Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[Patroklos]

20/1 Serb won't respond.

looks like sme people made out like bandits on this one. We will count the drival above as "won't repy" as it equates to as much.

5/1 he will chop said quote to say what he wants and after prodding on the reality of the author’s message will start swearing and name-calling and disappear from the forum for a few days until he thinks people forgot what a fool he is.

we will pay out 50% on this one, as I don't want to short change anyone because of my lack of options.

I really hope Serb uses some time during his days off/retreat to go to a library/comic store to dig up his normal bs. We will be suprised to learn the Soviets didn't kill anyone. The gulags were actually run by White Russian remnants who were suported by the West.

But I really do what Serb to reply as I am looking forward to...

Whatever the case Serb, don't stop. While your clinical insanity is disturbing and deserving of pity, like a train wreck, it is also facinating. It also makes anyone posting in the same thread as you seem 20 IQ points more intelligent.

[Heresson]

Russia has never posed an aggressive threat to Europe

Hm. You mean Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Germany, Czechia and Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Monte Negro, Bosnia and Hercegowina, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbeyjan, Byelarus, Ukraine and those poor lands still under Russian control, they aren't located in Europe?

Lithuanian basketball is having more in common I think with that Lithuanians are said to be the highest nation in the world than with Soviet school.

Polish government escaped to Romania at Sep. 17. Only after that at the same day (Sept. 17) Soviet troops entered Western Ukrain and Western Beylorussia. That's what I was talking about. When Soviets entered- your government was already gone, and Poland was already a toast.

Polish gouverment left territory of Poland, but it did not cease to exist. And that a nation is defenceless, it doesn't mean You can freely attack it. It's what the barbarians do. But wait...
Anyway, Soviets attacked that late only because they weren't ready later, and were still afraid. As vultures, they attacked only when their pray was halfly dead.

The same with Franco-German and British-German agreements. They claim that whole Southern Europe should be in sphere of influence of Germany and that France had no interests in Southern Europe. The only difference that Soviets actually used the situation to benefit something for themselves, while Brits and French just let Hitler do everything he wanted.

First of all, I'm not sure if the things You mentioned really took place, but even if so, I do not recall France of Britain attacking some state hand to hand with Hitler

Oh yeah, sure. When Poland playing games with nazi and participate in division of Czechoslovakia on pair with Hitler- it's pretty complicated. But when Soviets sign a tactical treaty with Hitler to return their lands from their No1 enemy- Poland, it's quite simple- Soviets are f*ckers.

Of course. Poland made a mistake, but it can not be compared. Polish move wasn't intedned to destroy Czechoslovakia, as Soviet one. It was several tiny changes in the boarder, far from what poland demanded earlier, and Soviet Union took half of the state. moreover, there was no previous agreement
between Poland and Germany, unlike Soviet case.

Blaim Floyd and American education system then.

It was You who misinterpretated his post...
I blame Russian educational system

And you think Soviets as victors of this war, had no right demand anything from defeated agressors?
Grow-up.

YES. If China was at war against India, and one side won, it doesn't mean any territorial changes had to be done. Giving Krolewiec to Russia was like giving Hamburg to USA for their war effort
Well, wasn't occupation of large part of occupied country, pillaging of all that Red Army passed through,
thousands rapes on German and Polish women... wasn't it all enough?

As for 1939, we didn't conquered Western Ukraine and Western Beylorussia, we re-conquered it. Those lands belonged to Ukraine and Beylorussia and were populated mostly by Ukranians and Beylorussians.

These lands never belonged to Ukraine or Byelorus, as these countries never existed till ww1 (Ukraine is a complicated matter). There was no border between Poland and these to or USSR before ww2, there was no USSR before ww2. How these lands could belong to it?
Not all of these lands had ukrainian or Byelorusian majority, especially that You took the lands between Vistula and Bug at first too, up to Warsaw. Hardly liberating Byelorus and Ukraine. Not to mention that Ukrainians of these regions never asked USSR for liberation, they kind of didn't like USSR that destroyed their state, murdered millions of their fellows and persecuted their national movement.

To claim Konigsberg from Germany, you at least had to fight for this city/ It's our soldiers who died in battle for this city, not yours. When this city-fortress was full of nazi soldiers where have you been? Were where you glorious Polish armies? Why Soviets had to fight for it and lost thousans of lives of their soldiers? If you needed it so badly, you had to fight for it. You didn't fight for it. You had no right to demand it. Simple as that, case is closed.

Your thinkiong is exceptionally primitive here. We took it - we keep it. Yet, even when it comes to that, Polish soldiers, again I say, were fighting both at the west and in the east, liberating parts of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy. We do not claim anything of it.

Russia has not a single territorial calim towards any of its neighbours.

Except for Byelorus (entire), Ukraine (Crimea), Georgia (Abkhasia) etc
Anyway, You don't have it, because You've already taken all that You could earlier.

Poor, innocent Poland, who use every opportunity to grab new land.

MY GOD. READ YOUR POSTS AND THJINK IF IT'S NOT YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS RUSSIA

1) There was a civil war in Russia.

What was it?

2) Poland used this opportunity and invaded Soviets.

It was defending itself against Soviet plans of global revolution and neo-imperialism of Moscow

3) In 20's and 30's Poland considered as enemy No1 for USSR.

Not at all. We had good relations until Litwinow was dismissed and USSR got closer to Germany

And Soviet Union had all reasons to return lands that Poland captured in 1921. And they reuturned those lands in 1939.

What were those reasons? And You can't say "return", they never belonged to it.

You wouldn't have been born, had Russians didn't defeat Germans. Whole your glorious army was crashed within month. And you tell me about ignorance and idiotism?
F*cking whining suckers.

Russian culture...
But I'll reply. Soviets lost many times a size of Poland in shorter time despite its much bigger forces, abilities, and strategic location.

Good, and how many Polish armies participated in battle of Konigsberg to claim it for Poland? How much Werhmacht armies were defeated by Poilsh forces. Remind me a Polish-German battle which was a turning point of WW2. Explain why Poland should benefit from defeat of Germany more than Russia.

