was a first tier scoundrel but he was first to see who Hitler really was near immediately after Hitler got elected. All while the rest were fawning at him turning the Weimar mess around.

What Western government stood against the Nazi in Spain in 1936? It was Russia and Mexico. France tried but chickened out. UK was double-dealing as usual. Everyone else was kissing Hitler’s butt at the time.

Then Stalin tried to wield an all-European alliance against Hitler but we know how it ended. ‘Peace in own time’. Everybody expected Hitler to attack someone else first.

[NorseViking]

“” “” The Poles refused the Soviets transit rights because they KNEW the Soviet armies would never leave””” “

That take is not without merits but I am sure the French and Czech had an absolutely different opinion.

[Cronos]

The French and the Czechs don’t border with the Russians — the Czechs of today are wary of the Russians, after 45 years of communist rule, but the French are the same as in 1939.

However irrespective of what their opinions were, the fact is that the Russians also moved into the central european countries 1943-1945 to transit to the German front but they never left.

If the Poles let the Soviets through in 1938, they would have conquered Poland.

[Cronos]

But
1. there was no alliance or even an agreement between the Poles and the Nazi Germans about “jointly attacking Czechoslovakia” nor a synchoronization of efforts. The Poles moved in to take control (annex/conquer) a part of Czechia before the Germans did.

2. This was wrong but this was not synchronized nor agreed with Germany

3. “The Soviets didn’t go to poland for land grab” - they most certainly did - Stalin and his leaders definitely did.

4. Regarding “buffer zone” - yes, that’s the Russians idea since 1610. But that includes conquering people in between. in 1943 they went to fight the Germans AND to take over land

5. “An idea ... based on mutual sympathy is just plain stupid” - I agree, I didn’t say and wouldn’t say that. It was an alliance of convenience, no more.

[Cronos]

I wanted to address your point about Stalin’s “anti hitler alliance” and no one joining.

The reason is that everyone saw Naziism and Communism as two sides of the same coin, which is what they WERE.

The Poles before 1939 had offers from Germany to join the Nazis against Russia and from the Soviets to join the Russians against the Nazi Germans. The Poles said ‘a pox on both your houses” - and they were right.

It was dealing between two devils. Quite frankly neither was the lesser evil - in hindsight.

[NorseViking]

It is disputable. Stalin wasn’t that much into expansionism after the ouster of Trotsky who was a big time globalist after Kommintern.

I believe the local ambitions of Stalin vs global ambitions of Trotsky was the major reason of the fight between them.
Trotsky was an author or cultural Marxism and his goal was to militantly spread Marxism worldwide.

Stalin understood that Kommintern with its subversive tactics is an obstacle in dealing with the West during WWII and routinely downgraded and then dissolved it. Actually ordered killing Trotsky in 1940 in Mexico although cultural Marxism still lives.

And despite the controversial view on Soviet-Polish War in 1920 it is indisputable that Trotsky was the main player.
Stalin was generally against it.

The reason why the Soviets moved into Eastern Europe and stayed is obviously a cold war. With B-29 and atomic bomb technology the idea was to keep US forces as far West as possible.

Although there is another take involving Stalin’s hatred of Franco meaning if not for D-Day he was going to March through Europe just to hang his on the square.

As for Czech there were plenty of Communists in 1940s. They straightened up in 1968 and here comes the animosity. Ironically in WarPac invasion of Czech the East Germans and Polish troops are responsible for most the atrocity.

There was a case study in riot control and urban warfare in the Soviet military on that.

As an example a Ukrainian conscript on post surrounded by a crowd in Prague decides to sell his rifle buys civilian outfit and mixes with a crowd.

A Mongolian removes magazine, sits down and begins to meditate. Has his rifle stolen.

An East German sings the Soviet anthem takes spray paint and draws a circle 10 yards wide and stands in a middle. If Czech goes inside the circle he gets gunned down.

Then the crowd leaves the East German alone and moves to another Ukrainian who turns to be Polish and just guns them down without a circle just based on own judgment if feels threatened.

