Ask a Russian

[FriendlyFire]

You know Ivan, while it is the Middle East, but this make you look like the bad guys

12 Hours. 4 Syrian Hospitals Bombed. One Culprit: Russia.
The Russians saved Bashar al-Assad’s government. A trove of Russian Air Force recordings obtained by The Times shows how bombing Syrian hospitals helped them do it.
An analysis of previously unpublished Russian Air Force radio recordings, plane spotter logs and witness accounts allowed The Times to trace bombings of four hospitals in just 12 hours in May and tie Russian pilots to each one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/world/middleeast/russia-bombing-syrian-hospitals.html

 

[Ferocitus]

You know Ivan, while it is the Middle East, but this make you look like the bad guys

Unless the action ultimately saved more lives on their side than it cost their enemy, in which case they are the good guys.

 

[red_elk]

this make you look like the bad guys

Right, the article describes Russia as the bad guys and people in the West will likely believe it.

 

[Ferocitus]

Right, the article describes Russia as the bad guys and people in the West will likely believe it.

This is how it works, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong redelk.

The French helped the USA free itself from the British Monarchy during the American Revolution, so the Americans and French were the good guys and the British and their Monarchy were the bad guys.

The USA, France, Britain (and others) sent troops onto Russian soil during the Civil War in 1918 to help the (pro-Monarchist) Mensheviks against the (anti-Monarchist) Bolsheviks, so the USA, France, Britain, and Mensheviks were the good guys, and the Bolsheviks were the bad guys.

It was okay for the good guys - USA, Britain and others - to interfere in Russian politics by sending troops onto their soil during the Russian Civil War, but it is wrong for
Russia - the bad guys - to interfere in good-guy American politics by messing with good-guy Facebook.

 

[red_elk]

This is how it works, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong redelk.

The French helped the USA free itself from the British Monarchy during the American Revolution, so the Americans and French were the good guys and the British and their Monarchy were the bad guys.

The USA, France, Britain (and others) sent troops onto Russian soil during the Civil War in 1918 to help the (pro-Monarchist) Mensheviks against the (anti-Monarchist) Bolsheviks, so the USA, France, Britain, and Mensheviks were the good guys, and the Bolsheviks were the bad guys.

It was okay for the good guys - USA, Britain and others - to interfere in Russian politics by sending troops onto their soil during the Russian Civil War, but it is wrong for
Russia - the bad guys - to interfere in good-guy American politics by messing with good-guy Facebook.

Generally, yes, I agree. Whether someone is portrayed as good guys or bad guys depends on current political situation. In some cases propaganda can make U-turn in very short time.
For example, in 1945 Stalin's USSR turned from this:

into Cold War arch-enemy and evil empire in just a few years.

The USA, France, Britain (and others) sent troops onto Russian soil during the Civil War in 1918 to help the (pro-Monarchist) Mensheviks against the (anti-Monarchist) Bolsheviks, so the USA, France, Britain, and Mensheviks were the good guys, and the Bolsheviks were the bad guys.

Mensheviks were moderate wing of Russian Social Democratic party, Bolsheviks were more radical wing.
("Men'she" means "less" in Russian, "Bol'she" means "more" )
The Entente was sending troops to help the Whites who weren't monarchists either. At least most of them. Russian monarchy was deposed in February 1917, before Bolsheviks came to power.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Generally, yes, I agree. Whether someone is portrayed as good guys or bad guys depends on current political situation. In some cases propaganda can make U-turn in very short time.
For example, in 1945 Stalin's USSR turned from this:into Cold War arch-enemy and evil empire in just a few years.

Look how happy Ivan is
Stalin allied himself with Hitler and provided him with the strategic war material to invade Russia. It didnt take long for this alliance to fall apart. As for the cold war, I will point out which country was first to break the Yalta accord ? I would say that there was a chance of the alliance continuing post war but that was not to be.