Again, You don't have to win the land by your own hands. This way, there should be no France! Can't You understand that? Poland had, comparatively, very big input in ww2 effort. Also, unlike Russians, there were no Poles on German side. And anyway, it was SOVIET battle, not Russian. Why shouldn't Kaliningrad be Kazakh?

Moron. Had he died during battle of Konigsberg, I wouldn't type there now. He was heavily injured there.

why? Couldn't he have children before ww2?

Ok, I see now. You seems to believe that mighty Polish army defeated nazism and saved humanity.
Polish contribution to defeat of Hitler's hordes and Polish war effort is NOWHERE NEAR than Soviet contribution and Soviet war effort. There is no a single reason why you should benefit from defeat of Germany more than country which played DECISIVE role in victory over nazism.

OF COURSE Soviets played an important role. But at the start of the war, Soviets were Germany's allies. Also, we did not benefit. We lost territory. that's the point.

So, how about my suggestion, that you didn't comment? If you think that Konigsberg should be Polish, because it was (or suppose to be Polish) in 17 century, then Poland should be Russian, because it was part of Russian Empire. You still do not understand that you've posted pure BS?

There's a big difference. Krolewiec at this time actually wished itself to be a part of Poland. Poland didn't wish to be part of Russia. Koenigsberg was gained by Poland in completely different way than Poland by Russia

It's accurate number from the historical research done after collapse of SU. USSR lost 26,6 millions of people in this war. If you already read Russian, go there (actually, after such comments, I would send you to another place, but I doubt you'll understand what "poshel na hui" means)
educate yourself:

It was yOu who wrote Russian.

Had all Russia was under occupation, you would never exist Heresson. You have to pray all you Catholic idols, that Russia exist and always save the world from reign of crazy conquerers who try to capture the planet.

Many of them were ruling of Moscow.
And your post was irrelevant to what I've written

It's You who do not understand USSR was a single country. If it was, how could it speak in the name of Ukrainians or Byelorussians? And if so, why was Kaliningrad given to Russian republic?

And it would have been 0.0 millions of people, had Soviets didn't destroy nazis and saved you from complete extermination as nation.

Perhaps, if Soviets didn't help Germans start the war

26.6 millions of Russians died in this war and some of them were killed by Poles, I'm sure.

Was Russia under Polish occupation? Were Russians transported in inhumanly conditions into inner Poland? Or were Russian officers being mass killed by Polish order?

Oh, Soviet liberation of ANY country, not only Romania, was a loot feast.

And still I do not understand how can You claim yourself a communist. You're a Russian neo-nazi stalinist!

[Patroklos]

Exactly how did Germany, France and England have an agreement to spilt up Southern Europe when Italy was there?

Perhaps Germany and Italy had and agreement to do so, but the France and England thing is out of Serbs comic book. But I doubt Germany even had that, as Hitler was extremely pissed off when he found out Italy had invaded the Balkans'as and Greece because he knew they would have to bail them out. Distracted them from the greater war effort.

England had an agreement with Greece for protection (nothing formal) and it also maintained its bases on Malta and Crete. nothing to do with Germany.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Heresson
And that a nation is defenceless, it doesn't mean You can freely attack it. It's what the barbarians do. But wait...
Anyway, Soviets attacked that late only because they weren't ready later, and were still afraid. As vultures, they attacked only when their pray was halfly dead.
<...>
Polish move wasn't intedned to destroy Czechoslovakia, as Soviet one. It was several tiny changes in the boarder, far from what poland demanded earlier,

Vultures/barbarians, huh? Oooh these Russians - they were not at all like saintly Poland, a model pre WW2-European country, which never had any territorial aspirations towards their neighbours.

Except maybe this one time when Poland attacked Soviet Russia during the civil war. This does not qualify as "attacking when their pray was halfly dead" at all.

And grabbing Vilnius from Lithuania does not qualify either. It was just restoring Poland historical borders, right? Of course, Vilnius was never a part of Poland - but it was a part of Poland-Lithuania, so I'm sure that annexing Vilnius was just a manifestation of brotherly love towards Lithuania on Poland's part. And Lithuania of course was simply not advanced enough to realize that it was for their own good and even broke diplomatic relationships. Poland was so deeply upset about this lack of apprehension, that in March, 1938 it issued one of the most bizarre ultimatums of the inter-war period to Lithuania, threatening an invasion if diplomatic contact were not restored.

Meddling in Czechoslovakia does not qualify, either. When Chechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, Poland, this land of the brave, just moved in and grabbed what she could in a most civilized manner and in a spirit of neighbourly love, I'm sure. After all it was "far from what poland demanded earlier" - I mean, Poland still does not stretch from Elbe to Volga. Oooh historic injustice.

Really, Poland was such a noble, saintly country, that it is absolutely unclear what motivated Lloyd George to say after 4th partioning on Poland (or was it fifth? who can count, anyway) that "Poland got what she deserved".

there was no USSR before ww2.
<...>
I blame Russian educational system

It looks like Polish education system could use some improvement, too

[Ned]

Is there any truth to the statement earlier in this thread that Hitler was "surprised" when Stalin invaded eastern Poland?

Also, didn't the German-USSR nonaggression pact essentially agree that the USSR could "assume control of" the Baltic states? From October 1939 until the German invasion of 1941, the Soviets cooperated in resettlement of German Balts to Reich territory.

It seems to me that if Hitler had discussed granting Stalin a free hand in the Baltic states, he would have also discussed the fate of eastern Poland for obvious reasons.

[ErikM]

Judge for yourself:
Text of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
from Modern History SourceBook.

[Ned]

ErikM, thanks. It does appear that they agreed to the division of Poland the way it did in fact unfold.

Hitler's suprise, if any, was feigned.

[Ned]

Does anyone know whether Britain's calculus in declaring war on Germany factored in the possibility that the invasion of Poland was a joint German-USSR affair?

[Patroklos]

I am nit sure, but I doubt that the either France of England had no clue of what the Non-Agression pact enatiled.

I am sure they simply figured they could not fight two equal evils (holocaust and Soviets most egregious atrocities hadn't happened yet) at the same time and Germany was the more threatening militarly.

