Soviet-German relations

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cheezy, there's so much wrong with your post that I can barely wrap my mind around it.

Then this post of yours should be entertaining, since you're answering a post you ostensibly don't understand.

About the oversea-going contraptions, irrelevant.

The vast majority of the Foreign Intervention was of naval origin, both troops and supplies, so it is apparently completely relevant against the claim that the only purpose of the Soviet Army was to attack Poland.

The USSR had the largest land army at the time, rivaled maybe only by France, and little to no fleet. At least no fleet that could be effective in an European scenario. It was easier to run over Poland and the Baltic states than to wage an amphibious war against Germany or whoever. I'll give you a metaphor. We're in a bar and you want to punch me in the face, but there's a girl between us. You can either go around a couple of tables and other patrons to reach me, and know I'll be waiting for you with an ashtray in my fist, or you can push the girl aside and sock me in the jaw right away.*

I'm not an idiot you don't have to use stupid examples. If the Soviet armed forces buildup circa 1931 was for the purpose of offensive war, then you would have a point. But it wasn't. As I explained in the post you don't understand, the Soviets had long since abandoned their dreams of carrying the revolution into Europe by force of arms. Their primary concern was to catch up to the Western Powers and Japan economically, so that they could then match them militarily, so that the danger of another foreign intervention to finish the work of the first would either be deterred or capably dealt with when the time came. And it was, ten years later.

About your second point, right up until the end of WWII the fundamental Soviet ideology was World revolution, and I don't care if anybody says otherwise.

Well you should, because it makes you look like an idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country

It was only after WWII that Stalin somewhat abandoned the idea and really focused on his "Socialism in one country".

Stalin wasn't in a position to perform the verb "abandon" singularly in 1924. The Bolsheviks changed the policy as a whole, because of the failure of the postwar European revolutions.

I'm not sure how much more of a change in policy you expect: the NEP, the Five Year Plans, the change in policy towards the Chinese communist parties, the complete lack of war with any surrounding country for twenty years, how they used their League of Nations membership, the formation of the Comintern. All of these signal a decidedly different path from the previous "world revolution is upon us" mentality of the Revolution/Civil War era.

If he had abandoned it in '24, how do you explain that all the territories conquered during the war were "sovietized" by the NKVD following the RKKA and later became par of the Warsaw pact?

Even the Polish nationalists on these forums would have trouble redefining "the world" to mean "Eastern Europe."

Also, how do you explain the major financial, political and military aid the USSR was giving away to all sorts of communist/socialist parties around the world throughout the Cold war? The Soviet Union never did let go of the idea of World revolution.

Sigh. As a foreign policy staple, it was abandoned. Obviously the desire of world revolution remained, it's a central tenet of communist thought.

Your third point is unintelligible. Poles are poles, Russians Russians, Germans Germans and so on. They've been oppressing eachother for centuries.

This is not hard. Poland, from the moment of its creation, was bent upon forging a great Eastern European empire. That's why they attacked Lithuania, Belarussian Socialist Republic, Ukraine, and Sovnarkom, in turn. They were created from nothing, a ridiculous wish by the American President to appear sensitive to the plight of all peoples; in reality he was defending the right of one -arbitrarily-defined-borders nation-state to oppress other arbitrarily-defined-borders nation-states. They created an imperialist buffer between themselves and The Red Menace, it wasn't because they cared about Poles or Lithuanians or Czechs. And you certainly can't expect an internationalist such as any of the Bolsheviks to care about such divisive nonsense.

And finally, the Nazis might have been harsh on the Poles, but the Soviets weren't Mother Theresa either. Just look up Katyn.

I never said they were angels. But compared to how the Nazis treated them, it wasn't really that bad. That's why it's so ridiculous to hear people condemn the Soviets for occupying the eastern 1/3 of Poland: what they did, in fact, was to save 1/3 of the country from two years' worth of ravishing by a country whose official policy was that they were subhuman and worthy of being worked to death or otherwise purged from the land. It should be a no-brainer for a Pole to choose one over the other. That's why the only conclusion I can draw is that the people who would chose two years of Nazism over two years of Stalinism are the people who had a real fear of facing Katyn, i.e. capitalists and their whip-servants. But who can be surprised when the national hero of that period was personal friends with so many high-ranking Nazis and a pseudo-fascist himself?

