Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea?
    Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 16:22
Originally posted by Bankotsu


Why not, they were friendly countries by then.
 
In fact the Nazi's and Soviets were allies, cooperatively overrunning a common enemy.  Just as the Soviets and Americans were in 1945.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 16:24
Originally posted by Bankotsu

It is obvious to anyone who doesn't say the bias


Show me evidence of pro-Stalin bias.
 
As I have stated, I can't 'show' you when you choose to be 'blind'.  It is quite obvious to any who isn't a communist sycophant, as you ignore / deny Soviet actions at every turn and simply make up 'proof' to place blame on others.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 16:26
It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that you are simply trolling here at this point.  Another intervention of a mod might be helpful to avoid this thread filling up with pointless statements, such as 'prove' that the sky is blue or that 2+2=4.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 17:14

Deadkenny, you do you think that references to "pro-Stalin bias" and "Communist sycophants" are less pointless than Banktotsu's statements?

So far, I didn't see any "pro-Stalinism" in his posts.

In any case, this is to all of the participants of the thread. Mutual respect should be the basis for the discussions on this forum.

Please cool your temper. If the discussion can't remain civil and will stay pointless the thread will be locked.

Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 19:11

Admittedly I did 'carry over' some of the frustration at the repeated posting of the same quotes from the same couple pro-communist sites over and over again by Bankotsu from the other thread.  I also note that even after a mod commented on it, Bankotsu continued to go back to the same question of the use of the term 'alliance'.  We've both had our say on that point.  Debating the usage of the term 'alliance' was not the central theme of this thread.  If Bankotsu  wants to contribute constructively by discussing the relative merits of, and possible  alternatives to the 'pact' ('agreement', 'alliance', 'arrangement' whatever term one chooses to use) then I don't see a need to use terms such as those.

As for claiming a 'bias' on his part, well agreeing with obvious communist propaganda, such as the Nazi-Soviet Pact being strictly a 'non-aggression' pact or characterizing  the Soviet invasion of Poland as something other than what it was makes it clear to me.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 21:33
I think that if we are to understand whether the Soviet occupation was an invasion or a liberation we should go to the voices of the Poles themselves.

Also to give us all some crib notes on the affair.

It appears that the British and French had signed treaties with the Polish in case of invasion by any foreign power, which would mean that under the terms of their agreements Britain and France should have declared war on both Germany and the Soviet Union. So really you could throw in another what-if. If the Allies had honored their treaty with the Poles would this have led to a long lasting Soviet/German alliance due to common enemies?
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 22:16
Originally posted by JanusRook

It appears that the British and French had signed treaties with the Polish in case of invasion by any foreign power, which would mean that under the terms of their agreements Britain and France should have declared war on both Germany and the Soviet Union. So really you could throw in another what-if. If the Allies had honored their treaty with the Poles would this have led to a long lasting Soviet/German alliance due to common enemies?
 
That is a good point.  Technically perhaps the British and French should have declared war on the Soviets when the Soviets attacked Poland.  However, as Poland was effectively 'finished' at that point, it would have been difficult to take on another opponent.  However, the Allies did consider fighting the Soviets at a couple points.  When the Soviets attacked the Finns, the Allies started to put together a number of plans to intervene against them during the Winter War.  In addition, the Soviet supply of oil to Nazi Germany was critical for the Germans to maintain an effective war effort.  The Allies seriously considered bombing Soviet oil facilities in the Caucasus.  It is difficult to know for certain exactly what Stalin's plan was.  We pretty much know that Hitler planned to attack the Soviets as soon as he felt he was able to.  He would likely have done that right away, if not for the British and French DoW, and refusal to end the war, after he invaded Poland.  But we don't really know for certain how long Stalin would have remained an ally of Germany.  He clearly wasn't expecting to be attacked by summer 1941, however, there are indications that he was preparing to fight in 1942.  Whether those plans were 'aggressive' (i.e. plans to attack Germany) or 'defensive' (i.e. anticipating a German attack in that timeframe) is not clear.  I have no difficulty believing that Stalin would have been prepared to 'betray' his erstwhile ally, if he saw it as being in his interest to do so.  However, he may well have hoped / expected to get alot more out of his 'alliance' with Hitler before breaking it (or before Hitler broke it).  My sense is that Stalin attributed a more 'rational' decision making ability to Hitler than was justified.  Stalin appears to have believed that as long as the Soviets were delivering more supplies to Germany than Germany could 'extract' themselves, the Germans would continue the war against Britain.  In fact Germany never managed to get more out of the occupied territories in the east than had been delivered voluntarily by the Soviets.  However, such 'logical' considerations were often not the basis for Hitler's decisions.     