[Ned]

Pat, I am also sure that the mistreatment of the Jews had nothing to do with England's and France's declaration of war. It is also obvious that taking on both Germany and the USSR was folly. But it did show just how hypocritical was the British and French declaration of war. They had no concern, true concern, of abiding by their treaty obligations to defend Poland. They were simply eager to declare war on Germany because the Versailles Treaty was their creature and their failure to defend that treaty meant they were no longer to be respected.

In truth, WWII was a continuation of WWI and the cause of WWII was not the sole fault of Germany.

[Patroklos]

That is exactly what I was saying Ned, that the Jewsish atrocities had not reached "critical" levels to inspire outrage politically, and nobody cared what the Soviets did to themselves.

So at the time in the eyes of the West the two were equal abominations. Germany was just mor threatening to them.

[Patroklos]

In truth, WWII was a continuation of WWI and the cause of WWII was not the sole fault of Germany.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone know whether Britain's calculus in declaring war on Germany factored in the possibility that the invasion of Poland was a joint German-USSR affair?

It was not unexpected for the Brits. Here is what Churchill writes in his memoirs "Second World War" [note: I don't have the English text handy, so I'll retranslate from Russian - hopefully it won't sound too awful ]

- on the value of Polish guarantees:
"British government had to think about the practical value of guarantees given to Poland and Romania. None of them had any military significance without the common agreement with Russia. "

"[we called upon Poland] to retract their objections and to agree upon full Russian participation in our alliance... There is absolutely no possibility to hold the Eastern front against Nazi agression without Russia's active participation"

- on Poland:
"It was clear that Poland and Russia had centuries-long history of unresolved political and strategic problems. Their last major conflict was a battle for Warsaw in 1919, when bolshevick armies that attacked Poland were first turned back by Pilsudski with assistance from the Britiish mission headed by Lord d'Abernon, and later pursued in a bloodthirsty revenge. [Churchill is not entirely accurate here, but Ok - his attitude is more important for above discussion]. All these years Poland was at the forefront of anti-Bolshevism. With her left hand, she supported anti-Soviet Baltic states. At the same time, with her right hand she helped to rob Chechoslovakia in Munchen. Soviets were sure that
Poland hates them and also confident that they would not be able to withstand German agression... In these circumstances, perspectives were far from brilliant"

On M-R pact:
"In Soviet defense, it must be said it was vitally important to Soviet Union to move [western borders] as far westward as possible... Russians were still smarting up after their military disaster in 1914 when they commited to an attack on Germans before finishing mobilization. And now their borders were located much farther to the East than during the Great war. By force or by treachery, they simply had to occupy Baltic states and parts of Poland before facing new Geman attack. Their policy was shrewd and cunning, but also highly realistic"

After Soviet annexation of Eastern Poland:
"I was still confident that Soviets would be moved to our side by the force of events... In my memo of September 25, I mentioned:

Although Russians broken their treaty with Poland, we should recall that Marshall Voroshilov's demand, according to which Russian armies - if they were to be Polish allies as suggested - were to be stationed in Vilnius and Lvov, was well-warranted. This proposal was denied by Poland. In the light of present events Polish arguments to the contrary, while natural, cannot be considered satisfactory. Now as the enemy of Poland Russia has occupied the same positions as she would take as an ally-to-be. The actual difference to the outcome, thus, is not as large as it appears at the first sight" [what a beautiful piece of realpolitik! - ErikM]

On October 1, 1939 radio speech:
"Russia follows a shrewd policy of defending her own interests. We would prefer if Russian armies were taken their present positions as Polish friends and allies, not as agressors. But in order to protect Russia from the growing Nazi threat, it is necessary that Russian troops should be on their present positions...

I cannot predict how events in Russia will unfold in the future. It is a puzzle, but we have a key to such a puzzle. They are Russian national interests. Based on security considerations, Russia cannot allow German presence on the beaches of Black and Baltic sea, German occupation of Balkans and conquest of slavic nations in South-Eastern Europe"

On Soviet conquest of Baltic states:
"Russia's next step was concluding 'mutual assistance pacts' with Estland, Lithuania, and Latvia. These Baltic states were the most ardent anti-communist countries in Europe. After getting rid of Soviet government during Russian civil war in 1918-1920 these nations, with ruthlessness common to revolutions in these regions, created societies which seemed to be based upon hostility to communism and Russia... Germans eagerly sacrificed these countries during their deal with Russians"

Taken from vol. I, "The Gathering Storm", ch.I, part 20-21; ch. II, part 1, 3, 6.

Originally posted by Patroclos
I am sure they simply figured they could not fight two equal evils (holocaust and Soviets most egregious atrocities hadn't happened yet) at the same time and Germany was the more threatening militarly.

Could not fight both at the sime time, huh?

"We do not ask favors from Soviet Russia. The time is not right to ask favors from other countries. However, now Soviets offer us more profitable conditions [for a mutual alliance] then those that our government seeks... I ask Her Majesty's government to realize some unpleasant truths: without active Eastern front it is impossible to successfully defend our interests in the West, and without Russia there cannot be any Eastern front..."
[speech to the Commons on May 19, 1939]

Just read the book Churchill spent as much effort (if not more) trying to rally Soviets to their cause as to bring USA into the conflict. The argument that somehow England/France could fight both Germans and Russians at the same time is, honestly, preposterous. They could not fight Germany alone without Soviet help.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ErikM
Churchill spent as much effort (if not more) trying to rally Soviets to their cause as to bring USA into the conflict. The argument that somehow England/France could fight both Germans and Russians at the same time is, honestly, preposterous. They could not fight Germany alone without Soviet help.

Winston Churchill clearly was correct is early assessment that they needed the USSR active in East in order to successfully defended the West. But it appears that any deal that the Brits could have made with the Russians was squelched by the Poles themselves. The Russians made their own deal with the Nazis precisely in order to invade Poland, among other things.