They didn't invade Poland to "save" anybody. They just broke through an already broken nation. And they waited for just the right amount of time - the Germans had suffered some considerable losses and had stopped at the line defined by the MRP, while the Polish army was in disarray and the RKKA could just sweep in under the pretext of "saving" Poland and occupy the strategic poitions of Bialystock and the like, which it needed to later advance on Germany and the rest of Europe.

The Soviets entered the country when it became apparent that the Nazis were not going to stop at the agreed upon line. Why should the Soviets have sat around and let their mortal enemy gobble up the entire country, and form a new border on the Belorussian SSR? They gave the Poles many chances in the years preceding to obtain a defensive pact with the Soviets, but the Poles always refused. Thus why the M-P Pact was agreed to in the first place. Oh well. The horror, having the absence of Nazism forced upon your country!

I also like the idea of Bialystok as the Gateway to Europe. Very cute.

And finally, no one was talking about a Soviet invasion of Europe in 1939. It would have been laughed at. The Soviets weren't even talking about it in 1939. They were talking about how to deal with the National Socialist state bent on their destruction. What you've done is started with the idea that the Soviets were trying to invade Europe and carry revolution there, and interpreted the data to justify that. Remember the Holmes line about changing theories to fit facts, do a little research, and abandon this ignorant line of thought.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hey, I'm writing a paper on the history of Soviet-German relations from 1919-1941 and what was the key moment(s) it changed. The essay has to be under 750 words and if you think I missed something, something sounds odd, or something is just plain wrong, please point it out to me. Currently at 743 words.

Thanks!

----------------------------------

Of the nations that had escaped World War One intact, Germany and the Soviet Union were without a doubt, the biggest losers of the war.

All nations who fought in WWI were intact in one form or another, although often as more than one state and with the monarchy abolished. The Russian Empire was actually something of an exception to this rule, as was Hungary. With all other states there was at least some continuity, whereas with the USSR there was next-to-no continuity between the pre-Bolshevik regimes - both Tsarist and Kerenskyite - and the USSR. So this needs rewording. I suggest something along the lines of ;"On the conclusion of WWI, the German and Russian Empires had suffered the most." Then move onto your discussion of the loss of territory, reparations, etc..

Germany was forced to pay massive reparations, to demilitarize their army,

You can't demilitarize an army. Say that Germany was demilitarised, or its army was limited in size.

and give up large amounts of territory while transitioning from an autocratic to a democratic government,

There was very little appreciable difference between the government of the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic, with the obvious exception of the head-of-state.

one that was incredibly unpopular for the signing of the unpopular Treaty of Versailles. The Soviet Union

Again, you need to realise that the USSR was NOT a nation - the term is 'state' or 'nation-state,' by the way - until 1922.

had suffered more casualties than any other nation, was forced to watch multiple former Imperial territory gain independence, fought a civil war, and was suffering international isolation due to their radical ideology in the form of Communism. German-Soviet relations went through three distinct phases; first, a period of cooperation forced by the diplomatic isolation of the powers, then a cooling with the rise of Fascism in Germany, and finally on the eve of World War II, a de facto alliance would be established that would later be broken with the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.

With the demilitarization of Germany, the most powerful force in Europe was the Army of the French Republic, along with her ally, Poland. Though the Soviet Union had hoped for a revolution in Germany, the war against Poland, a traditional German enemy, led the Soviet Union to seek an agreement with Germany, in the forms of the Treaty of Rapallo and the Treaty of Berlin. These treaties benefited both of these states enormously through the mutual cooperation between the two. Germany was limited

Mention that this was due to the Treaty of Versailles. It would also be a good idea to mention at least some of the numbers the treaty limited Germany to.

in arms production and of training men to become soldiers and pilots. The Soviets offered Germany the ability to train men and manufacture weapons deep within the Soviet Union, away from the prying eyes of the League of Nations. In return, the Soviets would benefit from increased trade with Germany, as well as technological, industrial, and military doctrine aid, all of which the Soviets were lagging behind. Though trade was not at the level of before World War One, it was increasing steadily, and the two powers saw one another as their only potential ally in a sea of hostile powers.