The flip side has been that Russia long portrayed the West as the bad guys, Iam sure that there are many that grew up during the cold war that feel that way. Plus the current tension and break with the west are bringing out all the old suspicions.
Russias seige, Russia alone / isolated mentality isnt helping either. Dont worry the West has its own problems. Especially the US right now with the moron that is in charge

 

[red_elk]

Stalin allied himself with Hitler and provided him with the strategic war material to invade Russia.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a big success of Soviet diplomacy. The Red army in 1939 was roughly 1/5 of the Red Army in 1941, by numbers, equipment and combat readiness.

As for the cold war, I will point out which country was first to break the Yalta accord ?

Don't know and frankly this had nothing to do with starting the Cold War. By the end of WW2, USSR least of all needed another war, hot or cold. Much less against sole nuclear power with half of the worlds GDP.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a big success of Soviet diplomacy. The Red army in 1939 was roughly 1/5 of the Red Army in 1941, by numbers, equipment and combat readiness.
Don't know and frankly this had nothing to do with starting the Cold War. By the end of WW2, USSR least of all needed another war, hot or cold. Much less against sole nuclear power with half of the worlds GDP.

Again this non-aggression pact literally pave the way for Germany to start WW2, effectively removing the threat of a two front war. And Soviets provided the need war material to Nazi Germany to make waging the war possible.
I wouldnt call that a "big success", given what happened a short time later

USSR has the worlds most powerful land army at that time, and the west were shocked by the strength of the Red Army which had of course been taking on the bulk of Nazi Germanys forces.
When Stalin broke the Yalta accords agreement, its signal to the west the intentions of the Soviets, perhaps this damage could have been undone had lets say less paranoid and ruthless dictator been in charge.

 

[Ferocitus]

Mensheviks were moderate wing of Russian Social Democratic party, Bolsheviks were more radical wing.
("Men'she" means "less" in Russian, "Bol'she" means "more" )
The Entente was sending troops to help the Whites who weren't monarchists either. At least most of them. Russian monarchy was deposed in February 1917, before Bolsheviks came to power.

Yes, I know that much.
The Mensheviks were made up of a variety of political types. Some were in favour of restoring the monarchy, but most were not. I just like the irony of the US and Britain helping them by sending troops onto Russian soil. Imagine if Russia did the same to help the Leavers or Remainers in Britain today!

 

[Ferocitus]

Again this non-aggression pact literally pave the way for Germany to start WW2, effectively removing the threat of a two front war. And Soviets provided the need war material to Nazi Germany to make waging the war possible.
I wouldnt call that a "big success", given what happened a short time later

USSR has the worlds most powerful land army at that time, and the west were shocked by the strength of the Red Army which had of course been taking on the bulk of Nazi Germanys forces.
When Stalin broke the Yalta accords agreement, its signal to the west the intentions of the Soviets, perhaps this damage could have been undone had lets say less paranoid and ruthless dictator been in charge.

It's complicated by Stalin's paranoia, but remember that the USSR lost so many people. There many others with a huge grudge against those who ruined so much of Russia,
and they weren't about to forgive or forget those who caused it. And when idiots start calling for Russia to be obliterated, of course they will react as strongly as if nitwits in the Communist Party start talking rubbish about wiping out US imperialists.

When small groups of fascists started re-appearing in Hungary, Lithuania (my ancestral homeland), and in several other countries how do you think they were going to react to that? It's as if Canada and Mexico had trashed the US, lost the war, and then started back towards the same political track. I doubt that the USA would greet them with Kumbaya and cupcakes.

 

[red_elk]

Again this non-aggression pact literally pave the way for Germany to start WW2

Germany was going to attack Poland with or without it. The non-aggression pact was about who they were going to attack next.

And Soviets provided the need war material to Nazi Germany to make waging the war possible.

Mostly food and raw materials. And Germany in return provided machinery, required for making tanks and other equipment.

When Stalin broke the Yalta accords agreement

Which agreement did he brake?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, I know that much.
The Mensheviks were made up of a variety of political types. Some were in favour of restoring the monarchy, but most were not. I just like the irony of the US and Britain helping them by sending troops onto Russian soil. Imagine if Russia did the same to help the Leavers or Remainers in Britain today!