What is a puzzle therefore is why Britain and France declared war on Germany when it appeared that the Soviet Union was virtually allied with Nazi Germany as opposed to being an active hostilities against it. According to Winston Churchill himself, Britain could not successfully defend the West without the Soviets involved. A declaration of war in September of 1939 was almost a foolhardy risk because it could have only succeeded by bringing both the Russians and the Americans in on the British side before they were defeated. That the Brits ultimately prevailed, in truth, was a miracle because it was Hitler who brought the USSR and America into the war all by himself.

[notyoueither]

Chriminey, you people could get the balls of wool mixed up at a knitting meet.

1. Churchill was not directing policy in the UK in 1939. In fact, he was quite a lonely figure at the time. It took the shocks of war and the realisation that he had been right all along to rehabilitate him, and then thrust the leadership upon him when his predecessors proved to be less than up to the task.

2. The UK, France, and the Commonwealth declared war on Germany before the Soviet Union got involved. At the time conventional wisdom had it that the French Army could make short work of any and all comers. It was not until some days later that evidence of the Nazi-Soviet pact became evident, and it was not for another 8 months that widely placed faith in the French Army was shown to be misplaced.

[notyoueither]

What is a puzzle therefore is why Britain and France declared war on Germany

But it's not. The last step back was taken at Munich. Any step after that by Hitler assured war and disgrace for the fools who bargained away the Chechs.

The British and French gave guarantees to Poland. They honoured them, unlike those they gave to Benes. The failing was that the French waited to replay 1914, and that despite the reputation of their Army they were not willing to go balls out when the bulk of the German Army was in Poland.

[Sandman]

You're wasting your time, NYE. Ned has had it in his head for some time that Britain, Commonwealth + France knew before the war that they were weaker, despite outnumbering and outproducing the Germans in every way.

[Bereta_Eder]

Charles De Gaul

"I am unable to convey the proper width of graditude I feel about the heroic resistance of the people and leaders of Greece"


Joseph Vissarionovich Tzougasvili Stalin

"I am saddened because I grow old and I will not live long in order to express my gratitude to the Greek people whose resistance judged WW2"


Winston Churchil

"Untill now we were saying that Greeks fight like heroes. From now on we will say: Heroes fight like the Greeks."

Adolf Hitler

"In favor of historical truth I am obliged to realize that only the Greeks from all the enemies that faced me have fought with such extravagant courage and the highest of contempt for death"




'nuff said. Now I'm going for an ouzo.

[Serb]

As I promised, here is your answer.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...b lah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...bl ah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Bla h...blah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah ...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...blah. ..Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...
...Blah
Blah...Blah-blah...

The fact is, Serb, you have no sources to back up your claims.

What claims? My only claim was that your 60 millions of Soviet citizens killed by their own government figure is complete, absolute and one of the most supid bullsh!ts I've ever heard. To back this claim, I really do not need any sources. All I need is logic and ability to think and do simple calculations- something that you do not have.

(I would assume whatever revisionist comic book history your are reading at the time)

Currently I'm reading A. Werth "Russia in war 1941-1945".
You're right. It's pretty comic and pretty revisionist.

And despite your defensiveness, not too many people here to include me deny anything you claim happened to Russia. More to the point most of us agree with you. However, your insistence of ignoring wholesale everything Russia has inflicted on its neighbors or your insane rationalizations (eye for eye, might makes right, little man syndrome, oppressed minority,...

It's not "an eye for an eye". It's an eye for a head, arms and legs. It's an eye for a murder.

..."we fought the Nazi's so everything we ever did past and present is right," or whatever else.

It was not USSR who started WW2. It's was not the USSR who invaded Germany with purpose to completely destroy it and to exterminate its population.
Had Soviets acted like nazi, every enemy of USSR, every country that invaded SU in 1941 under Hitler's banner, should have been completely anihilated from face of Earth. And everyone who complain that Soviet forces weren't very gentle on occupied territories sometimes, should first understand what nazis done with Russia, and more imortantly what they wanted to do with Russia. Perhaps after that they will understand why for example Soviet soldier from Odessa, whose family was slain, whose house was destroyed by invaders, whose city was took by Romania and who witnessed how Romanians, Italians, Finns, Hungarians, Slovaks, Spanish and Germans, pillaged and slaughtered its country for years, had all reasons to not be very gentel towards countries who did this with Russia.

60 million Russians being killed under the yoke of Soviet rule is an insanely conservative.

Yes it is. It is insanely insane figure pulled out from insanely insane ass of insanely insane bastard.

I remember your rant on Soviet population figures (wrong figures but we will ignore that)...

If you have other figures - show it.
My figures were from:
1) For 1897 and 1914, from "Yearly statistic magazine of Russia", published in St.Petersburg in 1897 and 1913 accordingly.
http://www.rus-sky.org/history/libra...1913_1.html#I. ÒÅÐÐÈÒÎÐÈß È ÍÀÑÅËÅÍÈÅ ÐÎÑÑÈÈ

It's official, state statistic of Russian Empire.

2) For 1941, from statistical research "Russia and USSR in wars of XX century". F.G. Krivosheev, Moscow 2001.
http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/

It's statistic research done by group of Russian historians, lead by doctor of military science general-leutenant F.G. Krivosheev, who studied archieves of Soviet army within few years.

You do not read Russian? Your problem, not mine. Find your own numbers and show me. Untill then I'll consider my sources as accurate.

... and in the end you actually confirmed this.

I shown to you that your stupid claims are abslotely idiotic, because there weren't so many people in USSR and couldn't be.
I see you are unable to understand a result of simple calculation from the first try. Ok let's go back to math. Perhaps a second try will be more successfull.

In accordance with the state statistic of Russian Empire, the population of Russia (without Poland and Finland) was:
1897 - 117 130 500
1913 - 158 942 400

(158 942 400- 117 130 500)/16 = 2 613 243

So, the average yearly growth between 1897 and 1913, in Russian Empire was aproximately 2.6 millions per year.

On June 22 1941, in USSR lived 196,6 millions of people.