Eventually, Weimar Germany and the Soviet Union broke their diplomatic isolation, and both began signing treaties with other Western Powers, including Germany joining the League of Nations, reducing the dependence on one another. However, the relationship may have stayed amiable were it not for Adolf Hitler seizing power in Germany in 1934,

Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, not 1934. Hitler also never "seized power." He was the constitutional head-of-government, appointed by Himmler. Even his assumption of the Presidency in 1934 was not, technically-speaking, illegal, since by that point the Nazis had taken complete control of the Reichstag, mostly through legal means. The only truly unconstitutional thing Hitler did prior to becoming the Fuhrer - which gave him unlimited powers - was "the Night of the Long Knives," and that was met with huge popular approval.

which signaled a major shift in relations from cooperation to near hostility. Hitler seizing power was no doubt the major turning point in German-Soviet relations. Although the German-Soviet relationship seemed to have a potentially solid foundation, Hitler’s ideology made Communism his dreaded enemy. Hitler’s disregarding of the Treaty of Versailles led Germany to become less dependent on the Soviet Union, and was able to once again build their war machine in Germany itself. Germany’s decreased dependence on Soviet trade and Hitler’s ideological views led him to not only try to continue the détente began by the Weimar republic with the Western Powers, but also to seek alliances with Italy and Japan in the form of the Anti-Comintern pact, an alliance created to stem Soviet power. The new antagonism was highlighted further when Germany supported the Nationalists against the Soviet-backed Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

Until it became clear that the Western democracies would go to war with Germany over Poland,

This was never actually clear in the case of Britain, even after their guarantee to the Polish government. Hitler himself was surprised by the British declaration of war on September 3.

Hitler was hesitant to create closer political ties with the Soviet Union. After Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom guaranteed Polish independence, Hitler, facing a potential wartime blockade and a desperate need for supplies was forced to make a deal with the Soviets. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to an economic agreement to give Germany war supplies, the Soviet Union technology, and a political agreement for the division of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres, securing Germany while it would fight the Western democracies, and the Soviet Union while going through the purge of the Soviet nation.

The Great Purge was already over by the outbreak of WWII, and it was never really a purge of "the Soviet nation." Not that there was such thing as a "Soviet nation" by that point, anyway. You could speak of such a thing by the latter-stages of the Cold War, perhaps, but not that early in Soviet history. Hitler also wasn't so much forced to deal with the USSR as he made an intelligent foreign policy decision, one of his few. Stalin was more forced into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact than Hitler was, which is not to say the the MRP was not to the USSR's advantage.

German-Soviet relations were doomed by Hitler’s erraticism and his focus to destroy Communism and by extension, the Soviet Union. Though he could work with the Soviet Union on a temporary basis, as shown by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler always was determined to destroy the Soviet Union. When Hitler had defeated France and forced Britain into a stalemate, he was free to focus on the Soviet Union, setting the stage for the battle between fascism and communism.

Britain was never "forced into a stalemate," but was actually winning the war with Germany in 1941. One of Hitler's arguments for invading the USSR (admittedly, a minor argument which was tossed out there in large part simply to shut up any advisors who wanted to eliminate Britain before turning to the East once more) was that eliminating it as a possible British ally and gaining access to its resources would force Britain to capitulate. You should stop equating Nazism with Fascism. They are two different things. Italy was Fascist, Spain was para-Fascist - the Falange was definitely Fascist, but it wasn't running Spain - the ustache in Croatia was Fascist and the Iron Guard in Romania was Fascist, but Germany was not. Nazism is an offshoot of Fascism, an abberation of sorts, not Fascist in and of itself.

Also, it must be said that Stalin was always planning a war with Germany at some future date. While the radical revisionist theories which state that Operation: Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike are bunk, some of the information we now have access to since the opening of the Soviet archives indicates that Stalin very much intended an attack on the West at some point, which was part of the reason for his policy of pitting the Germans against the Western democracies in the first place, even as long ago as the Weimar period. I'm not sure, but I even think Lenin himself may have made mention of such a policy in his argument for diplomacy over revolution. With such a reading, German-Soviet relations were always predoomed to failure, regardless of Hitler's attitude.

You also have a few (minor) punctuation problems, but nothing major. All-in-all, it's not bad. You need references though.

 

[Lone Wolf]

You understand what the first Foreign Intervention was, right? So if they're preparing for a second one, then do you think their efforts would be offensive or defensive?