From the Ententes view the Tsar was an allied nation, so trying to help Russia restore the monarch and thus continue the war against Germany. Plus the Reds were not also opposed to using foreign aid such as the czech legion
The Entente viewed the Reds separate peace with German as a betrayal and then there was the entire "red scare" with the fear of violent revolutions in the Entente powers.
Ironically the Reds would ferment armed revolution in many places and thus made themselves super popular with the west

 

[FriendlyFire]

Germany was going to attack Poland with or without it. The non-aggression pact was about who they were going to attack next.
Mostly food and raw materials. And Germany in return provided machinery, required for making tanks and other equipment.
Which agreement did he brake?

Lebenstraum ? Now the non aggression pact with Nazi Germany makes even less sense.
Soviets provided critical war materials, to Germany during this time especially with hind sight critical oil which was Germany Achilles heel, meanwhile Germany was not delivering the stuff Soviet wanted because you know, the inevitable attack

Soviet imports of chrome, manganese and platinum, for which Germany relied entirely on imports, made up 70% of Germany's total imports of those materials.[144] While the Soviet Union provided 100% of German imports of rye, barley and oats, this was 20% of the amount of the total German harvest.[144] Three quarters of Soviet oil and grain exports, two thirds of Soviet cotton exports and over 90% of Soviet wood exports were to the Reich alone.[144] Germany supplied the Soviet Union with 31% of its imports, which was on par with United States imports into the Soviet Union.[144] Germany supplied 46% of Soviet machine tool imports, and was its largest such supplier.[144]

German officials noted that over 1,500 tons of oil had been shipped monthly for five months
Germany had only delivered 82 million Reichsmarks in goods (including 25 million for the Lutzow) of the 600 million Reichsmarks in Soviet orders place by that time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–41)

The conclusions are clearly shown. including that German invasion was only made possible because of Soviet war materials
Soviets did get some equipment from the deal but not even close to a even trade.

Tot USSR
imports June 1941
German Stocks June 1941 (w/o
USSR imports) October 1941
German Stocks October 1941 (w/o
USSR imports)
Oil Products 912 1350 438 905 -7
Rubber 18.8 13.8 -4.9 12.1 -6.7
Manganese 189.5 205 15.5 170 -19.5
Grain 1637.1 1381 -256.1 761 -876.1
*German stocks in thousands of tons (with and without USSR imports-October 1941 aggregate)

Without Soviet deliveries of these four major items, Germany could barely have attacked the Soviet Union, let alone come close to victory, even with more intense rationing.[199] Estimates of any Soviet gains from the German weapons and technology are difficult, though they were certainly less vital for the Soviets than the Soviet raw material imports were for Germany.

 

[Ferocitus]

From the Ententes view the Tsar was an allied nation, so trying to help Russia restore the monarch and thus continue the war against Germany. Plus the Reds were not also opposed to using foreign aid such as the czech legion
The Entente viewed the Reds separate peace with German as a betrayal and then there was the entire "red scare" with the fear of violent revolutions in the Entente powers.
Ironically the Reds would ferment armed revolution in many places and thus made themselves super popular with the west

I was being a little sarcastic when I called the Mensheviks pro-Monarchy. They were made up of groups with a variety of political flavours, with those wanting restoration being in the minority.

Your prediction that the Bolsheviks fermented armed revolution later is made with the benefit of present knowledge.
At the time, if many of the countries that opposed the Bolsheviks had kept out of an internal Russian conflict, it might not have been a priority of their overall immediate agenda. Once they had seen for themselves who was willing to take up arms in what they saw as their domain, then that would have changed many Bolshevik opinions of the leaders of their immediate neighbours.

Churchill's involvement and attitude to Russia was interesting back in 1919, but as redelk pointed out, attitudes can make a U-turn very quickly.
When Poland grabbed part of Sudetenland around the same time as Hitler's troops did, they didn't make themselves super-popular with the US, France, Britain and Russia.
Churchill compared Germany and Poland to vultures landing on the dying carcass of Czechoslovakia.

Not long after that land grab, the Poles needed help themselves, and it didn't come quite as quickly or strongly as they probably would have wanted. Who can blame other nations for being a little wary of sending them weapons?