(196,6- 158,9)/28= 1.346
It's average yearly growth between 1913 and 1941.
In comparisson with average yearly growth between 1897 and 1913, it's almost as twice as less. Why?
Because in 1914 started WW1, after then was revolution which split Russian society and civil war had started. WW1, civil war, hunger and epidemies took 10,3 millions of lives, absolute majority of whom were young males. Furthermore after victory of Reds, dozens of millions of defeated Whites, migrated all around the world.
Now explain to me, HOW the hell the average yearly growth between 1913 and 1941, after such disasters, can be the same as between 1897 and 1913?
Can you explain this?

But, hypotetically, let's pretend that there was no WW1, civil war, epidemies, hunger and millions of Russian emigrants fleeing from country. Let's pretend that number for total population of Russian Empire wasn't reduced by 10,3 millions who died during WW1 and civil war, and by dozen of millions of emigrants who fleed from Russia between 1914-1922. So, let's pretend that Russia has the same number of people and the same average yearly growth.
What do we have then?
1941-1913= 28 years.
In 1913 in Russia lived 158 942 400 people (10.3 millions were killed in WW1+civil war between 1914-1922 and even more migrated from Russia to elsewhere, but who cares? It's hypotetical situation, remember? Let's keep this number unchanged.)
So, if yearly growth in Russia is still 2.6 millions per year, then between 1913-1941 Russian population should increase:
28*2.6= 72.8 millions.
So, it should have been:
158.9 + 72.8= 231.7 millions of people.
But in 1941 it was only 196.6.

231.7 - 196.6= 35.1 millions.

So, it means that Stalin could kill 35.1 millions MAXIMUM, EVEN if 10.3 millions didn't die in WW1+civil war, EVEN if dozens of millions of Russians didn't migrate after the revolution of 1917.

Now, do you understand that this "61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State" - is absolutely BS figure?

No?
Surely no. Then let forget about mathematics, and turn to such thing as logic. You don't have that little thing, don't you?

In WW2, Soviet Union lost 26.6 millions of people. Guess how it affected total number for population of USSR?
Let's see.
In 1941 in USSR lived 196.6 millions of people. After the victory in WW2, in 1945, in USSR lived 170,5 millions of people. Among those 170,5 millions, 159.5 millions were born before 06.22.41. Total number of people died between 1941-1945 (including natural reasons) is 37.2 millions. The number of people died because of war is 26.6 millions.
(Source "Russia and USSR in war of XX century").

So, between 1941-1945, 26.6 millions of Russians died, not because of age or natural reasons. And it's dramtically affected statistic for total number of population. Within five years this number droped from 196.6 to 170.5.
Now think.
Had Soviet killed 60 millions between 1913-1941, how it would affect statistic?
If it was true, than I believe the result would have been almost three times worse than in case of loss of 26.6 millions in WW2. I mean that then, there is no way that between 1913-1941 Soviet population would increased from 158 millions in 1913, to 196 millions in 1941.

Yesterday, I did a simple experiment. I've asked 8 people with whom I work a couple of simple questions.
First question was- "Is any of your relatives was killed in WW2?". And everyone replied - "yes". This situation is typical for ANY Russian family. Any Russian family lost someone on front or from bombardments of cities, etc.
Then, I've asked a second question - "Is any of your relatives was killed during Stalin's rule because of purges in army in 1937-38, during collectivization, was arrested, etc. In other words - "is any of your relatives were victims of Stalinism?". And guess what? The only person who answered "yes", was me. My grand grandfather was arested in 1937 and shot after trial. On the other hand, my family's caualties in WW2 were: 2 brothers of my grandfather (KIA), the father and uncle of my second grandfather (KIA), the family of sister of my grandmother (they lived in Beulorussia and she was killed during occupation and the rest of her family was moved to Germany for forced labour, no info about their future fate).
Note, I live in Siberia, a place which suppose to be full of decendents of vicictims of Soviet regime.
I can assure you that this situation is typical for Russia. Absoulte majority lost someone in WW2 and still remember this loss. So, if Soviets really killed almost 3 times as much USSR lost in WW2, than why you'll have problems finding decendents of those victims? If it's true, than EVERY Russian family should lost almost three times more people because of evil Soviet regime, than because of nazi's invasion.
Can you explain this?
No?
Now let see what we've got next. Here it comes- your link to the picture of the only book which Patroklos ever read.

The Bane of Serb, ACADEMIC SOURCES!!!

So, this perfect source of toilet paper (wgich you call an academic source), claims that "61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State"
First of all, I must explain what word "Gulag" means, because not you, not author of this BS, obviously have no idea what it means.
Gulag from Russian means "Glavnoe U pravlenie lagerei. It means- Central Deportment of Prisons or something like that. An institution which has EVERY country on this planet. Its functions are to control and manage everything that related to prisons- personel, criminals, structures, infrastructure, etc. I'm pretty sure you have such institution in USA (since USA is the world's leader by number of prisons and prisoners), but I don't know how you call this organization.
Now answer me some questions, please.
If Soviet really killed 61 millions of their own people, then how many were imprisoned? I guess it's pretty logical to think that number of imprisoned people should be much greater than number of people who was sentenced to death. And what do we get? Even if Soviets shot every third of their prisoners, then 61*3=183 millions. In 1941, as I've said in USSR lived only196.6 millions of peope. So, it means that amost entire population of USSR in 1941 actually were prisoners. Wait a minute. How remaining 13 milions could kill 61 million, throw remaining 122 millions in prisons and could control them?
Another question.
Nazi killed, how much your books says? 5 millions Jews? Also they killed, don't have exact data right now, but I guess about the same number of Slavs in their concentration camps. So, they created those factories of death, it was whole industry of extermination. And in those camps they killed about 5? 10? millions.
So, answer
Where is the soviet death camps, where is this industry of extermination with all its gas chambers? If Soviets really killed 6-12 times more people than nazi, then it's obvious that they needed much greater extermination facilities. Where are those facilities? Where are muss graves with millions of victims?
Perhaps, you'll say that Soviets just worked their prisoners to death somewhere in Siberia?
61 millions of people= 15 cities like Moscow was in 1941, or 40 cities like Omsk, where I live (it's poulation now is about 1.5 millions)
So, where are those 40 cities with population of 1,5 millions of prisoners?
Wait a minute, I forget, 61 millions is number for murdered, not for imprisoned. The number for imrisoned should be few hundreds of millions of people.
Another question.
Where is the results of work of those who was "worked to death" - prisoners of Gulag.
Example: The White Sea chanel was constructed by prisoners. It's a well-known fact. Totaly about 150 000 prisoners worked there and finally build it. This chanel is pretty big and remarkable construction. Now, if 150 000 of prisoners build such a thing, what millions of prisoners could build. 60 millions of prisoners could build 406 chanells like White Sea chanels, or alike structures.
So where are those structures?
3 millions of German prisoners of war, build a lot structures, roads, etc, here in Siberia.
Where are the roads and structures build by Gulag's prisoners? There should be much more such structures build here by Gulag's victims, than by German POW's.

