Animated History of Poland

[LightSpectra]

The Poles were so thankful for the Soviets saving East Poland from Germany, that only 25,000 Poles died fighting the Soviet invaders.

So yeah.

 

[Squonk]

Every forum has its own stalinist / hitlerist apologetists, mostly ignorant USA lads.

Anyway, Poles would actually be thankful for help against Germany. My grandmother and grandfather lived in cities right next to soviet border, in what is Ukraine now. When Soviets entered, the mair and delegation of citizens greeted them with bread and salt to celebrate that they came to help them against Germans. But it turned out Soviets came to occupy the land.

 

[Dachs]

Every forum has its own stalinist / hitlerist apologetists, mostly ignorant USA lads.

Just so we're clear here: are you labeling people who aren't Polish nationalists as Hitlerite or Stalinist "apologists"?

 

[Squonk]

No, I'm labeling Cheezy the Wiz and his sort.

 

[Squonk]

when it comes to many more people, they are obviously ignorant, and prejudiced towards Poland, but not to that extent.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Please. I am prejudiced towards the Imperialist West. That this category includes Poland during the time in question is not my fault.

Incidentally, I could really care less about the "legality" of the situation, or even if the USSR gave Nazi Germany aid - which it did through trade - because the designs of such were to ensure the safety of the socialism until it could destroy the Fascists. First, because that's the nature of international politics, and second, because it advanced the cause of socialism against imperialist nationalism. The West was certainly shady in its dealings with the Soviets, why should its reciprocation not be expected? We know that the West hoped to turn the Germans and Russians against each other and mop up the leftovers, and that Poland was happy to engage in that while it could, as in Czechoslovakia. But does that excuse Katyn? Of course not, I never said that it did. But if given the choice between Katyn and Treblinka, I know which I would choose.

As for this accusation of Stalinist apologism, I find it strange that I have to vindicate myself for defending something the man did, because he did other things which are horrid. If any of the accusers in question had cared to read anything else I've written about him, they would find some rather virulent denunciations of the man, especially his Bonapartism, nepotism, and his murderous tirades. I don't see how defending some Soviet actions in Poland makes me a "Stalinist apologist," except to those determined to render all possible predicates of the Soviet Union indefensible as part of their eternal slander against socialism.

 

[Squonk]

Please. I am prejudiced towards the Imperialist West.

I think a blind supporter of a country that rules 1/5 of the world with an iron fist and conquers several other states (half of Poland, part of Romania; part of Finland; entire Lithuania; entire Latvia; entire Estonia), while, later on, adds some more german territory to that and vassilises Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc, can hardly blame some other party of "imperialism".

Incidentally, I could really care less about the "legality" of the situation, or even if the USSR gave Nazi Germany aid - which it did through trade - because the designs of such were to ensure the safety of the socialism until it could destroy the Fascists.

I guess extermination of polish military officers and intelligentsia as well as relocation of Poles from the conquered part of Poland to Siberia and Kazakhstan was also done "to ensure the safety of the socialism"

First, because that's the nature of international politics, and second, because it advanced the cause of socialism against imperialist nationalism.

"cause of socialism" = imperial cause of USSR
If USA allied with nazi Germany, declared USSR non-existant in 1941 and attacked it "to advance the cause of capitalism" would you consider it fair?

The West was certainly shady in its dealings with the Soviets, why should its reciprocation not be expected?

What do you mean by "shady"?

We know that the West hoped to turn the Germans and Russians against each other and mop up the leftovers,

no-one knows that. You think, or want to believe that. No western country attacked USSR after the short period of its creation, while USSR attacked Finland, Poland, and three baltic states.

and that Poland was happy to engage in that while it could, as in Czechoslovakia.

Poland took part of Czechoslovakia that could hardly be seen on european maps. It was a bad action morally, but it was self-limited (especially in the case of Slovakia, where Poland only took only several villages) and hardly dangerous for existance of Czechoslovakia. In comparison, USSR annected three states, took much of territory of 2 anothers with no historical or ethnical claims on them, and planned with Germany total destruction of Poland, and occupied polish territory up to its capital.