Then the crowd stops bothering Ukrainians, Germans and Polish and moves for another Mongolian but he turns out North Korean and guns down everyone just for the hatred of rich white bastards:)

[Cronos]

you are correct that Stalin had a completely different approach from Trotsky - Trotsky wanted to keep fighting and for communism to conquer the world, while Stalin wanted “communism in one country”

But I ask you to remember the Stalin’s “one country” included all of the erstwhile Tsarist empire as “one country”

wrt Stalin being “against the Soviet-Polish war” - I’ve seen no evidence he was AGAINST it, just that he used it to consolidate his position against Trotsky and Tukachevsky.

“The reason why the Soviets stayed is obviously a cold war” — no, that is false, the Soveits maneuvered puppets and killed off dissidents well before the cold war started. They manipulated elections to keep their satellite states.

[Cronos]

To your statement “ Ironically in WarPac invasion of Czech the East Germans and Polish troops are responsible for most the atrocity.” — where do you get that??

The invasion was dominated by Soviet forces, which outnumbered other troops participating in it roughly five times over. There were 500K troops in total, out of which 28K were Polish.

That there were ANY Poles is a shame for Poland, yes.

And the East German troops didn’t participate at all.

Where did you get that “ Ironically in WarPac invasion of Czech the East Germans and Polish troops are responsible for most the atrocity.”????

[Cronos]

Stalin was smart as a fox - he took advantage of 1943 to conquer central Europe. He thereby proved himself better than Trotsky twice over - Trotsky was his bete noir.

As to Poland in the inter-war years, I repeat - they weren’t saints, but they were stuck between two EQUALLY bad monsters and chose to fight them both. They messed up by taking zaolzie - they had reasons (the czechs had taken it earlier in 1920 when the poles were fighting the soviets) but it was bad PR.

If the Poles hadn’t taken Zaolzie it would have made the German invasion of Poland just a little bit easier - though in the end it didn’t amount to much and the Poles could have just as well not taken Zaolzie.

[NorseViking]

Tsarist Empire wasn’t awfully larger than USSR. The latter basically excluded the territories given away by Lenin who was a German infiltrator of Russian Empire to ease Germans forward deploying forces against Russia. In 1939 for Stalin it was a sort of reversal of Lenin’s deal. Didn’t work as planned though but mainly due to his own stupidity.

[NorseViking]

I may not confirm or disprove it. It is that the Soviets military taught in the 1970s to shame own troops to fire on civilians.

Poland did participate for sure though.

[NorseViking]

Soviet-Polish Was was the main point for Stalin against Trotsky and Tukhachevsky.
He questioned both the war itself and its conduct.

[Cronos]

“I may not confirm or disprove it. “ — but you stated that “East German and Polish troops committed the most atrocities”

— on what basis do you say that? If you can’t confirm or prove it, you should withdraw the statement.

Especially considering East German troops did not participate in the Prague spring crushing.

[Cronos]

The Tsarist Empire in 1914 was far, far larger than the Soviet Union in 1939 - the Tsars included much of Poland, all of the Baltic states + Finland as well as Moldova.

Lenin gave away more - the Brest line was further east of the Russia border of 1920.

[NorseViking]

That’s that the Soviet military said to own troops in 1970s. A proverbial east german trooper was used as an example on how to make things done. Technically East German military did not participate in the Soviet-Afghan war but factually it did. The East Germans believed to covertly participate in Iran-Iraq war on Iraqi side when Garbachev took a pacifist stand. In Cuban-South African war the Russians only did logistics and special operations. The Germans were for Russian grunts.

[NorseViking]

If you are to look into the Catherine the Great’s Empire in would include half of Europe, Iran, China, Korea, Canada and US down the San-Francisco northern border. It is not actual for 1918.

[Cronos]

Catherine the GReat's empire did NOT include "half of Europe, iran, China, Korea, Canada and the USA down the san-Francisco northern border"

1. Europe - it controlled the eastern 2/rds of what was the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, all of the baltics including Finland and Moldova. It did NOT include the Balkans or hungary or anything west of that

2. it did not include Iran or China or Korea

3. it did NOT include Canada or the USA. It included Alaska, that's it