Putin and Hitlers foreign policy
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24260
Printed Date: 20-May-2024 at 23:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Putin and Hitlers foreign policy
Posted By: Parnell
Subject: Putin and Hitlers foreign policy
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 01:55
|
Hitler's foreign policy before the war rested on making Germany a great power and bringing the Germanic people back into a united German nation. Hence his desire for the Sudetenland, the Polish coridoor (and South Tyrol, though he let that be)
Putin uses his oil and gas as a bargaining chip to the rest of Europe, uses all of his influence in preventing Ukraine and Georgia joining Nato (and in ukraines case, the EU)
Is he 'protecting' these Russian populations or is it a part of a grander delusion, a method of returning Russia to some of its former geopolitical might?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 01:57
In my humble and modest opinion, George Bush is a lot closer to Hitler in character, military actions and political ideology than Putin  ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 01:59
|
I don't think the two situations are really comparable. Hitler was intent on territorial expansion into a united nation before a grand push east to conquer yet more land, Putin is simply using his resources for diplomatic leverage. As it is the Russians are having enough trouble crushing their own insurgencies (Chechnya) to seriously consider imperialistic conquest abroad.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 03:28
This topic is a complete BS  
Only person lacking any understanding of Hitlers foreign policy and the situation in modern Russia can make such "comparacents."
Russia has been and remains a corrupt regime primarily concerned with making money, but not "returning any geopolitical might."
But even that corrupted regime was forced to the edge by agressive movenment to the East by Nato (in clear violation of all USSR-USA agreements) and now even missiles are going to be located in Czech republic in Poland aiming at "Iran."
What is Russia supposed to do? Idiotic American policy to isolate Russia just creates more trouble in the already very unstable world and forces Russia to look for "retaliation." But honestly, it's the last thing what Russia really wanted to do.
The West wants to see the hostile Russia, ok you will get it finally after persistent requests... ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 05:28
Russian populations in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and some other USSR countries? The only Russians to speak of in some of these areas today are Russian troops. Russia just wants a monopoly on energy resources pure and simple. Even if you look at tiny Chechnya, the real reason Russia never accepted its independence like it did other states is because they have a very important pipeline to build that goes directly through it to all the way to the Black Sea. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 06:13
|
Actually, almost all the population of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russian citizens. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 10:19
|
How do you define a 'Russian citizen' there? I guess they used to be Soviet citizens, or were they already citizens of the Georgian SSR? Didn't they automatically become Georgian citizens when the Soviet Union broke up?
Do you mean almost all the population in those territories are ethnically Russian? Or they were citizens of the RSFSR who migrated to Georgia?
As far as I'm concerned such questions are irrelevant anyway. What counts is what the local population wants to be, not what they technically are or were. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 12:31
Which USA-USSR agreements you are talking about?
Not for "aiming", but for "intercepting". Thats Defensive system after all so how can it harm Russia. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 13:19
Chill angry mastadon... Its spelt 'comparison' btw.
Are they really so different? Hitler's primary goals were uniting a Greater Germany of German citizens and in the long term, a colonial empire in the east (Lebensraum) for the Germans. I'm obviously not saying Putin needs Lebensraum in eastern Europe. Putin's primary goal is restoring Russia to (Some of) former strength. If you ever listen to his rhetoric, Russian strength is a recurring theme. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 13:38
|
Careful my friend. People usually don't take kindly to their country being insulted. ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 15:02
|
People need to learn to seperate their politicians from their actual people. I'm just thinking aloud regarding Putins foreign policy. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:19
Associating Putin with Hitler is not what I consider a fair and ballanced or serious analysis.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:23
Fellow. I already told you that BUSH is a lot more imperialist that Putin. Why you don't listen?
If you want to criticize Russia, why don't you start for your own country that collaborated with the United States to destroy Iraq.... a country that got nothing to do with the 9/11, but that was sacrified to help Bush to stay in power?
Think about it. Who is more facist, or who resemble Hitler the most.