The best defence is counterattack...

And you certainly can't expect an internationalist such as any of the Bolsheviks to care about such divisive nonsense.

If Stalin was an internationalist, then I am Mother Theresa.

All of these signal a decidedly different path from the previous "world revolution is upon us" mentality of the Revolution/Civil War era.

That's correct, and even more correct when it comes to Stalin. A pragmatic and a powermonger, he annexed what he could, vassalized what he could, and left the rest alone. If he actually had the opportunity to perform a successful invasion of "the West", he would have done so, but the reverse also applies. The "Red Menace" paranoid concept is deservedly worthy of scorn.

It's, however, a double standard to condemn Poland's expansionist policy in Eastern Europe, and then exonerate Stalin for doing the same thing. Like I said, if Stalin was an internationalist democrat whose policies granted freedom from oppression to all the peoples of Eastern Europe, then I am Mother Theresa.

That's why it's so ridiculous to hear people condemn the Soviets for occupying the eastern 1/3 of Poland: what they did, in fact, was to save 1/3 of the country from two years' worth of ravishing by a country whose official policy was that they were subhuman and worthy of being worked to death or otherwise purged from the land.

The condemnation is more for dividing it with Germany before September 1939. There's a reason why the secret protocols to the MRP pact were kept secret and weren't mentioned in Soviet WWII scholarship - they reveal a darker moral view of things. As red_elk points out, they were sure pragmatically useful to the USSR.

In any case, declarations like "It was not Germany who attacked Britain and France, but it was Britain and France who attacked Germany, taking responsibility for the war" were rather uncomfortable for Soviet researchers. That's why they just didn't mention them.

While the radical revisionist theories which state that Operation: Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike are bunk,

One of major reasons for it being bunk is the fact that there's no evidence that German High Command had any information about Stalin's supposed plans to attack Germany. Germany couldn't launch a "preventive strike" to stop an attack it was not aware of.

 

[Domen]

Cheezy, there's so much wrong with your post that I can barely wrap my mind around it.

Discuss with ardent Communists - you may as well discuss with a brick wall. They live in their own Utopian world.

And finally, the Nazis might have been harsh on the Poles, but the Soviets weren't Mother Theresa either. Just look up Katyn.

Katyn is just a drop in the sea of crimes.

Soviets targeted Polish elites just like Germans did. They were not a whit "inferior" to Nazis in extermination of Polish elites.

Especially the generations born in 1918 - 1920 were put to the edge of the sword.

The first generations which were born and brought up in independent Poland.

But of course an ardent Communist like Cheezy will always demonize Nazi crimes, and whitewash Communist crimes.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Especially the generations born in 1918 - 1920 were put to the edge of the sword.

Really? The USSR genocided a whole generation?

 

[Domen]

I said that the generations of 1918 - 1920 were the target of both German and Soviet repressions.

Neither Germans nor Soviet managed to genocide a whole Polish generation.

Both of them targeted Polish elites (especially intellectual elites) and the most patriotic generations.

Generations born in 1918 - 1920 suffered the heaviest losses in WW2.

"Carrying the revolution to Europe" was officially abandoned as Soviet policy in 1924.

Maybe because their policy was negatively verified by reality when in 1920 their offensive was repulsed by Polish army.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I said that the generations of 1918 - 1920 were the target of both German and Soviet repressions.

That sure sounds more reasonable then "generations put to edge of the sword". The USSR was politically repressive, but it didn't "put a generation to the sword".

 

[Lord Baal]

Really? The USSR genocided a whole generation?

Of course. That's why we have no more Poles.

 

[Domen]

I said that NEITHER Germans nor Soviets genocided a whole generation.

But they targeted the same generations as targets of their repressions.

And Nazi Germany was not more efficient in exterminating Poles than Soviet Union was.

In fact Nazi Germany did not conduct a large scale extermination of Poles similar to that of Jews.

The USSR was politically repressive, but it didn't "put a generation to the sword".

Nazi Germany also didn't put any ethnic Polish generation to the sword.

They targeted Polish elites rather than entire nation - when it comes to physical extermination.

The same regarding the Soviet Union. They also targeted Polish elites.

 

[Lord Baal]

In fact Nazi Germany did not conduct a large scale extermination of Poles similar to that of Jews.
.