But does that excuse Katyn? Of course not, I never said that it did. But if given the choice between Katyn and Treblinka, I know which I would choose.

Yes, it's much sweeter to die from soviet hands than from german.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the loonies that compare soviet rule post ww2 to nazi rule. But when it comes to 1939-41, the difference was not as shocking: both USSR and nazi Germany were not interested in any polish state and treated polish intellectual life as something dangerous. Now if Poland was conquered entirely by USSR, that would be something else; Poland would be probably severily crippled territorially, and made SSR, but Soviets would allow some sort of polish life. In 1939, they partaged majorly polish areas between different SSRs and traded the rest of their share for Lithuania. One could say that Stalin wanted to attack Hitler afterwards; even if it was true, what's his excuse but soviet imperialism (= "spreading revolution")? None. And that is no excuse at all.

I don't see how defending some Soviet actions in Poland makes me a "Stalinist apologist," except to those determined to render all possible predicates of the Soviet Union indefensible as part of their eternal slander against socialism.

In this case, I guess existance of Poland was the slander against socialism. I just don't understand how can you, on one hand, condemn Poland for taking Cieszyn and a couple montanous villages from Czechoslovakia on one hand, and, on another, you support Soviet Union in its complete destruction of Poland earlier planned with nazi Germany.Of course, you have the "higher cause", socialism. But nationalism is also a "higher cause", and by that logic, one may excuse Hitler fighting for lebensraum.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think a blind supporter

Who here is a "blind" supporter?

of a country that rules 1/5 of the world with an iron fist and conquers several other states (half of Poland, part of Romania; part of Finland; entire Lithuania; entire Latvia; entire Estonia), while, later on, adds some more german territory to that and vassilises Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc, can hardly blame some other party of "imperialism".

1. Am I the USSR? I am not even Russian!

2. We've been through this before. They were not imperial because they did not exploit their "empire" in the way that imperialists do.

I guess extermination of polish military officers and intelligentsia as well as relocation of Poles from the conquered part of Poland to Siberia and Kazakhstan was also done "to ensure the safety of the socialism"

Oh yes, because I totally defended that. Its like you're arguing with a caricature of me and not even my real argument.

"cause of socialism" = imperial cause of USSR
If USA allied with nazi Germany, declared USSR non-existant in 1941 and attacked it "to advance the cause of capitalism" would you consider it fair?

Of course not. Capitalism is a great evil.

What do you mean by "shady"?

You don't think the West dreamt of a more successful Intervention?

no-one knows that. You think, or want to believe that. No western country attacked USSR after the short period of its creation, while USSR attacked Finland, Poland, and three baltic states.

It was only the greatest military operation in history.

Poland took part of Czechoslovakia that could hardly be seen on european maps. It was a bad action morally, but it was self-limited (especially in the case of Slovakia, where Poland only took only several villages) and hardly dangerous for existance of Czechoslovakia.

Yes, just like the "small" parts of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belorussia that Poland was more than happy to take in 1921!

In comparison, USSR annected three states,

States which existed artificially thanks to Western intervention.

QUOTE] took much of territory of 2 anothers with no historical or ethnical claims on them,[/QUOTE]

They were only part of the country for two hundred years.

and planned with Germany total destruction of Poland

Talk about things that cannot be demonstrated...

And occupied polish territory up to its capital

1. I don't care about Polish territory.

2. The Soviets never advanced as far as Warsaw.

Yes, it's much sweeter to die from soviet hands than from german.

The point was the numbers and the justification for them.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the loonies that compare soviet rule post ww2 to nazi rule. But when it comes to 1939-41, the difference was not as shocking: both USSR and nazi Germany were not interested in any polish state and treated polish intellectual life as something dangerous. Now if Poland was conquered entirely by USSR, that would be something else; Poland would be probably severily crippled territorially, and made SSR, but Soviets would allow some sort of polish life. In 1939, they partaged majorly polish areas between different SSRs and traded the rest of their share for Lithuania. One could say that Stalin wanted to attack Hitler afterwards; even if it was true, what's his excuse but soviet imperialism (= "spreading revolution")? None. And that is no excuse at all.