------------- |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:38
|
pinguin Bush wants other rip other countries off, Putin wants to annex them. I don't think one is more imperialist than the other. -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:58
|
More than anexing, I see Putin acting to stop the former soviet republic for continuing breaking appart. Nothing wrong with that. Lincoln did exactly that in the United States and nobody calls him a Hitler. China is doing the same. Canada has done it during centuries stopping Quebec from running away. And even in South America all countries are helping Bolivia to prevent that country becomes a collection of microscopic nations. Russians today mind theirs own business, which is fine. The other superpower is the one that is creating throuble at global scale. Fortunately, the democrats will win the next election and they'll fix the United State and the fascists republicans in power.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:01
Wake up my friend
 Putin doesn't want "to annex" anything. And he is leaving anyway from the top seat of the Russian politics. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:03
Okay I'll leave Russia's domestic policies towards its "autonomous" Republics alone for now. Now I'm talking about Russian imperialism against independent states such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and other former Soviet states. I'm talking about Russian imperialism before, during, and after the Soviet Union. Russia is just as bad as you accuse the United States to be if not worse. At least American imperialism doesn't involve forcing tens of millions of people to speak a different language or change their religion and culture. Russians, at least the politicians and military, are far from a people who "mind their own business" (I wish they did). Now as for the topic, I think Hitler and Putin both want to subjugate other nations, but their reasons for wanting to do so are different. -------------
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:18
Are they really different... After Hitler came to power, within 6 years Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, the second world war started and holocoust began...
Putin has been in power for 8 years and now he is stepping down. What did Russia annex? Did Russia put millions of people in concentration camps? Did it adopt Arian purity laws? Did it officially declare even one time that it wants to reconquer all the "lost territories," the thing that Hitler had been saying with regard to the lost German territories all the time until the war finally started?
Or may be every politician who wants to make his country stronger is "Hitler" in your view? The COMPARISON of Hitler with Putin makes no more sense than the comparison of Bertie Ahern with Mussolini. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:27
Nonsense. How Russia is forcing 10 millions of people now "to speak a different language." How "Russian imperialism" works against Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Azerbaijan now?
How?
Millions of Ukrainians, Azeri, Ukrainians and Georgians fyi are going to Russia now in search for work and better life. Russia has the second biggest number of immigrants in the world after the USA. Most of those are immigrants from these countries.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are different story. First of all, in the 1990th most of the fighters who fought on their side against Georgians where their ethnic kin from North Caucasus, with the biggest part from Chechnia and even other "Chircassians" from Turkey and Middle East. Secondly, Russia is not going to recognize their independence. What Russia does now is simply the reaction to the US foreign policy, I mean Kosovo. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:54
I'm talking about the mutual oral agreements between the leaders of the USSR and USA which were reached during the negotiations on the reunification of Germany and the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from the Eastern Germany in 1990-91. George Bush senior and James Baker several times clearly and solemnly promissed that Nato would never move more to the East. For your information, any official statements of public figures like these are regarding as representing the official position of their countries and are followed with all related consequences and responsibilities.
A good insight from the interview of a very bright IMO American Russian studies professor, Stephen Cohen:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-19-39.cfm - http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-19-39.cfm
"The second thing we did which was equally bad, and this is often forgotten, that in 1990-1991, when Bush asked Gorbachev to permit both a united Germany and a united Germany in NATO, and Gorbachev agreed and that was a historic agreement, Gorbachev was promised, Russia was promised by Bush, and Ill quote his secretary of state at the time, James Baker, that NATO will not move one inch to the east. That was a solemn promise. Now in Russia, it is said that Gorbachev should have gotten it in writing as a treaty. But when it came to the United States, Gorbachev was a little naive. He was smitten with his own ideas of the new thinking, a common European home of human values. He thought that we ascribe to those values, that the United States saw eye to eye to him about that and about how great powers should treat each other. But Clinton during the 1990s violated that solemn promise and began to expand NATO eastward toward Russia, and that continues today. That expansion of NATO and the violation of that promise that has driven the conflicts with Russia over both Ukraine and Georgia, and so long as NATO continues to take those former Soviet republics in, that conflict will continue to existAfter all [NATO is] a military alliance right on Russias borders. The former Baltic republics are already in NATO, NATO is knocking on Ukraines door, and there are U.S. bases already in Central Asia. Russia sees itself as being encircled, and so long as that is happening, so long as Russia has that view, there will be no good or stable relations between Russia and the West."