 

[Domen]

Compare % of Polish Jews who survived WW2 and % of ethnic Poles who survived WW2.

Even in actual numbers of victims more Polish Jews died than ethnic Poles.

And deaths among ethnic Poles were not only as a result of direct extermination.

=================================

Edit:

That's why it's so ridiculous to hear people condemn the Soviets for occupying the eastern 1/3 of Poland:

Wrong numbers again, Cheezy.

Poland on 01.09.1939 - 389,000 square km with population of 35.5 million.

Territory taken by Germany - 189,000 square km (48,6%) with population of 22.0 million (59,7%)
Territory taken by the USSR - 200,000 square km (51,4%) with population of 13.5 million (40,3%)

Since when is over 50% of territory and over 40% of population counted as "1/3 of Poland"?

Map can be seen here (German-Soviet border in period 28.09.1939 - 22.06.1941):

http://dzieje.pl/node/2939

Britain was never "forced into a stalemate," but was actually winning the war with Germany in 1941.

Britain was winning the war with Germany in 1941?! Don't make me laugh. On what front?

A stalemate is a much more accurate description of what happened.

 

[Mize]

This is what Stalin had to say about "Socialism in one country"...

Spoiler :

Can the victorious Socialism of one country, which is encircled by many strong capitalist countries, regard itself as being fully guaranteed against the danger of military invasion, and hence, against attempts to restore capitalism in our country?

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie? In other words :

Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

Such are the problems that are connected with the second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the negative.

Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

This is what Lenin says on this score :

"We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization." (Collected Works, Vol. 24. P. 122.)

And further :

"We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair's breadth from invasion." (Collected Works, Vol. 27. P. 117.)

This is said sharply and strongly but honestly and truthfully without embellishment as Lenin was able to speak.

On the basis of these premises Stalin stated in "Problems of Leninism" that :

"The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.

"Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism," (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.)

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.

Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?

Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.

The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost.

The whole of our people must be kept in a state of mobilisation and preparedness in the face of the danger of a military attack, so that no "accident" and no tricks on the part of our external enemies may take us by surprise . . .

From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko adheres to different and not quite Leninist opinions. He, it appears, asserts that "we now have the final victory of Socialism and full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism."

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is fundamentally wrong.

Comrade Urozhenko's assertion can be explained only by his failure to understand the surrounding reality and his ignorance of the elementary propositions of Leninism, or by empty boastfulness of a conceited young bureaucrat.

If it is true that "we have full guarantee against intervention and restoration of capitalism," then why do we need a strong Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, a strong Chemical and Air Defence Society, more and stronger ties with the international proletariat?

Would it not be better to spend the milliards that now go for the purpose of strengthening the Red Army on other needs and to reduce the Red Army to the utmost, or even to dissolve it altogether?

People like Comrade Urozhenko, even if subjectively they are loyal to our cause, are objectively dangerous to it because by their boastfulness they - willingly or unwillingly (it makes no difference!) - lull the vigilance of our people, demobilise the workers and peasants and help the enemies to take us by surprise in the event of international complications.

As for the fact that, as it appears, you, Comrade Ivanov, have been "removed from propaganda work and the question has been raised of your fitness to remain in the Y.C.L.," you have nothing to fear.

If the people in the Regional Committee of the Y.C.L. really want to imitate Chekov's Sergeant Prishibeyev, you can be quite sure that they will lose on this game.

Prishibeyevs are not liked in our country.

Now you can judge whether the passage from the book "Problems of Leninism" on the victory of Socialism in one country is out of date or not.

I myself would very much like it to be out of date.

I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.

(Signed) J. Stalin.
February 12, 1938.

Pravda
14 February 1938

1938, a point in time where Stalin was in the position to make decisions on his own head. If you read between the lines, which is what you should do with any statement by any politician, especially a Soviet one, you might notice that what Stalin said is the exact opposite of what he meant. I mean, whose assistance could he possibly expect to help "to strengthen the defence of our country"? The French communists? Also, defence from whom? The USSR and the Reich didn't even have a shared boudary yet, while the Japanese weren't that much of a military (or economical threat) and were soon to be decisively dealt with in '39 at Khahlin Gol. We must also take into account that the whole Soviet military doctrine (call it "defence strategy" if you will) and pre-war propaganda was based on "Bring the war to the aggressors" (whoever they might be. Apparently the Finns). Also, if I remember correctly the Spanish civil war happend a bit later than '24, which is kind of a problem for anybody who insists that the USSR let go of the idea of World revolution.