Poland could have preserved its unity had it agreed to the anti-German defense pact that the Soviets had been after with it, Britain, and France since 1937, but the arrogant hypernationalism of the Polish government prevented it from seeing the wisdom of such an action. I wonder if Operation Reinhard was evidence enough of their folly?

In this case, I guess existance of Poland was the slander against socialism. I just don't understand how can you, on one hand, condemn Poland for taking Cieszyn and a couple montanous villages from Czechoslovakia on one hand, and, on another, you support Soviet Union in its complete destruction of Poland earlier planned with nazi Germany.

Because such collusion has never been demonstrated. What has been demonstrated is that the Soviets and Germans agreed that neither would ever advance beyond a certain line in event of war with Poland, such to preserve a buffer state between the two antagonistic ideologies. With the collapse of the Polish government and their idiotic refusal to surrender before leaving, the possibility of German negotiation with them evaporated, and who remained to stop the Germans from occupying the whole of your country in 1939? You would think that the Poles would be gracious for having 1/2 their country so generously saved by the Russians from two more years of genocide.

Of course, you have the "higher cause", socialism. But nationalism is also a "higher cause", and by that logic, one may excuse Hitler fighting for lebensraum.

One of those ideologies is built upon chauvinism, misery, and oppression One of them labors to destroy those bonds and create a fair and equal society. And you dare to suggest they are interchangeable as equal causes?

And you wonder why I hesitate to waste my time in this place.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And you wonder why I hesitate to waste my time in this place.

I do wonder. You evident believe yourself to be some kind of superman, endowed with rights that you do not believe others deserve, free to dictate the deaths of thousands or millions for your cause, so I'm wondering why the new Soviet Man spends his time dinking about video game forums.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I do wonder. You evident believe yourself to be some kind of superman, endowed with rights that you do not believe others deserve, free to dictate the deaths of thousands or millions for your cause,

Oh, and where have I done this?

Do not the defenders of capitalism do the same? Why am I held to a different standard?

 

[nonconformist]

Oh, and where have I done this?

Do not the defenders of capitalism do the same? Why am I held to a different standard?

Because they're not being hypocrites

 

[ParkCungHee]

You have stated, in the past, on threads on this exact topic, that people are not entitled to determination if they hold political beliefs seperate from you, and elections cannot be held until such ideas are gone. You have stated, in this very thread, that any act in defense of socialism, including the invasion of other countries, is acceptable. You have stated in frightening Orwellian fashion, that socialism by definition cannot be exploitative, because it's socialist.
The defenders of "capitalism" while few and far between on this forum, like most of the socialists, at least are willing to seperate themselves from the actions of governments that happen to subscribe to their economic beliefs. If you ask them to defend the Congo Free State, or the Troubles, or 19th century imperialism, they won't, because they do not invest their identity in an ideology. You on the other hand, invest your time in psychological gymnastics, to try and defend every action Stalin has done, in the most craven and debased manner possible, all while you claim to have an interest in democracy, while claiming not to be a Stalinist. And the worst part is, I don't think you even claim not to be out of moral revulsion at his actions, but because you think you'd be a bad Marxist-Leninist if you didn't subscribe faithfully to Soviet De-Stalinization.

Moderator Action: Whatever you think of another poster's politics, that doesn't allow you to make personal attacks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You have stated, in the past, on threads on this exact topic, that people are not entitled to determination if they hold political beliefs seperate from you, and elections cannot be held until such ideas are gone.

If I thought that then I wouldn't believe in democracy, now would I?

You have stated, in this very thread, that any act in defense of socialism, including the invasion of other countries, is acceptable.

No, I said that invading other countries in defense of socialism is acceptable. I did not say "any action." In fact, I have said just the opposite. In this very thread.

You have stated in frightening Orwellian fashion, that socialism by definition cannot be exploitative, because it's socialist.

No, I said that socialism could not be imperialist. Get your facts straight when accusing people of things, its bad form to be so careless. Or so dishonest.