Real-politik is not played out in a Newtonian universe, where applied forces lead to accurate and predictable reactions.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Real-politik is not played out in a Newtonian universe, where applied forces lead to accurate and predictable reactions.

The grabbing of the clays, I would also point out that its ironic that the Reds were for Red revolutions but not so much when it came to the nations that were part of Russia rebelling and wanting to forming independent states.
The Baltic states or Finland or Poland for example.

Of course needless to say the biggest clay grabber was the British Empire which I must mention since you mentioned Churchill complaining.

 

[red_elk]

Plus the Reds were not also opposed to using foreign aid such as the czech legion

*facepalm*

Lebenstraum ? Now the non aggression pact with Nazi Germany makes even less sense.

Germany could be stopped in 1938 before invasion of Czechoslovakia, but in 1939 WW2 was already inevitable. The only question remained open is who Hitler will attack next, USSR or Western allies. USSR bought time and increased its army almost 5 times in the period of 1939-1941.

Soviets provided critical war materials, to Germany during this time especially with hind sight critical oil which was Germany Achilles heel, meanwhile Germany was not delivering the stuff Soviet wanted because you know, the inevitable attack

From what I read, Germany provided machinery tools necessary for producing T-34, for example.

The conclusions are clearly shown. including that German invasion was only made possible because of Soviet war materials

What are conclusions? That Stalin didn't believe Germany will attack? He knew it will, USSR was actively preparing for war.
That Germany couldn't fight a war without Soviet help? It actually did, for 4 years. Peak of German war industry production was in summer 1944 when all Soviet supplied materials were long gone.

 

[red_elk]

I was being a little sarcastic when I called the Mensheviks pro-Monarchy. They were made up of groups with a variety of political flavours, with those wanting restoration being in the minority.

I think you are confusing Mensheviks with the Whites.
Mensheviks weren't a faction in civil war, they didn't fight against Reds and noone of them was monarchist. They were merely a political party, initially allied with Bolsheviks, later becoming opposition.

 

[Zardnaar]

Germany was going to attack Poland with or without it. The non-aggression pact was about who they were going to attack next.


Mostly food and raw materials. And Germany in return provided machinery, required for making tanks and other equipment.


Which agreement did he brake?

View towards the war is changing in the West.

Molotov -Ribbentrop pact enabled Hitler. Basically Germany was screwed without oil.

And Stalin gave them enough and a common law and border. German army had to rest after Poland 39, there would have been no invasion in 39.

Or 1940 because France.

So without the pact no invasion before 41 anyway. No Soviet oil no invasion anyway.

Each German attack in USSR was weaker each year. This was because they burned through their reserves they seized in France and what Stalin gave them.

Two things enabled Hitler, giving him the Czech land and Stalin fueling him.

Put simply Stalin enabled the invasion if his own country and was warned the Nazis were incoming and executed the spy. Hell he executed German deserters who told him the same thing.

The west hadn't rearmed in 38, hell they weren't really rearmed until 1944.

1941 US army was 100k give or take.

 

[red_elk]

Two things enabled Hitler, giving him the Czech land and Stalin fueling him.

Germany's wartime oil consumption was estimated as 7.25 millions of barrels. Monthly.
USSR imported 4 millions of barrels in entire 1940.
That's less than 5% of Germany needs.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Germany-provide-oil-to-military-in-WWII

Ironically, lack of oil was one of the things which prompted Nazi invasion of USSR. They were aiming for Caucasus and Baku oil fields.

 

[Ferocitus]

I think you are confusing Mensheviks with the Whites.
Mensheviks weren't a faction in civil war, they didn't fight against Reds and noone of them was monarchist. They were merely a political party, initially allied with Bolsheviks, later becoming opposition.

Thanks, I mis-labelled them and then cut'n'paste the name in reply. (I first read about these things over 45 years ago and the memory is fading!)
We were taught little about Russia's Civil War in history at my school in the 1960's. There was the 1917 Revolution, then jump straight to WW2, then the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Poles/Lithuanians seem to forget about Polish aggression towards Czechoslovakia in 1938, and Americans forget that they had troops in Russia around 1919. Very convenient!