Now, I'll put my numbers.
When Khrushev started anti-Stalin's campaign. He ordered to dig some numbers about Stalin's atrocities. And he was interested to have as much bigger numbers as possible. Looks what his minions found in archives.

The info, created in 1954 by general public prosecutor R.Rydenko, minister of internal affairs S.Kruglov and minister of justice K.Gorshenin contain such numbers:
"Between 1921-1954 3 777 380 peoples were found guilty in "anti-revolution" crimes.
Among them:
642 980 were sentenced to death warrant.
2 369 220 were sentenced to imprisonment.
765 180 were sentenced to forced relocation to poor-populated parts of the country."
This is official statistic from archives of NKVD and other punishing institutions.

I've another document.
For most cruel years of purges 1937-1938, this document contains such numbers:
In 1937-1938 NKVD (former ministery of interal affairs) arested 1 575 259 people.
Among them: for heavy crimes [such as murder, for example] - 1 372 382
(including 291 667 for "anti-soviet agitation"
for other crimes- 202 877

Found guilty- 1 344 923
Warrants:
Sentenced to death - 681 692
25 years of prison - 1 728
20 years of prison - 1 515
15 years of prison - 5 043
10 years of prison - 626 534
forced relocation (ssylka) - 18 208
other warrants - 10 203"
By order of Khrushev, this document was created at Dec. 11 1953 and signed by head of 1st special unit of ministery of internal affairs of USSR colonel Pavlov.

Now give me your documents, DOCUMENTS, not bs numbers pulled out from bullsh!ter's arses.

Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...b lah...blah...Blah...blah...blah...Blah...blah...bl ah...Blah...blah...blah...

Now, mr. "I have a fancy looking book" go educate yourself. It'm tired of you and your bs based on single book wrote by greater bullsh!ter.
I could give you a link to a book which explain why Khrushev and other "apparatchik's" killed Stalin and did their best to exaggerate atrocities, why they had to overdemonize Stalin, but I doubt you can read Russian.
If you do, then go there:
http://rusograd.narod.ru/history/muhin.html
If you don't- your bad, because your shining, free society, do not need such books and never translate them.
However, you may found some of the myths about Stalin's rule dispeled in Roger R. Reese book "Stalin's Reluctant Soldiers: A Social History of the Red Army, 1925-1941".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...468528-3892723

P.S. It's time for a bet. I bet Patroklos will start to pull my words out of conext, reply only small parts of my post, and will ignore parts and answers he can't reply. He will start to throw quotes from his BS book and will keep demonstrate unability to calculate and to use logic.

Have a nice day sucker.

[Patroklos]

HA.

Had Soviet killed 60 millions between 1913-1941

Whoever said 1913-1941 Serb? You seem to be cutting off 50 years of Soviet history. And though I have told you this a naseum, the 61 million figure INCLUDEDS Soviet war dead. It didn't at first but a few threads ago you refused to remove war dead from the Nazi total. We are not talking about people murdered. We are talking about people who were killed at the behest of their government. Once again something you ignored as it doesn't fit with your idiocies.

Currently I'm reading A. Werth "Russia in war 1941-1945".
You're right. It's pretty comic and pretty revisionist.

Then perhaps you should learn from it for a change and modify your idioms to resembly historical reality at some level. As it is you are still only using "Hammer and Sickle Man," regardless of whatever else you have read.

Central Deportment of Prisons

Yeah the Nazi's didn't have the habit of calling concentration camps "genocidal death factories" either.

Wait a minute, I forget, 61 millions is number for murdered, not for imprisoned. The number for imrisoned should be few hundreds of millions of people.

Actually no Serb, that is an insane leap of idiocy on your part.

since USA is the world's leader by number of prisons and prisoners

Beacause we don't have the habit of killing and/or working the prisoners to death maybe?

Your Gulag trivia, while interesting, is not relevant to the discusion. Why were more White Sea Channels not built? Partly because your number of prisoners logic is bunk, and partly because those people werw not there. I will give you a shovel and you can mill around the old gulag sites to find out what happened to them.

Of course the "Soviet Gulag State" title is just something the author thought was a good label. Only people of Serbs intelligence think that people only died there. There were the wars, the normal prisons, NKVD/KGD barracks and headquarters nationwide, those killed in their homes or on the streets (during the revolution years), etc. etc.

For most cruel years of purges 1937-1938, this document contains such numbers:
In 1937-1938 NKVD (former ministery of interal affairs) arested 1 575 259 people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Serb, you do understand what the NKVD is right? While that statment is more than enough to invalidate anything you are, have, or ever will say I think I will go on.

ON SERBS NUMBERS

As is so convenient for Serb, I in fact don't read Russian. Good tactic Serb, I guess I will start using Gaelic sources so we can just assume I am right, which is what I will do for you.

So we will give Serb the benefit of the doubt. He is right about his numbers.

Which proves two things as I said before....

... and in the end you actually confirmed this.

1) That the Soviet Union from 1913-1980 had more than enough population to facitlitate the killing of 61 million people.

2) That it is an unimaginably tragic event as it was in fact a significant portion of the Soviet population that is no more.

For the majority of you who stoped reading Serbs post after line five, as per normal, please skip the middle bull and go to his statistics at the bottom. After cuting and pasting it to word, removing the turgid grammer and the copious insults (which I believe he thinks are witty, how cute) it actually yeilds a good read. Everything you would ever want to know about Russian populations from the times Serb is attempting to restrict the numberst too.