Of course, intercepting Iranian rockets in Europe, while being actually much closer to Moscow than Teheran... Obviously, they are supposed to "intercept" something else as well. I wonder, how the US would react if Russia installes some weird rocket-technical stuff in Mexico in order to "intercept" rockets from Brazil. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 14:22
You have all my support on these issues (appart from Putin stepping down statement of course). These silly attempts to compare modern Russia with fascist Germany are ridiculous. Especially from citizens of countries who started 3 large wars in last 10 years .  ------------- . |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 18:38
Russians may not force people to speak Russian and change their religion today, but during the Tsarist and Soviet times, which was relatively recently, they did. People are still suffering from the effects of Russification. As for the immigrants, many of them were Russian left-overs from other Soviet Republics to begin with. The rest of them are just the by-products of Russification coming to Russia to do the work ethnic Russians don't want to do. I mean after Russians plundered their countries' resources for so long it's typical they have to go to Russia itself to find work. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed Russia is still supporting coups or totalitarian regimes in Turkic countries. Yes most of their Presidents or leaders are ex-KGB. I don't mean to have a go at you, but most of my ethnic group was deported to Siberian labor camps by Russians at one point. So naturally my opinions on Russian foreign and domestic policy will be less sympathetic than most people's. -------------
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 19:05
|
I thought we are talking about modern Russia. For sure Russian empire and the USSR commited many atrocities against different ethnicities these are facts and nobody argues with this.
However, you should bare in mind that the people who suffered most of all from all the Soviet repressions Stalinism etc. where Russian themselves. My grandgrand father died at the labor camp. Stalin himself was not even a Russian but Georgian as well as his favorite Butcher, Beria.
Futher more, you seem to be not aware of the real situation with the current immigration to Russia. Most of the immigrants are native of the former Soviet Central Asian republics.
A big part of them even don't speak Russian at all and now the Russian governement sponsors huge educational programs to teach them how to speak Russian.
Russia now has very good relations with Turkic counties starting. It never supported any coups there. What you said is not true.
Also everything is not just black and white as you wrote. A lot of people in the former USSR has good feelings about Russia.
Futhermore, if you want to look at history. Russia also has a comprehensive list related to its different neighbors regarding the numerous bad things commited in the past against Russians.
Germans killed tens of millions of Russians, but I don't feel any hate towards modern German people.
Hope you understand what I mean.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 19:17
|
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 19:26
Terekeme. A Turk people now found mostly in Azerbaijan, Daghstan, Georgia, and parts of Turkey. The main difference is that we're typically Sunni and Azeri are Shia, and also since Turkic nomads traveled in waves our histories are a little different too. -------------
|
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 19:41
Bro, I don't hate Russian people, I hate their policies. Russia has good relationships with Turkic governments, but do those governments and leaders have good relationships with their people? Of course not, they were all regional heads of the KGB in their respective territories. If it were not for Russia propping up puppet leaders like Kerimov in Uzbekistan that country would be much better off. Russia even sent a congratulatory message to President Kerimov after the Andijan Massacre where he crushed a pro-democratic revolt and killed over a thousand people. Remember Askar Akayev in Kyrgyzstan? Where did he flee to after he was overthrown? Russia of course, and it's the same place all these cronies run to when things start going bad for them. As for coups, Russia had the democratically-elected Azeri President Elcibey overthrown for being a Turkish nationalist and installed pro-Russian ex-KGB officer Aliyev in his place. Now Aliyev is dead and his son is in power. Both Aliyevs have thrown many nationalists in jail and even went so far as to remove patriotic slogans from dead soldiers' tombs. Another democracy ruined. Also in the Karabagh War with Armenia Russian units directly participated in the assault and now Azerbaijan has over 1 million internally displaced persons living in tents. So yes I still have major problems with the modern Russian state and its foreign policy, but not with your average Russian Joe. -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 19:51
Actually neither Russian empire nor USSR performed strong assimilation politics. Finns, for example, were allowed to study in their own language only after Finland was taken from Sweden. In USSR time ethnic groups studied their own language, literature and history. etc. ------------- . |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 20:05
|
Leaders of Central Asia and Azarbajian are self generated. Russia didn't install them. And there are many ethnic Russians in those countries who suffer the same under their rule. A good example is Turkenbashi, who was also a USSR communist party product, but it didn't stop him from disciminating and expelling Russians from Turkmenistan.