The defenders of "capitalism" while few and far between on this forum, like most of the socialists, at least are willing to seperate themselves from the actions of governments that happen to subscribe to their economic beliefs. If you ask them to defend the Congo Free State, or the Troubles, or 19th century imperialism, they won't, because they do not invest their identity in an ideology.

Only because they are so removed from it. But if you ask them to defend American actions in Latin America or Vietnam, they are more than happy to leap to the occasion.

You on the other hand, invest your time in psychological gymnastics, to try and defend every action Stalin has done,

Are you even reading this thread? Do you read anything I write? Very clearly not, because I have not done this.

in the most craven and debased manner possible, all while you claim to have an interest in democracy, while claiming not to be a Stalinist.

Yep, I was right. You don't even read what I write. You just see someone not disavowing every last speck of everything associated with the USSR and immediately assume I must be some foaming-at-the-mouth Stalinist who dreams of vacationing in the DPRK and gets off at the thought of state control.

And the worst part is, I don't think you even claim not to be out of moral revulsion at his actions, but because you think you'd be a bad Marxist-Leninist if you didn't subscribe faithfully to Soviet De-Stalinization.

You're free to think that, as stupid a conclusion as it is. Too bad I'm not a Leninist.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If I thought that then I wouldn't believe in democracy, now would I?

No, you wouldn't. That doesn't stop you from claiming it.

No, I said that invading other countries in defense of socialism is acceptable. I did not say "any action." In fact, I have said just the opposite. In this very thread.

Yet I'm not seeing any action you've decried. You like many other ideologues are willing to float the possibility of an action you would feel is unjustified, you just haven't seen it yet.

No, I said that socialism could not be imperialist. Get your facts straight when accusing people of things, its bad form to be so careless. Or so dishonest.

You said it cannot be imperialist because it is not exploitative, because it is Socialist. If it can be exploitative, it can therefor be imperialist.

Only because they are so removed from it. But if you ask them to defend American actions in Latin America or Vietnam, they are more than happy to leap to the occasion.

As you say, only because they are not so far removed from it. With a few more decades or a change of borders, they see a bit clearer. The difference is Cheezy, it doesn't matter how far removed you are from it.. They see the recent past with gloss. You keep trying to make sure the gloss doesn't fade.

Are you even reading this thread? Do you read anything I write? Very clearly not, because I have not done this.

Oh your skills are really in full force today. "I did not engage in sophistry! You can tell because I did not engage in sophistry!"

Yep, I was right. You don't even read what I write. You just see someone not disavowing every last speck of everything associated with the USSR and immediately assume I must be some foaming-at-the-mouth Stalinist who dreams of vacationing in the DPRK and gets off at the thought of state control.

I know many socialists who do not disavow "every last speck of everything associated with the USSR." What I'm finding hard is to find something meaningful you dissassociate from the USSR.

immediately assume I must be some foaming-at-the-mouth Stalinist who dreams of vacationing in the DPRK and gets off at the thought of state control.

Now who's mischaraterizing who? I don't think you're a "foaming-at-the-mouth-Stalinist". I think you're a rather depressing individual who, worse then lying to others, spends a great deal of time lying to himself, and feels the need to associate his identity with a particular ideology.

You're free to think that, as stupid a conclusion as it is. Too bad I'm not a Leninist.

Call yourself what you want. But I think it's more telling that you objected to being characterized as a Leninist, rather then being characterized by someone who's incapable of feeling moral revulsion unless it's convinient.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, you wouldn't. That doesn't stop you from claiming it.

Ah yes, the classic "you can't trust him, he's a Commie!" Better look out, I'll steal your precious bodily fluids if you don't watch me.

Yet I'm not seeing any action you've decried. You like many other ideologues are willing to float the possibility of an action you would feel is unjustified, you just haven't seen it yet.

Which is fine proof that you don't pay attention to what I write.

Well, do you want a laundry list?