... Their primary concern was to catch up to the Western Powers and Japan economically, so that they could then match them militarily...

The wholesale militarization of Soviet industry and society during the pre-war years is not something I would call economically catching up. It isn't even military catch-up. It is preparation for war on a very large, continental scale. Yes, the USSR matched it's enemies militarily. All of them combined, and then some. Did the Soviets really need upwards of 24 000 tanks for defence, while the Wehrmacht could barely scrape up 3300 for Barbarossa?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Also, if I remember correctly the Spanish civil war happend a bit later than '24, which is kind of a problem for anybody who insists that the USSR let go of the idea of World revolution.

The Spanish Civil War wasn't started by the USSR. It supported the anti-Franco forces, but "support" and "starting the war" are different issues.

The wholesale militarization of Soviet industry and society during the pre-war years is not something I would call economically catching up. It isn't even military catch-up. It is preparation for war

If you want peace, prepare for war. That's what Cheezy will tell you

 

[sophie]

I didn't say that.

Let a man dream, Dachs.

 

[Tahuti]

Britain was winning the war with Germany in 1941?! Don't make me laugh. On what front?

A stalemate is a much more accurate description of what happened.

Germany wasn't able to defeat Britain from that point - unless something dramatic would happen, like the collapse of the USSR - and in this case, that definitely means Britain was winning, since the empire's economy and manpower would allow the British empire to last much longer than Germany would.

Also, I would like to add that before you positively refer to your country's role in WWII's further, mind that the Poland from between 1936 to the German occupation was hardly any better than Nazi-Germany or the Soviet Union were. The Camp of National Unity (which was, as you probably might know the ruling party of Poland at the time) created a pretty vile regime that was anti-minority (anti-semitic laws were enacted and Poland's Ukrainian and German populations were oppressed), anti-liberal and placed political opponents in concentration camps.

 

[Dachs]

Germany wasn't able to defeat Britain from that point - unless something dramatic would happen, like the collapse of the USSR - and in this case, that definitely means Britain was winning, since the empire's economy and manpower would allow the British empire to last much longer than Germany would.

I don't really think it does. The British had effectively zero capacity for counterattack. It's quite reasonable to say that they were not losing after the summer of 1941 or so - although surely 1942 would be more reasonable, after the threat to Iskandariyah was completely eliminated - but that doesn't mean that they were winning. The Nazi state was not showing signs of imminent collapse.

 

[Domen]

Germany wasn't able to defeat Britain from that point

Only because there was water between the British Isles and Germany.

Britain, on the other hand, was never able to defeat Germany alone.

since the empire's economy and manpower would allow the British empire to last much longer than Germany would.

Nazi Germany had most of Europe already occupied or allied with by that time - with its economy and manpower.

The British had effectively zero capacity for counterattack.

Exactly. They had problems even when fighting one Corps (not even an Army - just a Corps) in Africa.

The Camp of National Unity (which was, as you probably might know the ruling party of Poland at the time) created a pretty vile regime that was anti-minority (anti-semitic laws were enacted and Poland's Ukrainian and German populations were oppressed), anti-liberal and placed political opponents in concentration camps.

German population was not oppressed in Poland.

That's one of reasons why Poland had very good relations with Germany from 1934 to 1938.

Only Ukrainian nationalists were "oppressed", because they formed terrorist organizations which targeted Polish state structures.

Other members of Ukrainian minority were not oppressed.

Polish regime was not as bad as that in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia - we never had a totalitarian regime. Our regime became a bit vile after the death of Pilsudski, but it was authoritarian, it nevered went so far towards totalitarianism as Soviet and Nazi regimes.

The Camp of National Unity which you mentioned was created in 1937 and it didn't manage to get much support until 1939.

Regarding anti-semitic laws - this was hardly anything exceptional in Europe. Yes, Poland had some anti-semitic laws (not nearly as harsh as Nazi Germany though). But not only Poland. Today it is a shameful topic for Europeans - also Western Europeans (who also had anti-semitic laws, but they don't like to admit that anti-semitism was also a problem in their countries - they always claim that it existed only in Eastern Europe).