In fact, Russia has much less leverages in Azaerbaijan, Uzbekistan etc. compare to what US, EU and Turkey have.
To blame Russia for existent Central Asian leaders is something that has very few things to do with the reality.
It's just the easiest way to blame Russia in everything you don't like. But Russia is not that super evil as you think. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 20:10
|
Another debate topic in the same vein. Eamon DeVelera, why was he such a Nazi sympathaizer/ collaberator. I mean his "neutrality" which cut the Atlantic sea lanes, nearly lost the war. Must have been a symphatizer or a Nazi. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 20:46
Belarus is already russified. If Soviet Union somehow could survive past 1990 - the Ukrainians would be assimilated by 2050, but Baltic countries by the end of 21th century with Latvia being the front runner. The central Asian republics could take more time because of differences in culture. |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 21:01
I wonder why there weren't huge outcry in Russia's government levels when Turkmenbashi expelled Russians from Turkmenistan? Otherwise I agree. Russians couldn't do much with central Asian leaders, because the societies and politics in CA states are still essentially based on tribalism and family clans. These structures existed and worked very well even in Soviet times. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 21:08
It's just because the Russian regime is corrupted, not competent and not nationalistic at all as some try to claim. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 21:15
Well, this assesment just proves Anton's point that the assimilation policies where not that strong. Hypothetical assimilation of Ukrainians by 2050 only, despite that Russia took over Ukraine already in 1654? 400 years it's quite a slow process of assimilation.
 For comarison. Taiwan was almost complitely Japanized in a less than 50 years of Japanese rule. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 23:49
I doubt all these estimations. Even Russians in Ukraine had to learn Ukranian. What kind of assimilation are you talking about? In this respect Soviet policy toward Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians or Estonians was much more soft than policies of modern states toward Russians. ------------- . |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 14:57
In Poland there was strong assimilation politics. In schools Russian was official language and in state offices as well. It was not diffrent from the Geramn partition though.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 15:02
| I agree with our Russian members that Putin has not much in common with Hitler except maybe they are both rather short. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 15:28
|
My point was that from an abstract position, they both viewed ethnic/racial nationalism as important. Hence why Putin is so keen to give Russian citizenship to peoples in former USSR states. And his interests in keeping Russian hedgemony in Georgia and Ukraine. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 15:44
|
Russia gives citizenship to all the "former citizens of the USSR" regardless of ethnicity. Germany was concerned only with "racially pure" Germans.
Russia also doesn't have and thus can't keep any hegemony in Ukraine and Georgia. Opposing NATO growth doesn't mean hegemony.
Unfortunately, you seem to have a bit distorted view of the current Russian foreign policy. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 16:51
|
Comparing Hitler and Putin is ridiculous, there is no link, where are Putins racial policies?