I think the Bolsheviks should have done more to get the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries back into the government.
I think it was wrong for the Sovnarkom government to lie to the anarchists in order to get them to expose themselves.
I think the execution of Nestor Makhno was wrong.
Allowing Dzerzhinsky to operate without oversight was folly.
The suppression of all Islamic rites, including those like waqfs, which are communalistic, was wrong.
The suppression of the Orthodox and Jewish faiths was unnecessary and wrong.
I don't think agriculture should have ever been forcibly collectivized.
I think the execution of all the old Bolsheviks was wrong, as well as overseas agents like Bela Kun.
I think the Five Year Plans were carelessly organized.
I think the reversion to Tsarist-era factory administrators was stupid, as was the pay discrepancies during the Five Year Plans.
I think the nepotism that allowed the rise of sycophants like Voroshilov and Budyenny was wrong.
On that note, the entire system of nomenklatura was wrong. Khrushchev was right to attempt to replace it with meritocracy and rotating offices.
The KV-1 was a piece of crap.
The whole system of quotas was horribly executed and generally destructive to production and social cohesion in the workplace.
The Soviets should never have given the Chinese the Bomb.
About 99% of the purges were both unnecessary and wholly destructive.
About 100% of the deportations are entirely indefensible.
The state labor camp system was abhorrent and wrong. The only defensible instances are those in the 1920s, when prisoners were reasonably fed, clothed, housed, and paid.
Establishing a tomb for Lenin against his wishes was wrong.
All cults of personality are wrong, beyond the normal veneration for great men and women in history.
The deportation of German industry was unnecessary and destructive.
The execution and torture of recovered Soviet POWs was wrong.
I find no justification for the Katyn massacre.
The Virgin Lands program was a great idea, but carelessly implemented.
The intervention in Czechoslovakia was wrong.
The disavowance of Yugoslavia as not being "legitimately" socialist was wrong, as was trying to force them and Bulgaria into political union.
The Berlin Wall was probably unnecessary.
The installation of Stalinist cronies in Eastern European countries post-war was wrong.
That Ceausescu wasn't killed sooner is regrettable.
The substitution of pride in building socialism for Russian nationalism that occurred in the 1920s was folly and wrong.
The lack of concern for pollution by Soviet industry was wrong.
The editing of Lenin's and Stalin's writings to erase instances of the two disagreeing was wrong.
The establishment of the secret police, in all its forms save for the Cheka, was wrong.
The careless and backwards way of waging COIN in Afghanistan that resulted in so many civilians dying was wrong.
The censorship and state control of the press, after the early 1920s, was wrong and probably unnecessary.

There, that about do it for you?

You said it cannot be imperialist because it is not exploitative, because it is Socialist. If it can be exploitative, it can therefor be imperialist.

Which admits the possibility of exploitative things existing, but not being so powerful as to make things exploitative on the whole. The United States has socialistic institutions, but no one would call it socialist.

As you say, only because they are not so far removed from it. With a few more decades or a change of borders, they see a bit clearer. The difference is Cheezy, it doesn't matter how far removed you are from it.. They see the recent past with gloss. You keep trying to make sure the gloss doesn't fade.

Erm, what?

I know many socialists who do not disavow "every last speck of everything associated with the USSR." What I'm finding hard is to find something meaningful you dissassociate from the USSR.

Because you don't want to.

Now who's mischaraterizing who? I don't think you're a "foaming-at-the-mouth-Stalinist". I think you're a rather depressing individual who, worse then lying to others, spends a great deal of time lying to himself, and feels the need to associate his identity with a particular ideology.

I am invested in my ideology because its success means my economic liberation. It is as invested as a capitalist is in capitalism. Why do you think we are their antithesis?

Call yourself what you want. But I think it's more telling that you objected to being characterized as a Leninist, rather then being characterized by someone who's incapable of feeling moral revulsion unless it's convinient.

I chose not to respond to such a daft comment because it was so base as to not even merit the time of day spent acknowledging it.

 

[Squonk]

Who here is a "blind" supporter?

You. Perhaps not completely, but still, your sight is short.

1. Am I the USSR? I am not even Russian!

I don't say you are. But you do support soviet imperialism

2. We've been through this before. They were not imperial because they did not exploit their "empire" in the way that imperialists do.