Edited by deadkenny - 06-Jul-2008 at 22:17
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2008 at 13:28
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Deadkenny, you do you think that references to "pro-Stalin bias" and "Communist sycophants" are less pointless than Banktotsu's statements?

I'd agree there is very little point in making the comments since they are obvious to anyone. I can understand however deadkenny's frustration at Bankotsu's continuous hewing to the party line whether the party be Stalin's or Quigley's. It's about time  the repetitive going around in circles stopped.



I don't have any real view on the question of this thread itself, but it would be an interesting one if it was stuck to.


So far, I didn't see any "pro-Stalinism" in his posts.

We must be reading different threads.


In any case, this is to all of the participants of the thread. Mutual respect should be the basis for the discussions on this forum.

Please cool your temper. If the discussion can't remain civil and will stay pointless the thread will be locked.



I'm not so worried about the mutual respect - though it would be nice - as I am about the boredom.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2008 at 16:16
Originally posted by gcle2003

We must be reading different threads.


Okay, show me evidence of my "pro Stalin" bias.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2008 at 18:12
Originally posted by gcle2003


So far, I didn't see any "pro-Stalinism" in his posts.

We must be reading different threads.

 
Just because you don't agree with someones way of thinking doesn't give you the right to label this person as "Stalinist." I personally consider such a fraze quite an insulting one.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 01:59
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by gcle2003


So far, I didn't see any "pro-Stalinism" in his posts.

We must be reading different threads.

 
Just because you don't agree with someones way of thinking doesn't give you the right to label this person as "Stalinist." I personally consider such a fraze quite an insulting one.
 
First, I labelled Bankotsu's arguments as 'pro-Stalin', not 'Stalinist'.  Secondly, I did not apply that term to you.  So, if / when I use the term 'pro-Stalin' to what you've posted, you may object on your own behalf and be 'insulted'.  However, Bankotsu should speak for himself.  He may be one of the 'die hard' communists who believes that Stalin has been unjustly villified.  
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 02:03
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by gcle2003

We must be reading different threads.


Okay, show me evidence of my "pro Stalin" bias.
 
Reference most of what you've posted in this thread and the 'push Germany eastward' thread.  You constantly regurgitate exactly the propaganda that came out of the Soviet Union, based on Stalin's own claims and views.  How would you label me if I supported the claim that Hitler didn't want to attack the Soviet Union, but was forced to as a 'preemptive strike' to defend himself from the impending attack on him by the Soviets? 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 03:11
Originally posted by deadkenny

First, I labelled Bankotsu's arguments as 'pro-Stalin', not 'Stalinist'.  Secondly, I did not apply that term to you.  So, if / when I use the term 'pro-Stalin' to what you've posted, you may object on your own behalf and be 'insulted'.  However, Bankotsu should speak for himself.  He may be one of the 'die hard' communists who believes that Stalin has been unjustly villified.  
 
That post was actually mainly "targeted" at gcle2003 Smile
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:22
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by gcle2003


So far, I didn't see any "pro-Stalinism" in his posts.

We must be reading different threads.

 
Just because you don't agree with someones way of thinking doesn't give you the right to label this person as "Stalinist." I personally consider such a fraze quite an insulting one.

I didn't say he was Stalinist, merely that his posts are replete with pro-Stalinist propaganda. I don't actually believe Bankotsu is Stalinist: he merely seems to use pro-Stalinist sources to bolster his Quigleyian [1] beliefs.

However, I also don't agree that calling a position 'Stalinist' is necessarily insulting, if it is used correctly to indicate someone who believes  in  Stalinist political theory and practice. 'Conservative' 'Liberal', 'Fascist', 'National Socialist', 'Communist' are not insults when used correctly - any of them can of course be insults if used incorrectly. 'Moron' is a perfectly valid technical word: it's only an insult when deliberately and incorrectly used as one.

If supporting and justifying Stalin's actions c. 1939 isn't 'pro-Stalinist', then what is it?

If anyone wants to call me 'pro-British' or  'pro-Churchillian', feel free. I won't even bridle at 'pro-Chamberlain'  though it wouldn't be 100% accurate.

[1] If I can make up a word.


Edited by gcle2003 - 11-Jul-2008 at 13:27
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.