Birth rates are interesting, but again irrelevant as the Soviets killed men, women and children with equal zest when it suited their purposes.

P.S. It's time for a bet. I bet Patroklos will start to pull my words out of conext, reply only small parts of my post, and will ignore parts and answers he can't reply. He will start to throw quotes from his BS book and will keep demonstrate unability to calculate and to use logic.

Don't really need to pull anything out of context, as the context you put them in is exactly what I need. Unadulterated BS, with a twist. I have addressed a good 70-80% of the text of your post. It really pained me to have to read through the drival but I set my jaw and did so. I DID however ignore your WWII coments as they have been sufficiently smacked down by basically everyone on this forum (but I guess I just addressed it so add 5%). No more quotes from the book. I grow tired of quoting it too you every time you show your head. You can scroll back because the same ones hold true, since you have yet to give your own number on how many people died under Soviet rule. That is really all we want you to do. And as we are using your calculations, well, go ahead and attack them all you want.

And how the hell are we going to bet without odds Serb? Don't feel the needs to respond now. I know it is craft time at the asylum and I wouldn't want you to miss it.

[Sandman]

How can you claim that Soviet war dead should be included under those killed at the behest of their government?

[Patroklos]

Simple. The book is death by govenment. Obviously soldiers killed in war are government sponsored. It isn't making a distiction of justified or unjustified, atrocity or genocide. Just how many people were killed at the behest of the their OWN government.

Serb is bringing things I said in other threads in other arguements here. For what reason I know not. But obviouly this tangent is not topic related.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Simple. The book is death by govenment. Obviously soldiers killed in war are government sponsored. It isn't making a distiction of justified or unjustified, atrocity or genocide. Just how many people were killed at the behest of the their OWN government.

Beautiful reasoning. By this logic a postman who dies in a car crash is killed by the government too as he is a state employee.

Originally posted by Patroklos
As is so convenient for Serb, I in fact don't read Russian. Good tactic Serb, I guess I will start using Gaelic sources so we can just assume I am right, which is what I will do for you.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of sources do you think Serb should use? Where do you think Western historians get their numbers? Make them up? They of course either rely on Russian archives/historical studies or derive them from demographic interpolation.

If you are interested in some serious research on this subject, you of course should learn Russian and study Russian sources. Just as if I were to study, say, unemployment in the US, it would be crazy if I were to rely on Pravda articles or "Gaelic sources", right?

And BTW you really have not addressed any points that Serb made in his post except exchanging insults with him.

[Patroklos]

Beautiful reasoning. By this logic a postman who dies in a car crash is killed by the government too as he is a state employee.

No, that would actually be using your line of reasoning. If a government sends soldiers to war they are expecting them to die if need be. They may hope none or a limited number do not, but they are sending people to their deaths knowingly. The responsibility of those deaths rests on the government.

Maybe postmen have an expectation of death where you live (must be a bad neighborhood), but most of the world over what you imply would be an accident, not deliberate intention.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of sources do you think Serb should use? Where do you think Western historians get their numbers? Make them up? They of course either rely on Russian archives/historical studies or derive them from demographic interpolation.

Probobly ones I can read, since his debating me. This is an international site but obviously the working language is English. But not sure what your point here is becasue I agreed to use Serbs numbers, and accept them as correct.

If you are interested in some serious research on this subject, you of course should learn Russian and study Russian sources. Just as if I were to study, say, unemployment in the US, it would be crazy if I were to rely on Pravda articles or "Gaelic sources", right?

If you consider part time debate on an internet gaming website to somehow be "serious" then I would hate to see you what non serious would entail. Not that serious reaserch is nessecary for this as all the information to prove this is readily available on the internet or local library.

nd BTW you really have not addressed any points that Serb made in his post except exchanging insults with him.

Sure I did.

I addressed the point that 61 million is true.

I addressed his alternate history of WWII. Well, not here but he knows what I am talking about.

I addressed his insane people killed/people imprisoned ratio.

I addressed (and accepted) his poplation figure.

But dispite the length of Serbs last post IT didn't address the point that he is trying to make, that 61 million isn't the figure. I gave a figure and a source and he is claiming it is wrong. The burden or proof is on HIM. He has done two things

1) Simply say it is stupid in a plethora of ways.

2) Quote population figures that do nothing but prove there were that many people there to kill. Maybe he wants me to compare numbers from pre-war and post war years and see if the growth figure is enough between then to bring the census of 1945 to that number after 61 million died? If that is the case they HE should do the math and present it. But it would be irrelevant becasue he is the one restricting it to 1913-1941, I have been saying the entire Soviet rule.

But like I said All Serb has to do is give an alternate number. That is it. Which he hasn't done. So Serb, how many people did die under Soviet rule?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
You're wasting your time, NYE. Ned has had it in his head for some time that Britain, Commonwealth + France knew before the war that they were weaker, despite outnumbering and outproducing the Germans in every way.

Well, it does appear that at least some prominent Britons such as Winston Churchill knew that Britain and France could not succeed without the help of the Soviet Union and perhaps the United States as well. Whenever the conventional wisdom was in Britain concerning Britain's chances of success against Germany without the USSR, clearly it was not shared by all.

Also on the point of the knowledge of the quasi-alliance between the Soviet Union in Nazi Germany, I believe the nonaggression pact between the two "empires" was known prior to the British/French declaration of war. This must have given the British government at least some pause before it declared war.

But what seems to be the case is what non-you-either said, Britain and France were bent on war to the extent that Hitler again violated the Versailles Treaty. It is therefore a puzzle why France was not prepared to invade Germany in September of 1939 when Britain and France had maneuvered that entire year to form anti-German alliances in Eastern Europe. Perhaps they were prepared to invade, but lacked either the political will our generalship to do so. Or perhaps they were unwilling to do so without the British army in support.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No, that would actually be using your line of reasoning. If a government sends soldiers to war they are expecting them to die if need be. They may hope none or a limited number do not, but they are sending people to their deaths knowingly. The responsibility of those deaths rests on the government.