Imperialism is not (only) about exploitation. Anyway, yes, Soviets did exploit their empire. USSR was a vast multinational state with several other states held in a state of forced political and economical subjection, and very willing to expand. It was a classical empire. Of course, it claimed its expansion had a higher goal, but it was not the only one: the khalifate fought for islam, Byzantines for christianity, etc. USSR fought for the quasi-religion of marxism-leninism.

Oh yes, because I totally defended that. Its like you're arguing with a caricature of me and not even my real argument.

I don't have to make a caricature out of you. You are silly enough without that.
I've mentioned that because it clearly shows the intent of USSR. Clearly, it was not saving Poles from anything. It wasn't even keeping nazi forces away, because by dividing Poland USSR brought them closer to Moscow. It wasn't saving anyone from nazis, because by dividing Poland, USSR brought milions of people under nazi rule. One could argue that Stalin had no choice but to divide the conquered part of Poland among soviet republics because otherwise Hitler might suspect something - but clearsing these areas of Poles and extermination of polish officers etc show that he probably thought this state of affairs is going to last for a long time.

Of course not. Capitalism is a great evil.

From socialist perspective. From capitalist perspective, socialism is.

You don't think the West dreamt of a more successful Intervention?

Shortly after the revolution - surely. I'm certain they would like the soviet regime to fall. But you know well they wouldn't start a war in that name.

It was only the greatest military operation in history.

Speaking about the Axis as part of the West in the context of ww2 is fairly amusing.

Yes, just like the "small" parts of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belorussia that Poland was more than happy to take in 1921!

huh? How can you blame Poland for Riga treaty? Soviets proposed Poland more territory in the east than it took. Earlier they made the partages illegal, thus legally giving Poland entire pre-partages Poland - Poland only took some of it.

Why would Lithuanians have more right to Wilno/Vilnius than Poles, Belarusians to Grodno/Hrodna than Poles, and Ukrainians to Lwow/Lwiw than Poles? How do you imagine the eastern polish border after ww1? and how the western one?

States which existed artificially thanks to Western intervention.

What was "artificial" about them?

They were only part of the country for two hundred years.

"the country"? what country? We are talking about USSR, not imperial Russia.
Anyway, Lwow was part of Poland for circa 450 years after founding of the city, and more if we are talking about the ground it's been founded on. It didn't belong to Russia even once in its history, nor to Ukraine (as such state never existed; if we're talking about ruthenian duchies/kingdom, it belonged to it for less than 100 years).
But I do agree with you in a sense that USSR was indeed continuation of imperial Russia, its territorial claims etc. Which is even more evident if we remember that the greek-catholic church in conquered Lwow region was destroyed, just like in imperial Russia. And once again you've yourself shown that socialism was just an excuse for soviet post-russian imperialism.

Talk about things that cannot be demonstrated...

oh yes it can be demonstrated

Spoiler :

2. The Soviets never advanced as far as Warsaw.

yes they did

Spoiler :

that was the line settled by Ribbentrop and Molotov, but, as I've already mentioned, eventually Soviets traded Lublin voivodship for Lithuania.

The point was the numbers and the justification for them.

I may agree about the number, but the justification? I guess it's much sweeter to die if you know that you die not as a member of inferior race but as a class enemy or whatever.

Poland could have preserved its unity had it agreed to the anti-German defense pact that the Soviets had been after with it, Britain, and France since 1937, but the arrogant hypernationalism of the Polish government prevented it from seeing the wisdom of such an action. I wonder if Operation Reinhard was evidence enough of their folly?

Poland was afraid that signing a pact with USSR may provoke german attack, and signing a pact with Germany may provoke a soviet one. Therefore, it denied both alliance proposed by Germany and alliance proposed by USSR. It was afraid that USSR will turn it into a pupper or take its eastern half. And, as history's shown, they were right - USSR did want to take Lwow, Grodno etc, and it did want to install a pupper gouverment in Poland.

Because such collusion has never been demonstrated. What has been demonstrated is that the Soviets and Germans agreed that neither would ever advance beyond a certain line in event of war with Poland, such to preserve a buffer state between the two antagonistic ideologies. With the collapse of the Polish government and their idiotic refusal to surrender before leaving, the possibility of German negotiation with them evaporated, and who remained to stop the Germans from occupying the whole of your country in 1939? You would think that the Poles would be gracious for having 1/2 their country so generously saved by the Russians from two more years of genocide.