For example we had Jewish quotas in Universities (not in all of them, however) in Poland. Only since late 1930s (after Pilsudski' death).

But Jewish quotas were also present in Universities in Germany, Soviet Union, Great Britain, Hungary, Romania, Latvia and France.

Also in the USA some Universities had Jewish quotas - surprisingly.

And in Canada in period 1920-1940s, some universities, such as McGill University, had Jewish quotas as well.

and placed political opponents in concentration camps.

One "camp". Or precisely - Bereza Kartuska detention camp.

It was something exactly like American Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Not like German concentration camps from WW2.

 

[Tahuti]

Regarding anti-semitic laws - this was hardly anything exceptional in Europe. Yes, Poland had some anti-semitic laws (not nearly as harsh as Nazi Germany though). But not only Poland. Today it is a shameful topic for Europeans - also Western Europeans (who also had anti-semitic laws, but they don't like to admit that anti-semitism was also problem in their countries - they always claim that it existed only in Eastern Europe).

Actually, anti-semitism in Poland was hardly limited to self-imposed university quotas or popular prejudice which was pretty common in countries like the UK and USA as well. The Polish second republic has a pretty horrific track record of state-sponsored anti-semitism.

Overall, OZN-ruled Poland was arguably one of more nasty and authoritarian regimes of the time.

 

[Domen]

Actually, anti-semitism in Poland was hardly limited to self-imposed university quotas or popular prejudice which was pretty common in countries like the UK and USA as well. The Polish second republic has a pretty horrific track record of state-sponsored anti-semitism.

This is complete rubbish and huge exaggeration.

Organizations which had anti-semitic views similar to that of Nazi party, were illegal in Poland. Not state-sponsored as you claim.

But even these organizations were not as radically anti-semitic as those in Germany.

The only radical group which was using violence (e.g. attempts to devastate Jewish shops) against Jews was totalitarian ONR-“Phalanx” (National-Radical Camp “Phalanx&#8221, which was created in 1934 and after three months was recognized as illegal and dissolved by the Polish government.

After it was illegalized, it was still trying to act, illegally. But it was never supported by more than a small margin of society.

This organization was anti-left parties, anti-government (it called it “Jewish-Sanacja&#8221, anti-people’s parties, anti-liberal, and it also had nothing to do with Endecja (National Democracy), because it was totally separated from Endecja and denied the existence of Endecja, considering itself as an only real party of national camp - and Endecja as just a funny imitation, because its methods were "too soft" - also Endecja never admitted to any connections with this group.

This marginal, illegal organization had – in different periods – from 5,000 to maximum 25,000 of members and supporters in entire Poland.

Actually, anti-semitism in Poland was hardly limited to self-imposed university quotas

Other than university quotas (which were not self-imposed, at least not in Poland) I can't find any other examples of anti-semitic laws.

If you can, then please provide them and give me the exact signature of legal act / acts in which they were enacted.

I prefer to discuss with other people at some decent level - with everyone using sources to back up their claims.

So stick to this rule and when you claim that a legal act with anti-Jewish laws was enacted - then prove it. Especially when people are discussing such touchy subjects, which might offend some nation or group of people, they should back up their accusations with good sources.

Overall, OZN-ruled Poland was arguably one of more nasty and authoritarian regimes of the time.

OK, I agree. With "arguably" especially underlined.

But still ONR had minimal support in the Polish society from 1937 (when it was created) until 1938, as long as Germany was friendly to Poland.

When Hitler started to be aggressive towards Poland, society supported the government regardless of political option it represented.

Because everyone knew that Nazi Germany was more dangerous than internal political conflicts. Leaders of Ukrainian and Jewish minorities in Poland also declared support for the Polish government against common enemy (Nazi Germany) shortly before the German invasion beginned.

So all political options and all minorities (which were also represented in the Parliament) declared cooperation in defence of the country.

This of course didn't prevent many of more radical members of German and Ukrainian minorities from collaboration with the invaders.

But it was still a very nice and honest declaration, a nice political gesture.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Iskandariyah

I hate when you do this. Makes even obvious things difficult to follow because I have to figure out what you're referring to.