Do you realize the difference between soldiers dying in a war and people killed by the government by political reasons. Or do you suggest that Soviet government should have surrendered so as to minimize casualties.

If you consider part time debate on an internet gaming website to somehow be "serious" then I would hate to see you what non serious would entail. Not that serious reaserch is nessecary for this as all the information to prove this is readily available on the internet or local library.

No I don't treat as a serious debate. Hopefully you realize as well that you are but a dilettante on this subject. Your claims are based on a single source, a popular history book that you've read, which may or may not be correct. Quoting a single source on the controversial subject does not prove anything.

And don't you think that Serb just might be a little bit more familiar with this issue than you are? I certainly do believe it to be the case.

I addressed the point that 61 million is true.

But the whole point of Serb's post was to show that 61 million number cannot be true. Although of course if, following your logic, we will lump together war casualties, repression victims, and people fired from their jobs, one can arrive at any arbitrary number.

I addressed his insane people killed/people imprisoned ratio.

How so. What I have found in your post was "Why were more White Sea Channels not built? Partly because your number of prisoners logic is bunk, and partly because those people werw not there". A response of truly astounding clarity

But dispite the length of Serbs last post IT didn't address the point that he is trying to make, that 61 million isn't the figure. I gave a figure and a source and he is claiming it is wrong. The burden or proof is on HIM.

That's what he did if you have read his post carefully. Now, his arguments may or may not be correct but "I gave a figure and a source" is hardly an argument. Just FYI, Krivosheev's study that Serb quotes is a well-respected study on the subject. It may be wrong/imprecise, but the same applies to your source as well.

Maybe he wants me to compare numbers from pre-war and post war years and see if the growth figure is enough between then to bring the census of 1945 to that number after 61 million died? If that is the case they HE should do the math and present it. But it would be irrelevant becasue he is the one restricting it to 1913-1941, I have been saying the entire Soviet rule.

a. That's what he did.
b. Again, FYI it is a common knowledge that the bulk of Russian casualties fall into 1914-1945 period.

But like I said All Serb has to do is give an alternate number. That is it. Which he hasn't done.

I suggest you read his post a bit more carefully.

[notyoueither]

They didn't attack for a number of reasons. One of which was that long standing French plans involved defending against von Schlieffen once again. They were fully prepared to fight the last war, not so prepared to fight the next one.

Also, the French had to complete mobilisation and the B.E.F. had to get to France. That took time. By the 15th Poland's situation was already fatal with her Airforce destroyed and her Army cut into isolated pockets.

However, the French did launch limited attacks into Germany. They moved forward a few miles in some places and then dug in. Certainly nothing was done that would be pleasing to the Poles who were prompted to stand up to Hitler and who suffered more and for longer than any other nation as a consequence of the war.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was unkown to the British and French at the time. IIRC, the full nature of the Soviet agreements with Hitler were not known until after the war and the capture of records in Germany. The first hint of how Stalin was willing to cooperate and cooexist with Hitler came on the 17th of September when the Red Army crossed the border. It was then that realisation dawned both that nothing could be done for Poland, and that France would likely face a larger threat due to Hitler having peace with the Soviet Union.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, it does appear that at least some prominent Britons such as Winston Churchill knew that Britain and France could not succeed without the help of the Soviet Union and perhaps the United States as well. Whenever the conventional wisdom was in Britain concerning Britain's chances of success against Germany without the USSR, clearly it was not shared by all.

Actually, the plan was to blockade Germany and to defend until French and British advantages in industry could give them overwhelming superiority on the battle field.

Up until May 1940, Allied production out-stripped that of Germany; in tanks by almost 3 to 1, and in aircraft by close to 2 to 1.

What did not work is that Germany was not effectively blockaded due to the deal with the Soviets, and not much of the German Army had to be left in Poland after the conquest, again due to that agreement. British and French plans hinged on delay, build up and starvation of the German economy. Time was on their side, at least as they saw it on 1st September. It is very unfortunate that Hitler's manipulation of first the British and French and then the Soviets led to a situation where time had run out for first Poland and then France.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Nazi-Soviet Pact was unkown to the British and French at the time. IIRC, the full nature of the Soviet agreements with Hitler were not known until after the war and the capture of records in Germany. The first hint of how Stalin was willing to cooperate and cooexist with Hitler came on the 17th of September when the Red Army crossed the border. It was then that realisation dawned both that nothing could be done for Poland, and that France would likely face a larger threat due to Hitler having peace with the Soviet Union.

Soviet-German non-agression pact by itself was certainly well known to the UK as it was in no way secret and openly published. The secret appendix to the pact, which talks about spheres of influence and so such, was not.

Not that non-agression pacts meant much these days. Poland signed a non-agression pact with Germany in 1934 iirc which was cancelled by Germany some time in Spring 1939. Actually, there was a wave of non-agression pacts being signed after the Uk-France-Poland-USSR alliance negotiations broke up. Baltic countries and Finland signed non-agression pacts with Germany immediately following the break-up of negotiations.

France and UK DoWed Germany on September 3 iirc, that is before SU entered Poland. However, I don't think that this development of events came entirely unexpected.

At any rate, since M-R non-agression pact was known to everybody, UK/France certainly had to factor in the possibility of Soviet neutrality when declaring war. A full alliance between Germany and USSR was unlikely. So I do not think that knowledge of secret protocols to M-R pact would change anything with respect to British/French decision to declare war.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Simple. The book is death by govenment. Obviously soldiers killed in war are government sponsored. It isn't making a distiction of justified or unjustified, atrocity or genocide. Just how many people were killed at the behest of the their OWN government.

Serb is bringing things I said in other threads in other arguements here. For what reason I know not. But obviouly this tangent is not topic related.

"Death by government"; sounds like libertarian propaganda. Contrive the data into nice big numbers to show the dangers of government.

Soldiers killed in war are not obviously government sponsored; partisans for example. And it's silly to suggest that soldiers who die in a defensive war are killed at the behest of their own government; if anything, they're killed at the behest of the invading government.