Yes, it's complete coincidence that a week after establishing such a border Germans entered Poland. You also seem to forget that polish gouverment left Poland AFTER Soviets entered. polish plan was to concentrate forces in so-called Romanian Bridgehold until french offensive. German army would be tied up longer, would have to penetrate eastern Poland, which was full of swamps and forests. In another words: soviet entry was a big help for Germany. And Hitler actually urged Stalin to enter. Polish capitulation would, on another hand, mean, among others, weaker Britain during Battle of Britain etc.

One of those ideologies is built upon chauvinism, misery, and oppression One of them labors to destroy those bonds and create a fair and equal society. And you dare to suggest they are interchangeable as equal causes?

A fight against capitalism was always a fight against reality: noble in theory, dumb and brutal in reality. Or rather: dumb and brutal once the revolution is actually made. Unless one would go the way proposed by Luxemburg, perhaps. The reality is that on one side, we had parliamentary democracy, on another side we had dictature of the party, and most often of the first secretary; on one side we had many poor and few rich; on another side we just had many poor. Etc. As a proverb says, the hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ah yes, the classic "you can't trust him, he's a Commie!" Better look out, I'll steal your precious bodily fluids if you don't watch me.

Where did I call you a commie there? I just pointed out that you made claims incompatible with supporting democracy, you agreed that they were incompatible, and I pointed out that if you know they're incompatible, you should probably stop claiming to support democracy.

Which admits the possibility of exploitative things existing, but not being so powerful as to make things exploitative on the whole.

Because, being socialist, it cannot be exploitative on the whole.

Erm, what?

They have, by your own admission, an excuse. Vietnam and Latin America are too close in space and time to see it objectively. They at least are willing to look, with the benefit of a safe emotional distance, and say something was wrong. I do, by the way, give the same benefit to posters such as Red_Elk who clearly have a emotional reason to not exactly see clearly. But what makes you stand out is that you are willing to jump into an issue that you have no emotional connection to, and distort it to fit with your rose coloured perceptions.

Because you don't want to.

If the problem is with me Cheezy, them I'm sure this is a characterization of yourself that you've never heard before, and should come across as bizzare and unexpected, rather then as some familiar situation, with familiar complaints.

I am invested in my ideology because its success means my economic liberation. It is as invested as a capitalist is in capitalism. Why do you think we are their antithesis?

I seriously doubt that, save for a few posters (who avoid this board) that is actually true. But my complaints with them are noted.

I chose not to respond to such a daft comment because it was so base as to not even merit the time of day spent acknowledging it.

You seem to have an incredibly akward schedule, because acknowleding things are not worth acknowledging seems to be an important part of it.

 

[Squonk]

when it comes to Ribbentrop-Molotov, you are wrong also in this sense that the pact spoke:

In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

I don't see how can you bring up such an interpretation of it as you did. And if they didn't want to cross the line, they didn't have to. This border is a good defensive line, and definite most of polish industry is west to it. Anyway, Germans entered the soviet "zone" early in the war anyway.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Poland had betrayed the Slavs once it converted to Western Catholicism and started waging war against Russia That hateful state deserved everything that happened to it except the restoration of the independence Due to intrigue from vile corporate overlords from the West, our borders were pushed back to Smolensk But the blood of Russian soldiers that fought against the Poles and the Nazis, cries for revenge Russian people are kind, but they can be very harsh in their holy fury, and the Nazis learnt upon themselves Time for the disgusting fat West to pay the price for its atrocities

Speaking about the Axis as part of the West in the context of ww2 is fairly amusing.

It's also true The corporate West supported Hitler and was laughing its knickers off when he invaded Russia, plundering and raping our land The whole Europe fought for Hitler Having a couple of mock fights with Germany means nothing in the long run

 

[Ajidica]

Just for the record, the Associated Press said Poland is in Eastern Europe when reporting on the floods.

Now I'm going to my internet bomb shelter.