Putin is a pragmatist, Hitler was a racist ideologist. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 17:46
|
You all seem to think I think they are in direct parallels. I'm saying there are serious comparisons to be drawn. That is all. (You cannot deny his interests in Georgia and Ukraine, and his antipathy towards the democratic movements there)
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:08
|
So, what is the comparison? Did Hitler dislike Georgia and Ukraine or what? I'm afraid you're lost in your own arguments. All the global or regional "powers" have some "interests" in other countries. Britain has interests in the Middle East, France has interests in Africa, USA has interests pretty everywhere. Why don't you call them "Hitlerist states" ? Putin is not concerned with "democracy" in Georgia and Urkaine he is concerned with the close ties of these countries with the west, which might mean a potential threat for the security of Russia (NATO). In Georgia BTW opposition leaders are openly murdered and oppressed, so it hardly can be called a "democracy," unless you consider modern Russia a "democracy" as well. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:15
|
Whoever created this thread suffers from the "Muslim-Weakness" Complex. Basically, the Muslim Weakness Complex is a tragedy where Muslims will blame America, Israel, Russia, India, or China for their current state whilst overlooking what they are doing to themselves. Putin is not the one invading foreign nations for reasons he knows not. A thread that belongs in Junk. Sounds like crazy talk. I have respect for Putin because he has atleast improved his nation. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:23
blah blah blah Mughaal, what rubbish.
Their interests are not based on ethnic lines. Russia's are. Do you deny that?
WTF? Look, I'm getting sick of talking to you. Your taking my quotes out of context and your obviously misreading my posts, and then throw out strawmans left and center. ------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:31
|
Parnell, I think you need to shove your head down a tub of cold water. No Joke. This thread is ridiculous. Not only because everyone loves to compare their opponents as the "New Hitler" but because its retarded paranoia. There is a reason why clear headed historians are more appreciated than paranoid, uber-nationalistic, or uber-religioustic historians who bend disproportionately to any one side. The former can think clearly in difficult situations, and the latter can only think within confined, narrow parameters. Therefore they are more Hitleristic. So the question is now Discuss the Similarities between The Author of this thread's close minded paranoia and Hitler's narrow vision of Jews, Slavs. the Handicapped, and non-Aryans in general.  ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:34
[/QUOTE]
What ethnic lines? Of course I deny that BS.
You're getting sick? You said that Russia "has interests in Ukraine and Georgia" that's why there are reasons for the strong comarison with Hitler. But there are now any reasons for comparison with Hitler there. I also asked you how Russian interests in former Soviet states are different from let's say British interest in their former areas of influence? The only thing you can say is WTF. Well, indeed, I expect too much of you. I'm afraid Mughal is right ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:38
Neither can he construct rational thoughts, but I get the feeling he did not think things out clearly while he was creating this thread, and now he needs to grab at straws. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 23:56
Cheers for the advice mate.
Show me once where I compared Putin to Hitler personally. I compared their foreign policy, keen to point out that I wasn't even touching the Jewish, racial superiority issue. What I was saying was that Putin wants to maintain a Russian hedgemony on areas with Russian populations in Eastern Europe. He still views eastern Europe as Russias sphere of interest; a pre world war II concept at its best. No-one here seems to deny that, you all seem to be stuck in the petty pedantry of questioning my motives or saying 'how can you compare anyone to Hitler!??'
Close minded paranoia? Your not contradicting yourself there are ya mate?
Ok, its BS that he just happens to want to protect Russian majority areas in Georgia and east Ukraine. Sure.
I already said I wasn't comparing them personally.
Says the guy that thinks it ok to behead people who draw cartoons. Go F*** yourself.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 00:11
There are no any "Russian majority areas" in Georgia and the only clear "Russian majority area" in Ukraine is Crimea. Honestly, I didn't see anything so far in the direction of "protection" of Crimea? Protection from whom btw?
Russian mass media critisizes Ukraine sometimes for pressing on Russian language. But Putin never said anything about this. The main point of confronation with Ukraine was and is NATO.
I'm afraid you're not very familiar with this subject.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 00:19
|
I see that the discussion is going in the wrong direction in order to avoid further trouble. I'm locking this thread for some time. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|